The Iceberg for breaking newsletters

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,147
1,003
113
Sophistication Zones (A1, POLICIES)

1180 / 2018 number

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

A1 'Political Department

Held by the Judges: Ioannis Giannakopoulos, Vice President of the Supreme Court of Cyprus (impeding the Vice President of the Supreme Court George Lekka), Altana Kokkovou, Ioannis Balitsaris, Angeliki Tzavagas, Angeliki Tzavagas.
HAD a public hearing at its hearing on 26 February 2018, in the presence of Registrar George Fistouris, to try the case between:
Of the appellant - the call itself: TH of A., resident ..., who was represented by his attorney Petros Chortareas and made submissions.
The appellant - caller: 1) Societe Anonyme with the name "ORGANIZATION OF FOOTBALL MATCHES SA - OPAP SA", based in Peristeri, Attica and represented by the legal representative attorney of Lambros Kitsaras, who revoked his statement from 23/2/2018 for a performance according to article 242 par. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. appeared in person and submitted proposals.
Of the defendants - as the summons: 2) Societe Anonyme with the name "SOCIETE ANONYME ORGANIZATION, OPERATION AND PROMOTION OF BETS", located in the New Heraklion of Attica ... and is legally represented, 3) Company with the name "..." (...) based in ... and legally represented, 4) Societe Anonyme with the name "..." based in .. and is legally represented, which were represented by their attorneys Dionysios Skaltsas and Dimos Papadimos and submitted proposals.
The lawsuit was initiated by the 19 / 8 / 2004 lawsuit of the appellant, which was lodged with the Multinational Court of First Instance in Athens and joined by 10 / 1 / 2005 additional interference with the 2-5 cases already under appeal. The judgments were delivered: 2412 / 2006 final by the same Court and 6377 / 2007 by the Athens Court of Appeal. Appeal of the last decision was sought by the defendants 2-5 already sued by their request from 20 / 2 / 2008 and the defendant 1 filed by its request 25 / 2 / 2008, on which X respectively X / N and the 1252 / 2010 decisions of the A1251 'Division of the Supreme Court, which quashed the 2010 / 2 judgment of the Athens Court of Appeal and remitted the case for further proceedings to the same Court composed of other judges. Thereafter, the 6377 / 2007 decision of the Athens Court of Appeal was upheld, the appellant appealing with his 5189 / 2012 / 21 application, on which the 5 / 2014 decision of the A '1062 Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeal was issued. Plenary of the Supreme Court of Appeal, referring to the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth grounds of the request of the Constitutional Court in their respective part for the annulment of decision 2015 / 1 of the Athens Court of Appeal.
The 12 / 2017 decision of the Plenary Court of the Supreme Court rejecting the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Referrals, respectively, in their respective part, the grounds of appeal and remanded the case to the A1 Political Board for the Supreme Court for the other grounds of appeal. The case was resubmitted for discussion by the first respondent with her 22 / 8 / 2017 call.
At the hearing of this application, which was announced by the panel, the parties were represented, as noted above. Areopagite rapporteur Altana Kokkou read her 5 / 12 / 2014 report, recommending that the appeal be rejected.
The appellant's representative requested that the application be upheld, the appellants' plaintiffs to dismiss it and each of them to order the other party to pay the costs.
 

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,147
1,003
113
YOU THINKED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW
With the summons of the first defendant company dated 22-8-2017 with the name "ORGANISMOS PRONOSTIKON MATONOS PODOSFAIRO SA" it is legally brought before the present section of the Supreme Court for discussion the appeal of 21-5-2014 , Θ. Σ., Against the no. 5189/2012 of the final decision of the Athens Court of Appeal, for the examination of the other reasons thereof, after the rejection with the no. 12/2017 decision of the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of those referred to it with no. 1062/2015 decision of the fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth reasons, according to their respective part from no. 1 of article 559 of the ICCPR and the referral of the case before him. With the adjudicated appeal, the no. 5189/2012 final decision of the Athens Court of Appeal, issued by the parties during the regular procedure, after the revocation of the previous no. 6377/2007 of this decision with the no. 1251 and 1252/2010 decisions of this Court. With this decision (6377/2007) were accepted the appeals from 19-6-2006 and 27-6-2006 respectively of the defendant and the additional interveners in favor of her and already appealed, against the final decision no. 2412/2006 of A multi-member Athens Court of First Instance, this decision was annulled, the additional intervention in favor of the defendant from 10-1-2005 was accepted and the action of the already appellant from 19-8-2004 against the first defendant was rejected, claiming that while he had take part in the game "PAME STIHIMA" with six separate participation tickets, in which he played the same combination of teams, which had success and profit each the maximum amount of 733.675,72 € and a total of 4.402.054,32 €, she paid only one ticket and asked for the reasons mentioned in it, to be recognized that she is obliged to pay him with legal interest the remaining amount of € 3.668.378,60. In the sense of Article 559 No. 1 of the ICCPR, an infringement of a rule of substantive law, which establishes the respective ground of appeal, exists when the rule of law was either misinterpreted, ie the court of substance gave it a meaning different from the true one, or it was not applied. , while the conditions for its application were met, or it was applied, while these were not met or it was applied incorrectly (All AP 7/2006, 4/2005).
Consequently, in the above subheadings, the infringement of the rule of substantive law, which leads to erroneous legal reasoning and consequently to erroneous application of the law, manifests itself either as a false interpretation of the rule of law or as an incorrect inclusion of the facts of the individual case. Thus, with the above ground of appeal, which in order to be definite must be determined in the appellant both the provision of the substantive law that has been violated and the legal error attributed to the contested decision (OLAP 20/2005), the errors of the court of substance the assessment of the legal validity of the action or the allegations (objections, objections) of the parties, as well as the legal errors in the investigation of the substance of the dispute, in order to determine the relevant reason, the appellant and the relevant assumptions of the defendant must be presented. decision. In the present case, from the admissible, according to article 561 par. 2 KPold, review of the contested decision, it appears that the Court of Appeal accepted the following: "On Wednesday, June 9, 2004, the plaintiff took part in the game" PAME STIHIMA "of the defendant Organization (OPAP) by filling in the same agency of his agent OPAP, G. I., which is located on the street D. no. …, In… .., six (6) separate participation tickets, paying the agent the price of 1,5 euros for each ticket and a total of 9 euros. Specifically, he completed the submitted with an invocation by him with numbers ... 0, ... 1, ... 2, ... 3, ... 4 and ... 5 participation tickets at 12:12:13 pm, at 12:12:45 pm, at 12:13:06 pm, at 12:13:23 pm, at 12:13:43 pm and at 12:14:03 p.m. of the same day, respectively. These cards were sent by the above agent, through his computer, to the defendant's server at 12:12:28 pm, 12:12:59 pm, 12:13:20 pm .m., at 12:13:38 pm, at 12:13:57 pm. and at 12:14:17 p.m., respectively. The plaintiff chose the "simple game", completing the following in the first slip: he selected ten (10) football matches, which is the maximum number of matches to be selected, placing the matches with serial numbers 334, 335, 342 in the left column of the bet slip. , 344, 345, 346, 351, 353, 354 and 361 and in the respective ten (10) boxes in the right column put the points ΤΕΛ-2, ΤΕΛ-Χ, ΤΕΛ-1, ΤΕΛ-Χ, ΤΕΛ-2, ΤΕΛ- X, TEL-X, TEL-X, TEL-1 and TEL-X respectively, which were his predictions for the outcome of each selected match. Its default odds OPAP for each of the matches chosen by the claimant were: 1) for 334 race, 5.00, 2) for 335 race, 3.30, 3) for 342 race, 6.25, 4) for 344 race, 3.30, 5) for the 345 race, 5.00, 6) for the 346 race, 4.75, 7) for the 351 race, 4.25, 8) for the 353 race, 3.00, 9) for the 354 race, 2.10 and 10) for the 361 race, 3.30. The plaintiff also chose number five (5) as a multiplier. The same combination of matches, selected points and multiplier was repeated by the plaintiff in five (5) more sheets. Under the terms of the game, the claimant paid for each card the value of the column, € 0,30, on the multiplier chosen (5), that is, per card, the amount of (€ 0,30 X 5) = EUR 1,50 and for the six (6) bulletins total (EUR 1,50 X 6) = EUR 9. The above six (6) sheets, filed by the plaintiff continuously over a period of approximately two (2) minutes, were accepted by the defendant's central computer system ( OPAP) and the "E" mark was placed in the print area of ​​each. The day after the end of participations in the above game (10-6-2004) the "SOCIETE ANONYME OF ORGANIZATION, OPERATION AND PROMOTION OF BETS", as the administrator of the game, addressed the defendant ( OPAPits letter dated 10-6-2004 requesting the application of Article 10 of the General Rules of Operation of Pre-Performed Betting Games given that the above plaintiff's slips were deposited instead of one slip, with the obvious aim of circumventing the special acceptance procedure bets and pay out winnings higher than expected. Subsequently, the same company wrote to him OPAP and its letter dated 11-6-2004 stating, inter alia, that the short time span (22 seconds on average) that has elapsed since the filing of the bulletins and the repeated choice of predictors and multipliers prove that these bulletins are shared a single bet in order to make profits in excess of the maximum laid down in Article 10 of the Regulation and that such allocation did not permit the application of the special procedure provided for in Article 5, as it reduced the per card difference inomeno risk in this sixth. At the end of the competition, on 11-6-2004, all of the plaintiff's forecasts, ie the combination of the teams, which had recorded in the above six (6) entry sheets, had complete success. As soon as the plaintiff was informed on 11-6-2004 of the success of his reports, he visited the above agency and went to the competent service with his agent. OPAP, to follow the legal process of collecting his profits. Its responsible service OPAP attach to each of the six (6) vouchers the corresponding payment requests and, in particular, for the number with ... no. card with the number ... 0 payment request, for the number ... 18 card with the number ... 1 payment request, for the number 31 ... 2 card with the number ... .26 payment request, for the card with the number ... 5 voucher with the number ... 3 and for the card with the number ... 27 voucher with the number 4 payment payment and recommended to the plaintiff to go to Emporiki Bank and collect its profits within two (59) working days. On 5 June 3234435948 the plaintiff went to D. Bank on… .. where the competent employee paid only one (2) of the six (16) vouchers (ie the number ... 2004 voucher), paying him the amount of 1 euros, ie , the maximum profit per ticket amount of 6 euros, deducting tax from 0 euros. At the same time, the Bank employee informed the plaintiff that the remaining five [697.017] vouchers were "blocked" on the computers and she could not pay them, and in a relevant phone call to the defendant (OPAP), with the question of why the remaining five (5) sheets are not paid, received the reply that these sheets would not be paid and that the plaintiff had to go to OPAP to find out. During the plaintiff's transfer to the defendant's offices, he was informed by his employee that his Board of Directors OPAP, based on the Rules of Procedure of the Agency, decided not to pay the remaining five (5) sheets and that decision could be made in writing by his / her attorney at his / her request. Indeed, on 18-6-2004, the plaintiff filed with his attorney-in-law his application dated… .6 / 18.6.2004 requesting the immediate and full payment of the remaining five (5) and, in case of refusal OPAPthe latter to provide him with a copy of the corresponding opinion of his legal department on which his refusal was based. The defendant OPAP In his reply letter dated 1 3-7-2004 to the plaintiff he stated the following: "In response to your request dated 18-6-2004, we inform you that the OPAP SA is obliged to apply the legislation in force for our company and in particular article 10 in conjunction with article 5 of the GENERAL REGULATION OF DETERMINED BETS (joint Ministerial decision 29159 / Government Gazette, 1427/2000) and therefore one According to Article 1 (3) of the General Regulation, "the participation of players in predetermined betting games is free on the condition of full and unconditional acceptance by the participants of the provisions of the relevant existing legislative framework of Law 2433/1996, Presidential Decree 250/1998, this General Regulation, the special Rules of Procedure set by the OPAP for each "Predetermined Betting Game" as well as the special terms and conditions set for this purpose each time the OPAPIt turned out that the disputed ballots submitted by the plaintiff clearly describe the conditions for participation in the competition, among which, the following is stated: "Participation in the gambling competitions presupposes the full, absolute and unconditional acceptance of the provisions of the relevant Legislation. , the Rules of Operation of Predetermined Betting Games, the Rules of Conduct of each game, as well as the terms mentioned in the Program Form. Betting is allowed up to 10 minutes before the start of the first time event from the player selection events. The price of the column is 0,30 EURO and the profits over 146,74 EURO per column are subject to 5% tax. Maximum bet amount per ticket is set at 29.347,03 EURO. Maximum paid profit per coupon is set at 733.675,72 EURO. The ticket is valid only if the letter E is printed on it followed by date-time and code number. Ticket cancellation can be done up to 5 minutes after the ticket is validated by the same Agency Terminal Machine. Profits are collected from any agency, unless they exceed the applicable limit, in which case they are paid by the banks with which the company cooperates. OPAP. No winnings are paid in case of loss of the winning ticket. Unsolicited profits are barred after 3 months. Deadline for submitting an objection 6 days from the closing date of the tender. The player, by submitting the card to the agency, accepts the above as binding. Detailed information can be given by the agent ".
 

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,147
1,003
113
In addition, the gambling program, which the plaintiff received from the above agency, states the terms of participation, namely: Participation in the gambling competitions presupposes the full, absolute and unconditional acceptance of the provisions of the relevant Legislation, the Rules of Operation Predetermined Odds Bets, the Rules of Conduct of each game, as well as the terms mentioned in the Program Form .... Maximum bet amount per ticket is set at 29.347,03 EURO. Maximum payout per ticket is set at 733.675,72 EUROS ...... The player, by depositing the ticket at the agency, accepts the above as binding. Detailed information can be given by the agent ". Also, the current terms and conditions of the game are described in detail in a special form entitled" Everything for PAME STIHIMA "which has been distributed to all agents for the purpose of the latter distribution to all players of PAME STIHIMA, in which (form) there is an explicit reference to the entire legal framework. In particular, the "special bet acceptance procedure" of article 5 of the above Regulation is defined in the relevant special form "Everything for "PAME STIHIMA", received by the plaintiff from his above agency OPAP and stipulates that, if the amount bets exceeds a certain threshold, a specific approval procedure must be followed, which involves negotiating the details of that bet, with the ultimate goal of reaching an agreement and ultimately validating a new product-bet. negotiation. That is to say, the card to be validated is not rejected, but OPAP requires the player to negotiate the card selection details with the player through the agent. Further, it turned out that in its predetermined betting odds OPAP, as well as the game "PAME STIHIMA", which includes football matches, their odds are determined in advance by the OPAP. The initial odds are announced to the players before the start of the game, while, in the course of its development can be modified, but in any case, the player with the deposit of his bet, knows in advance the amount he will win , provided his predictions are verified, "without having to wait for the end of the competition. The completion by a player or group of players of more tickets, without, in fact, any restriction as to the content or type of options contained therein in the same or in different agencies, even in different cities of Greece, is, in principle, permissible, as it follows from the above regulation of operation of OPAP and the special instruction leaflet distributed to players. However, by the above provision of Article 10 par. (b) of the Regulation regulates a specific prohibited conduct of the player, regardless of his or her ability or knowledge of the matter, consisting of multiple filing of participation cards in the same or more agencies with the aim of circumventing the specific acceptance procedure (Article 1 of the Regulation) with the player and exceeding the profit threshold of GRD 5 per coupon. That is, when, although there are grounds for a specific agreement with the player, which consists of negotiating to modify any of his options (such as in the event of betting or winnings being exceeded), he is shown to be involved in methods such as to prevent or disallow the defendant (OPAPinitiate the procedure for concluding a special agreement, acting in contravention of the above provisions of Articles 5 (2) and 10 (2) of the Regulation, in which case OPAP is entitled to set as a sum of profits the maximum profit of GRD 250.000.000.OPAP), in accordance with Article 5 (1) of the "General Rules for the operation of pre-determined betting OPAP SA ", reserves without the obligation to justify its decision its right at any time to accept or not accept any bet, while, according to paragraph 2 of the same article, if at its discretion OPAP If there are reasons for a special agreement with the player, a special acceptance procedure applies, which consists in negotiating to modify any of the player's options. In the critical case, the plaintiff, who for a number of years participated in the game "LET'S BET FOOTBALL", had learned, as an experienced player, by completing each form, the printed terms of participation, including that the maximum expected profit per participation ticket is the amount of 733.675,72 euros (250.000.000 drachmas), and accepting by submitting the ticket all the terms of the relevant legislation and the terms of the Regulation. He made the above specific choices with a budgeted return to the limit of the maximum allowed and attributed by the OPAP profit per card, knowing by his calculations, as an experienced player, the exact returns of the similar deposit cards and that each card, if successful, would bring him the maximum projected profit. Thus the plaintiff, even though he knew that, in the event of his choice being verified, the profit per coupon would be [(EUR 0,30 - column value) - X (5,00 X 3,30 X 6,25 X 3,30 , 5,00 X 4,75 X 4,25 X 3,00 X 2,10 X 3,30 X 5) = the product of the predetermined odds of each match X 1.071.213,70 - selected multiplier-] = 733.675,72 euros, he expected that he would receive only the maximum allowable profit per euro (EUR XNUMX), knowing that he was not entitled to a profit greater than that. Moreover, he (the plaintiff) never considered that he was entitled to more than the maximum profit per amount, which would, as he knew, be required to comply with the specific authorization procedure, the application of which did not require OPAP, as a result of which such coupons are accepted by his system OPAP and receive only the maximum profit for one card in accordance with Rule 10 (1) of the General Rules. The plaintiff's choice of the above method of participation, by filling the same options in six identical coupons (worth € 1,5 each), instead of one card (€ nine) was made aware that the ceiling The profit per card is 733.633,72 euros and that by the way he chose to play he could overcome it by avoiding the above special approval procedure. Thus, it intended that, in the event of success, the entry sheets would not appear as a single coupon, resulting in more profits, ie, a six-fold increase in the maximum payout per coupon, when the profit ceiling was circumvented. per coupon.
Consequently, the plaintiff knew, as an experienced player, that by filling all of his options in one card (nine euros), instead of six cards (1,50 euros each), he would receive the one-time stipulated in his first paragraph. Article 10 of the Maximum Earnings Regulation no matter what the overall return on profits would be. Provided that, in the event that he completed all his options in a coupon (worth nine euros), the plaintiff would not be able to collect the total amount of 4.402.054,32 euros (the plaintiff claimed), but would receive only the maximum amount of profit of EUR 733.675,72 (Article 10 (a) of the Regulation) irrespective of the overall return on profits, as this would not be accepted by the OPAP, because the plaintiff had to adhere to a specific negotiation procedure (Article 5) by OPAP, which is stated in the form distributed to him, the contents of which the plaintiff had become aware of. In view of this it is apparent that the plaintiff knew that his choices in six identical bulletins would be highly profitable and would have to undergo the special negotiation procedure with OPAP through his agent. The plaintiff, however, in order to avoid the specific negotiation process with the defendant (OPAP) and to achieve the maximum profit per card six times, followed this practice to exceed and multiply its known profit per card limit, and in particular by selecting the maximum match limit of one (10) (1) Output for each race and a multiplier, repeated exactly the same choices in six (6) entry sheets, each giving him the maximum winnings, claiming this maximum winnings six times. The above entry forms, which the plaintiff played, were, as mentioned above, accepted as valid by his central computer system. OPAP, a condition necessary for the application of Article 10 (1) (e). b) of the Rules of Procedure. The acceptance of the sheets only by the system and not the rejection of the sheets by the defendant system in the first place (OPAP) cannot establish the legitimacy of the above plaintiff's participation in the game. Ability to control it OPAP at this stage, in order to require the latter to comply with the "special acceptance procedure" of the participating player, it is possible only if a player attempts to exceed the limits with a ticket, in which case he will directly violate the prohibitions. and in order to achieve this it will have to adhere to the special negotiation to reach a specific agreement. However, in the event that a player, as in this case the plaintiff, attempts to exceed the limits by submitting several identical cards, the possibility of control by the defendant (OPAP) is limited, given the enormous volume of deposited vouchers and their generally anonymous. However, after the end of the game, the winning cards are less than the deposit cards and the winning players become known, the defendant (OPAP) has more information at its disposal to check, where appropriate, whether the limits and the specific trading process have been circumvented by imposing, as far as possible, the maximum projected profit. In the light of the foregoing, the prohibition on circumvention of the ceiling by the deposit of more, similar forms was known to the plaintiff, who had been aware, as stated above, of the special form and was able, in any event, to obtain knowledge of the Regulation, which had been published in the Government Gazette and posted on the Internet. Thereafter the conditions of application of ed. b 'of par. 1 of Article 10 in conjunction with Article 5 of the General Rules, after the claimant has incorporated the above practice in order to circumvent the special deal relating to the profit ceiling. Given that he has deliberately chosen the particular football matches in proportion to his performance and the particular way he has been involved in the game, dividing the amount of the same matches into more cards on the one hand and the expected profit from the same bet (profit per bet) in more identical bulletins on the other hand. Therefore, the claim of the defendant and the additional interveners in his favor, proposed at first instance and reiterated on the basis of their appeals, that the plaintiff is entitled to only the maximum allowable profit of one ticket, ie EUR 733.675,72, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 10 and 5 of the General Regulations for the Operation of Predetermined Betting Games (joint Ministerial Decision 29159 Government Gazette 1427/2000), is valid ". The Court of Appeal also accepted with the same decision that: "the plaintiff, who took part in the above game" PAME STIHIMA "of the defendant on June 9, 2004, intended, as mentioned above, with the above chosen way of playing to withdraw the profit from the total of six identical cards, in violation of the relevant rules of the game, exceeding the contractual limits of his relationship with the defendant to the detriment of the latter, forcing him to exceed the maximum payout. In his conduct above, the plaintiff sought to circumvent the special procedure of Article 5 of the Regulation in the expectation of maximizing his profits by taking such (profits), in violation of the maximum payout limit, which he had conventionally accepted within the limits of allowances. and his obligations from participating in the game. This deprived the defendant of the opportunity to negotiate the terms of the plaintiff's participation in the game and the possibility of deciding whether the new terms proposed by the player were acceptable so that they would be accepted the contract in question. It was also established that the defendant in its reply did not unilaterally and without special reason refuse to reimburse the plaintiff, but rendered to him, pursuant to the relevant conditions (Art. 10 par. 1 of the Regulation), the legal gain of a ticket. And the provision of the 2 subparagraph of Article 1 paragraph 10 of the Regulation does not constitute a limitation of this contractual obligation of the first subparagraph, but a regulation to protect and enforce it in the event that counterparties with good faith behaviors and practices engage in conduct to bypass it. That is, the above condition does not introduce a unilateral restriction on the player's achieved profits, as the plaintiff alleges, because his profits were derived from his conduct, the conditions of which are clearly, definitively and comprehensively described. layout. Also, the above condition does not provide for the termination of the contract for participation in the game, nor for the modification of the contract, as its content is the provision by the contracting defendant of the maximum amount of profit per card under the particular terms specified. OPAP) in the case of application of paragraph 2 of Article 10, as in the present case, he did not withdraw from his contractual obligation, but instead fulfilled it by paying the participant the maximum profit for a ticket ... "The Court of Appeal continues, that" the most The above provisions of article 5 of the regulation do not constitute, within the meaning of item e 'of article 2 paragraph 7 of Law 2251/1994, a unilateral amendment or termination of the contract without a specific and important reason. Because, in the case of par. 1 of article 5 there is no contractual link between the parties, since the participant proposes the conclusion of the contract but the defendant Organization does not accept it and therefore there is no scope of application of the above provisions of Law 2251 / 1994. In the case of par. 2 of article 5 of the above regulation, a special negotiation procedure is provided, in order to conclude the player participation contract in the game, determining the terms of the contract which the defendant organization can accept or reject, provided of course these terms deviate from the basic terms of participation specified in the Rules for participation in the game.
 

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,147
1,003
113
Consequently, the contractual relationship established in the above case (par. 2 of Article 5 of the Regulation) with the participation of a player in the betting game is not governed by pre-existing general terms (General Trading Terms), which the player accepts as a whole. not having the ability to negotiate and formulate them, but as a result of negotiating, among the Contracting Parties, terms that deviate from the basic conditions of participation specified in the Rules for participation in the game d. Moreover, this (the application of Article 5) is imposed by the defendant's interest in the smooth conduct of the game to serve the interests of all players and to safeguard the financial viability of the bet itself, given that non-distributable profits are distributed. subsidizing and financing public benefit actions and in areas of public policy practice (Art. 5 PD 250/1997). To reinforce these, it should be noted that, in the above predefined performance game, where the sole criterion for the success of a player's choices is not the factor of luck, but that the player's specific choices contain a degree of information-based predictability, good their appreciation for every sporting event, the experience with their long-term involvement, and, in the event of success, bypassing the relevant rules of the game, huge profits would lead to a radical overthrow of the financial foundations of the participation contract at its expense OPAP with onerous consequences not only for the public benefit of its organization but also for the other participating players. The purpose of this risk is to prevent this condition (Article 5) of the defendant's regulation, in order to safeguard the public interest that the defendant is obliged to guard in the field of pre-defined or non-performance mass toys. Also, for the risk management of the game there are restrictions not only on the maximum profit and multiple bets but also on the amount of wagering, ie the organizer's right to accept wagering amounts above a certain limit, ie the amount of 10.000.000 drachmas. or 29.347,03 euro ....... Thus, those provisions of the Rules of Procedure, which are alleged to be abusive, do not constitute a departure from the rules of domestic law in such a way as to disturb the contractual balance between the consumer and the supplier. On the contrary, the relevant provisions are not only divergent but have been put in place precisely to protect each of the Contracting Parties from any unconventional and abusive behaviors that disturb the contractual balance between them. In view of the foregoing the above conditions are not abusive, according to the provisions of N. 2251/1994, as these are clear, comprehensible, some in both the defendant's regulation and the participation cards in the above game and do not result in a significant disturbance of the balance of rights and obligations of the parties, to the detriment of the plaintiff, nor limit or excessively exclude the liability of the defendant, nor reserve the right to unilaterally amend or terminate the contract nor violate the principle of transparency ". On the basis of those assumptions, the Court of Appeal upheld the appeals of the defendant and the interveners in support of her and already the appellants, and, after annulling the first-instance decision, which had accepted the appellant's action, rejected the one in which she stated that while she had in the game "PAME STIHIMA" with six (6) separate participation tickets, in which he played the same combination of teams, which had success and profit each 733.675,72 € and a total amount of 4.402.054, 32 €, the defendant and already The first defendant paid him one ticket and unconventionally refuses to pay the others and asked to be recognized that he is obliged to pay him legally the remaining amount of € 3.668.378,60. In particular, it dismissed the action, after accepting the claim of the defendant and already defendant, which was based on the provisions of articles 5 par.2 and 10 par.2 of the "General Rules of Operation of Predetermined Betting Games", according to which it was entitled to set the amount of 250.000.000 drachmas (€ 733,675,72) as a total sum of profits of the appellant, because it was proved that by filling in the above six (6) cards with similar provisions he acted in circumvention of these provisions, as far as he knew, that his options, in case of success, would have returns, which would exceed the profit margins and in order to avoid in this case the special agreement, which consists in negotiating the modification of his options, he changed this practice, completing six (6) cards with similar provisions. With what it accepted and in the way that the Court of Appeal ruled, it did not violate the provision of article 361 of the Civil Code, since the first defendant by defining as a total sum of profits of the defendant the maximum profit of 250.000.000 drachmas (€ 733.675,72) did not proceed unilaterally and unjustifiably altering or terminating the contract for participation in the game "LET'S BET", but proceeded in accordance with the above articles 5 and 10 of the "General Rules of Operation of Predetermined Betting Games", due to their circumvention, changed the appellant. Accordingly, the first, second and third pleas in law relate to the pleas in law alleging no.
For the purposes of Art. 559 no. 19 CCLD, the decision has no legal basis and the corresponding ground of appeal is founded where, from its assumptions, which are contained in the minor proposal of its legal reasoning and are the reasoning behind it, the facts do not arise at all or inadequate or contradictory which the trial court upheld in its judgment on a question which has a material effect on the outcome of the proceedings, so that it could not be examined whether the conditions of the substantive rule in this case had been fulfilled. applied or not met the conditions of what was not implemented. (OLAP 1 / 1999). For the procedural completeness of this plea, it must be stated what constitutes a lack of legal basis (complete lack, inadequacy or inconsistency) of the reasons for the contested decision and, in particular, when an allegation of inadequate or unclear grounds is raised, the appeal must be specified in the appeal. reasons and why they are insufficient or unclear, what additional incidents should have been reported, in order for the reasons to be sufficient and clear, without sufficient general expressions that "it has insufficient or unclear reasons" (All AP 20/2005, 32/1996 ), in addition, the issue to which they relate and which has a substantial influence on the outcome of the proceedings and in which, according to the appellant, the decision has no legal basis, the provision which has been infringed, and the actual assumptions of the decision must be stated. In the present case, with the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, sixth and eighth grounds of the appeal, the appellant submits that the contested decision has no legal basis because the Court of Appeal rejected them with inadequate and vague reasons. his substantive allegations and having a substantial influence on the outcome of the proceedings, that the terms of Articles 5 and 10 of the "General Rules for the Operation of Predetermined Gambling Games", on which the defendants alleged that he had acted destructively , is entitled to the maximum allowed profit of one ticket, ie 733.675,72 euros and not that of the other five tickets of the game in question, which he requested in his lawsuit, should not be applied, because they are invalid, invalid and abusive, as objects in the provisions of articles 361, 200, 281 and 288 of the Civil Code and 2 par. 1-3 and 7 approx. b and e of N.2251 / 1994 and thus upheld the appellants' appeals, annulled the judgment and dismissed his action as unfounded in substance. Those pleas in law alleging a failure to act. The 19 of Article 559 of the Code of Civil Procedure, cited above, must be rejected as vague because it does not specify in the appeal what the inadequate and unclear reasons for the decision are, and what additional facts it should contain in order to be sufficient and clear. The ground of appeal under Article 559 no. 8 CSLD, which aims to secure the discussion system (Art. 106 Code of Conduct), but also the principle of hearing the parties (Art. 110§2 Code of Conduct), established when the court of law is in breach of the law and obviously incorrect in assessing procedural documents (Art. 561§2 CCJ) either took into account the things that were not proposed and had a material impact on the outcome of the trial (OLAP 13 / 1995) or did not take into account the things that were proposed and also had a significant impact on the outcome of the trial, meaning things separate claims of the parties that tend to establish, dismiss or impede the practitioner by bringing an action, objection or opposition to a substantive or procedural right (OL 3 / 1997, OL 1225 / 2004, 1530 / 2001 form the operative part of the contested decision (OLP 2 / 1998, OL 1072-3 / 200, 864 / 2003) and should, in the light of allegations which were not taken into account, had to be taken into account, be admissible before the court of the substance X / 2, 2001 / 12) and even by the appellant (2000 / 881). In particular, if the decision of the court of appeal is contested for the above reason, the claim which was not assessed should have been admissible in the court of first instance, but also admissible (with main or additional appeal or accordingly, according to Art. 240 CCLD, with proposals) and second instance (CA 1011 / 1994) and report this to the appellant (CA 760 / 2004, 539 / 2003, 885 / 1994), unless it is subject to the exceptions to Art. 562 par. 2 CCLD (OLAP 43 / 1990) or is a claim admissible under Art. 527 CCLD was first proposed in the appeal proceedings, which also needs to be clarified in the appellate court (CA 354 / 2011). However, this ground of appeal is not substantiated if the court hears this plea in law and rejects it for any reason, formal or substantive, even if its rejection is not express but in the substance of the judgment (OLAP 11 / 1996, 148 / 2009). In the present case, the appellant, in the first, fourth, fifth, sixth and eighth parts of the grounds of appeal, submits that the Court of Appeal did not take into account the independent factual allegations made by the defendant before him. and having a substantial influence on the outcome of the proceedings, that the terms of the provisions of Articles 5 and 10 of the "General Rules of Operation of Predetermined Gambling Games", on which the defendants asserted, that he, because he acted against them, were entitled to the maximum permissible profit of one ticket, ie 733.675,72 euros and not that of the other five tickets of the game in question, which he requested in his lawsuit, should not be applied, because they are invalid, invalid and abusive, as objects in the provisions of articles 361, 200, 281 and 288 of the Civil Code and 2 par. 1-3 and 7 approx. b and e of N.2251 / 1994 and thus upheld the appellants' appeals, annulled the judgment and dismissed his action as unfounded in substance. Those pleas in law, cited above, are based on the above allegation. 8 b of the 559 Code article, are to be rejected as unfounded.
 

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,147
1,003
113
The provision of Article 559 No. 10 of the ECHR ground of appeal, after the abolition of the second case, which provided for the possibility of appeal, if the court accepted things that have a substantial effect on the outcome of the trial as true "without ordering evidence about them", with article 17 par. 2 by n. 2915 / 2001, as after the removal of the provision of article 341 Code on the possibility of a preliminary ruling and the application of Article 270 in all cases, with Article 14 par. 1 of the same law, has limited application in the case where "the court accepted things that have a substantial effect on the outcome of the trial as true without evidence", ie when the court does not state from which means of evidence it has obtained the evidence or no evidence has been presented (ΑΠ 273 / 2011,1700 / 2009). In the present case, as is apparent from the contested decision, the Court of Appeal made its judgment and reached its evidentiary finding that, having accepted the appeals against the judgment of the Court of First Instance, it dismissed that decision and dismissed the appellant's action after took into account the witnesses' affidavits of the parties, the legally produced documents relied on, and the no. 500 / 11-1-2005 and 591 / 12-1-2005 affidavits before the Athens Court of Appeal, presented and cited by the appellant, following the lawful and timely appeal of the appellants. It follows that the contested decision did not accept as true matters having a material effect on the outcome of the proceedings without evidence and the first, in its view, the ground of appeal alleging the contrary is to be rejected as unfounded. From the provisions of 562 par. 2 CCLD concludes that it is an inadmissible ground of appeal based on an allegation which was not or was not lawfully proposed to the court of substance unless it is (a) an infringement which cannot be brought to the court of substance (b) and (c) a claim relating to public policy. This inadmissibility refers to all the grounds of appeal under Article 559 Code. The above provision is a manifestation of the fundamental principle that the Court of Justice examines the lawfulness of the judgment of the court of law on the basis of the factual and legal situation which the substantive judge had to take into account and establishes a special condition for admissibility of the grounds of appeal, whose assistance must be obtained from the appellant. It must be stated, therefore, that the allegation underlying the plea had been lawfully proposed in the court of law, specifying the manner and time of the motion or re-affirmation of the plea, so that it could be decided by the appellant whether it was admissible and lawful, and if the court has examined the case in its substance, the relevant assumptions underlying the alleged infringement must also be mentioned in the appeal. For the purposes of investigating the merits of the appeals, it is permissible to review the documents of the same or another proceedings in accordance with Article 561 par. 2 Cold. In the present case, the appellant relied on the seventh ground of appeal, alleging infringements of the present case. 1, 8 and 19 of Article 559 Code of Civil Procedure, seeks the annulment of the contested decision because the Court of Appeal held that the defendant and the first respondent were not obliged to pay the default performance of the other five (5) stipulations, 5 of its Rules of Procedure, but thus violating the constitutionality of the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 10, which he asserted before the Court of Appeal as a defendant, since the defendant and the first respondent nevertheless retained ( above, which, in this case, is small, but could amount to millions of euros. Further to the last plea in law, also alleging infringements of Nos. 1, 8 and 19 of article 559 of the ICCPR, seeks the annulment of the contested decision, because the Court of Appeal ruled that the defendant and already first defendant was not obliged to pay the default return of the remaining five (5) cards, based on provisions 5 and 10 of its Rules of Procedure, thus violating the ECHR and in particular Article 6 thereof, which establishes the principle of "fair trial" which he has raised before the Court of Appeal as a defendant, as the above provisions of the Rules of Procedure, which establish the right of the defendant and already the first defendant of the acceptance or non-acceptance of any bet at any time and without obligation to justify exclude the existence of a "fair trial". All of the foregoing reasons must be rejected as inadmissible in so far as it is admissible pursuant to Article 561 par. 2 ECHR, an overview of the appellant's motions before the Court of Appeal does not show that he had argued that the above provisions of the Rules of Procedure violated the principle of proportionality, as well as the principle of "fair trial" under Article 6 of the ECHR. Lastly, for the same reason, the first and third pleas in law, in so far as relevant, the pleas in law of the Court of First Instance in Case C-213/04, must be rejected as inadmissible. 1, 8 and 19 of Article 559 Code, in which the appellant alleges that the above provisions of the Rules violate the principle of equality deriving from Article 4 of the Constitution, as well as Article 93 of the Constitution in so far as they entitle the defendant to already the first respondent against it to make a unilateral, unreasonable and at all times altered contract between them. That is also because the review of the appellant's written documents before the Court of Appeal does not show that he had put forward those arguments. Accordingly, the above grounds of the present appeal, for which the case has been referred back to this Section, must be rejected after issue no. 12 / 2017, Judgment of the Plenary of this Court, rejecting the pleas cited therein, as well as that of the Court in its entirety. Further, it must be ordered, in par. Article 4 of the 495 Code, the introduction of the three hundred euro (300) fee paid by the appellant, as reported in the 382 / 2014 Appeal Report filed by the Athens Court of Appeal Registrar.

FOR THOSE REASONS
Dismisses the application by 21-5-2014 for revocation of no. 5189 / 2012 final judgment of the Athens Court of Appeal.
It orders the introduction of the three-hundred-euro (300) fee paid by the appellant to the Treasury.
Orders the parties to bear the costs.
SEARCHED and decided in Athens on 19 April 2018.
PUBLISHED in Athens in public, at his audience on 25 June 2018.

VICE
THE SECRETARY
 

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,147
1,003
113
And because you can think of what the guy played. This was the all-day program and chose the matches with the green highlighted.


element.JPG
 

giannisthegreek

Well-Known Member
17 Nov 2012
1,798
2,003
113
Piraeus
So you say I play one of the crazy cards I usually play and I write it here .. if 5,10,20 people follow the same cards and we win and we pass the ceiling all together then what happens? Won't we present them?

Sent from my MYA-L41 using Tapatalk
 

For

Active Member
25 Feb 2012
211
78
28
Eventually the formula and 6 releases were not paid;
I read it all but with the lawyers I have not.
 

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,147
1,003
113
If 10 or 20 people play the same cards will be paid. If an adult family goes with one ticket each person on hand will NOT be paid if one goes with 5 tickets is not paid.

bets.JPG
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: giannisthegreek

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,147
1,003
113
Analogously. If for example 10 people who do not know each other and one is in Xanthi, the other in Crete and the other 8 in Athens play exactly the same card, will they not be paid? With this logic one should not bet on him again OPAP
 

tarantules

Active Member
5 Sep 2008
223
108
43
I don't know if then, that 2004 knew this particular player that he might not get paid by breaking the tickets to 6 instead of one, but man of God, you had the inspiration to make such a great performance and you really believed that he would come combination (otherwise why sit down to break the newsletters), did you not come to mind the simplest, that is, to kick from an 2 single opportunity of 1,02, a favorite in every newsletter? How many of them would break? and 6 is excluded. At least half, I wouldn't say it all, so manny would have had the worst case of 2.200.000 at hand.
Too bad again some of you have the ability and you don't think of something extremely simple and practical.
I have been doing this for years now in the big newsletter with crazy odds. : ROFLMAO:
 

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,147
1,003
113
I don't know if then, that 2004 knew this particular player that he might not get paid by breaking the tickets to 6 instead of one, but man of God, you had the inspiration to make such a great performance and you really believed that he would come combination (otherwise why sit down to break the newsletters), did you not come to mind the simplest, that is, to kick from an 2 single opportunity of 1,02, a favorite in every newsletter? How many of them would break? and 6 is excluded. At least half, I wouldn't say it all, so manny would have had the worst case of 2.200.000 at hand.
Too bad again some of you have the ability and you don't think of something extremely simple and practical.
I have been doing this for years now in the big newsletter with crazy odds. : ROFLMAO:

Again they are covered by the term they have set because they also mention the case of such options.
 

tarantules

Active Member
5 Sep 2008
223
108
43
Again they are covered by the term they have set because they also mention the case of such options.
What exactly is this term? Can we find him? It has not fallen to my perception. If so then they are unacceptable.
 

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,147
1,003
113
Go above and read post number 10 I have uploaded a photo of the term that applies to maximum profits. Read it and you will understand. It's so abusive that lies to OPAP if 10 people don't know each other exactly the same cards from different areas if they get paid, claiming to work collectively as if the player must smell their nails to know what the rest of the players will be playing in the Territory!
 

tarantules

Active Member
5 Sep 2008
223
108
43
Yeah you're right about writing it ... Finally there are big bangs over there ...
Anyway, I thought of another way to circumvent this restriction, much more sly.
But I'm not mentioning it here because many of us are reading it so it's not at all unlikely to include it in any future supplemental terms ....
 
Last edited:

Balaton

Well-Known Member
1 Nov 2008
1,147
1,003
113
Yeah you're right about writing it ... Finally there are big bangs over there ...
Anyway, I thought of another way to circumvent this restriction, much more sly.
But I'm not mentioning it here because many of us are reading it so it's not at all unlikely to include it in any future supplemental terms ....

Combination of accurate scores but since the options are similar whatever you do have covered the issue ...
 

tarantules

Active Member
5 Sep 2008
223
108
43
Combination of accurate scores but since the options are similar whatever you do have covered the issue ...
Ba, there is something they can't tell you. Unfortunately I do not want to mention it for obvious reasons.
 

Predictions

  • PM11:00
    • Canada (C) - Brazil (C)
  • PM12:00
    Eurosport 2
    • Great Britain (C) - Australia (C)
  • PM14:00
    ERT Sports 1
    • Netherlands (C) - USA (C)
  • PM19:30
    Novasports 1HD
    • Paderborn - Nuremberg
  • PM20:00
    novasports.gr
    • Fearless - Real Zaragoza
  • PM21:30
    Novasports 1HD
    • LaLiga Champions Gala
  • PM21:45
    Novasports 2HD
    • KRC Genk - Ostend
  • PM07:40
    Eurosport 1
    • USA (C) - Japan (C)
  • PM07:40
    ERT Sports 2
    • USA - Japan
  • PM15:00
    Eurosport 2
    • China (C) - Australia (C)
  • Tomorrow 31-07-2021
  • PM04:00
    ERT1
    • Iran - France
  • PM06:15
    ERT3
    • Tokyo 2020 - Tennis
  • PM09:40
    ERT Sports 2
    • Tennis
  • PM10:00
    COSMOTE SPORT 7 HD
    • ITF U-16 Juniors
  • PM12:00
    COSMOTE SPORT 7 HD
    • ITF U-16 Juniors
  • PM12:30
    ERT Sports 3
    • Formula 1, GP Hungary, 1st free test
  • PM13:30
    COSMOTE SPORT 6 HD
    • ATP 250 2021
  • PM14:00
    COSMOTE SPORT 7 HD
    • ITF U-16 Juniors
  • PM15:10
    Eurosport 1
    • Volleyball
  • PM15:45
    ERT3
    • Russia - France
  • PM16:00
    ERT Sports 3
    • Formula 1, GP Hungary, 2st free test
  • PM17:00
    COSMOTE SPORT 6 HD
    • ATP 250 2021
General Chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting right now.
    K Forum Bot: Knickp started a new topic called "Bad smells in the room from moisture" ...