WILLEMSTAD – In a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, the appeal of master license holder Cyberluck against journalist Nardy Cramm of the Knipselkrant Curaçao has been dismissed. Cyberluck sought through the court to compel Cramm to stop referring to sublicenses as ‘illegal.’ However, the Supreme Court confirmed that such statements fall under the freedom of speech.
WILLEMSTAD
– In a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, the appeal of master license holder Cyberluck against journalist Nardy Cramm of the Knipselkrant Curaçao has been dismissed. Cyberluck sought through the court to compel Cramm to stop referring to sublicenses as ‘illegal.’ However, the Supreme Court confirmed that such statements fall under the freedom of speech.
The legal battle emerged after publications by Cramm in which she labeled sublicenses, including those of Edobet and 1xBet, as illegal. Initially, in the first instance, it was determined that Cramm could not use this term, but on appeal, the Joint Court ruled differently. The Court emphasized that naming sublicenses as ‘illegal’ falls within the boundaries of journalistic freedom of speech.
The legal battle emerged after publications by Cramm in which she labeled sublicenses, including those of Edobet and 1xBet, as illegal. Initially, in the first instance, it was determined that Cramm could not use this term, but on appeal, the Joint Court ruled differently. The Court emphasized that naming sublicenses as ‘illegal’ falls within the boundaries of journalistic freedom of speech.
The Supreme Court did not directly rule on the legality of the sublicenses themselves in the appeal but acknowledged that it is plausible that Cyberluck, as the master license holder, could not effectively supervise all sublicense holders. This supports the argument that using the term ‘illegal’ in this context is defensible.
The Supreme Court did not directly rule on the legality of the sublicenses themselves in the appeal but acknowledged that it is plausible that Cyberluck, as the master license holder, could not effectively supervise all sublicense holders. This supports the argument that using the term ‘illegal’ in this context is defensible.
Exploitation
Exploitation
Analyzing the issued gambling licenses reveals that the legislator, with Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Offshore Hazard Games Ordinance – the current gambling law -, intended that the license holder is also the operator of the online casino or sports betting website and not a third party without a government license.
Analyzing the issued gambling licenses reveals that the legislator, with Article 3, paragraph 1 of the Offshore Hazard Games Ordinance – the current gambling law -, intended that the license holder is also the operator of the online casino or sports betting website and not a third party without a government license.
Various articles in the license of one of the five license holders, such as Cyberluck, concern hardware that the license holder must test and for which backup equipment must be purchased. They even have to enter into a service contract for the hardware and keep track of the equipment they use.
Various articles in the license of one of the five license holders, such as Cyberluck, concern hardware that the license holder must test and for which backup equipment must be purchased. They even have to enter into a service contract for the hardware and keep track of the equipment they use.
Also from other articles in this license, it is evident that the license is not about outsourcing the operation, as the five master license holders are currently doing, but about actually operating online gambling sites.
Also from other articles in this license, it is evident that the license is not about outsourcing the operation, as the five master license holders are currently doing, but about actually operating online gambling sites.
All this must also be viewed in the legal context of licensing. A license is a positive instrument: it grants permission to do something. This is in contrast to a legal provision, which usually entails a prohibition. It is up to the license holder to do what the license permits.
All this must also be viewed in the legal context of licensing. A license is a positive instrument: it grants permission to do something. This is in contrast to a legal provision, which usually entails a prohibition. It is up to the license holder to do what the license permits.
In the first licenses issued, license holders are given permission to offer online gambling games (then called offshore hazard games). The license holder is not authorized to have others do this, and the license does not mention it.
In the first licenses issued, license holders are given permission to offer online gambling games (then called offshore hazard games). The license holder is not authorized to have others do this, and the license does not mention it.
If that had been intended with the license, there should have been a legal-technical perspective: ‘or having offered.’ And that should also be traceable back to the law, which is not the case.
If that had been intended with the license, there should have been a legal-technical perspective: ‘or having offered.’ And that should also be traceable back to the law, which is not the case.
The system that the current five license holders have devised is inherently impossible because the government loses its span of control by no longer having to issue licenses themselves. This is also seen as an indication by the court.
The system that the current five license holders have devised is inherently impossible because the government loses its span of control by no longer having to issue licenses themselves. This is also seen as an indication by the court.
https://www.curacaochronicle.com/post/main/court-of-justice-statements-about-illegal-sublicenses-allowed/
Comment