Bavaria arcade distance (BayVGH 2021): Allegations, Court Orders and Status

What this case is about

The Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal, 23rd Senate) decided docket 23 ZB 20.1099 by order of 17 June 2021. It refused leave to appeal in a licensing dispute over an arcade (Spielhalle) at Bahnhofsplatz 9 in Nuremberg.

The operator sued the licensing authority, Stadt Nürnberg, in 2018. The claims rest on § 25 Abs. 1 GlüStV with Art. 9 Abs. 3 AGGlüStV, which set a 250 m minimum distance, and on § 29 Abs. 4 GlüStV. The case is filed under Licensing and Administrative Court Cases.

Who is covered

The order affects the arcade operator and the city as licensing authority. A competitor's licence also plays a role in the reasoning.

It is described as a representative Bavarian case, so it shows how the 250 m rule works for other arcades in the state. Other German cases appear in Gambling Lawsuits in Germany.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case. It is a dispute between an arcade operator and a city over a licence, so there is no fund, no class and no claim process.

The court set the value of the dispute at EUR 15,000 per instance. That figure is a value of the dispute and not an award.

What the court decided

The Verwaltungsgericht Ansbach had ruled on 13 January 2020 (AN 15 K 18.00653). The BayVGH refused the application for leave to appeal against that judgment on 17 June 2021, so the first-instance ruling stands.

Three points carry the order. The arcade fell short of Bavaria's 250 m minimum distance. A competitor's final licence could no longer be attacked. Refusing an exception at a station location prone to addiction risk was not a discretionary error.

As of 14 November 2026 the record lists no further step.

Why it matters

The order shows that a distance rule is applied strictly in Bavaria and that a licence already granted to a competitor becomes hard to challenge once it is final. It also shows that a station location can justify refusing an exception.

For operators, the lesson is about timing and location, not damages. The order rests on one case record, so it describes this arcade and this ruling rather than every Bavarian licensing outcome.

Related cases

• BVerfG, Beschluss vom 07.03.2017, 1 BvR 1314/12 and others (Spielhallen): the Federal Constitutional Court ruling on arcade rules, listed as a related decision.

Questions people ask

What is the 250 m rule in this case?

The case applies § 25 Abs. 1 GlüStV with Art. 9 Abs. 3 AGGlüStV, which set a 250 m minimum distance in Bavaria. The Nuremberg arcade at Bahnhofsplatz 9 fell short of it.

Could the operator challenge a competitor's licence?

No, not in this case. The BayVGH held that the competitor's final licence could no longer be attacked.

Did the court award money to anyone?

No. The only figure in the record is the dispute value of EUR 15,000 per instance, which is not an award.