Key facts of the case:
The owner of a pub – an Austrian national – was convicted by the District Commission (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) for “Graz-Umgebung” for having violated the Austrian Law of Gaming (Glückspielgesetz, GSpG) by having installed a black jack table in his pub on 26 April 2007. The owner appealed against this decision to the Independent Administrative Panel of Styria who confirmed the ruling of the first instance on 20 May 2008. In its decision, the Independent Administrative Panel of Styria argued that the case did not contain a cross border element but regarded a purely internal situation. Principles of Union law would thus not need to be assessed. The owner of the pub appealed against this decision and claimed, inter alia, that two of the persons who were playing in this pub were Hungarian and Slovenian nationals.
The duty to provide an effective judicial review is now also contained in Article 47 para 1 of the Charta (cf. the decisions of the European Court of Justice of 19 September 2006, C-506/04, Wilson, of 13 March 2007, C-432/05, Unibet, margin note 37, and of 22 December 2010, C-279/09, DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft, as well as Schenk, Der Einfluss der Charta der Grundrechte der europäischen Union auf das nationale Verwaltungsverfahren unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Art. 47 GRC, ZUV 2010/2, 51 et sseq., Wiederin, Ziständigkeit des Umweltsenates für Bundesstraßen und Hochleistungsstrecken, wbl 2011, 53 et sseq., and Madner, Effektiver gerichtlicher Rechtsschutz, Anwendungsvorrang und zuständige Kontrollinstanz, ZfV 2011, 1 sseq). For the case at hand, it is therefore irrelevant which consequences might arise from the requirement to provide for effective judicial review in general and from the requirements of Article 47 para 1 of the Charter in particular for a trial in front of the Administrative Court in connection with the limited cognition of facts [Tatsachenkognition] of the Administrative Court pursuant to Article 41 para 1 of the Supreme Administrative Court Act [Verwaltungsgerichtshofgesetz; VwGG] if no tribunal decided about the case prior to the appeal to the Administrative Court. As the Administrative Court was not the first addressable court pursuant to Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 of the Charter in the present case, it is not necessary to further investigate if the application of the procedural rules of the Administrative Court comply with the requirements of Union law or how a compliant application could be achieved under the assumption of the supersession of the rules of the Supreme Administrative Court Act, respectively.