Luxembourg, Munich, April 9, 2025
A case was heard today at the European Court of Justice that could have far-reaching consequences for the recovery of gambling losses in the online gambling sector. The plaintiff is lawyer Volker Ramge, who has acquired a player’s claim against a Maltese gambling operator.
Central point of contention: Is a claim for reimbursement permissible despite a Maltese license?
Ramge cites established case law from the Federal Court of Justice (BGH): The decisive factor is whether the provider possessed a German license – which was indisputably not the case for the online casino games and secondary lotteries in question. Section 4, Paragraph 4 of the Interstate Gambling Treaty (GlüStV) prohibited online casino games during the relevant period. Unlike sports betting, no experimental clause applied here. The plaintiff argues on the grounds of player protection – and that the mere attempt to obtain a license is irrelevant. Without a German license, the service is illegal in Germany – with the consequence that losses are recoverable.
Attorney Karpenstein defends the business model of the providers – and attacks
In contrast, attorney Karpenstein, representing the providers, vehemently argues that player protection is merely a pretext. He claims the lawsuits were initiated by litigation funders and do not serve the players’ interests. Furthermore, he asserts that the Interstate Treaty on Gambling does not provide for such claims. Karpenstein emphasizes that the providers cannot be held responsible for the lack of access to a German license: Outside of Schleswig-Holstein, no license for online slot machines was available in Germany until mid-2021. Moreover, he argues that secondary lotteries have been tacitly tolerated for years. Therefore, the claims for reimbursement lack any basis in EU law.
Malta:
Refund claims undermine the internal market and jeopardize player protection
The Republic of Malta fundamentally criticizes the procedure: one member state may not interfere in the gambling regulation of another. Malta has comprehensive player protection regulations – with thousands of exclusion requests annually, including from German players. It is unjustified to brand all Maltese providers as “illegal.” Furthermore, Germany readily uses tax revenue from gambling while simultaneously allowing civil claims for reimbursement.
Belgium: Secondary lotteries are considered particularly risky “parasitic” bets
Belgium is siding with Germany in the negotiations – at least regarding secondary lotteries. These are not comparable to state lotteries, neither in terms of oversight nor solvency. Gambling may be restricted nationally if it serves the common good. Debts of honor, as Karpenstein brings up, are irrelevant under civil law.
European Commission
The representative of the European Commission considers the enforcement protection scheme for the Maltese gambling industry (Bill 55) to be incompatible with EU law. This question would then have to be examined incidentally if Bill 55 were also applicable to the aforementioned preliminary ruling procedure. Subsequently, the representative of Malta stated to the CJEU: ” We assume that the Maltese regulations of ‘Bill 55’ do not apply to the present proceedings. ” The representative of the European Commission further explained that player protection is important in the EU and that players sometimes need to be protected from themselves.
Dispute over jurisdiction and assessment under EU law
A key point of negotiation concerned the jurisdiction of the Maltese courts. Could they even examine the compatibility of German regulations with EU law without Germany’s involvement in the proceedings? The German government complained that it had not been informed about the proceedings and therefore could not contribute its perspective. The Commission, however, pointed to the structure of the Rome I Regulation: A national court can – in compliance with EU law – apply foreign law and, if necessary, examine its conformity with EU law.
Conclusion: The right of recovery under EU law
The Advocate General’s final submissions are expected on 10 July 2025.
The crucial question now is whether the ECJ considers the German recovery mechanism compatible with the freedom to provide services under Article 56 TFEU – or whether it protects the providers from Malta (and other EU states).
Further Information Regarding This Case: Cocron Gmbh & Co. KG Law Firm, Attorney István Cocron, BA, Max-Weber-Platz 10, 81675 Munich, Www.ra-cocron.de
