On August 24, 2025, case C-530/24 was on the agenda before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) – a case that could shake the very foundations of the German sports betting industry. ⚖️🎲
The central question: Were online sports bets illegal without German authorization between 2013 and 2021 – and are contracts concluded as a result invalid?
- For players, this means potential refunds in the billions.
- For providers like Tipico, bwin, or Betano It is about nothing less than their economic foundation.
The case is already being described as a landmark case for numerous German lawsuits. Today’s hearing alone made it clear how strongly the interests of player protection and the European freedom to provide services clash.
Prof. Ruttig’s appearance
Professor Ruttig was the first to speak. the word.
He referred to the proceedings before the Administrative Court of Hesse. “The decision of the Administrative Court of Wiesbaden never became legally binding and therefore could not give rise to any claim by Tipico to the granting of a license.” He questioned which provisions of the 2012 Interstate Gambling Treaty could possibly conflict with higher-ranking law. There had been no discrimination – all providers had been treated equally.
According to Ruttig, Tipico deliberately chose to violate gambling laws. “Operating without a license offered absolutely no player protection. From 2012 to 2020, Tipico was the market leader in Germany, despite lacking a license. The state failed to fulfill its duty to protect players. A lawless space without any player protection whatsoever?”
He further explained: “The Ince ruling is transferable from land-based providers to online providers. As early as October 16, 2017, the Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) determined the conformity of the German licensing procedure with European law. The Higher Administrative Court of Hesse (Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof) also ruled that Tipico was rightly denied a license.”
In his view, there is no state monopoly. “Until 2021, there was no state-run online sports betting service. On June 29, 2017, the Federal Administrative Court merely determined that the licensing procedure had ‘failed.’ However, it was not determined that the procedure had violated European law.”
Regarding player protection, he added: “More than 300,000 players are banned in the OASIS player exclusion database. There is no comparable player protection system in Malta.”
His conclusion was scathing: “TIPICO benefits twice over. On the one hand, it believes it can keep the losses despite lacking a license, and on the other hand, it has been able to build market leadership at the expense of those providers who have decided to operate in the German market without a license.”
Conclusion:
Any deficiencies in European law regarding the execution of the procedure must be distinguished from the fundamental requirement of a permit.
The prohibition of sanctions from the “Ince decision” does not fit the relationship between player and provider, since only the state can impose “sanctions” and not the civil courts, which can only award damages.
Lawyer Reichelt/Redeker says:
He argues that the preliminary question should be interpreted in light of the INCE decision. A claim for damages is significantly worse for the provider than a criminal sanction. Therefore, it is practically a “sanction”.
The Hessian Administrative Court ruling is to be interpreted as follows: Tipico does not need a license, as two administrative courts have already confirmed that its offer is not illegal.
The question is whether the formal lack of a license alone can give rise to a claim for damages. Due to the “INCE ruling,” Tipico was permitted to offer sports betting even without a license. Therefore, Tipico never offered sports betting illegally. What is the reason for Tipico’s lack of a license? According to Tipico, the only reason for the missing license is a procedural flaw in the licensing process. Tipico would have fulfilled all the requirements for being granted a license. Since there was no legal basis for limiting the number of licenses to 20, this limitation was contrary to European law because it was arbitrary.
TIPICO was therefore allowed to operate without a license and was also entitled to be granted a license.
Furthermore, several administrative courts have confirmed that Tipico’s offer was not illegal.
The preliminary questions have already been decided by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). A monopoly also existed in the internet sector. Germany disregarded EU law by establishing and maintaining a state monopoly on sports betting. This is, however, contrary to EU law. EU law requires legal certainty and clarity. It must be clear what is prohibited. A stake limit of €1,000 is not a prohibition, as it can be repeatedly increased. Moreover, the regulation applies only to authorities, not to the organizers. Public interests are already sufficiently protected. In Germany, there are already laws that protect minors and gamblers. Therefore, no further protection through licenses for organizing sports betting is necessary.
Conclusion by Dr. Reichelt/Reder/Tipico
The preliminary questions have already been decided by INCE.
Penalties are equivalent to civil claims for damages.
Violation of the principle of coherence.
TIPICO has fulfilled all the requirements for the granting of a concession.
Consumers are not without protection, as there are sufficient protective regulations for players even outside of the Interstate Gambling Treaty.
Representatives of Belgium:
Gambling may be restricted in member states for reasons of consumer protection. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has already confirmed this, in particular that licenses from other member states are not automatically recognized. The protection of social order takes precedence over the right of providers to be granted gambling concessions. It is undisputed that Tipico did not have a license and no court ruling was obtained granting Tipico a license. Therefore, Tipico should not have been allowed to offer gambling. Moreover, Tipico likely would not have received a license anyway, as the deposit limits of €1,000 were observed. Consumer protection is not a punishment in the legal sense. Tipico’s concession was not denied solely due to administrative deficiencies; there were also substantive grounds for refusal (limit violations, etc.). There was no justification for tolerating an unlicensed offering simply because of procedural flaws in the licensing process.
Hellenic Republic:
The licensing procedure must not be discriminatory. There is no obligation for the mutual recognition of licenses from other member states. Violations of the licensing procedure must not allow gambling to be offered without a license. The freedom to provide services is not applicable, as the public interest of the respective member state takes precedence. Furthermore, online gambling is significantly more dangerous for consumers than land-based gambling. The mere possibility of applying for a license is insufficient, as otherwise no provider would need to apply and could always claim that the license would have been granted to them anyway.
Conclusion:
Until a provider of online gambling has been granted a formal license, they may not offer their services if a licensing system exists in the respective member state. This applies even if the licensing system violates European law.
Malta:
TIPICO is a Maltese provider with a Maltese license. TIPICO participated in the licensing procedure under the experimental clause. In 2012, TIPICO participated in the concession granting procedure, similar to the INCE procedure. In 2020, TIPICO also received a license in Germany. The German authorities have repeatedly indicated to TIPICO that the service is not illegal even without a formal license. Civil claims for damages also fall under the prohibition of penalties established by the INCE ruling.
Since Maltese player protection standards exceed EU requirements, a Maltese license is sufficient to comply with player protection regulations. Therefore, a Maltese license must be adequate to offer gambling in other EU member states, particularly Germany. Furthermore, the license issued in Malta grants the license holder rights that must be respected by the member states.
Portugal:
The German licensing system serves to protect players and consumers. While TIPICO participated in the licensing/concession process, it did not receive a license/concession. The freedom to provide services within the EU is not unlimited and can be restricted through appropriate authorization procedures in the member states. According to the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), member states may also refer to their specific national characteristics (consumer protection, player protection, protection of public interests, protection of public health). Market participants without a license may not gain economic advantages at the expense of consumers and market participants who comply with the rules.
European Commission
The Federal Court of Justice has already indicated that sports betting contracts are void if no license or concession exists. Therefore, the ruling of the Wiesbaden Administrative Court, which stated that Tipico should have been granted a license, is irrelevant. The Wiesbaden Administrative Court’s ruling never became legally binding, so Tipico cannot rely on it. Furthermore, the Federal Court of Justice considers the licensing requirement to be in accordance with European law.
The restriction of the freedom to provide services is justified on grounds of protecting the common good, social order, and consumer protection. The European Commission also considers the German regulations on the Interstate Gambling Treaty of 2012 (GlüStV 2012) regarding the offering of online sports betting to be compliant with EU law, as the ban on online sports betting applied to both private and state-run providers. Online sports betting was therefore prohibited in its entirety. There was no preferential treatment of state-run providers. The judgment of the Wiesbaden Administrative Court cannot therefore be used to justify offering online sports betting without a license. The principle of “loyal cooperation between Member States” dictates that Member States are obliged to remedy violations of EU law. If individual provisions regarding the granting of licenses violate EU law, this cannot lead to the general exemption from the licensing requirement. If necessary, the authorization procedure would have to be repeated in cases of violations of EU law, as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has already ruled in other proceedings concerning licensing issues. However, there is no reason to treat the unlicensed provider in the same way as if the applicant (TIPICO) had a license. Furthermore, Tipico would have had to fulfill all the substantive requirements for obtaining a license. The purely formal execution of a licensing procedure cannot replace a license (ECJ rulings in Legal Portuguesa/Carmen Media). Given potential violations of limit regulations, the exclusion of quick replays, etc., it is questionable whether Tipico should have been granted a license in the first place.
Rapporteur at the ECJ:
Questions exist regarding the INCE decision and its relevance to the present proceedings. INCE ruled that sanctions are prohibited against EU license holders or applicants who have participated in a concession procedure that violates EU law (infringement of the principle of equality).
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has already requested clarification from the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) regarding the decision of the Wiesbaden Administrative Court. Questions for the parties will follow.
How far does the Wiesbaden Administrative Court’s ruling extend? Did the Wiesbaden Administrative Court decide that the concession procedure in Germany violates EU law? Were protective regulations (protection of minors, deposit limits) addressed? What did the Wiesbaden Administrative Court find to be incompatible with EU law?
Prof. Ruttig (plaintiff’s representative)
The Wiesbaden Administrative Court (VG Wiesbaden) criticized the tendering procedures used by the concession awarding authorities as not complying with European law. The Wiesbaden Administrative Court’s ruling never became legally binding. Furthermore, it was a decision made by a single judge.
Dr. Reichert (speech-maker):
The Wiesbaden Administrative Court’s decision was a chamber ruling by five female judges, not a single-judge decision. The concession award procedure was deemed opaque. The selection criteria for the providers were incomprehensible, particularly the limitation to only 20 licenses. Since the federal states could not provide a reason for this limitation, the Wiesbaden Administrative Court concluded that it was incompatible with the freedom to provide services under European law. The Wiesbaden Administrative Court ruled no further.
Rapporteur:
What requirements did the providers have to meet? Limit regulations, player protection, etc.?
Dr. Reichert:
The requirements would only have become part of the concession after the concession had been granted, within the framework of the concession’s ancillary provisions.
Rapporteur:
Did Tipico then assume that it did not have to meet these requirements?
Dr. Reichert:
These requirements (deposit limits, etc.) would only have been established after the licensing authority had granted the license. Therefore, the regulations regarding the limit apply only to the authority, not to the sports betting providers.
Rapporteur:
So there was no limit on the maximum stake, since this provision was not directed at the provider, but only at the regulatory authority?
Dr. Reichert:
Exactly.
Rapporteur:
What happened in the appeal proceedings? Was a stay of proceedings ordered? Was a decision reached on the merits?
Dr. Reichert:
The appeals court suspended the proceedings until the concession period expired. Because of the passage of time, the appeals court could no longer grant a concession, and therefore the proceedings remained suspended until the legislature enacted new regulations governing the concession procedure.
Rapporteur:
How was the process completed?
Dr. Reichert:
It was unanimously declared settled.
Rapporteur:
Has the first-instance judgment become legally binding?
Dr. Reichelt:
No, the verdict is ineffective.
Rapporteur:
So there is no legally binding ruling that Tipico can rely on?
Prof. Ruttig:
The Wiesbaden Administrative Court criticized the tendering process and the limitation to 20 applicants. Tipico was never granted a license. The Wiesbaden Administrative Court did not overturn the limit regulations. Live and event betting were also not permitted and should not have been offered by Tipico. The Wiesbaden Administrative Court’s ruling is therefore ineffective.
European Commission:
The Wiesbaden Administrative Court ruled that Section 10a of the Interstate Gambling Treaty is incompatible with EU law. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH), however, did not uphold this ruling. According to the case law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the interpretation of German law is reserved to the BGH and not to the representatives of the parties.
Malta:
During the period in question, TIPICO held a Maltese license which is comparable to German regulations with regard to player protection.
Rapporteur:
Is there a deposit limit in Malta as well?
Malta Gaming Authority:
Yes, there are also deposit limits and restrictions on the deposit frequency in Malta.
Rapporteur:
Question regarding INCE: Do you believe that the state’s gambling monopoly has been reinstated following the ruling of the Wiesbaden Administrative Court?
Ruttig:
There was no monopoly in the online sector. Until 2023, there were no state-run online sports betting services. The state only offered land-based sports betting. Therefore, the state did not have an online sports betting monopoly, as there was a comprehensive online sports betting service. Furthermore, it is disputed that there is a betting limit in Malta and that this is monitored by the MGA (Malta Gaming Authority).
Dr. Reichelt:
The monopoly also applied to online sports betting. What Professor Ruttig stated in this regard is simply wrong.
ECJ Lawyer:
“Why is the player making a claim for reimbursement if he has previously participated in Tipico’s gambling offerings for years?”
Prof. Ruttig:
Not only were online sports bets offered, but also a variety of other online gambling games that were not eligible for authorization. Nevertheless, players were given the impression that all offers were legal.
Advocate General:
Were the players misled by the providers regarding the existing permit?
Prof. Ruttig:
Yes.
Advocate General:
Are there any limitation periods for these claims?
Prof. Ruttig:
Yes, a distinction must be made between tort law and unjust enrichment law. The maximum limitation period is ten years.
Advocate General:
Since when has Tipico been active in the German market and when were the first license applications submitted in Germany?
Dr. Reichelt:
The first license applications were submitted in 2006 and 2021. However, TIPICO had been interested in obtaining a license in Germany since 1999. The website consistently referred to its Maltese license. TIPICO has been operating in Germany since at least 2013. In 1999, only land-based services were available. TIPICO has likely been active online in Germany since 2005.
ECJ Lawyer:
Tipico apparently decided to offer its services in Germany even without a license, as the company believed that the additional licensing requirement in Germany was contrary to European law. Did Tipico challenge the legal situation in Germany in court?
Dr. Reichelt:
Yes, Tipico has filed lawsuits. However, all the legal proceedings have been settled because the legal situation changed each time during the proceedings.
ECJ Lawyer:
Following Tipico’s presentation, the German authorities led Tipico to believe that Tipico’s offer was legal. Does Tipico have any evidence to support this?
Dr. Reichelt:
The VGH (Administrative Court of Appeal) had given Tipico the impression that a separate permit was not required.
ECJ Lawyer:
He gives an example:
“If a member state decides to legalize the sale of cocaine, the underlying concession procedure would be contrary to EU law. What would the consequences be for those interested in selling cocaine in other member states? Would all other member states then have to accept cocaine sales in their own countries?”
Malta:
This example is not transferable. In gambling, there are civil claims for damages by the respective player. These claims are problematic. We are not saying that EU law cannot, in principle, be measured against the respective public policy of the member states. It depends on the civil law implications of the restrictions.
ECJ Lawyer:
Question to the Hellenic Republic and Portugal:
Isn’t the civil law consequence of the invalidity of gaming contracts significantly harsher for the provider than a criminal sanction?
Hellenic Republic:
“Criminal and civil sanctions must not be conflated.” Effective player protection is civil law protection. The provider must accept the economic consequences.
Portugal:
The invalidity of the contract is stipulated in the Interstate Gambling Treaty (GlüStV). This arises from the lack of a license. There must be consequences when an online sports betting provider operates without a license. Illegal behavior must also have consequences in the area of online gambling.
advocate General to the European Commission:
“If Tipico had met the requirements for obtaining a license, then the other player protection regulations must also be complied with.” Should this apply to all providers or only to those who have applied for a license? Could any company then offer gambling without a license if it meets the requirements for obtaining one?
European Commission:
“It can only apply to participants who have taken part in the licensing procedure. Furthermore, providers must demonstrate cooperation with the regulatory authorities to ensure player protection.”
ECJ Lawyer:
What would be the consequence if the selection process violates EU law? Would offering online sports betting then be permissible despite the legal prohibition?
European Commission:
“Only the 20 providers that are guaranteed to comply with player protection regulations are allowed to offer online sports betting.”
ECJ Lawyer to Malta:
Should providers from Malta be allowed to operate in other member states without a license, based on the freedom to provide services?
Malta:
Yes, because the Maltese license is based on requirements that are also aligned with EU law. Therefore, the Maltese license also grants the right to offer gambling in other member states.
Associate Judge at the European Court of Justice:
What is the claim based on? Losses or gains? Hasn’t the player also been unjustly enriched?
Prof. Ruttig:
No profits were generated here; the plaintiff only suffered losses.
Associate Judge at the ECJ at TIPICO:
When did Tipico enter the German market? Don’t you have a precise date? Tipico applied for a license in 2012 but did not receive one.
Nevertheless, Tipico offered online sports betting even though it knew it lacked a license. Is Tipico asking the European Court of Justice to overlook the fact that it offered online sports betting without a license, knowing that a license is required in Germany? Isn’t this also a kind of “bet” by Tipico on the positive outcome of its legal proceedings to obtain a license?
Dr. Reichelt:
Tipico’s land-based betting service has been operating since 2004 (Tipico had previously stated 1999). The launch date of its online service in Germany is unknown. Several rulings by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have confirmed that Tipico’s licensing procedures are illegal under EU law. Tipico cannot be expected to wait years for a German license when the awarding process has already been found to be based on unlawful principles. Ultimately, the freedom to provide services must be respected.
Closing remarks:
Prof. Ruttig
Tipico cannot simply take the law into its own hands just because courts have ruled in its favor within a certain timeframe. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has already comprehensively addressed this issue. Civil claims are not comparable to sanctions (INCE ruling). If there were no civil consequences for offering online sports betting without a license, this would be played out at the expense of the affected players, which cannot be the desired outcome. Prior to the 2012 Interstate Gambling Treaty (GlüStV 2012), there was already the 2008 GlüStV, which also permitted online gambling. Tipico was already active in the German market with online gambling before 2012. Similarly, the state only offered online sports betting on the market once it possessed the appropriate license.
Dr. Reichel
The Higher Administrative Court of Hesse has confirmed that Tipico is allowed to operate without a license. There was also a state monopoly, as a Hessian state-owned provider had been granted the corresponding license. However, the European Court of Justice has already ruled that a monopoly is contrary to EU law.
RA Würtenberger:
“The civil courts are also bound by the INCE decision.” No distinction can be made between criminal, administrative, or civil “sanctions.”
Belgium:
TIPICO has decided to operate in the German market without a license. The company has therefore knowingly accepted the risk that contracts concluded during this period would be declared invalid due to the lack of a license.
Greece:
Civil and criminal sanctions must be kept separate. If Tipico believes it has suffered damages due to the German licensing system, Tipico can claim damages in German courts under the principle of state liability.
Malta:
Tipico has held a Maltese license since 2005. Whether its services have been offered in Germany since then cannot be determined. There was no evidence of misleading German players. According to Maltese gambling law, the website must state where the license was issued. Malta also has corresponding player protection regulations in place.
Portugal:
A legal vacuum must not arise if the licensing procedure for online sports betting partially violates EU law. It must also be considered that gambling is a particularly sensitive area with regard to consumer protection.
European Commission:
In Germany, there was a state monopoly for the terrestrial operation of online sports betting.
However, there was no monopoly on online sports betting. The online sports betting service offered by the state-run provider “Oddset” was only launched after it received the necessary license.
Limit provisions: These are directed not only at the authorities, but also explicitly at the providers. The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) already established this in its ruling under paragraph 16. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is bound by this finding, as it concerns the interpretation of national law.
TIPICO was not granted a license not only because of a violation of Union law, but also for other reasons.
The Advocate General announces his final submissions for 11 December 2025.
End of oral proceedings: 12:45 pm.
