The German ban on online gambling pursues public welfare objectives such as the protection of minors and gamblers. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) already clarified in 2010 that national restrictions serving the public interest do not violate European law. The Münster Regional Court has now stated that it sees no indication that the ECJ’s legal opinion has changed. Therefore, by decision of January 16, 2025, it lifted the suspension of proceedings concerning a player’s refund claims. The proceedings can now take place shortly. A further ruling from the ECJ is not required.
According to Section 4 Paragraph 4 of the former Interstate Treaty on Gambling, online gambling was generally prohibited in Germany. This prohibition was only slightly relaxed on July 1, 2021, allowing operators to apply for a license for their gambling services in Germany. Without this license, online gambling remains illegal. ” The consequence of this is that players can reclaim their losses from prohibited gambling from the operators ,” says lawyer István Cocron.
Numerous courts have already upheld this right of players to a refund. Several online gambling providers are now arguing that the German ban violates the European freedom to provide services. To clarify this issue, a Maltese court has referred the matter to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The proceedings are still pending. However, several courts have suspended proceedings concerning players’ refund claims pending a ruling from the ECJ.
The Münster Regional Court has now overturned a decision to suspend proceedings. According to the court, there is “absolutely no reason” to assume that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will declare the German ban under the Interstate Treaty on Gambling incompatible with EU law. The German Higher Regional Courts and the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) had previously unanimously upheld the ban as compliant with EU law. Even though the BGH recently suspended proceedings, this does not mean that it has reached a different legal opinion and considers the German ban a violation of European law, the court further stated.
In the online sports betting case, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) made it clear that it considers contracts without a corresponding license to be invalid. However, the sports betting provider had submitted a license application. Since the licensing procedure did not comply with European law, no permits could be granted. ” The European Court of Justice (ECJ) should therefore clarify whether the ban was permissible even under these circumstances, which the BGH assumes it was ,” said lawyer Cocron.
The ban in the Gambling Treaty serves, among other things, to protect young people and gamblers from ruinous behavior and to prevent fraud. ” The European Court of Justice already ruled in 2010 that national bans can be permissible if they serve objectives of the common good, such as protection against gambling addiction or related crime. It is not to be expected that it will change its jurisprudence ,” says lawyer Cocron.
The Münster Regional Court apparently shares this view. It made clear that , “given the extremely low probability of a contrary decision by the ECJ,” a further suspension of the proceedings was no longer reasonable for the plaintiff.
“ Players still have a good chance of recovering their losses from illegal online gambling and should assert their claims promptly, rather than waiting for a ruling from the European Court of Justice. Especially since their claims may also become time-barred ,” said lawyer Cocron.
