Luxembourg, Munich, April 9, 2025<\/p>\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n
Ramge cites established case law from the Federal Court of Justice (BGH): The decisive factor is whether the provider possessed a German license \u2013 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 (Gl\u00fcStV) 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 \u2013 and that the mere attempt to obtain a license is irrelevant. Without a German license, the service is illegal in Germany \u2013 with the consequence that losses are recoverable.<\/p>\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n Refund claims undermine the internal market and jeopardize player protection 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.<\/em> ” 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.<\/p>\n\n The Advocate General’s final submissions are expected on 10 July 2025. Further Information Regarding This Case: Cocron Gmbh & Co. KG Law Firm, Attorney Istv\u00e1n Cocron, BA, Max-Weber-Platz 10, 81675 Munich, Www.ra-cocron.de<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"template":"","news-kategorie":[45],"class_list":["post-3717","news","type-news","status-publish","hentry","news-kategorie-online-gambling"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news\/3717","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/news"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3717"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"news-kategorie","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news-kategorie?post=3717"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Malta:<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n
Belgium: Secondary lotteries are considered particularly risky \u201cparasitic\u201d bets<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n
European Commission<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n