{"id":3751,"date":"2025-10-18T13:59:07","date_gmt":"2025-10-18T11:59:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/news\/the-german-federal-court-of-justice-bgh-comments-on-the-referral-to-the-european-court-of-justice-ecj-in-the-proceedings-concerning-online-sports-betting\/"},"modified":"2026-02-01T14:37:16","modified_gmt":"2026-02-01T13:37:16","slug":"the-german-federal-court-of-justice-bgh-comments-on-the-referral-to-the-european-court-of-justice-ecj-in-the-proceedings-concerning-online-sports-betting","status":"publish","type":"news","link":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/news\/the-german-federal-court-of-justice-bgh-comments-on-the-referral-to-the-european-court-of-justice-ecj-in-the-proceedings-concerning-online-sports-betting\/","title":{"rendered":"The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) comments on the referral to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the proceedings concerning online sports betting."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) published its opinion on the preliminary ruling request from the European Court of Justice (ECJ, C-530\/24) on July 31, 2025 (Case No. I ZR 90\/23). The focus is on the question of whether players can reclaim their losses from online sports betting \u2013 and whether the former German licensing system was compatible with EU law.<\/p>\n\n

Background of the procedure<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n

A plaintiff is demanding that a betting provider refund \u20ac3,719.26 in lost stakes. His claim is based on both unjust enrichment (\u00a7 812 German Civil Code) and tort law (\u00a7 823 para. 2 German Civil Code). He argues that the betting contracts are void pursuant to \u00a7 134 German Civil Code because they violated the prohibition of illegal internet betting (\u00a7 4 para. 4 Interstate Gambling Treaty 2012).<\/p>\n\n

The concession system and concerns under EU law<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n

The defendant operator participated in the original concession procedure, which was declared unlawful by the Wiesbaden Administrative Court in 2016. The reasons given were a lack of transparency, discriminatory selection criteria, and an incomprehensible limit of 20 licenses. The court also found this to be a violation of the freedom to provide services under Article 56 TFEU. The appeal proceedings before the Higher Administrative Court of Hesse are currently suspended, so no final decision has been reached.<\/p>\n\n

Legal situation since 2020<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n

The Third State Treaty Amending the Interstate Gambling Treaty abolished the limit on concessions. Going forward, any provider that meets the legal requirements should receive a license. On this basis, the defendant received a nationwide license for sports betting and online betting in 2020.<\/p>\n\n

Significance of the Federal Court of Justice’s statement<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n

The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) clarifies that the claim is based not only on unjust enrichment law but also on tort law provisions. Furthermore, the EU law assessment of the former concession system could still be decisive \u2013 even though a license has since been issued. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is to examine whether…<\/p>\n\n

    \n
  • whether contracts from the period before the license was granted were valid,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • whether the then-existing limit of 20 licenses was compatible with EU law<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  • and what consequences this has for possible claims for reimbursement.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n

    outlook<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n

    The ECJ’s ruling in case C-530\/24 is expected to have significant implications for numerous ongoing proceedings in Germany. It concerns both the question of the recoverability of gambling losses and the future design of gambling regulation.<\/p>\n\n

    \ud83d\udc49 The procedure is therefore of great importance \u2013 both for affected players and for providers and consumer protection in the field of online gambling.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) published its opinion on the preliminary ruling request from the European Court of Justice (ECJ, C-530\/24) on July 31, 2025 (Case No. I ZR 90\/23). The focus is on the question of whether players can reclaim their losses from online sports betting \u2013 and whether the former German […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"template":"","news-kategorie":[45],"class_list":["post-3751","news","type-news","status-publish","hentry","news-kategorie-online-gambling"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news\/3751","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=3751"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"news-kategorie","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/news-kategorie?post=3751"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}