Another German court suspends player cases, seeks ECJ ruling on online gambling

A German court has suspended two cases on pre-regulation player losses and has formally requested the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to clarify key legal questions surrounding online gambling regulations.

The Erfurt Regional Court’s move follows a similar referral made last year by Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in a dispute between a sports bettor and Malta-based operator Tipico.

The Erfurt Regional Court officially referred cases LG Erfurt 8 O 391/23 and 8 O 515/24 to the ECJ in December, one concerning online gambling and the other sports betting.

According to lawyer Stefan C. Grunow, who analysed the referral on the legal platform Anwalt.de, the Erfurt court’s submission goes beyond the BGH’s initial referral by presenting more detailed and wide-ranging legal questions.

While the BGH posed only two broad questions, the Erfurt court formulated four key issues, which were further divided into specific sub-points.

Inconsistent application

At the heart of the Erfurt court’s referral are concerns about the inconsistent application of Germany’s gambling regulations at the time.

The court seeks clarification on why some forms of online gambling, such as lotteries and horse betting, were permitted while online casino games were prohibited.

It also raises concerns about whether the authorities’ apparent tolerance of online gambling, despite the formal ban, carries legal implications.

Further, the court questions why identical slot and poker games were allowed in physical casinos but banned online, and how Schleswig-Holstein was able to issue gambling licenses independently while the rest of Germany adhered to a national ban.

The Erfurt court also challenges whether sufficient evidence was ever presented to justify the claim that online gambling poses greater risks than physical gambling venues and whether the ban effectively reduced black-market gambling.

Additionally, it questions whether German authorities have the right to impose penalties or deny reimbursement claims if the online gambling ban contradicts EU law.

Should the ban be found to violate European regulations, the court inquires whether operators would be exempt from criminal or administrative penalties, and whether civil claims for reimbursement by players would remain valid.

In a related issue, the court also seeks clarification on the justification for imposing deposit restrictions on online gambling when physical casinos and betting outlets either have no such limits or operate under significantly different rules.

Lower courts can seek ECJ guidance  

Grunow explained that German law allows lower courts to independently seek guidance from the ECJ if they identify a potential conflict with EU regulations, even if similar questions are already under review.

The ECJ is now tasked with addressing an array of legal questions submitted by both the BGH and the Erfurt Regional Court.

Although these cases may eventually be heard together, Grunow suggested that a resolution in 2025 is unlikely given the complexity and breadth of the issues involved.

Even if the ECJ sides with players in the initial Tipico case referred by the BGH, “the risk that at least some aspects could be decided in favour of the providers by the ECJ must also be kept in mind.

“It is currently not possible to reliably estimate how this will affect pending legal proceedings,” Grunow stated.

Share