This ruling, issued on 16 April in Case C-440/23, followed from a case related to the losses suffered by a German gambler between June 2019 and July 2021. He was playing at sites operated by the companies European Lotto and Betting and Deutsche Lotto-und Sportwetten, both established in Malta. At the time, German law generally prohibited online games of chance, subject to limited exceptions such as sports betting, horse-race betting, and certain lotteries.
What the Court Decided
According to the Court, Article 56 TFEU does not preclude a Member State from imposing a ban on online casino games and certain forms of betting, such as betting on the results of lottery draws. Such prohibition may pursue several objectives: steering gambling into orderly and supervised channels, counteracting parallel illegal markets, improving consumer protection, and safeguarding social order. The Court also pointed to particular characteristics of online gambling which pose additional risks.
In addition, the Court said that, in the absence of EU-wide harmonisation, a licence issued in another Member State is not enough by itself to displace a national ban.
Why the Restitution Point Matters
While the ruling did not indicate that all gamblers are entitled to reimbursement, it does highlight an important point about the relationship between EU law and the right of consumers to recover their losses when a betting contract has become null and void due to its violation of a particular country’s legislation. The issue of whether the gambler was aware of the illegal offer remains a matter for national law.
The Court also said that Germany’s shift to a licensing system from 1 July 2021 did not, in itself, undermine the consistency or validity of the earlier regime. It added that such a reform may form part of a policy of controlled expansion and does not prevent legal consequences from being attached to the earlier prohibition for the period when it was still in force.
Impact on the Market
The ruling reinforces the position of national regulators who were defending the measures taken earlier against some cross-border online gambling offers. It closes one more defence for operators based on their freedom to provide services. It does not indicate any automatic reimbursement, but claims may proceed in cases where, according to national law, the contract is considered void.
The cross-border license remains relevant. However, it does not outweigh national restrictions within a market that remains unharmonized at the EU level.
