Bonn, 25 July 2024. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has referred the question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) as to whether the freedom to provide services of a sports betting provider precludes the reimbursement of losses suffered by players in the context of unauthorized online sports betting.
On 25.07.2024, the First Civil Senate of the Federal Court of Justice ruled in a legal dispute conducted by Redeker Sellner Dahs (case no. I ZR 90/23) on whether an online sports betting operator that did not have the license from the competent German authority required under the State Treaty on Gambling 2012 must reimburse the lost bets of a player. It referred the question to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling as to whether the freedom to provide services guaranteed under Union law for a gambling operator based in another Member State of the European Union precludes such a sports betting contract from being considered null and void if the operator had applied for a license to organize sports betting in Germany and the procedure for granting the license applicable to this application was carried out in breach of Union law.
The competent authorities and administrative courts have repeatedly confirmed the providers' fundamental European freedoms. In a criminal case (C‑336‑14 “Ince”), the ECJ ruled that the lack of a German license – due to the non‑transparent award process – may not be held against providers licensed in the EU. “We are very confident that the ECJ will also confirm this for civil law in terms of the uniformity and reliability of the legal system,” says Dr Ronald Reichert who, together with the litigation team led by Daniel Hürter and Andreas Okonek, is handling several thousand proceedings against the gaming industry.
“Today's decision by the BGH is not only a great success for our client,” commented Andreas Okonek. “After the lower courts had rejected the idea of submitting the legal question to the ECJ, the BGH's decision now gives an industry that has been unjustly criticized the opportunity to successfully end a battle that has been waged for decades under civil law.”
