The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has moved a step closer to a definitive ruling on the cross-border enforcement of gambling laws, a decision that could trigger a wave of player restitution claims across the continent.
In a newly released determination, Advocate General (AG) Nicholas Emiliou of Cyprus provided a legal opinion that significantly strengthens the position of consumers seeking to recover losses from operators that lacked a specific national license at the time of play.
According to the AG’s findings:
“A sports betting operator which offers services on a national market without possessing the required licence may be obliged to refund the stakes collected from players.”
The German Dispute: Tipico vs. Regulatory Flux
The opinion stems from a long-standing legal battle in Germany involving Tipico, which provided online gambling services to German residents between 2013 and 2020. During this period, the German gambling market was in a state of “regulatory flux,” as the Bundestag struggled to finalize the terms of the Fourth Interstate Treaty on Gambling (GlüNeuRStv). Tipico argued that while it held a license from the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA), the deficiencies in the German licensing procedure at the time made it impossible to obtain a local permit.
AG Emiliou addressed this defense directly, noting that from the perspective of German law:
“The claims brought by the consumer in question against Tipico appear, in principle, to be well founded. However, in its defence, Tipico contends that it was unable to obtain a German licence owing to certain deficiencies in the licensing procedure.”
Ultimately, the AG concluded that the absence of a German license rendered the contract between the operator and the consumer “null and void.”
Member State Sovereignty and the Rejection of “Passporting”
This Court of Justice of the European Union CJEU case places renewed scrutiny on Malta’s controversial Bill 55 (Article 56A), a domestic law intended to shield MGA-licensed operators from foreign civil judgments. While some operators have looked to this bill for protection, Tipico CEO Axel Hefer previously told Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ):
“We are a Maltese-German company with 1,500 employees at several major locations in Germany. It’s clear to us that we don’t hide behind Maltese law. We have never invoked ‘Bill 55.’”
The German regulator, the GGL, has been vocal in its opposition to such shielding, stating:
“We are of the opinion that this law should not be compatible with European requirements for the recognition of decisions… However, the final assessment of this question is not the responsibility of the GGL.”
This determination follows the Wunner case (Austria v. Malta), which reaffirmed that a gambling license issued in one Member State does not grant “automatic access” or “EU passporting” to another. Each state retains the right to enforce its own “tort laws” and set specific conditions for market entry, provided they remain proportionate and transparent.
