New report examines scale of offshore gambling sector in India

At issue is the legality of Germany’s former ban on online casino gambling, under the German Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2012 (GlüStV 2012).

Although the 2012 regime has since been replaced by a treaty that licenses and regulates most forms of online casino gaming, a finding that the earlier ban breached EU law could derail many ongoing player claims, legal experts say.

Case C-440/23 could therefore have wide-ranging consequences for both the online gambling industry and thousands of pending reimbursement claims from players.

This marks the first time the ECJ has held an oral hearing on the GlüStV, a moment described as being met with “great excitement,” lawyer István Cocron wrote in a LinkedIn post.

The legal backstory

The case originated when a German player sued Malta-based secondary lottery operator Lottoland, to recover gambling losses in Germany.

The player’s claims were later acquired by a German lawyer, who then pursued the matter in court in Malta, where Lottoland was licensed.

NEXT.iounderstands some legal experts believe this may have been a strategic move to bypass enforcement restrictions under Malta’s Bill 55.

That legislation stipulates that Maltese courts will not enforce foreign judgments against companies holding a Maltese gambling licence and operating in compliance with local laws.

Bill 55 does not extend this protection to judgments issued by Maltese courts themselves.

In October 2023, the Maltese court then referred a series of legal questions to the ECJ.

At the core of the case is whether Germany’s previous blanket ban on online casino games violated Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which guarantees the free movement of services across member states.

The outcome of this case — alongside two other referrals to the ECJ — could reshape the legal framework for gambling contracts and cross-border enforcement within the EU.

Cocron reported that during a three-hour hearing in Luxembourg, the court heard arguments from multiple stakeholders, including the plaintiff, representatives of the German federal government, the governments of Malta and Belgium, the European Commission, and legal counsel for the defendant gambling operator Lottoland.

The key question

A key point of debate was whether Maltese courts are competent to evaluate the compatibility of German law with EU law, despite Germany not being a direct party to the case.

“The Commission repeatedly emphasised that such cases must be handled with the utmost care,” Cocron reported.

When questioned about why he had purchased a single player’s claims and filed the case in Malta, the plaintiff cited reasons of consumer protection.

However, under further scrutiny, he admitted to representing fewer than 10 consumers in total — a detail that raised eyebrows and could influence how the court views the legitimacy of the litigation model.

No clear outcome emerged from the hearing, and observers say the ECJ’s eventual ruling remains unpredictable.

The Advocate General is expected to issue a non-binding opinion in July.

Case C-440/23 could have major implications for the European gambling market.

Should the ECJ find that Germany’s former online gambling ban violated EU law, thousands of reimbursement claims pending in German courts may be dismissed.