ECJ Assesses Legality of German Refund Claims Against Maltese Gambling Operators

Legal Battle Over Loss Reclaims

The case was brought forward by German lawyer Volker Ramge, who is representing a player seeking reimbursement of gambling losses incurred on platforms operated by Maltese-licensed provider Lottoland. The core legal question: can players reclaim losses if the provider lacked a German license, even though it held a Maltese one?​

According to German gambling law, specifically § 4(4) of the Interstate Treaty on Gambling (GlüStV), online casino games and secondary lotteries were banned in most of the country until mid-2021. The plaintiff argues that offering such games without a German permit renders the operation illegal, and thus the losses should be reimbursed. Citing settled German case law, Ramge emphasizes that a lack of local authorization cannot be offset by regulatory approval from another EU state.​

Operators’ Defense Highlights Regulatory Gaps

Representing the gambling providers, attorney Jan Karpenstein rejected the premise that consumer protection justifies the reclaims. He characterized the lawsuits as being driven by litigation funders rather than genuine player concerns. Furthermore, he pointed out that during the period in question, obtaining a German license was simply not possible—except in Schleswig-Holstein. As such, he argued, the providers should not be penalized for operating without one.​

Karpenstein also noted that secondary lotteries had been tacitly tolerated for years, and there is no specific provision in German law that mandates reimbursement of gambling losses. He warned that allowing such claims could undermine legal certainty across the EU’s digital services market.​

Malta and Belgium Present Diverging Views

The Maltese government took a firm stance in court, objecting to what it sees as unlawful interference by one EU member state in the regulatory autonomy of another. According to Malta, its gambling system is subject to strict oversight, with thousands of players—many of them German—submitting self-exclusion requests annually. Branding Maltese operators as “illegal” simply due to licensing origin, they argued, threatens both the internal market and well-established consumer safeguards.​

Malta also criticized the apparent contradiction in Germany’s approach: benefiting from gambling tax revenues while permitting retroactive civil claims against the operators that generated them.​

Belgium sided with Germany in one aspect of the case, voicing particular concern over secondary lotteries. These types of bets—where players wager on the outcomes of official lotteries without participating in the actual draws—were described as high-risk and structurally parasitic. Belgian representatives underscored that such offerings lack both public oversight and guaranteed payout mechanisms, justifying stricter national restrictions in the name of public interest.​

Commission Emphasizes Consumer Protection

The European Commission expressed skepticism about Malta’s so-called “Bill55,” a rule meant to shield local gambling firms from foreign enforcement. While Bill55 is not directly applied in this case, the Commission hinted that it may be incompatible with EU law.​

The Commission further reinforced the importance of player protection across the Union, emphasizing that in some cases, consumers may need protection even from their own decisions. It defended the right of national courts to interpret and apply foreign law within the framework of EU principles.​

Jurisdictional Questions

A key procedural issue during the hearing was whether Maltese courts are competent to assess the compatibility of German gambling law with EU regulations without German authorities being involved in the process. Germany objected to being excluded from a case that directly questions its legal framework, while the Commission referred to the structure of the Rome I Regulation, which allows such cross-border legal assessments under EU law.​

The case now hinges on whether the ECJ will consider the German reclaim mechanism compatible with Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which guarantees the free movement of services.​

The Advocate General’s opinion is expected on July 10, 2025.

Source: Anwalt.de