Referral to ECJ: BGH Suspends Further Sports Betting Proceedings

/in , /by
  • ECJ is crucial for assessing the European legal situation
  • Decision also impacts other cases
  • ECJ previously ruled in favor of providers in the “Ince” case
  • Lack of license cannot be held against providers

Tipico welcomes the decision made by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) on July 25, 2024 [in case I ZR 90/23] to refer key questions regarding sports betting offerings before the current German gambling regulation to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

The BGH has followed Tipico’s argument that these cases cannot be resolved without referral to the ECJ. Tipico also welcomes the BGH’s decision to suspend proceedings in another sports betting case (I ZR 12/24) which involve alleged violations of requirements related to online offerings (e.g., the €1,000 limit), until the ECJ reaches a final ruling. The court has now made it clear that the ECJ’s decision could also impact these cases. Tipico expects that requirements concerning online distribution will no longer apply if the ECJ confirms Tipico’s legal standpoint.

Tipico is very confident that the ECJ will once again rule in favor of providers, as it has done multiple times before, most recently in 2016 in the “Ince” case (C-336/14 – Ince). In this case, the ECJ clarified in a criminal proceeding that the absence of a German license, due to the unlawful nature of the licensing process under EU law at the time, cannot be held against providers licensed in the EU. What is not prohibited under EU law in criminal and administrative matters cannot be prohibited in civil matters either, as the unity of legal order also applies under EU law.

Matthias Folkmann, Head of Corporate Communications at Tipico, says: “We welcome the BGH’s decision to align with our legal opinion and to refer the case to the ECJ for clarification. As a company, we have always operated legally, and courts have repeatedly confirmed this over the past two decades. Therefore, we see no reason why the ECJ would not maintain its previous stance and rule in our favor. However, there are law firms that continue to deliberately mislead players and encourage them to file lawsuits or assign claims based on unfounded promises of success.”