EU law does not preclude a Member State from prohibiting certain online services authorised in other Member States and from drawing civil law consequences from that prohibition, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on Thursday 16 April in Case C-440/23 concerning European Lotto and Betting Ltd and Deutsche Lotto-und Sportwetten Ltd.
The Court went on to say that “a consumer may claim the return of stakes lost from operators established in another Member State, where the games in question were prohibited in his State of residence”.
Two companies based in Malta offer virtual slot machine games and bets on the results of lottery draws via the Internet. In particular, the games were available in Germany. Between June 2019 and July 2021, a player residing in Germany played and lost bets.
At the time, German law prohibited virtual slot machine games and betting on the results of lottery draws. The unsuccessful player then sued for the recovery of the lost sums before a Maltese court.
That court asked the Court of Justice, inter alia, whether the freedom to provide services precludes national regulations such as those implemented in Germany where the operator holds a licence in another Member State. It also sought clarification regarding the effects of a subsequent reform of German law, which replaced the general prohibition with a system of prior authorisation, and the possibility of recognising the nullity of the contract and ordering the recovery of stakes lost.
The Court ruled that EU law does not preclude such national legislation, enacted with the aim of channelling gambling activity into controlled channels and combating parallel markets. Nor does it preclude recognition of the legal consequences of such a ban, notwithstanding the subsequent introduction of an authorisation regime, or a civil action for restitution of lost stakes. Online games of chance constitute services within the meaning of the EU Treaties, the free provision of which may be restricted on compelling grounds of general interest.
Legislation aimed at channelling the instinct to gamble into supervised channels and combating parallel markets pursues legitimate objectives.
Link to the judgment: https://aeur.eu/f/lkq (Original version in French by Solenn Paulic)