When Germany’s Interstate Treaty on Gambling (Glücksspielstaatsvertrag) came into force on July 1, 2021, it was presented as a turning point for the regulation of online gambling.

The highest German court, the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH), has suspended legal proceedings against a German sports betting operator for the reimbursement of stakes, in favour of a reference to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

In a landmark judgement, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has strengthened its prior considerations regarding the corporate liability of data controller & processors for data breaches (C-741/21/Juris).

In its latest preliminary ruling on the mandatory collection of fingerprints for passports (C-61/22), the ECJ has decided in favor of the mandatory fingerprint collection, in principle.

In a ground-breaking decision (matter “Ince” – C-336/14 –), the European Court of Justice (“CJEU”) declared that German criminal authorities must not prosecute intermediaries of sports betting services, as the respective stipulations penalising private operators in Germany are incompliant with EU law.

Monopolies and gambling. For some, they are natural partners. For others, the idea that the organization of gambling should be restricted to monopolies, State or oth- erwise, is completely incomprehensible. It is news to no one that the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) has been the battleground for this debate, mainly arising out of preliminary references from national courts...

Not only the Commission, but also the BGH now has its doubts regarding the German gambling system. Does the special act in Schleswig-Holstein on its own render void the inter-state treaty between the other federal states? And what happens now that the new Schleswig-Holstein government has decided to join the inter-state treaty after all?

The Court of Justice of the EU delivered today its ruling in the Stanleybet, William Hill & Sportingbet case (Joined Cases C-186/11, C-209/11), which was referred by the Greek Council of State in the context of legal challenges initiated by the three operators against the Greek Government. In its judgment, which echoes the opinion...

The Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the EU delivered today his opinion in the Stanleybet, William Hill & Sportingbet case (Joined Cases C-186/11, C-209/11), which was referred by the Greek Council of State in the context of legal challenges initiated by the three operators against the Greek Government. The Advocate General found that the gambling legislation in Greece...

A historical legal analysis from 2009 by Dr. Wulf Hambach. The article explores how a European Court of Justice ruling concerning dental practices in Austria (the "Hartlauer" decision) could have far-reaching consequences for the German gambling monopoly due to the court's strict "Consistency Requirement".

After several cases on sports betting the European Court of Justice (ECJ) will, once again, decide on a lotteries case. A Belgian court, Rechtsbank van koophandel Hasselt, referred a case concerning the pan-European lottery Euro Millions to the ECJ (Case C-525/06, Nationale Lotterij). Plaintiff in the Belgian case is NV de Nationale Loterij, the monopoly operator in Belgium. The defendant is BVBA Customer Service Agency, which offers the participation as a group in Euro Millions.

Recently, the Administrative Court of Cologne had referred a first case to the ECJ (decision of 21 September 2006, file-no. 1 K 5910/05). However, this case (C-409/06 – Winner Wetten) only deals with the temporary suspension of the basic freedoms, guaranteed by the EC Treaty, with regard to sports betting (as the Administrative Court of Appeal of North Rhine-Westphalia openly suspended the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment in more than 200 cases concerning betting shops).