ECJ opinion in Tipico case supports member states’ local licensing requirements

(AsiaGameHub) –   An Advocate General (AG) at the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has concluded that national gambling licensing mandates within EU member states must be respected, provided they align with EU free movement regulations.

AG Emiliou issued this opinion concerning a player-losses lawsuit filed against German operator Tipico at the ECJ in 2024. Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) referred the case to the ECJ in July 2024.

Interpreting the EU’s frequently debated Article 56 of the TFEU framework, the AG stated: “If a member state mandates a license for specific services within its borders, and this requirement itself complies with Article 56 TFEU, then national authorities, including judicial bodies, are permitted to enforce this requirement against an operator that has offered services without the necessary license.”

A central issue in the case was whether Germany’s regulatory structure at the time violated EU freedom of movement provisions.

The AG’s opinion indicated that EU member states are responsible for establishing their own regulations concerning games of chance. He attributed this to “considerable moral, religious, and cultural disparities among member states” regarding gambling.

“National authorities retain the right, within their national territory, to implement regulatory measures they deem suitable for safeguarding consumers against these risks, provided the principle of proportionality is upheld,” the AG declared in their opinion on Thursday.

What is the background of the case?

This case is among several prominent player loss disputes currently before the ECJ. A player initiated legal action against the operator in German courts, seeking to recover losses sustained prior to the implementation of Germany’s State Treaty on Gambling.

The plaintiff contended that the agreement between the player and the operator should have been deemed invalid because the operator lacked a local gambling license in Germany at that period. Conversely, Tipico asserted that the German framework was unjust and opaque. Tipico had also attempted to secure a German license during the period in question.

The ECJ’s opinion deferred several issues for the referring court to resolve. This case, along with others, was escalated to the EU level to ascertain whether operators providing gambling services without a local license were in breach of European law.

Many uncertainties persist regarding the future of comparable player loss cases throughout Europe. Some anticipated a more conclusive ruling from the AG, hoping it would help curb the increasing prevalence of such cases in markets including Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands.