European Court of Justice to make a decision on refunding losses experienced by sports betting clients.
A number of instances regarding the repayment of gambling losses by sports betting services abruptly had their court hearings in the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) called off, yet the BGH released a provisional decision which could potentially spark legal ambiguity, warned a Munich attorney. Aligning with the Erfurt Regional Court's stance, this lawyer urged all cases to be concluded in the ultimate instance by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
Critique of the BGH's reference decision
In a 25-page recommendation, the BGH tackled the Betano affair and provided limited hope for a favorable verdict for the sports betting service providors.
This specific viewpoint was strongly rebutted by a Munich attorney from Hambach & Hambach, as well as the Erfurt Regional Court.
Christian Reidel, partner at Hambach & Hambach and a former civil judge, held specific reasons behind why the cases shouldn't be decided by the BGH:
The Erfurt Regional Court rightfully criticized how German courts have handled player lawsuits. This was because the courts have thus far exerted strenuous efforts to explain their lack of necessity to refer cases to the ECJ instead of providing clear understanding of how European law is applied. - Christian Reidel, Partner at Hambach & Hambach, Source: ISA Guide
The BGH's decision and the ECJ's decision are as of now entirely uncertain, as the lower courts' judgments have varied.
No ruling from the BGH yet
Throughout this year, two cases were planned to be tried in the BGH but had their hearings canceled abruptly. However, the initial scenarios in these cases differed.
The Austrian sports betting provider Betano lost to a player in the first instance and had their BGH hearing annulled. Because of this, the earlier ruling from the Dresden Higher Regional Court remained in effect, which ordered Betano to refund the player €12,000.
On the other hand, the firm Gamesright sued the sports betting provider Tipico for €3,719.26 in reimbursements plus interest for a customer.
However, the plaintiff in this scenario was initially defeated and will appeal to the BGH. The first schedule was canceled, but after out-of-court discussions fell through, the BGH has fixed the 27th of June, 2024 as the new date.
The BGH and ECJ's decisions have significant implications
Both parties have until mid-June to voice their concerns. It remains to be seen whether the cases will be decided by the BGH or sent directly or subsequently to the ECJ.
Either way, a verdict would likely establish a precedent for one of the parties, potentially leading to a flood of lawsuits against sports betting providers or the end of such efforts.
Read also:
- Remaining contenders down to two in DFB's struggle versus Brazil.
- Schalke's Transfer Assessment: A Season of Wastefulness
- Shocking development in the NBA!
- Law enforcement agencies in various metropolises plan expansive measures for May 1.
Source: www.onlinecasinosdeutschland.com
