The dispute over compensatory payouts in sports betting, involving Tipico, proceeds to the European Court of Justice – Could the betting service provider celebrate a victory?
Anticipation filled the air as the verdict in the legal tussle between betting platform Tipico and a disgruntled player, who had racked up losses of roughly 3,700 euros, was set to be declared before the Federal Court of Justice (BGH). However, the dramatic climax was delayed once again, with the case being referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
BGH put on hold
This ongoing dispute between Tipico and the player, who had placed bets totaling around 3,700 euros between 2013 and 2018, had never seen the light of a final court room. Instead, each instance had been settled out of court beforehand.
After an unsuccessful trial in Ulm's Regional Court, followed by an unsuccessful appeal and an unsuccessful settlement negotiation, the BGH was set to deliver its verdict on 25.07.2024.
However, the verdict was postponed again, as reported by Der Spiegel. The reason behind this delay was that the BGH felt it lacked the necessary authority to clarify the situation at hand.
BGH passes the buck to ECJ
Before the BGH could deliver a final verdict on the case, some questions regarding union law needed to be addressed by the ECJ, as stated in an official statement from the BGH.
The BGH wanted to seek clarification from the ECJ on the extent of the so-called freedom to provide services within the EU. This involved determining whether EU-based sports betting platforms could offer their services in other EU countries, despite not having a license in the respective countries.
The BGH highlighted that many sports betting platforms had already applied for licenses to operate. Refusals of these licenses were deemed to be in violation of union law.
ECJ ruled in favor of sports betting providers in 2016
The BGH pointed out that the ECJ had already ruled in 2016 that criminal prosecution of non-licensed providers in Germany was illegal if they had applied for a license.
Since this ruling, various gambling platforms had cited the freedom to provide services within the EU, despite lacking a national license. Even in Austria, international gaming platforms seemed to believe in their legal standing, going so far as to pay taxes.
However, in the Tipico case, it wasn't a criminal matter, but a civil lawsuit. The absence of a license could potentially render contractual relationships with players invalid. This is a question that the ECJ will now answer.
Tipico remains optimistic
Ronald Reichert, Tipico's lawyer, expressed optimism, stating that he believed the ECJ would rule similarly to its 2016 decision. Mathias Dahms, President of the German Sports Betting Association (DSWV), also expressed his support for this referral to the ECJ by the BGH*.
Tipico's goal was a clarification before the ECJ, while the other party might have hoped for a definitive judgment by the BGH. The player subsequently assigned his claim to the company Gamesright, which could potentially pursue such claims on a mass scale if the BGH had ruled in their favor.
The future holds uncertainty, with the possibility of a general ruling or the ongoing need for case-by-case assessments in this area.
The delay in the verdict from BGH further sparked interest in the news, as many were eager to know the outcome of the dispute between Tipico and the player.
With the case being referred to the ECJ, the spotlight now shifts to the European Court of Justice, as they are expected to provide clarification on the freedom to provide services within the EU for sports betting platforms.
Read also:
- Leverkusen claims victory in the cup, securing a double triumph.
- Alonso achieves a double victory after consuming a German brew.
- Does the SVolt factory in Saarland face stability issues?
- Furor surrounding Sylt scandal footage