Will a Maltese licence stand up in Germany? ECJ weighs in on gambling dispute
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is at the centre of a legal storm that could fundamentally alter the landscape of online gambling across Europe. At the heart of the dispute is whether a Maltese gambling licence was sufficient for operators to serve German players under Germany’s previous, more restrictive online gambling regime.
The answer could unlock or block thousands of player refund claims and force a rethink of how EU member states regulate gambling.
The ECJ case: Malta, Germany and the question of licenses
On 9 April, the ECJ in Luxembourg heard , the first in a series of high-stakes legal battles over player refunds and the cross-border provision of gambling services.
The case centres on Lottoland, a Malta-licensed operator, and whether it was lawful for such companies to offer online gambling to German residents before Germany’s new interstate treaty took effect in 2021.
The dispute arose after a German player sued Lottoland to recover gambling losses, arguing that the operator lacked a German licence at the time. The claim was later purchased and expanded by lawyer Volker Ramge to represent a broader group of German consumers, and the case was refiled in Malta’s courts.
Both sides ultimately agreed to seek clarity from the ECJ on whether Germany’s previous licensing regime was compatible with EU law, particularly the principles of free movement of services under the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Bill 55 and the wider impact on European gambling
A key subplot in the case is Malta’s controversial Bill 55, which blocks enforcement of foreign court rulings, such as player refund judgments, against gambling companies licensed in Malta.
The European Commission’s representative told the ECJ that Bill 55 “could potentially be incompatible with EU law and that it may need to be formally examined before judges make a final ruling.”
Maltese lawyers, however, argue the law is irrelevant to this case and should be ignored. Legal experts are watching closely. “At the moment, the situation remains very much open,” said Jan Feuerhake, a partner at Taylor Wessing in Hamburg. “In the oral hearing, the Court did not give a hint in which direction it would decide.”
Alicia Pointner of Melchers agreed, noting, “It is difficult to assess how the court will rule. The questions, including those posed by the Advocate General, made it clear that the decision may be limited to the specific circumstances of the individual case. Whether this will actually be the case remains to be seen.”
Yet the potential consequences are enormous. “The ruling could have far-reaching implications for how EU member states balance national regulatory sovereignty with compliance with EU law. It could set a precedent for other sectors where national rules conflict with EU principles and require a reassessment of regulatory approaches in various industries,” Pointner warned.
What’s next for player refunds and European regulation?
While the legal uncertainty continues, litigation financiers pressing player refund claims in Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands are undeterred. They are, however, cautious about expanding into other countries until the ECJ provides clarity.
If the court rules that Germany’s old regime was unlawful, it could trigger a wave of new lawsuits and force a reckoning for both national regulators and Malta’s iGaming industry.
Feuerhake noted that the ECJ Advocate General’s opinion, due on 10 July, will be a key moment: “The Advocate General is due to issue an opinion on C-440/23 on July 10, which is usually followed by a statement from the ECJ, signalling potential outcomes for the judgement.” A final ruling is expected later this year.
As the European gambling industry awaits the outcome, the case is shaping up to be a landmark in the ongoing tug-of-war between national sovereignty and the EU’s single market freedoms. As one observer put it, “This fight is far from over.”
