Malta and Germany clash over gambling
•
14 Apr 2025 •
Reading time: 4 minutes The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is examining a case between a German player and Lottoland, an online gaming operator based in Malta, concerning the reimbursement of gambling losses incurred on a platform that was unauthorised in Germany at the time of the events. This case raises tensions between the freedom to provide services in the EU and national gambling regulations. While Germany is invoking the illegality of services provided without a local licence, Malta is defending the legitimacy of its operators and warning against undermining the internal market.
A high-stakes legal dispute is being played out before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), pitting German players against Malta-based online gambling operators. At issue is the reimbursement of losses incurred on platforms such as Lottoland, which were operating without a German licence at the time. At first glance, the case may appear to be a simple dispute between a player and an operator, but it could well reshape the regulation of online gambling in Europe.
An individual case with continental implications
It all began with a German player, defended by lawyer Volker Ramge, seeking to recover the money he had lost on the Lottoland site. Although this company was legally authorised to operate out of Malta, it did not have a licence issued by the German authorities – a requirement that is essential under the German Gaming Treaty (GlüStV). Until 2021, this treaty bans most online casino games and secondary lotteries throughout the country, with the exception of the Land of Schleswig-Holstein. The player therefore believes that Lottoland was operating illegally on German territory, which, in his view, would justify full reimbursement of his losses.
A debate on the legal competence of Member States
But beyond the substance of the dispute, a major procedural issue has complicated the case: do the Maltese courts have the right to assess the compatibility of German legislation with EU law, without Germany itself being involved in the proceedings? Berlin firmly rejects this idea, deeming it unacceptable to be excluded from a legal debate involving its own legal system. The European Commission, on the other hand, takes a different view: in accordance with the Rome I Regulation, the courts of one Member State are perfectly entitled to interpret the law of another in a cross-border context. The ball is now in the court of the CJEU, which will have to decide whether the German refund mechanism is compatible with Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which guarantees the free movement of services.
Maltese operators go to the front
For the operators’ lawyers, the proceedings brought by the German players have less to do with justice than with financial strategy. Jan Karpenstein, who is defending several Maltese gaming companies, accuses certain specialist firms and litigation funds of taking advantage of the situation. He points out that, until 2021, it was in practice impossible for an online operator to obtain a German licence – except in Schleswig-Holstein. Furthermore, secondary lotteries had been widely tolerated for years, without any specific rule requiring losses to be reimbursed. For Karpenstein, the current demands address a grey area in the law, but cannot call into question the legitimacy of Maltese operators.
Malta and Belgium: two divergent approaches
The Maltese government is making no secret of its concerns. It sees this case as a direct threat to the stability of the European internal market and to national gambling regulation. Malta is defending the solidity of its regulatory system, which it considers compliant with European requirements. It is also critical of Germany’s attitude, which is accused of profiting from the tax revenues generated by gambling while allowing massive legal action against foreign companies.
Belgium, for its part, tends to side with Germany on certain points, particularly with regard to secondary lotteries. The country considers that these games are particularly risky and warrant tighter restrictions. This position could have an impact on the CJEU’s assessment of the compatibility of national legislation with EU law.
Commission monitors Maltese protection laws
The debate is further complicated by another sensitive element: Maltese law no. 55, adopted in 2023 and designed to protect domestic operators against the enforcement of foreign gambling-related judgments. Although this law is not directly the subject of this case, the European Commission has already expressed its reservations, highlighting the risk of incompatibility with the fundamental principles of the Union. For Brussels, consumer protection remains the priority, and it is up to national courts to interpret foreign law where necessary.