JVH Gaming wins legal dispute: Gambling duty should have been reduced in 2020
•
25 Jul 2025 •
Reading time: 3 minutes JVH Gaming is known in the Netherlands as the parent company of Jack’s, Flamingo Casino, and Flash Casino. The Council of State has now ruled in their favor in their legal dispute with the Kansspelautoriteit.
The Council of State concluded in its ruling that the Ksa unlawfully failed to take into account the periods during which gaming halls were required to close due to COVID-19 measures. The ruling states that the gambling duty should indeed have been reduced in 2020.
Gambling duty must not be based on unused machines
According to the ruling, when imposing this gambing duty, the Kansspelautoriteit was not allowed to simply base its assessment on the number of gaming machines owned when these could not be used during certain periods.
What exactly does this gambling duty entail?
The highest administrative court confirms that the gambling duty is based on the number of slot machines available. In most cases, the Kansspelautoriteit is permitted to apply a standard method, in which a fixed percentage of slot machines is considered “in use.” This method simplifies administration.
What is the Council of State’s current ruling on the coronavirus pandemic?
The Council of State’s conclusion reflects the view that this system should not be applied if it leads to an unreasonable outcome in practice. During the coronavirus pandemic, the mandatory closure meant there was no effective supply, meaning the standard calculation model leads to an unfair outcome.
According to the Council of State, the Kansspelautoriteit should therefore have made an exception to its standard method. The assessment of over 664.000 euros therefore remains reduced to approximately 411.000 euros, following the decision previously made by a lower court.
Ruling of importance to all gaming machine operators
This ruling is important for all gaming machine operators who faced similar levies in 2020 or other coronavirus years. They may also be eligible for a reduction in gambling duty.
The Ksa cannot automatically base its assessment of gambling duty on the number of owned gaming machines, but it must respond more flexibly in exceptional situations, such as a forced closure. In such cases, the question must be asked whether their calculation model is still reasonable.
No appeal possible and also not the first dispute between both parties
The Council of State’s ruling cannot be appealed. Moreover, this isn’t the only instance in which the Kansspelautoriteit and JVH Gaming have clashed.
They met in a case concerning the Dutch Lottery‘s land-based monopoly licenses. JVH Gaming was also victorious in this case. The court ruled that Dutch gambling policy had been incoherent since the introduction of the Remote Gambling Act (Wet Kansspelen op Afstand, KOA).
Therefore, the Kansspelautoriteit was required to reassess Jack’s license application. However, although JVH won this case in February 2024, the Kansspelautoriteit filed an appeal in April 2024.