Tipico ECJ opinion supports member states’ local licensing requirements

Questions remain as to how the broader player-losses trend will progress, but in this case, the ECJ appears to side with local licensing regimes.

An advocate general (AG) for the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has determined that local gambling licensing requirements across EU member states should be adhered to, as long as they are compliant with EU rules for free movement.

The opinion was made by AG Emiliou about a player-losses case brought to the ECJ in 2024 against German operator Tipico. The case was progressed to the ECJ from Germany’s Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) in July 2024.  

In his interpretation of the EU’s hotly contested Article 56 of the TFEU framework, the AG said: “Where a member state requires a licence for the provision of certain services on its territory, and that requirement is, in itself, compatible with Article 56 TFEU, the national authorities, including the courts, are entitled to enforce that requirement against an operator which has provided services without the required licence.” 

One of the core questions raised in the case was whether Germany’s regulatory framework at the time was in breach of EU freedom of movement rules.  

In his opinion, the AG said it was down to EU member states to determine their own regulations around games of chance. This, he said, was due to “significant moral, religious and cultural differences between the member states” with regards to gambling.  

“The national authorities remain entitled, as regards their national territory, to adopt the regulatory arrangements which they consider appropriate to protect consumers against those risks, provided that the principle of proportionality is respected,” the AG said in their opinion on Thursday.  

What’s the case’s background? 

The case is one of a number of high-profile player losses cases circulating in the ECJ. A player brought litigation against the operator in German courts to try and retrieve losses incurred before Germany’s State Treaty on Gambling came into effect.   

It argued the contract between the player and the operator should have been considered void, as the operator did not have a local gambling licence in Germany at the time. However, Tipico argued the German framework was unfair and lacked transparency. It had also sought to obtain a German licence during the contested period.  

The ECJ opinion left various questions up to the referring court to determine. The reason this case, among others, was progressed to an EU level was to determine whether operators, who did not hold a local licence while providing gambling services, were in violation of European law.  

Lots of questions around the future of similar player losses cases across Europe remain unanswered. Some expected a more definitive ruling from the AG, to help end the growing trend of these cases in markets like Germany, Austria and the Netherlands.

https://igamingbusiness.com/legal-compliance/tipico-ecj-local-gambling-licensing/