The European gambling industry has waited for years for that answer, but the ECJ (European Court of Justice) just won't give it. Over the past 12 months, facing a series of rulings and transfers regarding claims for losses by German and Austrian players, the EU's highest court has repeatedly avoided the core issue—should an operator licensed in one member state be liable for the return of losses to players in another member state? According to the PASA official website, the ECJ repeatedly kicks the ball back to the member state courts, resulting in a paradoxical situation: after years of litigation and repeated questions, the industry has more guidance but no more certainty.
ECJ's strategy: Clarify principles only, no unified answer
Many operators initially hoped very directly—that the ECJ could make a definitive decision, providing a unified rule for all of Europe. But the ECJ chose another path: through a series of rulings and opinions of the Advocate General, it only clarifies some legal principles, then explicitly tells the national courts: you interpret your own gambling laws to determine the consequences. Lawyer Hambach directly points out the pain point: "These cases show that a single European market governed by incompatible national rules—some almost prohibitive, some liberalized—is exactly what we should overcome in a unified Europe." Cassar goes further: "These cases prove that the tension between EU law and online gambling regulation is unsustainable in the long term."
Malta's Article 56A: How much longer can it serve as a shield?
Malta's Article 56A is the most controversial variable in this game—the clause aims to prevent operators licensed in Malta from being subject to foreign judgments. However, in the recent ECJ Spielerschutz Sigma case, the opinion of the Advocate General has highlighted the increasingly tense relationship between domestic protection and the European principle of mutual trust. Lawyer Bugeja points out that although Article 56A is still in the Maltese code, its future "ultimately depends on further clarification at the CJEU level or a clear stance by Maltese courts." A more critical trend is: recent ECJ rulings continue to reinforce a principle—player claims should increasingly be assessed according to the player's national law rather than the law of the operator's registration location. Bugeja's judgment hits the nail on the head: "The focus has decisively shifted to the consumer's location, but recognition and enforcement remain a 'Maltese problem'."
Cross-border enforcement: From a dispute over the legality of gambling to a dispute over judicial systems
ECJ's Mr Green procedure reveals a deeper shift—enforcement issues are becoming as important as liability determination. The ECJ clarified the conditions for a European Account Preservation Order: creditors must prove a specific and realistic risk that assets may be hidden or transferred, not just based on Maltese law to freeze accounts in other European countries. Hembury points out that this means disputes are moving beyond the legality of gambling contracts themselves, entering a broader battlefield of asset preservation, judgment enforcement, and cross-border civil procedures. Cassar is more outspoken: "If operators do not have a license in the target jurisdiction, the risk has undoubtedly increased."
EU harmonization: All lawyers agree it's needed but politically unrealistic
An unexpected consensus is: almost all lawyers involved in these cases acknowledge that the current framework creates huge uncertainties. Cassar questions with the success of MiCA (Crypto Asset Market Regulation)—why can't gambling have a similar coordination? He sees the potential for regulatory convergence and even a passporting model. Bugeja reaches a similar conclusion from another angle: the 2017 decision by the European Commission to shelve gambling infringement proceedings, letting national courts resolve disputes themselves, will only exacerbate the tension between the free movement principle and national restrictions. But almost no observers expect sweeping reforms—gambling is too financially significant, politically sensitive, and culturally controversial. National sovereignty continues to outweigh European unity.
The ball is back in the politicians' court, litigation only feeds the black market
The ultimate irony of player loss claims is that: years of litigation have clarified only one thing—Europe's courts cannot fully resolve the fragmentation of European gambling. The ECJ has not endorsed a comprehensive return system, nor has it provided the certainty protection sought by operators, but repeatedly pushes the responsibility back to national courts and legislators. DOCV Vice Chairman Priglinger-Simader's warning is resounding: "Ongoing player loss litigation only helps those who are not interested in licensed products, who will neither compensate any player claims nor protect players, the offshore black market." The European gambling market is increasingly integrated, but the legal framework remains stagnant. The ECJ has clearly stated that it will not fill this gap alone—ultimately, this task may only fall on the shoulders of politicians.
————
This article is from "PASA-Global iGaming Leaders" gambling industry news channel:https://t.me/pasa_news
Original in-depth gambling channel:https://t.me/gamblingdeep
Free data report: @pasa_research
PASA Matrix: @pasa002_bot
PASA official website: https://www.pasa.news
