BVerwG NRW sports betting monopoly 2013: Allegations, Court Orders and Status

What this case is about

BVerwG 8 C 10.12 is a judgment of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court), 8th Senate, delivered on 20 June 2013 together with the companion cases 8 C 12.12 and 8 C 17.12. The court held the sports betting monopoly of North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) incompatible with EU law.

Private sports betting intermediaries had been prohibited from brokering bets to a private operator. They challenged those prohibitions under Articles 49 and 56 TFEU and under section 9 GlüStV 2008. The case belongs to the Licensing and Administrative Court Cases group, where operators challenge regulators and states.

Who is covered

The ruling concerned private sports betting intermediaries and the Land Nordrhein-Westfalen, whose local authorities issued the prohibitions. The companion cases involved the municipalities of Moenchengladbach, Muelheim an der Ruhr and Bochum.

It applies to the period in which the state monopoly under the Lotteriestaatsvertrag and the GlüStV 2008 was in force, until 30 November 2012. It is not a player case, and no group of players is covered. The German picture is in Gambling Lawsuits in Germany.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case. It was an administrative law dispute over prohibition orders, and the court held those orders unlawful for the period. It created no fund, damages award or claim process.

Filing a settlement claim is free wherever one exists, but none exists here.

What the court decided

On 20 June 2013 the Federal Administrative Court ruled that the NRW sports betting monopoly breached EU freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services. The reason: addiction prevention was not pursued consistently, so the monopoly could not be justified.

The prohibition orders against private intermediaries, which relied on the monopoly, were therefore unlawful for that period. In the lead case, the prohibition of 18 April 2006 was held unlawful. The lower courts had been the Verwaltungsgericht Duesseldorf (judgment of 6 November 2007) and the Oberverwaltungsgericht Muenster.

The status in our record is judgment, dated 20 June 2013. The court's press release 38/2013 sets out the holding and the companion cases. See Gambling Lawsuits in Germany for later German cases.

Why it matters

The judgment is a precedent: a state monopoly must pursue addiction prevention consistently, or it cannot justify limiting EU freedoms. Prohibition orders built on an inconsistent monopoly fall with it.

It sits in a line that includes the 2006 Federal Constitutional Court decision on the Bavarian monopoly and a 2016 EU court ruling in Ince. The wider pattern of operators against states is tracked in Licensing and Administrative Court Cases.

Questions people ask

Which monopoly did the court review?

The sports betting monopoly of North Rhine-Westphalia under the Lotteriestaatsvertrag and the GlüStV 2008, which was in force until 30 November 2012.

Does this ruling let players recover losses?

No. The court reviewed prohibition orders against private intermediaries. The record shows no player refund claim in this case, and no money was awarded.

Related cases

• BVerfG, Urteil vom 28.03.2006, 1 BvR 1054/01: the Bavarian sports betting monopoly decision, with a status of judgment.
• EuGH, Urteil vom 04.02.2016, C-336/14 (Sebat Ince): the EU court judgment in Ince, with a status of judgment.