- Status
- Judgment entered (judgment)
- As of
- 12 May 2010 · read from the court record
- Court
- Conseil constitutionnel · Supreme or high court
- Docket
- 2010-605 DC
- Filed
- 13 Apr 2010
- Type
- Constitutional challenge, licensing and administrative court cases
- Money
- No settlement fund or award on record
- Payout
- No payout exists as of 14 Nov 2026
Status words follow the court record: a complaint states one side's allegations, only the court's orders decide anything. Filing a settlement claim is always free.
What this case is about
Sixty deputies challenged the law that opened French online sports betting, horse betting and poker to licensed competition and created ARJEL. The Conseil constitutionnel held the law conforms to the Constitution: it has no power to review compatibility with EU law (that is for ordinary courts), and the levies of 5.7% on bets and 1.8% on online circle games create no 'rupture caractérisée' of equality before public burdens. The decision is the constitutional foundation of the French licensing model.
What this case is about
Décision n° 2010-605 DC is a ruling of France's Conseil constitutionnel, dated 12 May 2010, on the law that opened online sports betting, horse betting and poker to licensed competition and created the regulator ARJEL (Loi n° 2010-476 of 12 May 2010). It is one of the licensing and administrative court cases on this site.
Sixty deputies of the socialist group referred the law to the Conseil on 13 April 2010 under art. 61, para. 2 of the Constitution. They challenged articles 1, 26, 47 and 48, relying on art. 88-1 of the Constitution (EU law) and on art. 13 of the 1789 Declaration (equality before public burdens).
Who is covered
The ruling concerns the law itself, not a player or an operator. It fixed the constitutional basis for the French licensing model, which affects licensed operators and the state levies they pay.
Other French matters are in the page on gambling lawsuits in France.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case. It is a constitutional review of a statute, so there is no fund, no damages and no claim process.
What the court decided
The Conseil held that articles 1, 26, 47 and 48 conform to the Constitution. It decided the EU-law plea (art. 88-1) was not a constitutional grievance: it does not review whether a law is compatible with EU law, which is for the ordinary courts (consideration 16).
On the levies, the Conseil examined the 5.7% levy on bets and the 1.8% levy on online circle games in art. 302 bis ZK of the Code général des impôts. It found no "rupture caractérisée" of equality before public burdens.
The date of the decision, 12 May 2010, is the same as the law's date. As of 14 November 2026 the status is judgment, and nothing further is open in the record.
Why it matters
The decision is the constitutional foundation of the French licensing model. It also states a limit: a challenge before the Conseil cannot be used to test a law against EU law, because that review is for the ordinary courts.
A Court of Justice case from the same period, Zeturf v Premier ministre, is listed below.
Questions people ask
Did the Conseil constitutionnel approve the 2010 online gambling law?
Yes. On 12 May 2010 it held articles 1, 26, 47 and 48 conform to the Constitution after a referral by 60 deputies.
Can the Conseil constitutionnel check EU law compatibility?
No. The Conseil held that reviewing a law's compatibility with EU law is not its task (consideration 16). That belongs to ordinary courts.
Which levies did the decision cover?
The 5.7% levy on bets and the 1.8% levy on online circle games, both in art. 302 bis ZK CGI. The Conseil found no "rupture caractérisée" of equality before public burdens.
Related cases
- Société Plombinoise de Casino, QPC 2010-53: a decision on levies on gaming proceeds, status judgment.
- Zeturf Ltd v Premier ministre, C-212/08: a Court of Justice case, status judgment.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: 60 députés (groupe socialiste), référence art. 61 al. 2 Constitution
| Defendants | Loi n° 2010-476 du 12 mai 2010 (Government of France) |
|---|---|
| Claims |
|
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case as of 14 Nov 2026.
What happens next
No future date is on the record we hold. The case is closed on the record we hold; later appeals or enforcement steps would be added here.
Timeline
2 dated steps on record, oldest first. Future dates come from court notices and can move.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 13 Apr 2010 | Filed |
| 12 May 2010 | Judgment entered |
Documents and sources
1 primary source (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 0 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Docket: conseil-constitutionnel.fr
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| decision of 12 May 2010, articles 1, 26, 47, 48 conform; EU-law plea not a constitutional grievance; Décision 2010-605 DC du 12 mai 2010, saisine par 60 députés on 13 April 2010; articles 1er, 26, 47, 48 'conformes à la Constitution'; levies 5.7% (bets) and 1.8% (online cercle games) in art. 302 bis ZK CGI; Conseil does not review compatibility with EU law (cons. 16) | conseil-constitutionnel.fr | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
2 cases in the record share parties, claims or a settlement with this one.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Plombinoise de Casino QPC on casino levies | Conseil constitutionnel (QPC referred by Conseil d'État 16 July 2010) | Judgment entered |
| CJEU Zeturf: France's PMU horse-betting monopoly can be justified if coherent | Court of Justice of the European Union (Eighth Chamber), reference from the Conseil d'État, France | Judgment entered |
Last checked against the sources on 14 Nov 2026. Found an error? Tell us and we correct the record with a dated note.