- Status
- Judgment entered (judgment)
- As of
- 14 Apr 2023 · read from the court record
- Court
- Conseil d'État, 5e-6e chambres réunies · Supreme or high court
- Docket
- 436434, 436450, 436814, 436822, 436866
- Filed
- Dec 2019
- Type
- Operator v. regulator, 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
In parallel to the BGC case, the European operators' association, Kindred's French entity and Betclic attacked the 2019 ordinance reorganising gambling regulation and the decrees on FDJ's state supervision and on the FDJ/PMU game offer. The Conseil d'État held FDJ's exclusive rights justified by public-health and public-order objectives under close state control, but annulled the ordinance insofar as it failed to apply the second paragraph of art. L. 320-9-1 II CSI to the 5° category of games (an unjustified incoherence contrary to arts. 49 and 56 TFEU); all other claims, including those against the two decrees, were rejected.
What this case is about
This case is a set of appeals decided by the Conseil d'État (5e-6e chambres réunies) under docket numbers 436434, 436450, 436814, 436822 and 436866, filed in December 2019. It is one of the licensing and administrative court cases on the site.
The European Gaming and Betting Association, SPS Betting France Ltd (Kindred/Unibet) and Betclic Enterprises Ltd attacked ordinance n° 2019-1015, which reorganised gambling regulation.
They also attacked the decrees on state supervision of La Française des jeux (FDJ) and on the FDJ and Pari Mutuel Urbain (PMU) game offer. The defendants are the Prime Minister, FDJ and PMU.
Who is covered
The parties are the three challengers (an operators' association and two operators' French entities) and the state, FDJ and PMU. The record lists no class and no player claim.
The claims invoked Articles 49 and 56 TFEU, article L. 320-9-1 of the Code de la sécurité intérieure, abuse of dominance, equality and freedom of enterprise. For other French rulings, see gambling lawsuits in France.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case. The record shows no fund, no damages and no costs: the Conseil d'État ordered no costs. It is a challenge to a government ordinance and decrees, not a claim for money.
Filing a settlement claim is free wherever a claim exists, but none exists here. GamblingLawsuits.org is not a law firm and not a claims administrator.
What the court decided
The Conseil d'État ruled on 14 April 2023. As of 14 November 2026 the case is a decided judgment.
It held FDJ's exclusive rights justified by public-health and public-order objectives under close state control. It annulled ordinance 2019-1015 only insofar as it failed to apply the second paragraph of art. L. 320-9-1 II CSI to the 5° category of games. The Court called this an unjustified incoherence contrary to Arts. 49 and 56 TFEU.
All other claims were rejected, including the claims against the two decrees. Requêtes 436814, 436822 and 436866 were rejected.
Why it matters
The ruling is classed as a precedent. It shows that a court can accept a state monopoly while still striking down a single inconsistent rule in the regime.
It ran in parallel to the Betting and Gaming Council case listed below. For other challenges brought by operators, see operators against regulators and states.
Questions people ask
Did the Conseil d'État cancel the 2019 gambling reform?
No. It annulled the ordinance only in one point: the failure to apply the second paragraph of art. L. 320-9-1 II CSI to the 5° category of games. Everything else survived.
Were FDJ's exclusive rights upheld?
Yes. The Court held them justified by public-health and public-order objectives under close state control.
Who brought the challenge?
The European Gaming and Betting Association, SPS Betting France Ltd (Kindred/Unibet) and Betclic Enterprises Ltd.
Related cases
- The Betting and Gaming Council c/ Premier ministre et La Française des jeux: the parallel challenge to the FDJ privatization decrees, listed as decided.
- Zeturf Ltd v Premier ministre, Case C-212/08: an earlier Court of Justice case on French betting rules, listed as decided.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: European Gaming and Betting Association; SPS Betting France Ltd (Kindred/Unibet); Betclic Enterprises Ltd
| Defendants | Premier ministre; La Française des jeux; Pari Mutuel Urbain |
|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|
| Dec 2019 | Filed |
| 14 Apr 2023 | Judgment entered |
Documents and sources
1 primary source (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 0 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Docket: conseil-etat.fr
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| CE 14 April 2023 n° 436434: partial annulment of ordonnance 2019-1015; requêtes 436814, 436822, 436866 rejetées; CE 14 April 2023, nos 436434, 436450, 436814, 436822, 436866, 5e-6e ch. réunies, ECLI:FR:CECHR:2023:436434.20230414: EGBA (436434), SPS Betting France (436450, 436866), Betclic (436814, 436822); art. 1er: ordonnance 2019-1015 annulée 'en tant qu'elle ne prévoit pas que le deuxième alinéa du II de l'article L. 320-9-1 ... s'applique au 5° du I'; art. 2-3: surplus and requêtes 436814, 436822, 436866 rejetées; no costs | conseil-etat.fr | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
2 cases in the record share parties, claims or a settlement with this one.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| FDJ monopoly and EUR 380m exclusive-rights payment upheld by the Conseil d'État | Conseil d'État, 5e-6e chambres réunies | 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.