- Status
- Dismissed (dismissed)
- As of
- 11 Dec 2024 · read from the court record
- Court
- Raad van State, afdeling bestuursrechtspraak · Appellate court
- Docket
- A. 233013/VII-41033; ECLI:BE:RVSCE:2024:ARR.261.713
- Filed
- 2021
- 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
Competitors argued that the A+ licence granted to Blankenberge Casino-Kursaal for the Unibet casino domain breached the constitutional cumulation ban. The Council of State found only Rocoluc had standing and rejected the plea, since the licence did not authorise cumulation through one domain; costs went to the applicants.
What this case is about
This is a Belgian licensing case before the Raad van State (Council of State), administrative litigation section, docket A. 233013/VII-41033, decided in arrest no. 261.713 on December 11, 2024 (ECLI:BE:RVSCE:2024:ARR.261.713). The application was filed in 2021.
The applicants, nv Rocoluc, nv Fremoluc and F.V., asked the court to annul a decision of the Kansspelcommissie of December 11, 2020.
That decision granted additional licence A+ no. 505296 for the domain www.casino.unibet.be, later www.unibetcasino.be. They argued it was contrary to the Constitutional Court's arrest 108/2018. The case is one of the Licensing and Administrative Court Cases.
Who is covered
The defendants are the Belgian State (the Minister of Justice) and the Kansspelcommissie. The A+ licence belongs to nv Blankenberge Casino-Kursaal, and the competitors who sued argued it breached the constitutional cumulation ban.
Players are not parties. The ruling matters to licence holders and applicants in Belgium. More cases from Belgium are in Gambling Lawsuits in Belgium.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case. The applicants sought annulment of a licence decision, not money, and their application was dismissed. The money block shows no fund or damages, and the only cost order in the record is that costs went to the applicants.
What the court decided
The Council of State found that only Rocoluc had standing to sue. It then rejected the plea on the merits, because the licence did not authorize cumulation through one domain. The application is dismissed, and costs went to the applicants.
As of November 14, 2026 the ruling of December 11, 2024 is the last step in the record, and no open item remains. A complaint states one side's allegations, and here the court did not accept them. The defendants are listed on the company page Belgische Staat (minister van Justitie) Lawsuits.
Why it matters
The ruling applies the cumulation limits that the Constitutional Court set in 2018 to a concrete licence. A license that runs through one domain does not let its holder cumulate licences, according to the Council of State.
Competitors challenging a licence face a standing hurdle too: only one of three applicants was accepted. Related decisions are collected under Licensing and Administrative Court Cases.
Questions people ask
What did the Council of State decide on December 11, 2024?
It dismissed the application. Only Rocoluc had standing, and the plea failed because the A+ licence did not authorize cumulation through one domain.
Which licence was challenged?
Additional licence A+ no. 505296, granted by the Kansspelcommissie on December 11, 2020, for www.casino.unibet.be and later www.unibetcasino.be.
Who paid the costs?
The costs went to the applicants.
Related cases
- nv Rocoluc v Kansspelcommissie: the earlier cumulation of online licences case, with Raad van State rulings of September 13, 2016 and Constitutional Court rulings 129/2017 (November 9, 2017) and 108/2018 (July 19, 2018).
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: nv Rocoluc, nv Fremoluc, F.V.
| Defendants | Belgische Staat (minister van Justitie); Kansspelcommissie |
|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|
| 2021 | Filed |
| 11 Dec 2024 | Dismissed |
Documents and sources
1 primary source (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 0 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Court document: kohenavocats.com
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| arrest 261.713, 11 Dec 2024, parties, holding | kohenavocats.com | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
1 case in the record share parties, claims or a settlement with this one.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Belgian Constitutional Court bans cumulating online licence classes on one domain | Grondwettelijk Hof / Cour constitutionnelle | 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.