- Status
- Judgment entered (judgment)
- As of
- 15 Oct 2016 · read from the court record
- Court
- Verfassungsgerichtshof · Supreme or high court
- Docket
- E 945/2016, E 947/2016, E 1054/2016; G 103/2016 ua (OGH applications rejected)
- Filed
- 2016
- 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
On the OGH's request (which had argued that Casinos Austria and Österreichische Lotterien advertised so aggressively that the monopoly became incoherent) and operators' complaints, the VfGH held that the Glücksspielgesetz monopoly is neither contrary to EU law nor an unconstitutional discrimination of domestic operators. The OGH then dropped its doubts on 22.11.2016.
What this case is about
The Verfassungsgerichtshof (Austria's Constitutional Court) decided case E 945/2016 and the linked cases E 947/2016 and E 1054/2016 on 15 October 2016 (case GL-AT-0501). Gaming machine operators had filed complaints (Beschwerden), and the Supreme Court (OGH) had asked the court to review the law in application 4 Ob 31/16m.
The OGH had argued that Casinos Austria and Österreichische Lotterien advertised so aggressively that the monopoly became incoherent. The operators relied on Art. 7 B-VG (equality, including discrimination against domestic operators), Art. 6 StGG (freedom to pursue a trade) and Art. 56 TFEU.
The case is one of the Licensing and Administrative Court Cases on this site, which includes constitutional challenges.
Who is covered
The ruling concerns the Republic of Austria's Glücksspielgesetz (Gambling Act) and the operators who challenged it. Players are not a party to the case.
The wider Austrian caseload, including refund litigation, is listed under Gambling Lawsuits in Austria.
Is there a payout?
No payout exists in this case. It is a constitutional review of a statute, brought by operators and by a court, and no money, fund or claim process is involved.
Nothing in the record gives any player a claim arising from it.
What the court decided
The Constitutional Court held on 15 October 2016 that the monopoly provisions in §§ 52 to 54 GSpG are not contrary to EU law and that the monopoly is not an unconstitutional discrimination against domestic operators. The operators' complaints were dismissed.
The court rejected the OGH's applications (G 103/2016 and others) on formal grounds, according to the court's press release of 28 October 2016. The OGH then dropped its doubts on 22 November 2016.
As of 14 November 2026 the matter is decided, with no further hearing in the record.
Why it matters
The decision is a precedent for how Austrian courts treat the argument that aggressive advertising by monopoly licensees undermines the monopoly. The court answered that argument in 2016 and dismissed the operators' complaints.
Parallel decisions are collected in Licensing and Administrative Court Cases.
Questions people ask
Is the Austrian gambling monopoly compatible with EU law?
The Constitutional Court held on 15 October 2016 that §§ 52 to 54 GSpG are not contrary to EU law. This page reports that ruling, not a current legal opinion.
What happened to the OGH's own doubts?
The OGH had asked the Constitutional Court to review the monopoly. The court rejected those applications on formal grounds, and the OGH dropped its doubts on 22 November 2016.
Related cases
- VwGH Ro 2015/17/0022: the Administrative Court's judgment of 16 March 2016 on whether the monopoly complies with Union law.
- OGH 4 Ob 31/16m: the OGH's unfair-competition decisions of 30 March 2016 and 22 November 2016 on monopoly advertising.
- Novomatic/Admiral UWG-Klagen: 2016 unfair-competition suits against Kajot operators in OLG Linz and LG St. Pölten.
Who is involved
Plaintiffs: gaming machine operators (Beschwerden) and the OGH (Gesetzesprüfungsantrag 4 Ob 31/16m)
| Defendants | Republik Österreich (Glücksspielgesetz) |
|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|
| 2016 | Filed |
| 15 Oct 2016 | Judgment entered |
Documents and sources
3 primary sources (court file, administrator notice, regulator) and 1 secondary. Press is supporting evidence only.
- Docket: gesetzefinden.at
- Court document: vfgh.gv.at
- Press coverage: webiis10.mondaq.com
| What it supports | Source | Type | Retrieved |
|---|---|---|---|
| date, case numbers, holding | bmf.gv.at | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
| OGH referral background | webiis10.mondaq.com | secondary | 14 Nov 2026 |
| E 945/2016, E 947/2016, E 1054/2016, Erkenntnis 15.10.2016: §§ 52-54 GSpG not contrary to EU law; complaints dismissed | ris.bka.gv.at | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
| Presseinformation 28.10.2016: VfGH 15.10.2016, E 945/2016 ua; the OGH's applications G 103/2016 ua rejected on formal grounds read with pdftotext | vfgh.gv.at | primary | 14 Nov 2026 |
Related cases
3 cases in the record share parties, claims or a settlement with this one.
| Case | Court | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Austrian monopoly coherent (VwGH 2016) | Verwaltungsgerichtshof | Judgment entered |
| OGH monopoly referral and UWG line (2016) | Oberster Gerichtshof, 4. Senat | Judgment entered |
| Novomatic v illegal Kajot operators (OLG Linz 2016) | Oberlandesgericht Linz; Landesgericht St. Pölten | 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.