EuGH C-440/23 (Online-Casino, Malta-Vorlage) (CJEU): Status, Rulings and What It Means for Players

On April 16, 2026 the Court of Justice of the European Union held in C-440/23 that EU law does not preclude Germany's ban on online casino games, the nullity of contracts made in breach of it, or a civil action to recover the stakes.

A Maltese court had referred the question, and the Court's press release 53/26 sets out the answer.

No payout exists from this case. The Court ordered no refund, there is no fund, claim form or deadline, and each national court still decides every claim for itself.

Holdings from CJEU press release 53/26.

What this case is about

A German player's refund claims against two Malta-licensed operators reached the Court of Justice through a Maltese court, which asked whether the German ban on online casino games could be applied to them. This page records the Court's answer as of November 14, 2026.

The Maltese reference and the German internet ban

The Civil Court in Malta referred the case in July 2023, asking whether § 4 Abs. 4 GlüStV 2012, Germany's ban on online casino games, virtual slots and betting on lottery results, breaches the freedom to provide services (Art. 56 TFEU). The play behind the claim ran from June 2019 to July 2021.

Some German courts have ordered operators to repay stakes under that ban, and the Maltese reference asked whether EU law allows it. Our overview of online casino refund litigation in Germany and Austria follows the national side of that fight.

What the Court of Justice held on April 16, 2026

The Court answered in five points, all taken from its press release 53/26 (April 16, 2026).

• EU law does not preclude a prohibition on online casino games, virtual slots and betting on lottery results that aims at channeling gambling and fighting parallel markets.
• EU law does not preclude the nullity of contracts made in breach of that prohibition.
• EU law does not preclude a civil action for restitution of the stakes.
• The license regime that applies from July 1, 2021 does not affect the earlier regime.
• Participation despite a foreign license is not an abuse of rights under EU law, and bad faith is for national law.

Whether a particular player acted in bad faith is therefore a question for the national court, not for Luxembourg. The Court's other gambling judgments are listed in our tracker of Court of Justice gambling judgments.

Who is affected

The judgment answers a question about German players and Malta-licensed operators; it binds no court to order a refund.

The parties

The plaintiff is a German-resident player whose claims were assigned to a company; the defendants are European Lotto and Betting Ltd and Deutsche Lotto- und Sportwetten Ltd, the Maltese Lottoland companies. Both held Maltese licenses and offered virtual slots and lottery betting. The amount claimed in the Maltese case is not published.

The same group faces other proceedings, which our entry on Lottoland lawsuits collects. The Maltese case behind this reference has its own entry in the related cases below.

Which claims the ruling reaches

The ruling reaches claims under the GlüStV 2012 ban period, and the Court held that the license regime from July 1, 2021 does not affect the earlier regime. A refund claim for those years is therefore not blocked by EU law.

It does not decide sports betting, which is the separate reference C-530/24, and it does not decide individual bad faith. How the later license period is treated is a question in the BGH lead case. This page describes a court decision and is not legal advice.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists from C-440/23: the Court of Justice answered a question of EU law for the Maltese court, ordered no refund, and there is no fund, claim form or deadline; the amount claimed in the Maltese case is not published.

No fund, fee share, claim rate or cap exists, so no payout estimate can be calculated.

What the judgment does not award

The Court awarded nobody money; it said EU law does not stand in the way of a civil action for restitution, and national courts decide whether and how much.

The BGH case that waited for this ruling shows the national side. In I ZR 53/23 the LG Paderborn ordered a Maltese operator on July 8, 2021 to repay EUR 132,850.55 (4 O 323/20), and the OLG Hamm dismissed the appeal on March 21, 2023 (I-21 U 116/21).

What a refund claim could be worth depends on net deposits and the period played, which our online casino refund estimate (Germany and Austria) page covers. Those German figures are judgments of national courts, not results of C-440/23.

What happens next

Two things follow from the judgment: the Maltese court applies it, and the BGH has made I ZR 216/25 its lead case with a verdict set for January 28, 2027.

Back at the Maltese court and the BGH

The Maltese court must now apply the ruling; whether it has resumed the case is not in the record. Its case number, the judge and any hearing date are not confirmed in the court record.

The BGH stayed I ZR 53/23 on January 10, 2024 (press release 9/2024) and I ZR 216/25 on February 17, 2026, both to wait for this judgment.

On May 19, 2026 it designated I ZR 216/25 as a lead case under § 552b ZPO, with a hearing on September 17, 2026 and a verdict announced for January 28, 2027 at 8:45. Our page on the BGH Leitentscheidung Online-Casino (Urteil 28.01.2027) follows it.

What the judgment leaves open

Three questions stay open after C-440/23: whether a particular player acted in bad faith, the sports betting question in C-530/24, and recognition of foreign judgments in Malta.

Bad faith is for national law. The Court held only that participation despite a foreign license is not an abuse of rights under EU law.

Sports betting is the second open point. In C-530/24, the BGH's reference about Tipico, Advocate General Emiliou proposed on March 19, 2026 that an operator without the required German license can be obliged to refund stakes, unless the authorities gave precise, unconditional and consistent assurances that the license requirement would not be enforced. The judgment was still pending on November 14, 2026.

Enforcement in Malta is a separate fight under Article 56A of the Maltese Gaming Act, which entered into force in June 2023 and directs Maltese courts to refuse recognition of foreign judgments against Malta-licensed operators.

The European Commission sent a letter of formal notice on June 18, 2025 (INFR(2025)2100), and our guide to Malta Bill 55 (Article 56A Gaming Act) covers it.

In C-683/24, a reference on that provision, the Advocate General found the reference inadmissible on April 23, 2026 but called a general enforcement bar manifestly incompatible with Brussels Ia. A judgment is reported for November 19, 2026 by a secondary source and is not confirmed on the Court's site.

Timeline

The case ran from a Maltese reference in July 2023 to a judgment nearly three years later.

Several of these dates are still moving: the BGH verdict, the sports betting reference and the Maltese case. Open points of this kind across all courts are collected in our list of pending appeals and high court gambling cases.

What the court has decided so far

The Court of Justice has decided C-440/23 in full: the judgment of April 16, 2026 is final on the EU-law questions put to it.

The national proceedings continue. The BGH lead case is pending, and whether the Maltese court has resumed its case is not confirmed in the court record. The judgment decides no player's claim.

Documents and sources

The holdings come from the Court's own press release 53/26; the opinion date and the Maltese case details come from secondary sources and are labeled.

• CJEU press release 53/26, April 16, 2026: primary, source of all five holdings.
• BGH press release 9/2024: primary, the stay of I ZR 53/23 and the referral.
• Court of Justice case page C-440/23: primary; it did not render at verification, so nothing here rests on it alone.
• DLA Piper note on the Advocate General's opinion and staudt.law note on the judgment: secondary law-firm reports.

Related cases

Six related decisions show what waited for the judgment and what it left open.

The German lead cases that waited for it

Three German and Austrian proceedings were stayed for this judgment or refused to wait for it.

• BGH Online-Casino-Verfahren I ZR 53/23: stayed on January 10, 2024 pending this reference.
• BGH Leitentscheidung Online-Casino (Urteil 28.01.2027): the lead case, verdict announced for January 28, 2027.
• OGH 2 Ob 198/24t: on December 12, 2024 the Austrian Supreme Court refused to stay for C-440/23 or C-683/24.

The sports betting reference and the Malta enforcement fight

Three further decisions show what the judgment left open.

• EuGH C-530/24 (Sportwetten, Tipico): the sports betting reference, judgment pending.
• EuGH C-683/24 (Bill 55): the reference on Maltese enforcement, judgment reported for November 19, 2026.
• Lottoland Malta case behind C-440/23: the Maltese proceeding that produced this reference.

The reasoning German courts use to treat such contracts as void is explained in why German courts order online casinos to refund losses.

Questions people ask

What did the EuGH decide in C-440/23?

It decided that EU law does not preclude Germany's online casino ban, the nullity of the contracts or a civil action for restitution. It also held that participation despite a foreign license is not an abuse of rights; the other German cases are under gambling lawsuits in Germany.

Does the judgment mean I get my casino losses back?

The judgment orders no refund; national courts decide claim by claim. What those courts have decided is set out on our German page Online Casino Geld zurück.

Is C-440/23 the Tipico sports betting case?

No; C-440/23 concerns online casino games and lottery betting, while the Tipico sports betting reference is pending. That case is tracked as EuGH C-530/24 (Sportwetten, Tipico).

Who are the defendants in C-440/23?

European Lotto and Betting Ltd and Deutsche Lotto- und Sportwetten Ltd, both Malta-licensed, offered virtual slots and lottery betting. The plaintiff was a German-resident player whose claims were assigned to a company.

Does the ruling cover play after July 1, 2021?

The Court held that the license regime from July 1, 2021 does not affect the earlier regime; the BGH lead case I ZR 216/25 covers play across that date. Its status is on the BGH Leitentscheidung Online-Casino (Urteil 28.01.2027) page.

Does it help enforce a judgment in Malta?

No; enforcement in Malta is a separate fight under Article 56A of the Maltese Gaming Act. It is covered in Malta Bill 55 (Article 56A Gaming Act).

When did the Advocate General give his opinion?

The Advocate General's opinion is reported as delivered on September 4, 2025, a date taken from law-firm reports and not yet confirmed on the Court's site. The Advocate General was Nicholas Emiliou.

GamblingLawsuits.org is a non-commercial project. It takes no money from operators, affiliates or law firms. We are not a law firm and not a settlement administrator. Last checked: November 14, 2026.