OGH 2 Ob 198/24t (OGH): Status, Rulings and What It Means for Players

What this case is about

OGH 2 Ob 198/24t is a decision of the Oberster Gerichtshof (OGH, Austria's Supreme Court in civil matters), dated 12 December 2024, in a refund suit by an Austrian player against a Malta-based online casino operator. It is part of our work on Online Casino Refund Litigation in Germany and Austria.

The player claims back losses from March to November 2020, EUR 45,027.25 in total. The legal theory is that the contracts are void under § 879 Abs. 1 ABGB with §§ 3, 12a and 14 GSpG, with repayment under § 877 ABGB (analogous) and § 1431 ABGB, and with damages because the GSpG protects players.

The Oberlandesgericht Graz had granted the claim on 17 October 2024 (2 R 158/24h).

Who is covered

The decision binds the parties to this dispute. Its reasoning matters to other Austrian players and operators in refund suits, because it addresses requests to pause a case until the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rules.

No class exists. For Austrian cases more widely, see Gambling Lawsuits in Austria.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case as a settlement, fund or claim process. It is an individual refund dispute, and the OGH order dealt with whether to stay the case and with the operator's extraordinary Revision.

The claimed amount is EUR 45,027.25. No settlement claim form exists, and filing a settlement claim is free wherever a claim exists.

What the court decided

The OGH refused to interrupt the case for the two CJEU matters. It held that C-683/24 concerns recognition in Malta, not the claim itself, and that the questions in C-440/23 were settled or specific to Germany.

On the merits it held that § 1174 ABGB is no bar, because stakes are paid in order to take part. It held that the player's good faith is irrelevant and that the concession system, including its advertising rules, is EU-compliant.

It also held that the Fluctus judgment is no obstacle to following the national high courts. The court rejected the extraordinary Revision. As of 14 November 2026 the decision is final in this case.

Why it matters

The ruling is a precedent in the Austrian appellate line on casino refunds. It shows that the OGH does not treat the pending CJEU references as a reason to delay.

First-instance outcomes vary, so this decision should be read as one appellate step, not proof that every court rules for players. Our guide Can You Get Gambling Losses Back lays out what courts have ordered, country by country.

Questions people ask

Did the OGH wait for the CJEU in this case?

No. On 12 December 2024 the OGH refused to stay the case for C-683/24 or C-440/23. It treated C-683/24 as a recognition question in Malta and C-440/23 as settled or Germany-specific.

How much was claimed in OGH 2 Ob 198/24t?

The player claimed EUR 45,027.25 in losses from March to November 2020.

Does § 1174 ABGB block refund claims?

Not here. The OGH held that § 1174 ABGB is no bar because stakes are paid to take part.

Related cases

• C-683/24 Spielerschutz Sigma: the CJEU reference on Malta Bill 55 from the Handelsgericht Wien, status filed.
• C-440/23 European Lotto and Betting: the CJEU judgment in the European Lotto and Betting matter.