C-741/22 Casino de Spa SA and Others v État belge, judgment of 12 September 2024: Allegations, Court Orders and Status

What this case is about

Case C-741/22, Casino de Spa SA and Others v État belge, is a reference from the Tribunal de première instance de Liège to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on value added tax (VAT) charged on online gambling in Belgium. The First Chamber gave judgment on 12 September 2024.

The dispute belongs to the wider field of Gambling Tax Litigation. Belgium charged VAT on online games of chance other than lotteries from 1 July 2016, while online lotteries and land-based games stayed exempt.

The Belgian Constitutional Court had annulled the first rules (judgment 34/2018), and the legislature then re-enacted the VAT.

The operators argued that the selective exemption breached fiscal neutrality under article 135(1)(i) of the VAT Directive and amounted to state aid under article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) for the Nationale Loterij and land-based casinos.

Who is covered

The claimants are Casino de Spa SA and 26 other Belgian online gambling operators, including the Ardent/Gaming1 group. The defendant is the Belgian State (État belge, SPF Finances).

This is not a class action and no player is a party. The ruling matters to taxable operators and to the Belgian courts that apply the VAT rules.

A companion referral, C-73/23 Chaudfontaine Loisirs SA v État belge, was decided on the same day. For other EU court cases, see Gambling Lawsuits in European Union (CJEU).

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case. It is a tax dispute between operators and the Belgian State, and no fund, claim process or claim deadline appears in the record.

The Court did rule that VAT collected in breach of the Directive must be refunded unless a refund would unjustly enrich the taxable person. The record shows no refund order and no refund amount for any operator, so none is stated here.

What the court decided

The CJEU answered the Liège court's questions in four rulings on 12 September 2024. As of 14 November 2026 the case is a decided judgment, and the record shows no later step.

• Different VAT treatment is allowed. Article 135(1)(i) of the VAT Directive does not preclude taxing online games of chance other than lotteries while exempting online lottery tickets, provided the objective differences are liable to have a considerable influence on the average consumer's choice.
• National courts must disapply incompatible rules. This applies even where the constitutional court maintained the effects of the provisions.
• Refund of unlawful VAT. VAT collected in breach of the Directive must be refunded unless this would unjustly enrich the taxable person.
• No damages for VAT paid. An operator that did not benefit from an unlawful exemption cannot recover the VAT it paid as damages under article 108(3) TFEU.

The Court did not itself decide whether the Belgian differences meet the consumer-choice test. It set the test for the referring court.

Why it matters

The judgment is a precedent for how far an EU member state may split gambling products for VAT purposes. It lets a state tax online casino-style games while leaving lotteries exempt, if the differences are real from the consumer's side.

It also limits what operators can claim back. Payments that were lawfully due on a taxed product do not turn into damages just because a rival product was exempt. For how tax rules treat money from gambling cases, read Are Gambling Settlement Payments Taxable?

Questions people ask

Did the EU court say Belgium's online gambling VAT is unlawful?

No. The First Chamber held on 12 September 2024 that article 135(1)(i) of the VAT Directive does not preclude taxing online games of chance other than lotteries, if the objective differences may considerably influence the average consumer.

Can an operator get its VAT back?

VAT collected in breach of the Directive must be refunded unless that would unjustly enrich the taxable person. Damages equal to the VAT paid are not available under article 108(3) TFEU where the operator did not benefit from an unlawful exemption.

Related cases

• C-73/23 Chaudfontaine Loisirs SA v État belge, judgment of 12 September 2024: decided the same day, status judgment.
• Belgian Constitutional Court judgment 34/2018 on VAT on online games of chance: the 22 March 2018 ruling that preceded the re-enacted VAT, status judgment.