The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has commenced oral hearings to determine a long-standing dispute regarding the Maltese courts’ challenge to German gambling enforcements and penalties.
The circumstances of case number C-440, referred to in German media as the “Fake Case”, will be examined by the ECJ to assess the regulatory scope of German gambling laws prior to the adoption of the Fourth Interstate Gambling Treaty of 2021 (GlüStV 2021).
The dispute originated in 2021, when a German customer sued Malta-licensed operator Lottoland for offering services in Germany without the required national licence. In German courts, the customer reached a private agreement with lawyer Volker Ramge, who purchased the claim as part of a broader plan to launch legal proceedings against Lottoland for violating German regulations.
After withdrawing the lawsuit in Germany, Ramge refiled the case in Maltese courts, expanding its scope to represent German consumers against unlicensed gambling businesses based in Malta, including Lottoland.
Seeking broader legal clarity, Maltese businesses petitioned for a determination on how such alleged infringements should be evaluated prior to Germany’s adoption of the Fourth Interstate Gambling Treaty in 2021.
As noted by German lawyer István Cocron: “Subsequently, the parties involved in the Maltese proceedings jointly sought a referral to the ECJ, so that the ECJ would have to rule on whether the 2012 German State Treaty on Gambling complies with European law.”
The regulatory timeline of Germany’s gambling transition is seen as a critical factor on how the dispute will be determined by the ECJ. While numerous Malta-licensed operators were active in the German market, it remains unclear whether German restrictions were applied fairly under EU law.
The Advocate General is expected to deliver their official opinion on 10 July 2025. Following this, the ECJ will issue a final ruling on the compatibility of Germany’s gambling laws with European Union laws.
Bill 55 in focus
The case was also likely intended to challenge the broader legal framework — especially in light of Malta’s Bill 55, which allows Maltese courts to block enforcement of foreign judgments related to gambling.
Scrutiny over Bill 55 has increased in recent months, with many commentators emphasising that it lacks transparency and alignment with EU framework.
Prevalent criticism has come from Germany, with the GGL pursuing the case that the European Commission takes a closer examination of the legislation.
The GGL has previously stated: “We are of the opinion that this law should not be compatible with European requirements for the recognition of decisions (Regulation (EU) 1215/2002).
“However, the final assessment of this question is not the responsibility of the GGL. We have informed the federal states of our assessment and are otherwise in contact with the relevant authorities.”
In a more recent development, the bill was brought back under the microscope as Maltese courts ruled in two separate cases that Austrian courts do not have the power to dictate whether gaming operators in Malta compensate Austrian players.
This is in spite of courts in Austria both backing the players, with the Austrian framework currently citing any overseas operator as being illegal in the country.
The MGA has consistently defended that the bill is in place to protect Maltese operators from “baseless legal challenges”.
Malta’s regulatory body has previously underlined its intentions to ensure that “its licensees are allowed to operate where they have a justifiable legal reason to do so, and always in a compliant manner.”
