Execution Pokerstars. Apparently, payment is not voluntary (page 102)

In Germany, Rightnow still accepts Pokerstars, but in Austria they no longer accept all the big players.

A month ago I won 3 out of 4 cases (Bwin, Pokerstars, Tipico). One was suspended (Bet365).

I hope enforcement in the EU will be easier for these providers. It can't be that difficult.

I hope everything will be done by the end of 2025, but I still think selling for 5-15 percent is a stupid decision.

https://www.derstandard.de/story/3000000251626/profit-und-sucht-einblick-in-eine-dubiose-online-industrie

Maybe the illegal casinos will now be dealt with more quickly or will politicians continue to look on?

Hello guys!

If you don't have a lawyer yet, I can only recommend Mr. Cocron. He has opened his new law firm in Berlin and has left his baby CLLB and is going down new paths. He is and will remain a great lawyer, especially for casino matters.

Good luck to all because of the ECJ.

Hello again!

Here is the new link from Mr. Cocron

View Istvan Cocron's profile on LinkedIn https://de.linkedin.com/in/istvancocron?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_mweb&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile

And

www.ra-cocron.de

For all those who still need a good lawyer.

questions referred

1. Must Article 1(1) and (2), in conjunction with Article 45(1)(a), 46 and 52, of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 1 be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which, on the basis of a corresponding principle of public policy established by national law, excludes the recognition and enforcement of judgments of courts of other Member States in all proceedings against licence holders and current and former managers and key personnel of a licence holder in respect of matters relating to the provision of a gaming service, where such an action affects or undermines the lawfulness of the provision of gaming services in or from Malta pursuant to a licence issued by the Authority or the lawfulness of a legal or natural obligation arising from the provision of such gaming services and relates to an authorised activity which is lawful within the meaning of that national law and other applicable national regulatory instruments?

2. Are Articles 45(1) and 46 of Regulation No 1215/2012 to be interpreted as precluding a national legal provision which, regardless of whether the obliged entity has made an application to the recognising court/enforcement court and has exhausted all legal remedies in the Member State of the court of first instance and without review by the recognising court/enforcement court, excludes the recognition (Article 45 of the abovementioned Regulation) and enforcement (Article 46 of that Regulation) of decisions of courts of other Member States in all proceedings against licence holders and current and former managers and key personnel of a licence holder in matters relating to the provision of a gaming service, where such an action affects or undermines the legality of the provision of gaming services in or from Malta under a licence issued by the Authority or the legality of a legal or natural obligation arising from the provision of such gaming services and relates to an authorised activity which, within the meaning of that national law and other applicable national regulatory instruments is lawful?

3.a. Are Article 45(1)(a) and Article 46 of Regulation No 1215/2012 to be interpreted as precluding a national legal provision which provides that the recognition and enforcement of court decisions is contrary to public policy with the sole purpose of protecting holders of online gambling licences from the recognition and enforcement of court decisions of other Member States made against them, as part of the State’s promotion of the private sector as provided for in national constitutional law?

3.b. Are Article 45(1)(a) and Article 46 of Regulation No 1215/2012 to be interpreted as precluding a refusal of recognition and enforcement by the court seised in the enforcing State on grounds of public policy if that refusal is based solely on the fact that it would be contrary to the economic and financial interests of the requested Member State to recognise such a judgment, since gambling operators make a significant contribution to the economy and revenue of that Member State?

4. Must Article 52 of Regulation No 1215/2012 be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which excludes the recognition and/or enforcement of a judgment of a court of another Member State in proceedings against licence holders and current and former managers and key personnel of a licence holder in matters relating to the provision of a gaming service on the ground that the gambling operator’s activity would be permissible under Maltese law?

5. Is Article 48 of Regulation No 1215/2012 to be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to decide promptly laid down therein is infringed if no decision has been taken at first instance on the application for recognition within six months, without this being attributable to circumstances or delays on the part of the parties or third parties in the individual recognition proceedings?

____________

1 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 regarding jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial cases (recast) (OJ 2012, L 351, p. 1).

Thanks very informative.

In Austria, PFs are increasingly "disappearing" and are taking companies abroad. Most of them are no longer accepting cases from the big ones - it seems that they have miscalculated. I have been in contact with 3 of them and they all refused 5- and 6-figure sums from 2 of the big ones, even though they continue to operate their websites in Austria and Germany.

In Curacao, the payment morale from Malta is also starting to change - they adapted quickly. I have two cases that are no longer accepted according to the PF.

Well, we were unlucky, but it's our own fault.

Reports of successful settlements have also declined dramatically….

I can't really confirm that. I just asked for a case in the low five-figure range and got an immediate confirmation.

Which pf are these please? Months ago I filed a lawsuit against Curacao Casino, value in dispute 15k.

I have already lost trust in my PF.

Why, if I may ask?

Why are you all so skeptical all of a sudden even though the EU has only just begun?

I am extremely optimistic that things will be back on track by 2025.

Does anyone have experience with win2day? How does it work with gambling addiction? Does win2day pay? Thanks!

Win2day is partially state-run. If you win the case, you will be paid 100%.

OK, do you have experience with this? I think the lawyer who offers these lawsuits is Julia Eckhart? But she is from Styria.

Chances of civil action

- The chances of claims against illegal online casinos and online sports betting providers are good, but there are still no judgments in Switzerland. In our opinion, contracts with illegal online casinos are void, which is why you should be entitled to a claim for unjust enrichment. The voidness arises from the lack of a concession/license, but can also arise from the exploitation of gambling addiction. Consequently, no valid contract has been concluded.

- Only net losses can be reclaimed (all deposits minus withdrawals).

- Enforcement of the claim in Swiss courts is generally possible (eg Interwetten, Bet-at-Home, Betamo, N1, Big5, Casumo, Pinnacle, Pokerstars, etc.). Currently, a new law prevents enforcement in Malta, but this is considered to be contrary to EU law and should be repealed soon. It is somewhat more difficult to take action against casinos based in the Isle of Man (eg Bahigo), Gibraltar (eg BWIN, Bet365) or Curaçao.

- We have already filed many lawsuits and reached various settlements. We have so far been able to achieve the quickest and best results by filing a direct lawsuit in the first instance. We have also been able to persuade casinos to pay back money by sending letters from lawyers.

- We were able to obtain judgments against Casumo, N1 and Videoslots (decision and judgment proposals from the Justice of the Peace)

- We expect the first rulings from several district courts in summer/autumn 2025, including against BWIN and Interwetten.

criminal complaint

- In order to file a criminal complaint against those responsible, we must prove that the casino has exploited your gambling addiction and has made disproportionately high profits. If you have gambled a lot in a short period of time and suffered high losses that are disproportionate to your income and assets, there is a certain chance of winning the criminal case and recovering your losses. We have already filed several criminal complaints and are waiting for the results.

credit card charges / middlemen

Check the last credit card charges and file a written objection with your bank/credit card provider (deadline! 30 days from receipt of the statement). Often it is not clear that the transactions are to a casino and unknown companies/dealers are noted. We can claim refunds from these dealers. In addition, the agreed card limits are sometimes exceeded by the banks. In several cases we were able to claim back money that was lost. Send us the statements.

--------

This is a short assessment email from one of the only law firms that represents something like this in Switzerland. There is more but I would like to ask other users here again if anyone can contribute experience from Switzerland? I have lost 40,000 at Stake

You wappla who are you???!

For information for all

Online gambling – LG Münster lifts suspension of proceedings

Istvan Cocron

Recovery of losses from…

Published: Jan 20, 2025

follower

The Münster Regional Court sees no indication that the European Court of Justice could classify the German ban on online gambling as contrary to European law. The court lifted the suspension of proceedings to reclaim losses from illegal online gambling by order of January 16, 2025. The proceedings can now take place shortly.

According to Section 4 Paragraph 4 of the State Treaty on Gambling (old version), online gambling was generally prohibited in Germany. It was not until July 1, 2021 that this ban was relaxed somewhat and organizers can apply for a license for their gambling offer in Germany. Without this authorization, online gambling remains illegal. "The consequence of this is that players can claim back their losses from prohibited gambling from the organizers," says lawyer István Cocron.

Numerous courts have already confirmed the players' claim for reimbursement. Various online gambling providers are now claiming that the German ban violates the European freedom to provide services. A Maltese court has referred this question to the European Court of Justice. The case is still pending. However, various courts have suspended proceedings regarding players' claims for reimbursement until the European Court of Justice makes a decision.

The Münster Regional Court has now overturned a decision to suspend proceedings. According to the court, there is "no reason whatsoever" to assume that the ECJ will declare the German ban in the State Treaty on Gambling to be contrary to EU law. The German higher regional courts and the Federal Court of Justice had also previously unanimously considered the ban to be in line with EU law. Even if the Federal Court of Justice recently suspended proceedings, this does not mean that it has come to a different legal opinion and considers the German ban to be a violation of European law, the court continued.

In the online sports betting case, the Federal Court of Justice made it clear that it considered the contracts void without a corresponding license. However, the sports betting provider had applied for a license. Since the awarding process did not comply with European law, no permits could be issued. "The ECJ should therefore clarify whether the ban was permissible under these circumstances, which the Federal Court of Justice assumes," said lawyer Cocron.

The ban in the gambling contract serves, among other things, to protect young people and players from ruinous behavior and to prevent fraud. "The ECJ decided back in 2010 that national bans can be permissible if they serve public welfare goals such as protection against gambling addiction or associated crime. It is unlikely that it will change its case law," says lawyer Cocron.

The Münster Regional Court apparently sees it this way too. It made it clear that "in view of the extremely low probability of a contrary decision by the ECJ," the plaintiff could no longer be expected to accept a further suspension of the proceedings.

"Players still have a good chance of recovering their losses from prohibited online gambling and should assert their claims promptly and not wait for a decision from the ECJ. Especially since their claims can also become time-barred," said lawyer Cocron.