Execution Pokerstars. Apparently, payment is not voluntary (page 125)

And what exactly is supposed to be left in terms of wealth after 47,119,4792 years? The economic viability is no longer given with the demands; the OCs have had MANY years to prepare!

I won a court case against Bethard. Shortly afterward, they were liquidated (2023). Now they're simply continuing to operate with a new registration number.

https://lei.bloomberg.com/leis/view/485100WP6VOYTYQT4476

I financed everything myself. Unfortunately, my law firm has withdrawn from the industry, and I'm no longer receiving any replies.

I have no idea what to do? Are there specialists who can execute such sentences when the time comes? Unfortunately, I don't know enough about it...

That's what happens to a lot of people with Drückglück (liquidated operator: Titanium Brace Marketing Ltd, new: Skill On Net Ltd) - you have no chance then...

No chance? Legal fees, etc., all gone? It can't be that simple.

Here are the two procedures listed again with numbers. Just for your information, because it's clear.

https://www.fussballwetten.tv/news/rueckforderung-sportwetten-verlusten/

https://www.diepresse.com/19783315/ist-das-anbieten-von-onlinegluecksspiel-ohne-oesterreichische-konzession-strafbar

Well, multiple criminal charges were filed. I suspect that with Drückglück, since so many people played there, things will turn out worse for the casino in the end.

We'll see in a few years.

Therefore, I don’t believe that Bet365 is taking this risk.

In PokerStars' case, it's already too late; the funds have already been deposited in numerous lawsuits. It's no longer worthwhile, given the risk of prosecution.

Doesn't sound real at all.

Tipico can also be played online in the betting shop, that’s correct.

However, it is legal in betting shops and, in my opinion, they only have to adhere to the 1000 Euro limit since the end of 2022; before that, it was not binding.

As far as I know, Tipico hasn't made me an offer, but it's difficult to find a litigation financer for betting offices anyway.

UPDATE Player Protection Lawsuits:

The Advocate General concludes that Austrian law applies because the stakes were placed in Austria. This means that managers of illegal online casinos in Austria can be personally prosecuted under Austrian law!

A good precursor to the ECJ's ruling, which is expected to be published this fall. Here are the well-reasoned conclusions for you to read:

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=301173&pageIndex=0&doclang=de&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=4091889

This makes the liquidation of providers much less worthwhile, so German players also benefit indirectly.

This gives Austrians a big advantage, but I don't understand why it's not allowed in Germany.

This is done regularly in the construction industry and they simply open a new company.

Germany must also do something about this.

This is definitely very good for us, I hope for comparisons

Settlements in the ongoing enforcement proceedings? I believe the full amount plus interest will be enforced, otherwise everything would have been in vain.

What settlements? If the managing director of the insolvent Titanium Brace Marketing Ltd. also files for personal bankruptcy, nothing will come of it... Karl Heinz Grasser did the same thing, from what I heard...?

I am talking about those with whom the funds are already deposited in Malta.

For the smaller ones, where there are no legal proceedings yet, I could imagine settlements, but PokerStars and Mr Green and all the others, definitely not. I would never accept something like that, even after a five-year wait.

https://www.anwalt.de/rechtstipps/schlussantrag-des-generalanwalts-beim-eugh-geschaeftsfuehrer-koennen-persoenlich-fuer-illegales-online-gluecksspiel-haften-246911.html

Sounds promising for all of us, doesn't it? After all, I've had it for six years, including the model lawsuit against TSG.

Yes, the pressure on providers has certainly increased.

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/istvancocron_breaking-news-eu-kommission-geht-gegen-activity-7341074506288918528-RVn6/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAE1WmT4ByI-qWLTFkmgVIY4-d9Omn-_4jW4

It's finally time!

Hopefully this will help

Full statement from the MGA: The Malta Gaming Authority refers to the European Commission's Letter of Formal Notice in relation to Article 56A of the Gambling Act (Chapter 583 of the Laws of Malta), formerly known as "Bill 55".

The MGA maintains that Article 56A does not provide for a general prohibition on the enforcement of European judgments against licensed Maltese gambling companies, nor does it provide protection against legal action before other EU courts.

Rather, Article 56A confirms Malta's long-standing policy on online gambling and reflects existing provisions of EU law—in particular, the public policy exception in the Brussels I Regulation (recast). It does not introduce any new or separate grounds for rejecting foreign judgments.

Since Malta's accession to the European Union, the Maltese online gambling license has been designed as a place-of-service license. This means that operators licensed in Malta can offer their services cross-border, provided they have a justifiable legal basis to do so and continue to comply with the Maltese regulatory framework. The Maltese gambling framework is committed to promoting responsible gambling and protecting all players, regardless of their country of residence. Indeed, the MGA's regulatory framework establishes various requirements, such as safeguarding player funds, protecting minors and vulnerable persons, providing responsible gaming tools to prevent gambling addiction, and ensuring fair advertising of gambling services.

As a Member State operating within the framework of EU law, Malta has consistently maintained that its gambling regulatory framework complies with the principles established by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in particular the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment. Malta's public policy in the gambling sector is informed by and based on these same principles.

Indeed, Malta has consistently held that any unjustified restriction—whether direct or indirect—on the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment within the EU internal market is in direct conflict with the case law of the CJEU and constitutes a clear barrier to market access and trade in other Member States. Allowing such restrictions ultimately hinders the proper functioning of the internal market and limits the ability of companies established in Malta and other Member States to freely offer their services. For over 20 years, Malta has consistently challenged all unjustifiably restrictive approaches in the area of online gambling, in line with its public policy.

Therefore, the MGA reiterates that Article 56A of the Gambling Act does not introduce any new or separate grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement of judgments beyond those already established in Regulation (EU) 1215/2012. Rather, it codifies Malta's long-standing public policy on gambling matters into law. The MGA will continue to support the Maltese government in maintaining an open and constructive dialogue with the European Commission.

That'll make their asses freeze 😀😀