Execution Pokerstars. Apparently, payment is not voluntary (page 128)

khfkhf

Silver

Austria

8 months ago

Original

Translation

I think it is more related to the fact that Malta has 2 months to comment on the infringement procedure

Automatic translation:

HugoH

voizua92

Gold

Germany

voizua92

8 months ago

Original

Translation

I think that's really unfair... making you wait 3 months and then postponing it for another 2 months the week before.

Would like to know what is behind it

Automatic translation:

Baker3xx

Silver

Germany

8 months ago

Original

Translation

Summer break makes little sense if they set the date themselves 😅. There's certainly more to it...unfortunately.

Automatic translation:

voizua92

khfkhf

Diamond

Austria

khfkhf

8 months ago

Original

Translation

but then one would think that the providers would not have gotten through this procedure either?!

Automatic translation:

Baker3xx

Silver

Germany

8 months ago

Original

Translation

The infringement proceedings have nothing to do with the final submissions. Now we simply have to wait another few months until things finally move forward. 😮‍💨

Automatic translation:

HugoH

Gold

Germany

8 months ago

Original

Translation

If it has to do with the infringement proceedings, they probably want to see what Malta's position is and that might also be relevant on 4 September... let's see if there is another statement.

Automatic translation:

khfkhf

voizua92

Silver

Austria

voizua92

8 months ago

Original

Translation

I can't imagine that has anything to do with it. The ECJ has already taken the first steps that will force Malta to pay sooner or later. In my opinion, the ruling now depends on Malta's response to the infringement proceedings, and that will likely influence the ruling.

Automatic translation:

abelinglaekamp

Silver

Germany

8 months ago

Original

Translation

Online gambling: Halle Administrative Court strengthens provider rights – Bet3000 prevails

Bet3000 wins a victory in gambling law: The Halle Administrative Court (decision of June 4, 2025, case number 7 B 182/24 HAL) has granted an urgent application by the operating company of the sports betting provider Bet3000. This allows the provider to continue offering sports betting – both online and in-store – for the time being. The revocation of its license by the Joint Gambling Authority of the German States (GGL) has been temporarily halted on one key point.

What happened?

In July 2024, the GGL revoked Bet3000's license to operate sports betting – with immediate effect. The reason for this was alleged violations of key provisions of the 2021 State Treaty on Gambling in the online business, particularly with regard to deposit and stake limits (Sections 6c, 6h, and 6i of the State Treaty on Gambling). The GGL considered this to be an indication of the provider's unreliability and therefore ordered the immediate revocation of the license.

This is what the court says:

The Halle Administrative Court has now clarified that the immediate enforcement was unlawful. In its detailed decision, the court emphasizes in particular:

• Disproportionateness: The GGL failed to adequately consider the economic consequences for Bet3000. Immediate withdrawal of professional practice without a decision on the merits is permissible only in exceptional cases.

• Inadequate consideration: The court criticized GGL for failing to differentiate between online and brick-and-mortar business. The alleged violations concerned exclusively online sales, not brick-and-mortar betting.

• Freedom of occupation: The immediate enforceability of the license withdrawal violates the freedom of occupation protected by Article 12 of the Basic Law.

Why is the decision important?

The case demonstrates that courts impose high legal standards when interfering with the economic viability of gambling providers. The blanket assumption that a provider is "unreliable" is not sufficient – concrete and comprehensible reasons, including those relating to the specific distribution channel, are required.

For providers like Bet3000, this means that even in the case of actual violations, there is a right to differentiated official and judicial review.

What does this mean for players and providers?

For now, the decision has no immediate impact on players. Providers, however, receive an important signal: The gambling authority cannot simply revoke every license immediately – transparency, proportionality, and case-by-case review are essential.

Conclusion:

A stage win for Bet3000 – and a sign for the GGL

The Halle Administrative Court's decision makes it clear that gambling regulation must adhere to the rule of law. Authorities must not act "by force," but must adhere to legal requirements and the Basic Law.

Online-Glücksspiel: Verwaltungsgericht Halle stärkt Anbieterrechte – Bet3000 setzt sich durch

Erfolg für Bet3000 im Glücksspielrecht: Das Verwaltungsgericht Halle (Beschluss vom 4. Juni 2025, Az. 7 B 182/24 HAL) hat einem Eilantrag der Betreibergesellschaft des Sportwettenanbieters Bet3000 stattgegeben. Damit darf der Anbieter vorerst weiter Sportwetten – sowohl online als auch stationär – anbieten. Der Widerruf seiner Lizenz durch die Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder (GGL) wurde in einem zentralen Punkt vorläufig gestoppt.

Was war passiert?

Die GGL hatte Bet3000 im Juli 2024 die Erlaubnis zur Veranstaltung von Sportwetten entzogen – mit sofortiger Wirkung. Hintergrund waren angebliche Verstöße gegen zentrale Vorgaben des Glücksspielstaatsvertrags 2021 im Online-Geschäft, insbesondere im Hinblick auf Einzahlungs- und Einsatzlimits (§§ 6c, 6h, 6i GlüStV). Die GGL sah darin eine Unzuverlässigkeit des Anbieters und verfügte daher den sofortigen Widerruf der Erlaubnis.

Das sagt das Gericht:

Das Verwaltungsgericht Halle stellte nun klar: Der Sofortvollzug war rechtswidrig. In seinem ausführlich begründeten Beschluss hebt das Gericht insbesondere hervor:

• Unverhältnismäßigkeit: Die GGL habe die wirtschaftlichen Folgen für Bet3000 nicht hinreichend berücksichtigt. Ein sofortiger Entzug der Berufsausübung ohne Entscheidung in der Hauptsache sei nur in Ausnahmefällen zulässig.

• Unzureichende Abwägung: Das Gericht kritisiert, dass die GGL keine differenzierte Bewertung zwischen Online- und stationärem Geschäft vorgenommen habe. Die behaupteten Verstöße betrafen ausschließlich den Online-Vertrieb – nicht jedoch das stationäre Wettangebot.

• Berufsfreiheit: Durch die sofortige Vollziehbarkeit des Lizenzentzugs werde die grundrechtlich geschützte Berufsfreiheit aus Art. 12 GG verletzt.

Warum ist der Beschluss bedeutsam?

Das Verfahren zeigt, dass die Gerichte bei Eingriffen in die wirtschaftliche Existenz von Glücksspielanbietern hohe rechtliche Anforderungen stellen. Die pauschale Annahme, ein Anbieter sei „unzuverlässig", reicht nicht aus – es braucht konkrete und nachvollziehbare Gründe, die auch den spezifischen Vertriebsweg betreffen.

Für Anbieter wie Bet3000 bedeutet das: Selbst bei tatsächlichen Verstößen besteht ein Anspruch auf differenzierte behördliche und gerichtliche Prüfung.

Was heißt das für Spieler und Anbieter?

Für Spieler hat die Entscheidung vorerst keine unmittelbaren Auswirkungen. Anbieter hingegen erhalten ein wichtiges Signal: Die Glücksspielbehörde kann nicht ohne Weiteres jede Lizenz sofort widerrufen – Transparenz, Verhältnismäßigkeit und Einzelfallprüfung sind zwingend erforderlich.

Fazit:

Ein Etappensieg für Bet3000 – und ein Fingerzeig für die GGL

Der Beschluss des VG Halle verdeutlicht, dass Glücksspielregulierung rechtsstaatlichen Standards folgen muss. Die Behörden dürfen nicht „mit der Brechstange" agieren, sondern müssen sich an die gesetzlichen Vorgaben und das Grundgesetz halten.

Automatic translation:

fros7byte

Silver

Germany

8 months ago

Original

Translation

Attorney Karim Weber has left G&L?

Also: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=f45iFMbmiVc&t=5s

Automatic translation:

voizua92

fros7byte

Diamond

Austria

fros7byte

8 months ago

Original

Translation

Yes, according to the law firm, he is now self-employed

Automatic translation:

unbekannterweise

Silver

Austria

7 months ago

Original

Translation

News from Austria!

You can judge for yourself whether it's really true. I know several people who received the exact same email from this law firm.

Great news! The first payouts are underway, and Stake, another Curaçao-based casino, has started compensating players from Austria.

Background: Online casinos licensed in Curaçao, including Stake, Bitstarz, MrBet, and Selectbet, are not legal in Austria. Anyone who has lost money there can reclaim their losses.

And this is not just theory:

We now have the first real evidence of repayment.

file

Edited

Automatic translation:

khfkhf

Silver

Austria

7 months ago

Original

Translation

I also received this email from a litigation financier I had once contacted..... in general, I have the feeling that litigation financiers are trying to attract customers since the infringement proceedings were initiated

It still seems strange to me.....

Automatic translation:

TSGJokerstars

Platinum

Austria

7 months ago

Original

Translation

That's great, but unfortunately nothing is happening in Malta or at PokerStars.

Automatic translation:

rapsi123

Silver

Austria

7 months ago

Original

Translation

The effort grinds slowly...I'm already at the point where if someone offers me 50 percent, I would accept it....

But I know exactly if I do that then it will take exactly 7 days and the payments will flow grin....a lucky child thehehe

Automatic translation:

voizua92

rapsi123

Diamond

Austria

rapsi123

7 months ago

Original

Translation

With 50% you can suck my ass hahaha

Never accept it, is it possible? They continue in other countries and have enough money...

Automatic translation:

rapsi123

voizua92

Silver

Austria

voizua92

7 months ago

Original

Translation

You're right, you know I have 70 percent disability on my organs and I don't know how long I have left and I want to make my children happy and I can only do that as long as I live - I get a pension of 1209,- and now that everything is getting more expensive I have fixed costs of 1203,- I get housing assistance of 180,- and I live on that (or rather I vegetate), there's nothing left and I want to make them happy so that they always have a fond memory of me

Automatic translation:

rapsi123

Silver

Austria

rapsi123

7 months ago

Original

Translation

Do you see that? (It was 3 weeks ago) When I have an attack, my oxygen level drops to 86 and my pulse... well, I have no idea how I survived that. Luckily, a friend was with me. If that happens when I'm alone, then I got through it. I think you understand me now. file