What did Mr. Cocron say in the potcast? CLLB alone has 1,000 in the process and the same number in care. In total in Germany probably 5000, plus Xxxxxx. If that were the case and German judgments were also affected, then based on the available volume, more German judgments would have to appear in the executions and proceedings, significantly more.
It's not about registering the claim with the insolvency court in good time before the deadline. Some people claim that the parent company or the managing director would be liable anyway. If that were the case, there would be no need to register the claim with the insolvency court in a timely manner, but rather it would be operated by the existing parent company. Especially since you probably don't really benefit from the ridiculous quota from the insolvency court, which is usually 1-5%. If the parent companies were so easy to use, there would be no reason why the litigation financiers would continue to offer insolvent casinos.
Correct (!), and: Finally (!)
The decision of the Federal Court of Justice on proceedings I ZR 90/23 :
By decision of January 10, 2024, the Senate suspended the appeal proceedings until a decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union in case C-440/23 on a request for a preliminary ruling from the Civil Court of Malta dated July 11, 2023. The preliminary ruling procedure concerns in particular the question of whether Section 4 (4) GlüStV 2012 was in conformity with EU law.
The ECJ has already clearly ruled on a similar matter (but similar is not legally the same (!), it was about sports betting, not about poker or slot machines!):
"ECJ: A Member State may prohibit the operation of online gambling" ( judgment in cases C-203/08 and C-258/08, announced in 2010)
Source: https://www.dr-bahr.com/news/ein-memberstaat-darf-den-betrieb-von-gluecksspiele-im-internet-verbieten.html
Similar is not the same, but: Nevertheless, the subject matter is the same: The national legal norm banning online gambling is legally compliant with EU law!
But all of this only has meaning for German proceedings for which no final judgment has yet been made, i.e. pending proceedings or those that are not yet legally binding !
The only question that could arise is: Why is the BGH asking the ECJ this question in particular:
Section 4 Paragraph 4 GlüStV 2012
Organizing and arranging public games of chance on the Internet is prohibited.
The answer is simple: If the ECJ rules that this national legal norm is (was) permissible, then that was it in Germany for online gambling providers for the period before the new State Treaty on Gambling.
By analogy, there is not only "legal certainty" (in DE!) for the past, but also for the future!
Do you also see this as positive for the procedures in Malta?
If I read it correctly, there are actually no executions from DE? That would probably be very positive news, also for plaintiffs from Germany who had/have default judgments...!!
Just take a look at Malta's ecourt page.
Yep, but it's good for us that Germany is by far the largest market and the casinos here don't risk their licenses if they don't pay out the judgments. And the same will happen with Austria, because the Germans are also looking at Austria. Just be relaxed.
I'm just glad I went to CLLB in 2019, right after I let AdvoFin Austria file a class action lawsuit in July, by coincidence.
All correct. No license = illegal even after July 2021. For 13 years, those in Malta have known that it is explicitly forbidden in Austria and Germany to go without a license
No, you're wrong!
If a claim is not filed in a timely manner, it dies just like the company against which it is filed. Please consider: If it were not the case, "heirs" could be prosecuted upon the death of the testator in the event of the death of a natural person until the natural statute of limitations runs out - which could be decades. This is the same with companies, because with all these regulations the legislature wants "legal peace" after a certain period of time!
So if you have a claim that is time-barred, you can assert it and - if you're lucky (because the creditor is stupid and fulfills it) - then possibly keep it. But if he raises the objection that the statute of limitations has expired, you have had nothing other than other costs, as the lawyer would say, "Throwing good money after bad".
Because you don't have this knowledge, as I can read from your post, otherwise you wouldn't write it like that, you just assume so. But this is nothing more than "poking in the fog".
It is not claimed here that (please not the parent company!) the " mother or parent company " of a group or its managing director must be liable "in general" for the liabilities (debts, in the worst case losses) of the "dependent" and "instruction-bound" subsidiary, but rather under the conditions outlined by me of timely registration for the appointment to assert the claim. This is not an appointment like this: "I'm just going to a party and if I don't arrive it won't be a big deal", but rather an "expiry date". For example, if you do not make your claim in time in the event of insolvency, you can also use your "enforceable title" - with extremely rare exceptions, the explanation of which would go beyond the scope here and would only contribute to further uncertainty - as a replacement for wallpaper or well framed Hang the picture on the wall!
You should back up the quota of 1-5% you use with material; Personally, I think it's "in the dark". In addition, the rate "industry-related" varies greatly, in a company with high personnel costs it is usually very low ( servant , king , church , spa , children ), this simply depends on the "privileged claims" and other things the privilege through "rights of exclusion and isolation". Only then could the quota you specified be correct. However, this does not apply to gambling companies!
Every business student learns this in the first semester of law, as does every law student, and if you had that kind of knowledge you wouldn't write what you write.
I really don't want this forum to drift into a "seminar for legal knowledge", especially since very few people here would benefit from it, but posting something with your own "half-knowledge" and thus causing uncertainty in others cannot be right. Hence my above condensed presentation of the facts.
And the request to everyone: Only write about what you know to be true, speculation helps no one (!) and only when it is important.
Of course, I understand frustration with the behavior of online gambling providers, but if that's the case, then you should write it like that, for example "I'm annoyed by the behavior of "Anger-Ltd." because, despite my title from xx.xx.xxxx hasn't paid since xx.xx.xxxx!
😁😁😁😁👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
Yes/No, because your highest court has already clearly positioned itself in the players' favor because you were simply faster(!).
But the "yes" refers to the indirect effect, also with regard to the EU proceedings against "Bill55", because if the ECJ rules: National online gambling bans are also permissible for online poker games, this takes away one of Bill55's main arguments Boden: "Nationally valid licenses issued to online gaming providers registered in Malta must (may) be valid throughout Europe."
Here the law bites itself in the tail, because there are no providers - and I don't know of any - who are not registered in Malta and are allowed to offer their online gambling there(!) and this means that the exception that has been brought in falls at the latest - (Protection) paragraph, according to which no legal action can be taken against online gambling operators registered in Malta with a valid license.
Do you know what I mean?
If not, it is clear: Malta would also have to allow every other European online gambling operator based outside Malta to play online games in Malta. Malta would thereby saw off the branch on which its gambling industry sits, because Malta, for its part, only allows this to companies that ?? ? -Exactly, have a valid license in Malta !
Written in a bit of technical jargon…
So do you mean right now that the ECJ has already ruled and Bill 55 will be dropped and then the funds will be released as soon as the ECJ has given the preliminary ruling?
Hello,
Please, without the exact tenor of the judgment and the reason why this liability does not exist, the simple sentence "The parent company xxx AG is not liable in Austria for its xxx ltd..." simply makes no sense. It should have become clear by now that there may well be reasons why a mother is not liable for her daughter in the case of a corporate bond (with a profit transfer agreement), simply because one of the facts that led to the forfeiture existed in my opinion!
Without wanting to offend you: If the forfeiture was given, I regret that I wasn't there when the people behind it spent the money on lobster with champagne served on prostitutes, because that was certainly a wild celebration of the failure is attributable to third parties, the title must be obtained in good time beforehand.
No, the ECJ's preliminary ruling does not address whether Bill55 is legally compliant with EU law. The responsible EU Commission is responsible for this.
To put it very simply: Following a request from an EU member, the Commission decides after consulting Malta whether infringement proceedings need to be initiated. The opinion of all legal experts who have expertise in this area of law is unanimous. "Bill55" does not conform to European law!"
Either the legislature in Malta will give in again and voluntarily overturn Bill 55, or there will be a bitter slap for Malta from the ECJ, which will only take action when Malta responds to the request through the decision that the Commission will issue - with a deadline - either to design Bill55 so that it complies with European law or to overturn it again; I am convinced that the latter will happen, because the whole thing would be associated with a significant financial penalty (in the multi-digit million range) and possibly further consequences for Malta if the decision were not followed.
As I have already written several times, this is all about "unnerving" players and gaining time!
In fact, any judge in Malta who is involved in an execution procedure could grant the execution if he wanted and justify this with the violation of the EU legal norm (Europe-wide recognition of "undisputed and entitled claims" of the Union members among themselves). But: He would have to risk that a higher court would overturn his decision because he did not comply with an applicable law, he could then possibly find himself exposed to criminal proceedings for "perverting the course of justice", could forget his career anyway and then there is that The influence of certain subjects on Malta exists who exert considerable pressure, including political pressure, and do not shy away from the use of violence. Honestly, if you were a judge in Malta in this position, would you oppose a law?
The whole thing would be associated with so many imponderables for the person and: Not everyone is an indomitable hero.
The judge knows that Bill55 will fall, he knows that the players who now want their money back have "gambled it away" before and he knows that they also know: if they had done this in a local casino, they could cannot be reclaimed under all other conditions being the same. His motivation to play the "hero" and to try to advance time in favor of a "player" will probably be close to zero...
For those who are interested, here is the link to the press release from our BGH: https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Press Releases/DE/2024/2024009.html
I can tell you the tenor, I have already written that the reason is that liability is excluded in their terms and conditions because it says that the parent company does not operate the illegal online casino, it has nothing to do with the fact that something was not done in time , a title is there and filed with the insolvency court in good time, but the mother is still not liable
Something isn't right there. It would be interesting to know the "binding" of the mother with the daughter and where the mother and daughter have their legal domicile. In my opinion, it is impossible to exclude "antitrust liability" by means of general terms and conditions.
Furthermore: Where and when was the judgment issued and where and when were the insolvency proceedings carried out, i.e. the entitled claim was obtained and asserted. If the judgment was issued in Austria and the enforcement (in the case of ongoing insolvency proceedings) in Malta, it doesn't particularly surprise me. But legally that wouldn't be the "end of the road". Problem can sometimes be: "Litigation financier?". If so, there are also negative judgments in the assertion process as well as the subsequent enforcement, which do not see the necessary "active legitimacy".
It is undisputed that the ECJ has already ruled clearly on antitrust liability: mother is liable for daughter!
The question was borderline and controversial: Is the daughter also liable for the mother? The European Commission says "yes".
This may be relevant to your case and there are "antitrust experts" and you can read this article:
https://www.glademichelwirtz.com/blog/wie-die-mutter-so-die-tochter-neuigkeiten-vom-eugh-zur-kartellzivilrechten-gruppenhaftung/
Because of the complexity of the topic, (I) probably cannot do more here, but in particular because of the additional complexity of (EU) antitrust law.
Explained a little better here
https://www.ra-goldenstein.de/neuigkeiten/bgh-handlung-maerz/
Victims of illegal online gambling should not be deterred from asserting their claims
BGH suspends proceedings - but the players' chances of success are still intact
Munich, January 24, 2024. Numerous regional and higher regional courts have already decided that players can demand back their losses from banned online gambling. Therefore, the decision of the Federal Court of Justice to suspend proceedings on claims for reimbursement of losses in online poker until a decision by the ECJ comes as a surprise. "Players shouldn’t let this worry them. Anything other than a consumer-friendly decision by the ECJ would be a big surprise," says lawyer István Cocron, CLLB Rechtsanwälte.
Incidentally, the BGH has not suspended another procedure regarding repayment claims for online sports betting.
Players should not wait for the ECJ's decision before asserting their repayment claims. Two reasons in particular speak against this. On the one hand, it's about not risking the claims becoming statute-barred. On the other hand, it is not just about repayment of losses, but also about interest claims. Lawyer Cocron: "The claims each bear interest at 5 percentage points above the base interest rate of the European Central Bank and the interest period begins when the lawsuit is filed." Waiting for a decision from the ECJ costs the victims of illegal online gambling money.
Even if the BGH has decided to suspend proceedings, the regional and higher regional courts do not have to agree with this opinion. Because it is at their own discretion whether they carry out a procedure. Some courts have already rejected applications from online casino operators to suspend proceedings. Most recently, for example, the Berlin Regional Court rejected such an application for suspension with a ruling dated January 17, 2024.
LG Berlin confirms claim for repayment of losses
The lawsuit was successful. The defendant violated the ban on online gambling in the State Treaty on Gambling. The LG Berlin decided that the contracts with the player were therefore void, so that he was entitled to repayment of his losses.
Stay of proceedings refused
However, the court rejected an application by the defendant to suspend the proceedings until the ECJ made a decision in a comparable case (ref.: C-440/23). It made it clear that there was no doubt that the ban on online gambling contained in the State Treaty on Gambling was compatible with European law. The ban pursues public interest goals such as player protection, combating the risk of addiction or the black market for illegal gambling on the Internet and is therefore compatible with Union law.
The LG Berlin considers the likelihood that the ECJ will come to a different result in the proceedings on case C-440/23 to be low. The court therefore rejected the application for a stay within the scope of its discretion. This view is shared by attorney Cocron, who has successfully represented a large number of victims of illegal online gambling. "Such prospects of success for online gambling providers must be denied," says lawyer Cocron.
The ECJ found the ban to be justified in 2010
As further justification, the Berlin Regional Court stated that the ECJ had already taken a sufficient position on the questions referred. "The ECJ decided in 2010 that a general national ban on online gambling can be justified and does not represent an inadmissible interference with the freedom to provide services if the ban pursues objectives of the common good such as combating gambling addiction or protection against ruinous behavior," said the lawyer Cocoron. According to the LG Berlin, nothing has changed in these goals. In addition, when issuing the State Treaty on Gambling in 2012, the legislature also obtained scientific confirmation of its assessment of the need for a ban on online gambling.
Reclaim losses
Lawyer István Cocron is therefore convinced that most courts will agree with the LG Berlin's statements and will not suspend proceedings. Especially since a suspension would also mean that the victims of illegal online gambling would also have to bear the risk of insolvency of the online casino operators, as they would be prevented from enforcing any first-instance judgments against security. Injured players should therefore not hesitate to claim back their losses from banned online gambling.
This corresponds exactly to everything I have stated so far (above).
The unscrupulous activities of the "online game providers who ignore the law" (in contrast to the many players, they know the law thanks to their army of legal advisors, but still ignored it, "trampled on it" and still offered their "service" out of pure greed) Must and can only be "defied" through consistent legal prosecution, perception and enforcement of legitimate claims!
And as I have already stated, and Mr. István Cocron confirms, I quote:
"Players should not wait for the ECJ's decision before asserting their repayment claims. There are two main reasons against this . On the one hand, it is about not risking the claims becoming statute-barred . On the other hand, it is not just about repaying the losses, but also about interest claims. Lawyer Cocron: " The claims each bear interest at 5 percentage points above the base interest rate of the European Central Bank and the interest period begins when the lawsuit is filed. "Waiting for a decision from the ECJ costs the victims of illegal online gambling money."
and
"Lawyer István Cocron is therefore convinced that most courts will agree with the LG Berlin's statements and will not suspend proceedings. Especially since a suspension would also mean that the victims of illegal online gambling would also be exposed to the risk of insolvency of the online casino operators would have to bear because they would be prevented from enforcing any first-instance judgments against security. Injured players should therefore not hesitate to claim back their losses from prohibited online gambling."
( Bold highlighted by the author)
Everything that the (illegal) online gaming providers do (including the fact that a "willing, obliging minister" introduces a law called Bill55) only serves the goal of gaining time and achieving deterrence!
In my opinion, our BGH, with its decision to suspend the proceedings and submit a referral to the ECJ, does not have doubts about the legality of the ban in Germany, but on the contrary wants "legal certainty" for the future, not only on a national level but also achieve at the level of the ECJ . That would be
It's up to everyone to make their own decision!
And as I have already explained: For those who accepted the risk of gambling and losing, were then given a "zero-cost risk" by a litigation financier, and are now "whining" here that they are now entitled to a refund have to wait, I really lack the necessary insight...
Be happy that these good lawyers exist for you (all of us) and persevere(!!), no more, but no less either(!!).
You speak to me from the soul.
Free professional educational courses for online casino employees aimed at industry best practices, improving player experience, and fair approach to gambling.
An initiative we launched with the goal to create a global self-exclusion system, which will allow vulnerable players to block their access to all online gambling opportunities.
