Execution Pokerstars. Apparently, payment is not voluntary (page 92)

Please cite the source.

I will get it. May take 1-2 days.

Best regards

Thanks for the explanation! ☺️

Good evening to the community!

My villain, so to speak, is Jokerstars. It's about 9000 euros. (Court proceedings in SBG have been going on for 2 years now), so relatively little compared to some of the other victims here.

I would be grateful for an estimate of how long it might take until these scoundrels are finally ready to transfer money to the plaintiffs' account. Is the end of 2024 realistic?

Thank you

Hello!

Unfortunately, no one can give a time frame. Let's hope for the end of 2024, but that probably won't be entirely realistic. Some say it will take another 2-3 years until the law is finally out of the way and then it will probably still have to be enforced. Conclusion: it will probably take some time 😕

Hello. Source already available? Would be interesting. Regards

There isn't one, because unfortunately it's not true. I asked my lawyer, who said it was false information.

https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXVII/J/18463

https://www.parlament.gv.at/gegenstand/XXVII/J/14941

Hello everyone

My case against EA Sony regarding FIFA loot boxes was lost in the first instance.

The positive thing is that I have found a litigation funder who takes on Curacao cases. A lawsuit was filed within 2 weeks and I am very satisfied so far. The PF takes 40% of the proceeds.

Who actually still believes in getting their money back?

Mmm

As long as this continues, all the casinos will no longer exist or will have been renamed. I'll let it continue but I'm starting to think that it won't work

I'm not convinced anymore either, but we'll see. Don't count on it, but rather be happy if something comes along

I've been waiting for 3.5 years, no joke!!!

The casinos will quickly go bankrupt when the first ones have to pay.

So: no, I don't think most people will get anything either. UNFORTUNATELY.

I actually firmly believe in a payout and jokerstars. It can only take a while. I've been waiting since 2019!!

I always got the information that it would 100% happen. Literally, that's what the lady on the phone at the law firm always told me... it's just taking a while, she said...

so yes, patience

Which PKF is that? I also have losses at larger Curaçao crypto casinos

1. For everyone's information. Please open the link.

Assessment by Mr Cocron on the BGH's submission to the ECJ.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tqDbNegrHx9k5wJfedShAQ1ZtM646a_W/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=100764314048135765811&rtpof=true&sd=true

Tomorrow. I did it directly through the lawyer. She seems very competent and has been very quick so far.

office@julia-eckhart.at

BGH submits decision on reimbursement of losses from online sports betting to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

An assessment for those affected, written by lawyer István Cocron (CLLB)

Berlin, Munich, July 25, 2024.

Today, Thursday, July 25, 2024, the highest German civil court, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), announced its decision on the lawsuit brought by a victim of a major online sports betting provider. No judgment was made, but the case was referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to clarify questions of European law.

What is it about?

The defendant online sports betting provider did not have a German license at the time it offered its online sports betting. The player involved in the case as plaintiff suffered a loss of more than €3,000.00 by participating in the online sports betting offer.

The online sports betting provider defended itself by saying that it had applied for a license and that it had not been granted at the time because the licensing process carried out by the German state was contrary to European law. Otherwise, the Wiesbaden Administrative Court would have confirmed that the license should be granted and that the other requirements for the license to be granted would have been met.

In our view, this defense argument is incorrect on several points.

1. The online sports betting provider has never obtained a legally binding judgment from the Wiesbaden Administrative Court. An appeal was lodged against the judgment of the Wiesbaden Administrative Court with the Hessian Higher Administrative Court. A decision in favor of the sports betting provider has never been made by the Hessian Higher Administrative Court.

2. In its defence, the online sports betting provider argues that it would have been granted a licence for the period in question if the licensing procedure had been designed in accordance with European law.

However, it is not mentioned that a license for online sports betting would probably only have been granted if the provider had also complied with the law in force at the time.

The law in force at the time of the license application prohibited online sports betting providers from:

· Offer casino and online sports betting on the same website

· Accepting bets of more than € 1,000.00 per month

· To accept bets on "events" such as throw-ins, corners, fouls, yellow cards, weather, etc.

In our opinion, the online sports betting provider against whom the proceedings are being conducted before the Federal Court of Justice has violated all of these requirements.

A licence would therefore probably never have been granted to him for the period in dispute in the proceedings.

The problem:

The Federal Court of Justice may not take all of these facts, which are negative for the online sports betting provider, into account in its decision.

Why not?

The German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) contains strict rules as to when facts must be brought before the court for a decision. This is usually the first instance. In this case: in proceedings before the district court.

Apparently, the plaintiff player failed to draw the district court's attention to the following points, which were essential for the decision:

1. Failure to state that the decision of the Wiesbaden Administrative Court never became final and binding.

2. Failure to provide evidence that the online sports betting provider unlawfully offered casino and online sports betting on the same website.

3. Failure to provide evidence that the online sports betting provider unlawfully accepted bets in excess of €1,000.00 per month.

4. Failure to provide evidence that the online sports betting provider illegally accepted bets on "events" such as throw-ins, corners, fouls, yellow cards, weather, etc.

5. Failure to argue that the online sports betting provider should never have been granted a licence for the reasons stated above.

If the relevant submission is missing in the lower courts (local court, regional court), it can no longer be made up for before the Federal Court of Justice. The Federal Court of Justice is instead bound by the findings of the lower courts.

If the player does not present his piece in full, this missing piece cannot be added later.

In which cases is the decision relevant?

According to lawyer István Cocron of CLLB Rechtsanwälte, the procedure presented is only relevant for cases in which all of the following five conditions are met:

1. Proceedings involving losses from online sports betting (i.e. not online casino games, blackjack and poker),

My PF accepted my curacao case today 15k losses Hope it goes faster