2 days ago
I think it is more related to the fact that Malta has 2 months to comment on the infringement procedure
Automatic translation:
Execution Pokerstars. Apparently, payment is not voluntary (page 128)
2 days ago
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:
2 days ago
Summer break makes little sense if they set the date themselves ??. There's certainly more to it...unfortunately.
Automatic translation:
2 days ago
but then one would think that the providers would not have gotten through this procedure either?!
Automatic translation:
2 days ago
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:
2 days ago
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:
2 days ago
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:
14 hours ago
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.
Automatic translation:
