Case C-683/24, Spielerschutz Sigma: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 16 October 2024 – Spielerschutz Sigma Prozessfinanzierungs GmbH v Geissler Heilbock Hopf Ferox Legal Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB
Date: 2024-10-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Malta, enforcement of ruling, gaming, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, provision of services, public order, service, trade licence








C_202500151EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/151


13.1.2025






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 16 October 2024 – Spielerschutz Sigma Prozessfinanzierungs GmbH v Geissler Heilbock Hopf Ferox Legal Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB


(Case C-683/24, Spielerschutz Sigma)

(C/2025/151)
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Handelsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: Spielerschutz Sigma Prozessfinanzierungs GmbH

Defendant: Geissler Heilbock Hopf Ferox Legal Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten mbB

Questions referred







1.


Must Article 1(1) and (2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in conjunction with Articles 45(1)(a), 46 and 52 of that regulation, be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which, on the basis of a corresponding principle of public policy enshrined in national law, precludes the recognition and enforcement of judgments given by the courts or tribunals of other Member States in respect of all proceedings against licence holders and current and former officers and key persons of a licence holder for matters relating to the provision of a gaming service if such legal action conflicts with or undermines the legality of the provision of gaming services in or from Malta by virtue of a licence issued by the [competent] authority, or the legality of any legal or natural obligation resulting from the provision of such gaming services, and relates to an authorised activity which is lawful in terms of that national law and other applicable national regulatory instruments?










2.


Must Articles 45(1) and 46 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which, irrespective of whether a relevant application is submitted to the court or tribunal before which recognition or enforcement is sought and of whether the person bearing the obligation has exhausted all legal remedies in the Member State of the court of first instance, and without review by the court or tribunal before which recognition or enforcement is sought, precludes the recognition (Article 45 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012) and enforcement (Article 46 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012) of judgments given by the courts or tribunals of other Member States in respect of all proceedings against licence holders and current and former officers and key persons of a licence holder for matters relating to the provision of a gaming service if such legal action conflicts with or undermines the legality of the provision of gaming services in or from Malta by virtue of a licence issued by the [competent] authority, or the legality of any legal or natural obligation resulting from the provision of such gaming services, and relates to an authorised activity which is lawful in terms of that national law and other applicable national regulatory instruments?










3.a.


Must Articles 45(1)(a) and 46 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which declares the recognition and enforcement of judgments to be contrary to public policy (ordre public) for the sole purpose, in the context of encouragement of the private sector by the State as provided for in the national constitution, of protecting holders of online gaming licences from the recognition and enforcement of judgments finding against them that are given by courts or tribunals of other Member States?










3.b.


Must Articles 45(1)(a) and 46 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 be interpreted as precluding refusal on grounds of public policy of recognition and enforcement by the court or tribunal seised in the State in which enforcement is sought where that refusal is based solely on the premiss that recognising such a judgment would be contrary to the economic and financial interests of the Member State addressed because gaming providers make a significant contribution to the national economy and the revenue of that Member State?










4.


Must Article 52 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law which precludes recognition and/or enforcement of a judgment given by a court or tribunal of another Member State in proceedings against licence holders and current and former officers and key persons of a licence holder for matters relating to the provision of a gaming service because the gaming provider’s activity, assessed under Maltese law, would be permissible?










5.


Must Article 48 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to decide without delay enshrined therein is breached if no decision on the application for recognition has been given at first instance within six months and that delay is not due to circumstances or delays on the part of the parties or of third parties in the individual recognition proceedings?






(1)  Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/151/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)