The Supreme Court examined the legality of the contract between the two parties and determined that such contracts are "absolutely void" due to the operator's lack of a license in Austria.
Interestingly, the court noted that both parties could invoke the illegality of the contract, stating: "Since the prohibition provisions in question are therefore not protective provisions that exist exclusively for the benefit of one contractual partner, not only this party, but every contractual partner can invoke the illegality and nullity of the contract."
This decision marks a stark difference from previous cases, where courts typically ruled in favor of players seeking to recover losses from unlicensed operators. The Supreme Court's ruling aligns with Austria's strict gambling monopoly, aimed at discouraging the use of unlicensed operators and preventing gambling addiction.
The court emphasized that allowing players to retain winnings while recovering losses would encourage participation in illegal gambling, counteracting the country's regulatory efforts.
Although the operator initially sought to recover the full €7,152, the court ruled that only part of the winnings was garnered illegally. Consequently, the player was ordered to return €626.60 to cover the operator's legal fees. The gambler has 14 days to comply with the court's order.