CJEU Rejects Dutch Appeal in Long-Running Licensing Aid Dispute

CJEU Rejects Dutch Appeal in Long-Running Licensing Aid Dispute

The long-running dispute over the Dutch state’s handling of gambling licences a decade ago has taken another turn in Luxembourg. The Court of Justice of the European Union has rejected an appeal by the Netherlands, confirming that the European Commission failed to conduct a sufficient review when it dismissed a complaint about state aid in the betting and lottery sector.

The roots of the case stretch back to 2014, when the Dutch government extended monopoly licences for incumbent operators without launching a public tender. The European Gaming and Betting Association challenged the move two years later, arguing that renewing the licences without competition could amount to selective economic advantage in breach of EU state aid rules.

In 2020, the European Commission closed the EGBA complaint without opening a formal investigation. It concluded there was no evidence of illegal state aid and declined to examine the matter further. That decision triggered legal action. The EGBA brought the case before the courts, claiming the Commission had dismissed the matter too quickly and without sufficient scrutiny.

In 2023, the General Court sided with the association and annulled the Commission’s position. It found that the Commission’s handling of the complaint fell short of the legal threshold for investigating potential state aid. Instead of accepting that outcome, the Netherlands appealed, arguing that the Commission had acted within its discretion. That appeal has now failed.

The Court of Justice, in Case C-59/24 P, has confirmed the earlier ruling and left the General Court’s conclusions intact. The judgment does not decide whether unlawful state aid occurred. The focus was limited strictly to procedure. The Court held that when the Commission examines a state aid complaint, it has a duty to engage with the substance of the measure and consider all relevant circumstances. It cannot simply close a file without demonstrating that it has carried out a sufficient review.

The decision places responsibility back with the Commission to revisit the substance of the original complaint. The Court underlined that institutional shortcuts undermine the enforcement role assigned to the Commission under the Treaties. It also indirectly signals to member states that licensing decisions involving economic exclusivity must withstand scrutiny if challenged under EU rules.

The EGBA has welcomed the outcome and framed it as a matter of accountability rather than a dispute focused solely on market access. Secretary General Maarten Haijer stated that the ruling reaffirms that complaints cannot be dismissed without examination and that oversight mechanisms remain active even when several years have passed. For the association, the case highlights the need for transparency and equal access when authorisations in regulated sectors are issued or prolonged.

The Dutch authorities now face the possibility of a renewed state aid inquiry into their 2014 actions. The Court’s ruling does not oblige the Commission to reach a particular conclusion, but it does require a proper investigation rather than summary closure. That process could include examining whether the extension of monopolies conferred an economic advantage, whether it distorted competition, and whether such measures could be justified on public policy grounds.

This development lands in a broader context where gambling regulation across the EU continues to evolve in response to market liberalisation, social policy requirements and technological shifts. The issue at stake is not limited to one jurisdiction. Other member states observing the case may take note when granting or extending exclusive rights. The procedural standards set by the Court of Justice reinforce that decisions involving market privileges must be capable of external assessment.

The Commission, assuming it reopens its investigation, will likely have to revisit earlier conclusions and scrutinise the terms of the licensing extension rather than relying on assumptions that no aid occurred. The ruling also illustrates how EU legal processes can stretch over many years before reaching procedural clarity.

Whether the eventual outcome results in sanctions, recovery measures or a finding of no aid remains uncertain. The Court has deliberately stayed away from passing judgment on the substance. Instead, it has emphasised process and accountability, leaving the merits to be addressed only after a proper review.

For operators already active in national markets and for those seeking access, the case reinforces the value of legal recourse when competitive procedures are absent. For regulators, it underscores the importance of documenting the policy rationale and economic implications when extending exclusive rights.

The Commission now faces renewed attention on how it handles complaints tied to regulated industries. If it proceeds with a formal investigation, the Dutch authorities will need to justify the approach taken in 2014 and show whether national policy considerations can align with internal market obligations.

The ruling may also influence how future licences are structured. Transparent allocation processes could help mitigate potential challenges and reduce the risk of legal disputes over state aid. The Commission’s response in the coming months will show whether it intends to address the matter narrowly or use the case as a reference point for broader enforcement.