The subject of the proceedings was a claim for expenses to be reimbursed, for monetary amounts paid on the plaintiff’s order from his payment service provider Skrill ltd. to gambling providers which had no German licence. This was proven in both instances. The fact that the claims, on which the reimbursement of expenses were based, had arisen from illegal gambling (casino and poker stakes), did not affect the reimbursement obligation The unauthorised gambling has in principal no influence on the value date relationship between the payment service provider and its customers, but exclusively on the value date relationship between the sued gambler and the gambling company.
A noteworthy feature of the proceedings was that the defendant was pathologically addicted to gambling, however this was considered irrelevant, since legal incapacity was not proven. Additionally, both courts ruled that the failure to cover the negative account balance was an intentional, unlawful act by the defendant. The defendant initially appealed, however this was withdrawn on the basis of the detailed decision of the Higher Regional Court. The judgment is therefore legally binding.