100-metre minimum distance for betting intermediaries: Düsseldorf Administrative Court (VG) consistently confirms regulation of betting offices

Renewed decision of Düsseldorf Administrative Court (VG) on admissibility requirements and minimum distance to a betting intermediary

Gambling regulation between freedom and the public good

Regulation of the gambling market in Germany has been a topic of heated legal and political debate for years. With the Gambling State Treaty 2021 (GlüStV 2021), the federal government and the Länder have created a unified regulatory regime that pursues both player protection and channelling of the gambling market its central concern is to protect the population – in particular children and young people – from the dangers of gambling addiction while at the same time enabling legal offers.

A key instrument of this regulation is the minimum distance provisions: They limit the density of betting intermediaries in public spaces and are intended to prevent gambling incentives from arising on every street corner. Particularly in North Rhine-Westphalia, § 13 Abs. 13 AG GlüStV NRW established a clear framework: a minimum distance of 100 metres as the crow flies must exist between individual betting intermediaries. Whether this regulation is capable of withstanding constitutional and EU law scrutiny was at the centre of the proceedings before the Düsseldorf Administrative Court (VG) (Judgment of 21.08.2025 – 16 K 1182/22).

What was at issue? Betting office in a competitive situation

The claimants were a Maltese sports betting operator with a nationwide licence and its German intermediary. They wanted to open a betting intermediary office in R. However, the location was only 80.4 metres away from an already approved betting intermediary office.

In addition: For the location there was no final, non-appealable building permit as a betting office on the relevant cut-off date of 22 May 2019. Accordingly, the claimant could not rely on the transitional and existing use protection provision of § 13 Abs. 15 AG GlüStV NRW.

The district government refused the requested permit – both due to the shortfall in distance and due to missing documents in the application procedure. At the same time, the competitor received a permit for the neighbouring location. The claimants alleged a violation of their fundamental rights, a breach of EU law and pointed to the alleged incoherence of the regulation, since online betting or horse betting are possible without distance requirements.

The decision – dismissal of the action by Düsseldorf Administrative Court (VG)

The administrative court dismissed the action entirely. The core findings:

1. Legal basis and applicability

The licensing requirement for betting intermediaries derives from § 21a GlüStV 2021 in conjunction with § 13 AG GlüStV NRW. Since it was an action for a mandatory order, the current legal position had to be applied. Thus the minimum distance rule introduced in 2021 was applicable.

2. No existing use protection, no reliance interest protection

The claimants could not rely on reliance interest protection. Unlike with gaming halls, where the Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) had demanded a transitional provision, there was no comparable starting situation for betting intermediaries. Without a final, non-appealable building permit on the cut-off date 22.05.2019, § 13 Abs. 15 AG GlüStV NRW does not apply.

The court stressed that operators of betting offices must have been aware that their business field would be subject to stricter regulatory rules in the medium term.

3. Priority principle in competing applications

In the event of a distance collision, § 13 Abs. 14 AG GlüStV NRW generally applies: only if competing applications arrive completely in the same calendar month is a selection decision required. Since the competing application was already complete in July 2021, while the claimant's application remained incomplete, the authority was entitled to decide according to the priority principle.

In other words: whoever submits first with complete documents has priority – a clear message for practice.

4. Minimum distance regulation constitutional and EU law-compliant

Particularly noteworthy is the fundamental confirmation of the distance regulation:

• Constitutional law: Interference with freedom of profession (Art. 12 GG) is justified by the overriding public good objective of addiction prevention.
• EU law: Neither the freedom of establishment nor the freedom to provide services under Art. 49, 56 AEUV are violated. The Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) grants member states a wide margin of discretion as long as the regulation is coherent.
• Incoherence objection: The fact that online betting or horse betting are regulated differently does not call proportionality into question. EU law does not require identical treatment of all types of gambling.

5. No exception in the individual case

The court examined whether an exception might have been possible pursuant to § 13 Abs. 13 Satz 4 AG GlüStV NRW. Since there were neither special urban planning features nor merely a minimal shortfall (80.4 m = approximately 20% shortfall), there was no misuse of discretion by the authority. The restrictive application is expressly intended by the legislator.

Significance for practice – What operators and municipalities must now know

The judgment of Düsseldorf Administrative Court (VG) sends a clear signal for the practice of gambling regulation in North Rhine-Westphalia:

• Strict application of the 100-metre rule: Operators of betting offices must carefully examine locations. Even minor shortfalls lead to inadmissibility.
• No 'negotiating out' exceptions: Exceptions remain, once again, the absolute exception and require demonstrably atypical urban planning circumstances.
• Observe the priority principle: Whoever submits complete documents first has better chances. Investors should therefore hold all documents ready early on (in particular regarding business managers, building documents, external design).
• Municipalities are given clear confirmation through the judgment that they may enforce minimum distances consistently without having to fear union or constitutional law risks.

Conclusion – Legal certainty and clarity for the market

With the decision of Düsseldorf Administrative Court (VG), the 100-metre distance rule for betting intermediaries in NRW has been definitively confirmed. Neither constitutional nor EU law stand in its way. For operators this means: location selection with care and swift, complete applications are decisive. For gaming supervision, the judgment provides tailwind in enforcing regulation. If you require legal advice, in particular on application procedures, location assessment or judicial enforcement of rights, the administrative law experts are available to you at AVANTCORE Legal Advisors in Stuttgart as a specialized law firm for Administrative Law is at your service.

A further article on the subject Minimum distance to betting mediation services can be found here:

Minimum distance to betting offices in NRW decisively ruled by the VG Düsseldorf on 07.05.2025