Minimum distance to betting offices in North Rhine-Westphalia ruled stringently by the Administrative Court (VG) Düsseldorf on 07.05.2025

The Administrative Court (VG) Düsseldorf ruled by judgment of 07.05.2025 (Az. 16 K 6623/22) on admissibility requirements and the minimum distance to betting offices.

What are the basic rules for the minimum distance to betting offices?

The permissibility of operating betting brokerage facilities (legally imprecisely also called "betting offices") is – as in other German federal states – strictly regulated in North Rhine-Westphalia.

According to § 13 Abs. 13 AG GlüStV NRW, a minimum distance to betting offices of 350 metres to public schools and to children's and youth welfare institutions must generally be observed. For so-called existing betting brokerage facilities that were already in existence on 22 May 2019 and possess a legally binding building permit, this distance is reduced to 100 metres (§ 13 Abs. 15 Satz 2 AG GlüStV NRW). The regulation serves the protection of minors and players and is an expression of the legislature's objective to prevent incentive effects on young people and excessive availability of betting offers in public spaces.

The admissibility requirement for the brokerage of sports betting is, pursuant to § 21a Abs. 1 Satz 2 GlüStV 2021 i.V.m. § 13 AG GlüStV NRW, the granting of a licence, which concerns both the betting organiser and the specific brokerage location. The granting of a licence may moreover be shaped in greater detail by ancillary conditions, insofar as the statutory provisions allow for this.

What was at issue in the concrete case?

The claimants – a sports betting organiser licensed in Germany and a betting broker – applied in 2020 for a gambling law licence for the operation of a betting brokerage facility that had been in operation since 2017 in L. This was located only 39.5 metres in a straight line from the open children's recreational facility "F.-G.-Haus", which is under Protestant church administration and is regularly visited by children between 6 and 12 years of age.

The district government rejected the application because the reduced minimum distance to betting offices of 100 metres for existing betting brokerage facilities was undercut. An exception was not warranted, in particular because there were no atypical circumstances that could justify a deviation from the minimum distance to betting offices. Milder measures such as conditions regarding storefront design were also not permissible in the absence of a legal basis.

The claimants countered that the F.-G.-Haus was not a public institution because of its church administration, the scope of protection of the provision did not cover children under 12 years of age, and in any event there was reliance protection due to the earlier building permit.

Legal considerations of the Administrative Court (VG) Düsseldorf

The Administrative Court dismissed the action by judgment of 07.05.2025 (Az. 16 K 6623/22) in full and confirmed the lawfulness of the refusal:

1. Applicability of the minimum distance rule

The court made clear that § 13 Abs. 13 AG GlüStV NRW also applies to children's and youth welfare institutions under church administration. The decisive factor is not the administrator, but the regular use by children and young people. The F.-G.-Haus thus falls clearly within the scope of application.

2. No deviation from the minimum distance

Although § 13 Abs. 13 Satz 4 AG GlüStV NRW provides the possibility of allowing deviations taking into account local circumstances, this comes into consideration only in atypical cases. Such circumstances – such as terrain obstacles, urban planning particularities or only minimal undercuts – were not present. The undercut by more than 60 metres was, on the contrary, substantial.

3. Inadmissibility of conditions as a milder means

The Administrative Court (VG) made clear that the statutorily established minimum distance requirement must not be circumvented by the possibility of granting conditions. § 13 Abs. 13 AG GlüStV NRW is conclusive in this respect as lex specialis and permits no exception through mere conditions.

4. Compatibility with higher-ranking law

Furthermore, the court established that the regulation is neither unconstitutional nor contrary to EU law:

• Art. 12 GG (freedom of profession): The restriction is justified by the legitimate aim of protecting children and young people.
• Art. 49 and 56 AEUV (freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services): The regulation is proportionate and non-discriminatory.
• Reliance protection: Even for existing betting brokerage facilities, a reduced distance of 100 metres is provided. No further protection exists. The legislature had already clarified in 2012 that permanent tolerance of the old practice was not to be expected.

What is to be done?

Companies that operate or plan to operate a betting brokerage facility must observe the minimum distance to betting offices and should pay attention to the following:

• Location analysis: Already prior to filing an application, a precise examination of the environment (in particular distances to schools and youth welfare institutions) is essential. Distances are to be calculated in a straight line, at schools and youth welfare institutions from the property boundary.
• No exception rule through conditions: Even an elaborate external design or advertising restrictions generally do not change the inadmissibility in the event of an undercut of the minimum distances.
• Existing locations: For locations approved and operated before 22 May 2019, there is only limited transitional protection – with a reduced distance of 100 metres.
• Constitutional law and EU law challenges to the minimum distance regulation are currently not promising, as the case law is convinced of its admissibility.

Conclusion:
The decision strengthens the restrictive line of case law with regard to the choice of location for betting brokerage facilities. Operators should make location decisions with the greatest care and legal support. For existing locations, we recommend reviewing compliance with the distance regulations early on from a legal perspective, in order to avoid unnecessary investments or refusals to grant licences.

For questions regarding application, location review or judicial enforcement of rights, AVANTCORE Rechtsanwälte in Stuttgart as a specialized law firm for administrative law advises you competently and engagedly.