Global fails again in bid to suspend licence revocation
Global Gaming has again failed in a bid to resume activities in the Swedish market while its appeal against the revocation of its operating licence is heard.
The Ninja Casino operator had lodged an appeal against a ruling from the Administrative Court of Linköping, which refused to suspend the revocation until the appeals process had been carried out.
The Administrative Court of Appeal confirmed the first court’s decision. This means that Global must take its appeal to Sweden’s Supreme Administrative Court, or prevail in its challenge against Spelinspektionen’s decision to strip it of its operating licence for any chance of resuming operations in the market.
“The decision means that the company cannot offer games as long as the process in the administrative court is ongoing,” presiding judge Håkan Löfgren explained. “What is happening now is that the parties will complete their actions in the Administrative Court.
“The Administrative Court then has to come to a final verdict, and rule on whether the revocation should be confirmed.”
Spelinspektionen welcomed the court’s verdict, saying that there would be a risk to customers should the operator be allowed to resume activities in the market.
The regulator stripped Global Gaming’s SafeEnt subsidiary of its licence in June this year, citing serious breaches of the country’s player protection and anti-money laundering processes. Global, however, claims that the punishment is disproportionate, and remains confident that it will prevail in an appeal.
“We are of course disappointed by the ruling of the Administrative Court of Appeal and the fact that [injunctive] relief was not [granted],” newly installed Global Gaming CEO Tobias Fagerlund said following the court's ruling.
“We and our shareholders suffer a great deal of damage for every day operations are suspended,” he said. “It is still our conviction that we will prevail at the end of the process. We are currently considering options for an appeal for injunctive relief in the Supreme Administrative Court.”