1.

Is article 56 TFEU to be interpreted to the effect that the infringement of the freedom of services by a general prohibition of online slots in the member state of the consumer (state of destination) towards online casino operators that are licensed and regulated in their state of origin (Malta) cannot be justified by compelling reasons of the common good,

while that same member state — contrary to judgments of the Court of justice in C-148/15 (1) Deutsche Parkinson (par 35), C-316/07 (2) Markus Stoß and C-42/02 (3) Lindman — did apparently not provide scientific evidence showing that there are specific dangers in these games that significantly contribute to achieving the goals pursued by its regulation, in particular the prevention of problematic gaming,

and that in view of these dangers restricting the prohibition to online slots — in contrast to all the gaming offers that are allowed for online and land-based slots — can be considered suitable, mandatory and proportionate to reach the regulatory goals.

2.

Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted as precluding the application of a total ban on online casino gambling contained in Paragraph 4 (1) and (4) of the German Interstate Treaty on Gaming (‘GlüStV’) if the German gambling regulation (State Gambling Treaty, ‘GlüStV’), according to its § 1, does not aim at a total ban of gambling, but at ‘steering the natural gambling instinct of the population into orderly and supervised channels as well as counteracting the development and spread of unauthorised gambling in black markets’ and a considerable demand from players for online slots exists?

3.

Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted in such a way that a general ban of online casino offers cannot be applied if

although according to C-409/06 (4) Winner Wetten, Union law may not be temporarily suspended.

4.

Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted to the effect that a member state (of destination) cannot justify a national regulation with compelling reasons of the common good, if

5.

Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted to the effect that this rule precludes the recovery of stakes lost in the course of participation in (secondary) lotteries based on the asserted illegality of transactions because of the lack of a licence in the member state of the consumer, if

6.

Is Article 56 TFEU to be interpreted to the effect that it precludes the recovery of stakes lost in the course of participation in (secondary) lotteries based on the asserted illegality of transactions because of the lack of a licence in the member state of the consumer if

7.

Is Article 56 TFEU and the prohibition of abuse of rights C-423/15 (5) Niels Kratzer, to be interpreted as precluding the claim for reimbursement of lost stakes based on the lack of a German permit and unjust enrichment where the organiser is licensed and supervised by the authorities in another Member State and the player’s claim assets and claims to payment are secured by the law of the Member State in which the organiser is established?