Malta’s Bill 55 draws fresh adverse CJEU opinion

(AsiaGameHub) –   This marks the latest in a string of critical opinions opposing Malta’s goal of protecting igaming operators from legal action.

Luxembourg.- Nicholas Emiliou, Advocate General (AG) at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), has released another opinion criticizing Malta’s Bill 55. This is his second public statement in recent weeks, following his remarks last month on a lawsuit against gambling operator Tipico that was filed to recover losses sustained when online gambling was still unlicensed in Germany.

Emiliou’s latest opinion on Bill 55 comes in response to a request from an Austrian court that is currently hearing a case seeking repayment of unpaid gambling losses. The Austrian court asked for clarification on whether Bill 55 complies with European Union law.

First introduced in 2023, Bill 55, formally Article 56A of Malta’s Gambling Act, was drafted to shield Malta-licensed gaming companies from foreign court judgments. While Emiliou ruled the specific Austrian request inadmissible, he confirmed that national laws such as Bill 55 are “manifestly incompatible with the rules governing the recognition and enforcement of judgments” in the EU.

Emiliou emphasized that any rulings against Maltese operators handed down by other EU member states must be “recognised and enforced in all other member states, including Malta.”

The opinion is not legally binding, but it may impact future decisions by local Maltese courts. On April 16, the CJEU released a binding preliminary ruling confirming that EU law does not block member states from banning online gambling services that originate from other EU countries. This ruling goes directly against Malta’s argument that MGA-licensed operators can rely on EU trade freedoms to operate across internal borders.

Emiliou’s stance reinforces this earlier ruling, as he stated that “other member states are entitled to apply their respective gambling laws to operators licensed in Malta.” He added that “situations are bound to arise in which the services provided by a gaming operator holding a Maltese licence are unlawful in a Member State while being lawful under Maltese law.”