Key Takeaways:
- AG Emiliou found Malta’s Bill 55 incompatible with the EU’s Brussels I bis Regulation on April 23.
- Malta’s iGaming sector accounts for 10.1% of the national economy per MGA’s 2024 report.
- Emiliou said Maltese gaming licenses are, in principle, valid only in Malta under EU law.
Pressure builds on Article 56A
Case C-683/24 Spielerschutz Sigma concerns whether a legal adviser’s professional assessment of Bill 55’s EU law compatibility was sufficiently diligent under Austrian national law. This matter falls outside the CJEU’s preliminary ruling jurisdiction, and the opinion itself chiefly concerns itself with legal admissibility. Nicholas Emiliou nevertheless addressed the substance of the Bill 55 question on a contingent basis, and his conclusions deal a significant blow to Malta’s position.
Emiliou declared the provision — Article 56A of Malta’s Gaming Act, introduced via Bill 55 in June 2023 — “manifestly incompatible with the rules governing the recognition and enforcement of judgments” under the EU’s Brussels I bis Regulation. Bill 55 instructs Maltese courts to refuse recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments against Maltese-licensed gaming operators where the underlying services were lawful under Maltese law.
Emiliou found that Malta cannot rely on the public policy (ordre public) clause of the Brussels I bis Regulation to block recognition of such judgments on the basis that other member states allegedly misapplied EU law, including the freedom to provide services. Substantive EU law issues, the AG noted, cannot be re-examined at the recognition and enforcement stage under the guise of the public policy exception.
The AG also rejected the premise underlying Malta’s defense of Bill 55, which is that a Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) license grants operators the right to offer their services freely across the bloc. Under the current state of EU law, Emiliou wrote, member states are under no obligation to recognize gambling licenses issued by other member states. The country-of-origin principle, Emiliou added, does not extend to online gambling, and member states may apply their own gambling laws to operators licensed elsewhere.
The AG further observed that Bill 55 appears designed primarily to shield Malta’s iGaming industry from the financial consequences of foreign restitution claims.
The opinion follows a separate binding CJEU ruling from April 16, which upheld EU member states’ rights to prohibit online gambling services licensed in other member states and to allow player restitution claims. Together, the two outcomes significantly narrow Malta’s legal defense of its cross-border iGaming licensing model.
AG opinions are not binding on the CJEU, but the court follows them in roughly two-thirds of cases. Final judgment is expected this year. The stakes for Malta are substantial: according to the MGA’s 2024 annual report, the iGaming sector generated €1.386 billion in gross value added and, with indirect spillover included, accounted for 10.1% of the national economy.
The MGA has consistently maintained that Article 56A does not introduce new grounds for rejecting foreign judgments beyond those already established under EU law, and that it merely codifies Malta’s long-standing public policy on gaming matters.
