EU Advocate General Finds Malta’s Bill 55 Incompatible

On April 23 Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou of the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a non-binding opinion finding Malta’s Bill 55 incompatible with the Brussels I bis regulation. The provision under challenge, Article 56A of Malta’s Gaming Act, was introduced via Bill 55 in June 2023 and directs Maltese courts to refuse recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments against Maltese-licensed gaming operators when the underlying services were lawful under Maltese law.

Emiliou wrote that Article 56A is “manifestly incompatible with the rules governing the recognition and enforcement of judgments” in Brussels I bis. He noted that, under current EU law, Maltese gambling licences are valid in principle only in Malta and member states are not obliged to recognise licences issued by other member states. The Advocate General rejected Malta’s attempt to invoke the public policy (ordre public) exception to block recognition of foreign judgments on the ground that other states misapplied EU law, saying substantive EU-law issues cannot be re-examined at the recognition and enforcement stage.

The opinion states the country-of-origin principle does not extend to online gambling, leaving room for individual member states to apply their own gambling rules to operators licensed elsewhere. Emiliou observed that Article 56A appears aimed at shielding Malta’s iGaming sector from the financial impact of foreign restitution claims.

The file before the Court is Case C-683/24, known as Spielerschutz Sigma. The case questions whether a legal adviser’s professional assessment of Bill 55’s compatibility with EU law met the diligence required under Austrian national law. Emiliou said that particular issue falls outside the Court’s preliminary-ruling jurisdiction and limited his opinion mainly to questions of admissibility, while addressing the substance on a contingent basis.

The April 23 opinion follows a binding CJEU ruling on April 16 that upheld member states’ rights to prohibit online gambling services licensed in other member states and to allow player restitution claims. Taken together, the two outcomes narrow the legal arguments supporting Malta’s cross-border iGaming licensing model.

AG opinions are not binding on the Court, but the CJEU follows Advocate General recommendations in roughly two-thirds of cases. A final judgment in the Spielerschutz Sigma matter is expected later this year.

The Malta Gaming Authority’s 2024 annual report states the iGaming sector generated €1.386 billion in gross value added and, including indirect effects, accounted for 10.1% of the national economy. The MGA has maintained that Article 56A does not create new grounds for refusing recognition of foreign judgments beyond existing EU law and that the provision codifies Malta’s long-standing public policy on gaming matters. The AG opinion and the April 16 ruling will be considered by the Court when it issues a final decision.