Malta’s Gaming Gambit: EU Says “Checkmate”!

by

Ah, the folly of man! On the 23rd of April, a most learned Advocate General of the Court of Justice of the European Union hath pronounced Malta’s Bill 55 as incompatible with EU law. A second blow, if you will, to the island’s iGaming fortress in but a week’s time. How the mighty are tested!

Key Farces to Note:

  • AG Emiliou, with a stroke of his quill, declared Bill 55 at odds with the EU’s Brussels I bis Regulation. A tragedy, or perhaps a comedy of errors?
  • Malta’s iGaming realm, according to the MGA’s 2024 tome, doth contribute 10.1% to the national coffers. A sum not to be sneezed at, yet now in peril!
  • Emiliou, with a wink and a nod, proclaimed that Maltese gaming licenses are but local trinkets, valid only within Malta’s shores under EU law.

The Plot Thickens Around Article 56A

Case C-683/24 Spielerschutz Sigma, a tale of legal diligence (or lack thereof), doth question whether a legal adviser’s assessment of Bill 55’s EU compatibility was but a charade under Austrian law. Though the CJEU waves this matter aside, AG Emiliou, ever the sage, doth address the substance of Bill 55, delivering a blow most unkind to Malta’s stance.

With a flourish, Emiliou declared Article 56A of Malta’s Gaming Act, birthed by Bill 55 in June 2023, “manifestly incompatible” with the rules of judgment recognition under the Brussels I bis Regulation. This Bill, a shield for Maltese-licensed operators, doth command courts to spurn foreign judgments where services were lawful in Malta. A noble intent, perhaps, but EU law cares not for such chivalry.

Emiliou, ever the skeptic, rejected Malta’s plea to invoke the public policy clause, stating that member states cannot re-examine EU law under its guise. Nor, he added, does a Maltese license grant operators free rein across the bloc. The country-of-origin principle, he quipped, doth not extend to the digital gambling halls, leaving member states to enforce their own laws.

The AG, with a sly grin, noted that Bill 55 seems crafted to shield Malta’s iGaming treasure from foreign restitution claims. A cunning plan, but one that may now unravel.

This opinion follows a binding CJEU ruling from April 16, which upheld member states’ rights to ban foreign-licensed gambling and allow player restitution claims. Together, these rulings doth squeeze Malta’s legal defense like a lemon, leaving but a sour taste.

Though AG opinions are not binding, the CJEU oft heeds them, two-thirds of the time. The final judgment, expected this year, holds great stakes for Malta. The MGA’s 2024 report reveals the iGaming sector’s gross value added at €1.386 billion, a hefty 10.1% of the national economy. A sum that may now hang in the balance.

The MGA, ever defiant, maintains that Article 56A doth not introduce new grounds for rejecting foreign judgments, but merely codifies Malta’s long-standing policy. Yet, as the EU’s legal winds blow, one wonders if this defense shall hold.

Read More

2026-04-25 13:27