EU Law Challenges Malta’s Bill 55 in Advocate General Opinion
There is growing legal pressure at the EU level on a new Maltese law intended to prevent the enforcement of some foreign gaming rulings. According to the advocate, General Nicholas Emiliou, if the Court of Justice of the European Union decides to look into the case’s content, Malta’s so-called Bill 55 clause should be declared incompatible with EU law.
Read more 3 Builder Piggies Slot Review
Austrian Referral May Not Be Admissible, Says Advocate General
The Maltese Gaming Act’s Article 56A, which was adopted back in 2023 by an amendment often referred to as Bill 55, is at issue in this lawsuit. The clause mandates that Maltese courts reject recognition or enforcement of some foreign judgments against Malta-licensed gaming companies on the basis of public policy.
Furthermore, the bill focuses on rulings in which players attempt to recoup gambling losses from Malta-licensed operators, even while the gambling activity was deemed illegal in another Member State. Through an Austrian court handling a dispute over whether a lawyer performed carefully when advising a lawsuit funder on the compliance of the Maltese clause with EU law, the issue made its way to the CJEU.
The main point of view held by Advocate General Emiliou is administrative. He believes the Austrian request is inadmissible since the main issue in the national dispute is whether the lawyer’s opinion was fairly defensible at the time it was made, not whether Bill 55 is genuinely compliant with EU legislation. The Advocate General stated that the CJEU shouldn’t respond to the referenced inquiries because of this. He believes that the EU law issue is too indirect to support a preliminary finding, even though the Austrian court may find it important.
Bill 55 would violate Brussels l bis Regulations
Even so, the opinion covers the main points of the case in the event that the court adopts a different perspective. The Brussels l bis Regulation, which controls the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial issues throughout the EU, would be “incompatible” with a measure like 56A, according to the Advocate General.
Judgments issued by courts in one member state must, in theory, be accepted and upheld in other member states under that regulation. This includes rulings requiring gaming companies with Malta licenses to reimburse players. A national barrier to that process is what the Maltese provision aims to establish. According to the Advocate General, Malta cannot obtain such an outcome in a general and abstract way by relying on the public policy exception.
EU-wide gambling rights are not created by Maltese licenses
The legal standing of Maltese gaming licenses outside of Malta is a major topic of debate. The argument that an operator having a Malta license can automatically offer gaming services throughout the EU as long as it abides by Maltese law was rejected by the Advocate General. CJEU case law has already rejected that approach. The general country-of-origin principle does not apply to online gambling, and Member States are still free to place their own gambling regulations on operators who target users within their borders. This means that a gambling product can be illegal in one member state but allowed in the Maltese jurisdiction. The ruling holds that the EU’s freedom to provide services is not fundamentally violated by the difference.
The final decision is still in progress
The Court of Justice is not required to follow the Advocate General’s opinions. The judges will now discuss and deliver the decision at a later time. There are currently two probable outcomes based on the opinion. The Court may decide whether Malta’s Bill 55 framework complies with EU legislation, or it may adopt the Advocate General’s procedural position and determine that the Austrian request is inadmissible.
Read more Taylen Green 40 time: How Arkansas QB’s sprint compares to fastest QBs in 2026 NFL Draft
Source: iGamingExpress
Comments