A long‑brewing dispute between Malta and European Union authorities reached a critical stage in Luxembourg this week, as the European Court of Justice (ECJ) heard arguments in a case that could redefine the balance between national gambling laws and the EU’s single market principles.
On Thursday, Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou delivered his opinion in case C‑440/23 — a pivotal moment in the clash between Malta’s bid to shield its gaming sector and Germany’s push for stronger consumer protections.
Bill 55 at the Heart of the Dispute
The controversy centers on Bill 55, enacted by Malta in June 2023, which prevents Maltese courts from recognizing or enforcing monetary judgments from other EU states against Malta‑licensed gambling operators. The European Commission has launched infringement proceedings, arguing the law undermines the EU’s principle of mutual recognition of judgments.
The ECJ case stems from a German lawyer representing a player seeking reimbursement of gambling losses. The lawyer sued two Malta‑licensed operators, claiming their contracts with German customers were void because the companies lacked German authorization and were profiting from games banned under German law.
Maltese operators counter that the real conflict lies in Germany’s restrictive licensing regime, which they say breaches the EU’s freedom to provide services. The Maltese court referred the matter to the ECJ, turning a private debt dispute into a test case with EU‑wide implications.
Malta’s Defense and the Advocate General’s View
The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) insists Bill 55 is not a blanket immunity but a codification of established principles allowing courts to reject foreign rulings that conflict with public policy. The MGA also argues that restrictive national rules in other member states contravene CJEU case law and hinder market access.
In his opinion, Advocate General Emiliou stated that claims for reimbursement of losses from illegal gambling do not amount to an abuse of EU law, and that operators are unlikely to succeed in using such an argument as a defense. However, he stressed that the matter remains unresolved until the ECJ issues its final judgment.
What’s at Stake
The Advocate General’s opinion is non‑binding but could heavily influence the court’s decision. A broad ruling might reshape the legal landscape for gambling operators across Europe, while a narrow one could confine the impact to this specific dispute.
Whether the ECJ ultimately upholds Malta’s sovereignty over its gambling laws or backs Germany’s regulatory stance, the verdict will mark a defining chapter in the increasingly tense relationship between the island nation and Brussels over the future of cross‑border online gambling.
