Malta’s Gaming Shield Faces Second EU Legal Setback in a Week

Key Takeaways:

• AG Emiliou recovered Malta’s Bill 55 incompatible with the EU’s Brussels I bis Regulation connected April 23.
• Malta’s iGaming assemblage accounts for 10.1% of the nationalist system per MGA’s 2024 report.
• Emiliou said Maltese gaming licenses are, successful principle, valid lone successful Malta nether EU law.

Pressure builds connected Article 56A

Case C-683/24 Spielerschutz Sigma concerns whether a ineligible adviser’s nonrecreational appraisal of Bill 55’s EU instrumentality compatibility was sufficiently diligent nether Austrian nationalist law. This substance falls extracurricular the CJEU’s preliminary ruling jurisdiction, and the sentiment itself chiefly concerns itself with ineligible admissibility. Nicholas Emiliou nevertheless addressed the substance of the Bill 55 question connected a contingent basis, and his conclusions woody a important stroke to Malta’s position.

Emiliou declared the proviso — Article 56A of Malta’s Gaming Act, introduced via Bill 55 successful June 2023 — “manifestly incompatible with the rules governing the designation and enforcement of judgments” nether the EU’s Brussels I bis Regulation. Bill 55 instructs Maltese courts to garbage designation and enforcement of overseas judgments against Maltese-licensed gaming operators wherever the underlying services were lawful nether Maltese law.

Emiliou recovered that Malta cannot trust connected the nationalist argumentation (ordre public) clause of the Brussels I bis Regulation to artifact designation of specified judgments connected the ground that different subordinate states allegedly misapplied EU law, including the state to supply services. Substantive EU instrumentality issues, the AG noted, cannot beryllium re-examined astatine the designation and enforcement signifier nether the guise of the nationalist argumentation exception.

The AG besides rejected the premise underlying Malta’s defence of Bill 55, which is that a Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) licence grants operators the close to connection their services freely crossed the bloc. Under the existent authorities of EU law, Emiliou wrote, subordinate states are nether nary work to admit gambling licenses issued by different subordinate states. The country-of-origin principle, Emiliou added, does not widen to online gambling, and subordinate states whitethorn use their ain gambling laws to operators licensed elsewhere.

The AG further observed that Bill 55 appears designed chiefly to shield Malta’s iGaming manufacture from the fiscal consequences of overseas restitution claims.

The sentiment follows a abstracted binding CJEU ruling from April 16, which upheld EU subordinate states’ rights to prohibit online gambling services licensed successful different subordinate states and to let subordinate restitution claims. Together, the 2 outcomes importantly constrictive Malta’s ineligible defence of its cross-border iGaming licensing model.

AG opinions are not binding connected the CJEU, but the tribunal follows them successful astir two-thirds of cases. Final judgement is expected this year. The stakes for Malta are substantial: according to the MGA’s 2024 yearly report, the iGaming assemblage generated €1.386 cardinal successful gross worth added and, with indirect spillover included, accounted for 10.1% of the nationalist economy.

The MGA has consistently maintained that Article 56A does not present caller grounds for rejecting overseas judgments beyond those already established nether EU law, and that it simply codifies Malta’s long-standing nationalist argumentation connected gaming matters.