The European iGaming sector is awaiting a definitive ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) following a significant legal opinion by Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou. The opinion suggests that Malta’s Bill 55, a controversial clause designed to shield local operators from foreign gaming lawsuits, is fundamentally incompatible with EU law.
Public Policy vs. Brussels I Bis Regulations
At the heart of the dispute is Malta’s Bill 55’s Article 56A of the Maltese Gaming Act. Passed in 2023, the clause mandates that Maltese courts must reject the enforcement of foreign judgments against Malta-licensed firms if the ruling stems from gaming activities deemed “illegal” in another member state.
Advocate General Emiliou argued that this creates an unlawful national barrier to the Brussels I Bis Regulation, which requires the mutual recognition of civil judgments across the EU.
The Advocate General’s opinion was clear on the limitations of national sovereignty:
“The Brussels l bis Regulation… would be ‘incompatible’ with a measure like 56A. Malta cannot obtain such an outcome [rejecting foreign judgments] in a general and abstract way by relying on the public policy exception.”
The Licensing “Country-of-Origin” Myth
A primary takeaway from the opinion is the rejection of the idea that a Maltese license provides an automatic right to offer services EU-wide. Emiliou reiterated that the “country-of-origin” principle does not apply to online gambling; member states remain free to impose their own regulations on operators targeting their citizens.
While the CJEU is not bound to follow the Advocate General’s opinion, the legal consensus is shifting against the Maltese framework. If the judges follow Emiliou’s lead, Malta may be forced to dismantle the legal protections it currently provides to its multi-billion euro gambling industry, opening the door for massive player recoupment claims from jurisdictions like Austria and Germany.
