EU Legal Opinion Raises Questions About Malta’s Gaming Law Shield

(AsiaGameHub) –   A top legal advisor to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has expressed reservations about a contentious Maltese gaming regulation, simultaneously indicating that the specific case referred to the court might not be appropriate for consideration.

Austrian Challenge to Malta’s Bill 55 Ruled Inadmissible

In an opinion issued on 23 April 2026, Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou evaluated a request from an Austrian tribunal seeking clarity on whether Malta’s provision, known as Bill 55, aligns with EU law. This measure, enacted in 2023, mandates Maltese courts to dismiss foreign judgments against licensed gaming operators if such judgments stem from the alleged illegality of services that are permissible under Maltese statutes.

The controversy originates from legal proceedings in Austria, where a court is investigating whether a legal professional acted improperly when providing advice on the identical Maltese provision. Emiliou stated that the central point of contention in that national case is not the validity of the Maltese regulation itself, but rather the professional behavior of the attorney concerned. Consequently, he determined that the request for a preliminary ruling fails to satisfy the conditions necessary for the EU court’s involvement, given that it is not crucial for resolving the national disagreement.

Emiliou Cautions That Malta’s Bill 55 Is Incompatible With EU Law

Even though he deemed the referral inadmissible, the Advocate General proceeded to assess the core issue. He indicated that, should the court decide to review the provision, it would likely deem it incompatible with EU regulations concerning the reciprocal recognition and execution of judgments among member states.

His assessment questions the rationale underpinning the Maltese legislation, particularly its use of public policy as a basis to obstruct foreign judgments. He contended that EU law does not allow national courts to decline enforcement simply because they suspect another member state might have incorrectly applied EU law.

The opinion further rejects the idea that a license granted in Malta automatically entitles gaming operators to provide services across the entire EU. Emiliou highlighted that individual member states maintain the power to regulate gambling within their borders and are not compelled to acknowledge licenses issued by other nations.

Moreover, he proposed that the Maltese regulation seems intended to safeguard a significant national industry from financial exposure, rather than to uphold valid legal tenets. Economic factors, he observed, do not warrant circumventing EU regulations on the enforcement of judgments across borders.

Although this opinion is not legally binding, it offers insight into the potential direction the court may take on this matter. A definitive ruling is anticipated at a subsequent point, carrying wider consequences for the European gaming industry and the regulatory disagreements among member states.