EU Legal Opinion Raises Concerns Over Malta’s Gaming Law
Questioning Malta’s Gaming Law Shield
A senior legal advisor to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has expressed doubts about a controversial Maltese gaming regulation. He also suggested that the case brought before the court might not be the appropriate vehicle for review.
Austrian Court’s Referral on Malta’s Bill 55 Rejected
On April 23, 2026, Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou reviewed a petition from an Austrian court. This request sought to clarify whether Malta’s Bill 55 aligns with European Union law. The legislation, introduced in 2023, mandates Maltese courts to disregard foreign judgments against licensed gaming operators if those judgments are based on the illegality of services that Malta law permits.
The underlying contest originates from Austria, where authorities questioned the professional conduct of a legal adviser who gave an opinion regarding this Maltese law. Emiliou noted that the central issue in that case does not concern the validity of the Maltese legislation itself but rather the actions of the lawyer. Consequently, the Advocate General advised that the referral for a preliminary ruling does not fulfill the necessary conditions for the EU court’s involvement as it is not vital for settling the domestic dispute.
Advocate General Highlights Conflict Between Bill 55 and EU Law
Even though the referral was deemed inadmissible, Emiliou proceeded to analyze the substantive legal question. He indicated that should the court review the provision, it would likely conclude that the law contradicts EU regulations concerning the mutual recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions among member states.
He challenged the foundation of the Maltese law, which relies on public policy exceptions to reject foreign rulings. Emiliou argued that EU law does not allow national courts to refuse enforcement simply because they believe another country misapplied EU rules.
Additionally, the opinion rejected the assumption that holding a Maltese license grants operators the right to provide gambling services across the entire European Union. Member states retain sovereign authority over gambling activities within their borders and are not compelled to honor licenses issued by other EU countries.
Furthermore, Emiliou suggested that Malta’s Bill 55 seems intended primarily to protect a major domestic industry from foreign financial liabilities instead of upholding genuine legal principles. He emphasized that economic motives cannot justify overriding EU standards for cross-border enforcement.
Although the Advocate General’s opinion is not legally binding, it provides insight into the court’s potential stance. The final decision will be delivered in due course and is expected to have widespread effects on European gambling regulation and the relationship between member states.
