Key Takeaways:
AG Emiliou discovered Malta’s Invoice 55 incompatible with the EU’s Brussels I bis Regulation on April 23. Malta’s iGaming sector accounts for 10.1% of the nationwide economic system per MGA’s 2024 report. Emiliou stated Maltese gaming licenses are, in precept, legitimate solely in Malta below EU regulation.
Strain builds on Article 56A
Case C-683/24 Spielerschutz Sigma considerations whether or not a authorized adviser’s skilled evaluation of Invoice 55’s EU regulation compatibility was sufficiently diligent below Austrian nationwide regulation. This matter falls outdoors the CJEU’s preliminary ruling jurisdiction, and the opinion itself mainly considerations itself with authorized admissibility. Nicholas Emiliou nonetheless addressed the substance of the Invoice 55 query on a contingent foundation, and his conclusions deal a big blow to Malta’s place.
Emiliou declared the availability — Article 56A of Malta’s Gaming Act, launched by way of Invoice 55 in June 2023 — “manifestly incompatible with the foundations governing the popularity and enforcement of judgments” below the EU’s Brussels I bis Regulation. Invoice 55 instructs Maltese courts to refuse recognition and enforcement of international judgments towards Maltese-licensed gaming operators the place the underlying companies have been lawful below Maltese regulation.
Emiliou discovered that Malta can not depend on the general public coverage (ordre public) clause of the Brussels I bis Regulation to dam recognition of such judgments on the idea that different member states allegedly misapplied EU regulation, together with the liberty to supply companies. Substantive EU regulation points, the AG famous, can’t be re-examined on the recognition and enforcement stage below the guise of the general public coverage exception.
The AG additionally rejected the premise underlying Malta’s protection of Invoice 55, which is {that a} Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) license grants operators the suitable to supply their companies freely throughout the bloc. Beneath the present state of EU regulation, Emiliou wrote, member states are below no obligation to acknowledge playing licenses issued by different member states. The country-of-origin precept, Emiliou added, doesn’t prolong to on-line playing, and member states could apply their very own playing legal guidelines to operators licensed elsewhere.
The AG additional noticed that Invoice 55 seems designed primarily to defend Malta’s iGaming trade from the monetary penalties of international restitution claims.
The opinion follows a separate binding CJEU ruling from April 16, which upheld EU member states’ rights to ban on-line playing companies licensed in different member states and to permit participant restitution claims. Collectively, the 2 outcomes considerably slim Malta’s authorized protection of its cross-border iGaming licensing mannequin.
AG opinions will not be binding on the CJEU, however the court docket follows them in roughly two-thirds of instances. Last judgment is predicted this yr. The stakes for Malta are substantial: based on the MGA’s 2024 annual report, the iGaming sector generated €1.386 billion in gross worth added and, with oblique spillover included, accounted for 10.1% of the nationwide economic system.
The MGA has persistently maintained that Article 56A doesn’t introduce new grounds for rejecting international judgments past these already established below EU regulation, and that it merely codifies Malta’s long-standing public coverage on gaming issues.
