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 financial system per MGA’s 2024 report.
- Emiliou mentioned Maltese gaming licenses are, in precept, legitimate solely in Malta beneath 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 beneath Austrian nationwide regulation. This matter falls exterior 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 supply — Article 56A of Malta’s Gaming Act, launched through Invoice 55 in June 2023 — “manifestly incompatible with the foundations governing the popularity and enforcement of judgments” beneath the EU’s Brussels I bis Regulation. Invoice 55 instructs Maltese courts to refuse recognition and enforcement of overseas judgments in opposition to Maltese-licensed gaming operators the place the underlying providers had been lawful beneath 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 providers. Substantive EU regulation points, the AG famous, can’t be re-examined on the recognition and enforcement stage beneath 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 fitting to supply their providers freely throughout the bloc. Underneath the present state of EU regulation, Emiliou wrote, member states are beneath no obligation to acknowledge playing licenses issued by different member states. The country-of-origin precept, Emiliou added, doesn’t lengthen 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 protect Malta’s iGaming business from the monetary penalties of overseas restitution claims.
The opinion follows a separate binding CJEU ruling from April 16, which upheld EU member states’ rights to ban on-line playing providers 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 should not binding on the CJEU, however the courtroom follows them in roughly two-thirds of instances. Remaining judgment is anticipated this 12 months. The stakes for Malta are substantial: in keeping with 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 financial system.
The MGA has constantly maintained that Article 56A doesn’t introduce new grounds for rejecting overseas judgments past these already established beneath EU regulation, and that it merely codifies Malta’s long-standing public coverage on gaming issues.
