EU Legal Opinion Questions Malta’s Gaming Law Shield

A senior legal adviser to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has cast doubt on a controversial Maltese gaming provision, while also suggesting that the case brought before the court may not be suitable for review.

Austrian Case on Malta’s Bill 55 Deemed Inadmissible

In an opinion delivered on 23 April 2026, Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou assessed a request from an Austrian court seeking clarification on the compatibility of Malta’s so-called Bill 55 with EU law. The measure introduced in 2023 requires Maltese courts to reject foreign rulings against licensed gaming companies if those rulings are based on the illegality of services that are otherwise permitted under Maltese legislation.

The dispute stems from proceedings in Austria, where a court is examining whether a legal adviser acted when issuing an opinion on the same Maltese provision. According to Emiliou, the core issue in that national case is not the legality of the Maltese rule itself but rather the professional conduct of the lawyer involved. As a result, he concluded that the request to consider a preliminary ruling does not meet the criteria required to enable the EU court’s intervention, as it is not essential to resolve the domestic dispute.

Emiliou Warns Malta’s Bill 55 Conflicts With EU Law

Despite finding the referral inadmissible, the Advocate General took an extra step to evaluate the substance of the matter. He pointed out that, if the court were to examine the provision, it would find it inconsistent with EU rules that govern the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments across member states.

His analysis challenges the reasoning behind the Maltese law, its reliance on public policy grounds to block foreign judgments. He argued that EU legislation does not permit national courts to refuse enforcement because they believe another member state may have misapplied EU law.

The opinion also dismisses the notion that a license issued in Malta grants gaming operators the right to offer services throughout the EU. Emiliou pointed out that member states retain the authority to regulate gambling within their own territories and are not obliged to recognize licenses issued elsewhere.

What is more, he suggested that the Maltese provision appears designed to shield a key domestic industry from financial risks rather than to uphold legitimate legal principles. Economic considerations, he noted, cannot justify bypassing EU rules on cross-border enforcement.

While the opinion is not binding, it provides an indication of how the court might approach the issue. A final judgment is expected at a later stage, with broader implications for the European gaming sector and tensions between member states over regulation.