EU pressure on Malta’s gambling framework is building as institutions and courts continue to question how the country handles cross-border enforcement of gaming-related claims. At the center of the debate is Bill 55 and its Article 56A, a provision that has drawn increasing attention across Europe for its effect on foreign court judgments involving Malta-licensed operators.
Malta introduced Article 56A in 2023 as part of Bill 55. The rule directs Maltese courts to refuse enforcement of foreign judgments against companies licensed locally if their services comply with Maltese law. In practice, it was meant to protect operators licensed by the Malta Gaming Authority from claims brought in other EU countries, even when those companies were not authorized in those markets.
The Maltese government has defended the measure by pointing to the public policy exception within the Brussels I Recast Regulation (EU) 1215/2012. EU institutions, however, have pushed back, arguing that Malta applies that exception in a way that stretches beyond what the regulation allows and weakens cooperation between national courts.
In June 2025, the European Commission formally opened infringement proceedings. Officials raised concerns that Malta’s approach undermines the system for mutual recognition of judgments across member states, especially in disputes tied to online gambling services.
Court opinions question the Article 56A approach
Legal pressure increased further in April 2026 when Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou issued an opinion tied to case C-683/24 Spielerschutz Sigma, which originated in Austria. The referral itself was not ruled on in substance because it focused on the conduct of a legal adviser rather than the law in question, but the broader legal discussion still carried weight.
In his assessment, Emiliou said a rule like Article 56A does not align with EU standards for recognising and enforcing court decisions between member states. He stated that judgments issued in one EU country against operators based in Malta should generally be recognised and enforced elsewhere in the bloc.
He also made clear that holding a Maltese gambling licence does not give operators the right to offer services across the EU. Instead, such authorisation applies strictly within Malta’s own regulatory system.
While Advocate General opinions do not bind the Court of Justice of the European Union, they often signal how future rulings may unfold. Emiliou has expressed similar views on earlier occasions, marking a consistent stance on the issue.
Earlier ruling shapes enforcement debate
Just days before that opinion, on April 16, 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a ruling involving a German player seeking repayment from Malta-licensed operators offering services in Germany without local approval. The court confirmed that member states may restrict online gambling activity even when operators are licensed elsewhere in the EU.
It also confirmed that individuals may pursue restitution claims under national law. At the same time, it stated that using unlicensed gambling services does not automatically breach EU law, leaving space for national legal frameworks to handle such disputes.
Most of the legal challenges around Malta’s framework have emerged in Germany and Austria, where regulators have taken issue with how Maltese licensing is used in cross-border operations. Authorities in Germany have questioned Bill 55 directly and raised their concerns with the European Commission. Similar disputes have also surfaced in the Netherlands and Sweden.
If future rulings follow the direction outlined in recent legal opinions, players in multiple EU countries could find it easier to enforce claims locally without Maltese court protections blocking recovery efforts.
Pressure builds on Malta’s gambling model
The outcome carries significant weight for Malta’s economy. In 2024, the gaming sector contributed around €1.386 billion in gross value added. That represented about 6.7% of the country’s economy directly, rising to more than 10% when indirect effects are included.
This reliance explains why Malta has strongly defended its regulatory approach. Still, the combination of infringement proceedings, court rulings, and repeated legal opinions suggests continued scrutiny from EU institutions is unlikely to ease soon.
A final decision from the Court of Justice of the European Union on Article 56A will ultimately determine whether Malta’s current framework can remain in place under EU law or whether adjustments will be required to align it more closely with cross-border enforcement rules.
Source:
What the EU’s Latest Move Against Malta’s Bill 55 Means for Players Across Europe, europeangaming.eu, April 24, 2026.
