The authority and application of Malta’s controversial Bill 55 continue to be denied by European courts deliberating on whether online gambling licences based in Malta can be held accountable before other EU member state courts.

Despite Malta’s determination to shelter its domiciled online gambling licences from the repercussions of foreign sanctions, the European courts’ legislative stance against Bill 55 is only becoming stronger against Malta protections.

The Advocate General (AG) of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), a functionary whose task is to provide unbiased legal opinions on cases before the highest court of the EU, has made the case for international authorities to be able to freeze the assets of Malta-based companies.

The statement does not explicitly condemn Bill 55, nor does it call for any EU action against the legislation, rather focusing on debt recovery and how judicial cooperation between the EU, Malta and other member states can facilitate better debt recovery.

The AG’s determination highlights increasing frustration of member states with Bill 55, interpreted as a protection by Malta domiciled businesses against penalties and enforcements sanctioned by foreign courts. Bill 55 is an amendment to Malta’s Gambling Act enhanced in June 2023 protects Malta-based and licensed companies from legal liabilities of foreign jurisdictions, including EU ones.

The Austria case

It didn’t take long for Bill 55 to face opposition from other EU nations. The fallout from the legislation has proven particularly dramatic in Germany, where channelisation from the black market to regulated market remains a persistent challenge for the regulator, the GGL.

However, it is a case in neighbouring Austria that has caught the EU Advocate General’s latest opinion. Mr Green, the Evoke-owned online casino brand, was available in Austria under the company’s Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) licence but without a local Austrian one.

Similar developments are what has landed Bill 55 in trouble in Germany and the Netherlands, with MPs in the latter calling on the government to take action at times. In Austria, the case in question actually predates Bill 55 by several years.

A claimant referred to as ‘TQ’ took a claim for restitution to The Regional Court for Civil Matters in Vienna which was approved on 2 December 2021. The Austrian court ordered Mr Green to refund TQ €62,878 due to the claimant losing the money playing on its platform despite it not being locally licensed.

A subsequent Mr Green appeal against the ruling was rejected, while the firm was also told to pay interests and costs, with both judgements becoming enforceable on 13 April 2022. Mr Green, however, refused to comply with the ruling. In theory, any non-compliance with EU court rulings are effectively protected in Malta by Bill 55.

Interpretations do not favour Malta

In its assessment, the AG does not advocate for Bill 55 to be scrapped, but identifies it as a potential obstacle to enforcement that may increase the risk of debtors avoiding repayment, and recommends a tweak of EU law to remedy this.

The AG believes that an EU civil law, the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) Regulation, could be interpreted by relevant courts to allow EU consumers to secure preservation orders against Maltese firms refusing to pay gambling-related debts.

By doing so, the AG is essentially recommending that EU courts be allowed to freeze the assets of Maltese gambling companies to aid debt recovery and bypass Bill 55. These assets would likely not be Malta-based ones, instead coming from the bank accounts held by Malta-based firms across the EU.

While not a direct EU challenge against Bill 55, the development shows that clashes between Maltese gaming firms and courts against European claimants and courts will not go away anytime soon, at least not until some form of judicial agreement can be reached.

Maltese courts have previously rejected attempts by Austrian courts to order compensation of players. Both the government and the MGA have also argued that international opposition to Bill 55 violates the EU principles of free trade.

Consultations with the EC have seen the MGA) cite that Bill 55 and its changes to the Gaming Act, do “not grant Maltese-licensed operators blanket immunity from enforcement or legal action in other EU jurisdictions.”

The MGA told EU courts that its amendments to the Gaming Act were designed to uphold its established public policy on online gambling, as other EU member states moved to introduce their own regulatory regimes for the sector.

The AG, meanwhile, has previously stated that EU citizens, specifically some in Germany involved in cases against Maltese firms, can claim for restitution against Maltese gambling operators – the latest decision further builds on this.

The AG’s latest opinion adds further international political pressure on Malta and its gambling sector, though the industry continues to enjoy considerable growth. According to the latest Malta budget, tax revenue from gaming stood at €69.5m in 2024 and is expected to reach €65m by the end of 2025.

These figures underscore the significance of gambling to Malta’s economy, with the sector accounting for around one-tenth of gross value added (GVA) – showing why the government is so keen to protect Maltese firms against international court rulings, despite the legal challenges this may bring across the EU.