Yet another legal layer has been added to the conversations around Malta’s Bill 55 in the form of a Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) Advocate General opinion.

While not directly referring to Article 56A of Malta’s Gaming Act, commonly referred to as Bill 55, Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou’s opinion relates to the specific kind of activity that the Bill was enacted to prevent.

“A sports betting operator which offers services on a national market without possessing the required licence may be obliged to refund the stakes collected from players,” Emiliou wrote, referring to a case involving Tipico.

Tipico is a Malta-based company, but it primarily targets players in Germany, where it is currently the market leader.

However, the firm is facing a legal challenge from a former customer who is attempting to claim back losses accrued between 2013-2020, at which time Tipico did not hold a German licence, and instead operated internationally under a licence granted by the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA). 

German law states that if sports betting is provided without a licence, the contract between the customer and the bookmaker effectively becomes null and void. The German customer is basing their claim for restitution on this.

In his opinion, Emiliou noted that ‘from the perspective of German law, the claims brought by the consumer in question against Tipico appear, in principle, to be well founded’.

He also stated, however, that Tipico’s counter-argument is that it was unable to obtain a German licence due to ‘certain deficiencies’ in the procedure. 

In the aftermath of the adoption of the Fourth Interstate Gambling Treaty 2021 ((GlüStV 2021), the company secured a licence under the newly created regulator, the Gemeinsame Glücksspielbehörde der Länder (GGL),, and can be found on the authority’s ‘white list’ of approved betting operators.

Emiliou calls for nuance

Regardless, German courts have been left confused as to how the European Union (EU) principle of freedom of services obliged the country’s legal authorities to reject the customer’s claims.

In response, Emiliou has called for nuance – but his overall opinion appears to side more with the German courts rather than Tipico, and by extension, the Maltese self-protectionism of Bill 55, introduced back in 2023.

The Cypriot diplomat concluded that EU member states can require a gambling licence on their territory and that this requirement can be compatible with the freedom to provide services under the political bloc’s law.

In these cases, he argued that the courts of said member state are entitled to enforce that requirement against unlicensed operators. This remains the case, even when the operator claims it was unable to obtain a licence due to licensing procedure deficiencies.

Emiliou concluded: “The freedom to provide services does not preclude the German

authorities from requiring a German licence to offer sports betting services in Germany, nor does it in general preclude operators which did so without the required licence from being subject to consequences under civil-law, such as the nullity of the contracts they concluded with their clients”.

He added: “The primacy of the freedom to provide services does not require national authorities to leave unapplied a licensing requirement which is, in itself, compatible with that freedom whenever an operator has been unable to obtain a licence through a non-discriminatory and transparent licensing procedure.”

No respite in Bill 55 battle

Again, it is important to stress that Emilou’s decision is not a direct judgement against Bill 55. It should also be noted that CJEU Advocate General determinations are essentially legal opinions, and are not legally binding – that would be left to a CJEU ruling itself.

However, his opinion is the latest to stack up against the core principle of Bill 55 – that being that Malta-based and licensed firms are protected under Maltese law from legal and regulatory charges from markets in which these firms are active.

Germany and Austria have been two of the most controversial markets in this regard. In Germany, a 2023 case against Lottoland is also based on the fact that the firm held no local licence when customer losses occurred.

An Austrian gambler, Marek Ehrlich, has been suing Malta-based firm Virtual Services Digital Limited for just under €500,000, based on the same principle as Tipico’s historic German customer – that the firm did not hold an Austrian licence.

He has received the backing of the Austrian courts and the CJEU, but Maltese courts refused to back down and invoked Bill 55 in February. The CJEU had previously also supported the German case against Lottoland.

These cases followed on from a 2022 lawsuit against a defunct Maltese business, Titanium Brace Ltd, which operated in the DACH markets as DrückGlück. Again, an Austrian player sued for restitution after losing money while the firm was unlicensed, and a CJEU determination was more in the Austrian camp than the Maltese.

With Maltese firms active across countless markets both in Europe and further afield, and gambling accounting for around one-tenth of the island’s GDP, the nation’s courts and policymakers are keen to protect this vital pillar of the economy via Bill 55.

Courts in other EU nations, and the CJEU itself it seems, are clearly not so keen. Concerns have been raised in other countries too, with Dutch legislators raising Bill 55 during discussions around gambling regulation last year, for example.

All in all, the battle between Austrian and German courts on one side, Maltese courts on the other, and the CJEU in the middle, is showing no ending or slowing down any time soon – that’s an understatement.