Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou has issued an opinion stating that a preliminary ruling request linked to Malta’s gambling law amendment known as Bill 55 should be declared inadmissible.
The case, C-683/24 Spielerschutz Sigma, was referred by an Austrian court and concerns a 2023 amendment to the Maltese Gambling Act. The provision requires Maltese courts, on public policy grounds, to refuse recognition or enforcement of certain foreign judgments against gambling operators licensed in Malta.
The affected judgments are those granting claims against Malta-licensed operators where the services were considered unlawful in another EU member state but lawful under Maltese law.
The Austrian court asked the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) whether the Maltese provision is compatible with EU law, particularly the Brussels Ia Regulation, which governs the recognition and enforcement of judgments between member states.
The underlying Austrian dispute concerns the liability of a lawyer who prepared an opinion on the compatibility of the Maltese provision with EU law for a business financing consumer claims to recover wagers from Maltese online gambling operators.
Emiliou said the request should not be answered because the dispute before the Austrian court does not require a CJEU ruling on whether the Maltese law is compatible with EU law. Instead, the issue is whether the lawyer’s assessment was carried out with due diligence when it was made.
The Advocate General said that question is governed by national law and concerns whether the opinion was reasonably defensible in light of the legal framework and information available at the time.
However, Emiliou also addressed the substance of the questions. He said that, if the Court takes a different view on admissibility, the Maltese provision should be considered incompatible with EU rules on recognition and enforcement.
Under the Brussels Ia Regulation, player reimbursement decisions issued by courts in one member state must generally be recognised and enforced in other member states, including Malta.
Emiliou said Malta cannot rely on the public policy clause to block enforcement solely because it considers EU law to have been incorrectly applied in the original judgment.
Earlier this month, Malta also moved to adjust its gaming tax framework, with the Malta Tax and Customs Administration and Malta Gaming Authority outlining VAT and gaming tax changes set to take effect on 1 October 2026.
The Advocate General’s opinion is not binding on the CJEU, but is intended to assist the Court before it issues judgment
