The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has revealed the significant lengths that EU Courts could extend to in a bid to strengthen action against Malta operators.
It’s a case that may shift the tide in terms of governance and regulation across Europe and Malta – with EU courts taking on the regulatory ringfencing of Bill 55.
According to the Advocate General (AG) of the ECJ, the framework could shift to dilute the effectiveness of Bill 55 when it comes to Malta safeguarding its domestic operators.
In a significant referral, the Advocate General has put forward the case to enable international authorities to freeze the assets of Malta-based companies in the event of local breaches.
The Advocate General has outlined that the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) Regulation could well be utilised to enforce asset freezes
The focus on the bill was enhanced by the case of the two Austrian players who filed claims against Malta-based and licensed firms. A Maltese court sought to overrule the decision of an Austrian court over whether gaming operators in Malta should compensate Austrian players.
Courts in Austria both backed the players, with the Austrian framework currently citing any overseas operator as being illegal in the country if it does not hold a local licence.
Maltese courts and the two operators emphasised the free market and EU laws enabling free movements of services, illegitimising the original Austrian decision in the eyes of the Maltese legal system.
The MGA has consistently argued that the bill is in place to protect Maltese operators from “baseless legal challenges”.
Malta’s regulatory body has previously stated that it wants to ensure “its licensees are allowed to operate where they have a justifiable legal reason to do so, and always in a compliant manner.”
The latest statement from the Advocate General does underpin growing tension from Europe towards the way Bill 55 is utilised as it looks to change the framework around its implementation.
The Advocate General is seeking to implement tweaks to the bill to strengthen the ability of domestic EU courts to ensure their citizens can take legislative action against Maltese operators.
Central to the recommended changes is the ability of EU courts to be allowed to freeze the assets of Maltese gambling companies to aid debt recovery and bypass Bill 55.
Some of the most vocal disdain towards Bill 55 has come from Germany, with the national regulator, the GGL consistently calling for a reassessment of the impact it has on the sector.
Previously, the GGL has stated: “We are of the opinion that this law should not be compatible with European requirements for the recognition of decisions (Regulation (EU) 1215/2002).
“However, the final assessment of this question is not the responsibility of the GGL. We have informed the federal states of our assessment and are otherwise in contact with the relevant authorities.”
The court battles over the future of Bill 55 now look set to rumble on into 2026, in what could prove to be a decisive year for the future of the regulation and its impact on the gambling industry.
