The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled against Malta in a potential setback for the country as it looks to cement legal certainty around Bill 55.
The ECJ ruling serves to dilute some of the protections previously associated with being based in Malta.
The specific case ruled on by the CJEU implicates two directors from Titanium, which holds a license in Malta but not in Austria, where the player was based.
The player has accused the pair of being liable for gambling losses he incurred while gambling with the company whilst in Austria.
The directors argued that the case falls under the jurisdiction of Maltese courts, which does not have a provision for targeting directors for such losses. However, after being referred to the CJEU by the Austrian Supreme Court, the European court has ruled that the Titanium directors should be forced in front of an Austrian court.
The ruling also sets a precedent for a myriad of cases that are ongoing around similar issues involving disputes between European players engaging with Malta-licensed operators, including cases in Germany and Sweden.
The latest ruling from the ECJ strengthens criticism that Bill 55 undermines the alignment of European frameworks and judicial processes, despite Malta consistently arguing that its gambling regulatory framework is in line with the principles of CJEU.
Given that the ECJ has ruled against Malta in this case, this could open up the jurisdiction for continued litigation from players around Europe who will rely on laws rooted in their homeland.
Looking forward, many operators may feel that they no longer have the protections against international enforcement once offered to them by the Malta Gambling Act, calling into question how the two frameworks can co-exist.
There still remains a lack of clarity around future enforcement of Bill 55. Previously, the Advocate General (AG) of the ECJ laid out some of the lengths to which regulators could go to take action against Maltese operators.
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 through the use of the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) Regulation.
The government of Malta stands by Bill55 and its provisions being codified as Article 56A of the Gaming Act. Malta stands by the legislative justification of Bill55 as a necessary measure to protect the integrity of Malta’s regulatory framework which provides licences with the freedom to offer services within the EU.
Though Bill 55 allows Malta courts to refuse the enforcement of any foreign judgements or penalties. Malta maintains that to date, it has found no justification to apply its rules to any legal conflict related to online gambling
