A Court of Justice of the European Union Advocate General opinion published on 20 March has added another layer of legal pressure to Malta’s Bill 55, ruling that a sports betting operator offering services in a national market without a local licence may be required to refund stakes collected from players.
The opinion, authored by Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou, does not directly address Article 56A of Malta’s Gaming Act — the provision commonly known as Bill 55 — but it bears directly on the type of cross-border licensing dispute that Bill 55 was designed to resolve.
The Tipico Case
Emiliou’s determination arises from a long-standing German dispute involving Tipico, a Malta-based operator that holds Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) licensing. A former German customer is seeking to recover losses accumulated between 2013 and 2020, during which time Tipico operated in Germany under its MGA licence rather than a German-issued one. Germany’s fourth interstate gambling treaty, the GlüNeuRStv, had not yet been finalised during that period, leaving the market in regulatory flux.
Tipico has publicly distanced itself from Bill 55. Its CEO previously stated the company has “never invoked Bill 55” and does not hide behind Maltese law, describing it as a Maltese-German company with 1,500 employees across major German locations.
Emiliou’s opinion nonetheless reinforces the principle that an MGA licence does not function as a passport granting automatic operating rights across EU member states. That position aligns with an earlier CJEU determination in the Wunner case, which rejected Malta’s EU passporting argument and confirmed that individual member states may set their own licensing conditions, provided those conditions are proportionate, non-discriminatory, and transparent.
What Bill 55 Does
Malta enacted Article 56A of its Gaming Act in June 2023. The provision blocks enforcement of foreign judgments against MGA-licensed operators in circumstances where the operator’s activities are permitted under Maltese law. Maltese courts are required to decline recognition of any foreign ruling that conflicts with this provision. Malta frames this as codification of longstanding public policy, not a new departure from EU norms.
Critics — including Germany’s national gambling regulator, the GGL, and the European Commission — argue the provision undermines the principle of mutual trust between EU courts and effectively shields operators from cross-border civil liability. The Commission launched formal infringement proceedings against Malta in mid-2025, giving the government two months to respond. A failure to satisfy the Commission could lead to proceedings before the CJEU itself.
Austria–Malta Dispute and Broader Context
The Tipico case runs parallel to a separate and more directly confrontational dispute between Austria and Malta. Austrian claimants have pursued several Malta-based operators for losses incurred while gambling in Austria, where those operators lacked local licences. Maltese courts have applied Article 56A to block enforcement of Austrian court orders, prompting escalating EU-level attention.
In January 2026, the CJEU ruled against Malta in a case involving two directors of Titanium, a Malta-licensed operator without an Austrian licence. The court found the directors could be required to appear before Austrian courts, weakening the assumption that MGA licensing confers jurisdictional protection in civil disputes abroad.
A separate Austrian case involving Marek Ehrlich, who is suing Malta-based Virtual Services Digital Limited for just under €500,000, is proceeding on the same basis as the Tipico and Titanium cases: that the operator lacked a local Austrian licence when the losses occurred.
Separately, a previous Advocate General opinion in the context of the Austria–Malta dispute flagged the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) Regulation as a potential enforcement mechanism, suggesting foreign authorities could freeze assets of Malta-based companies to aid debt recovery and bypass Bill 55 protections.
MGA Position
The Malta Gaming Authority has consistently maintained that Article 56A does not impose a blanket prohibition on enforcing EU judgments in Malta and does not introduce grounds for refusal beyond those already available under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (EU 1215/2012). The MGA argues the law codifies existing public policy rather than creating new protections, and that any unjustified restrictions on the freedom to provide services run counter to CJEU case law — the same principle Malta invokes in its own defence.
The Advocate General’s opinion on the Tipico case is not a binding ruling. Under the CJEU process, the court itself will issue a final judgment. However, CJEU judges follow Advocate General opinions in a significant majority of cases, and Emiliou’s determination stacks against the core principle underpinning Bill 55. With the Commission’s infringement proceedings still open and the Austria–Malta dispute unresolved, a definitive CJEU judgment on Article 56A’s compatibility with EU law remains the most consequential outstanding question for Malta’s gaming sector.
Source: EU
