EU court to rule on Malta's Bill 55 on 19 November

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will deliver its judgment on Malta's "Bill 55" gaming law on Thursday 19 November 2026 at 09:30. The case, C-683/24 *Spielerschutz Sigma*, asks whether Malta may tell its own courts to refuse rulings from other EU countries against Malta-licensed gambling operators. The court's calendar lists it for the Fourth Chamber, and the delivery will be streamed.

What Bill 55 does

"Bill 55" is the name the 2023 amendment carried through Malta's parliament. It was tabled in April 2023, became law in June 2023 as the Gaming (Amendment) Act 2023, and added Article 56A to the Maltese Gaming Act.

Under Article 56A, Maltese courts must refuse, as a matter of public policy, to recognise or enforce a foreign judgment that does three things at once: it upholds a claim against a Malta-licensed gaming operator, it is based on the operator's services being illegal in another member state, and those services were lawful under Maltese law.

In practice, this hits players in countries such as Austria who have won court rulings ordering Malta-licensed operators to repay stakes lost on games that were not licensed in the player's own country. Winning in an Austrian court is one step; collecting from a company based in Malta is another, and Article 56A is designed to block that second step.

How the case reached Luxembourg

The question came from the Handelsgericht Wien (Commercial Court, Vienna), and the case behind it is narrower than the headline issue. A company that finances players' repayment claims had asked a lawyer whether Article 56A was compatible with EU law. The lawyer said it was manifestly not, and that enforcement proceedings in Malta ought, at first instance, to be completed within six months. Relying on that opinion, the company continued to finance the proceedings. A few weeks later, a Maltese court refused to enforce a judgment in proceedings the company had financed, relying on Article 56A. The Austrian case is about whether the lawyer was liable for that advice.

The Austrian court asked the CJEU whether a provision like Article 56A fits the Brussels I bis Regulation, the EU rules that make judgments from one member state enforceable in the others.

What the Advocate General said

Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou gave his opinion on 23 April 2026. His main point is procedural: the reference should be thrown out as inadmissible. The Austrian court has to decide whether the lawyer's advice was reasonably careful when it was given, which is a question of national law, and the CJEU's answer on Article 56A would not settle that.

He then answered the substance anyway, in case the court disagrees. On that, he was blunt: a provision like Article 56A is "manifestly incompatible" with Brussels I bis. Courts in one member state cannot refuse to enforce another member state's judgment just because they think it applied EU law wrongly, and the serious economic consequences for an operator, an industry or a whole country do not justify using the public-policy exception. He also restated the court's long-standing view that a Maltese gaming licence is, in principle, valid only in Malta and in member states that choose to recognise it. The "country of origin" principle does not apply to online gambling.

An Advocate General's opinion is independent advice to the judges, not a ruling, and the court is not bound by it.

Three ways 19 November can go

• Inadmissible. The court agrees with the Advocate General on admissibility and says nothing about whether Article 56A is lawful. Bill 55 stays as it is, and the question waits for another case.
• Admissible, and Article 56A conflicts with EU law. That would follow the Advocate General's view on the substance. A preliminary ruling binds the referring court and is equally binding on other national courts facing the same question, including Maltese courts asked to enforce foreign judgments.
• Admissible, with a different answer on the substance. Possible, though it would mean departing from the Advocate General's reading.

The date is fixed; the outcome isn't.

Why it matters

Bill 55 sits where national gambling law meets the EU single market. Several EU countries license online casinos at home and treat unlicensed offers as illegal, while many operators that serve those players hold a Maltese licence. A merits ruling would say how far Malta can shield its licensees from the courts of those countries. An inadmissibility ruling would leave that question open.

For players, nothing changes before the judgment, and the judgment itself will not decide any individual claim. The CJEU interprets EU law; national courts then apply it to the cases in front of them. Austria is also changing its own licensing system: see Austria's online licence plans and the EU standstill period. For background on enforcement against unlicensed gambling, see the Frankfurt raid over illegal gambling stakes and the Isle of Man's warning about fake licence claims.

18+. Gambling can be addictive. If you want to take a break, see our responsible gambling page.