Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou published his opinion today (23 April) in Case C-683/24, which centres on Article 56A of the Maltese Gaming Act, often known as Bill 55.

Introduced in June 2023, the provision requires Maltese courts to refuse to recognise or enforce foreign judgments against Maltese-licensed operators where those judgments are based on the illegality of services that are permitted under local law.

The case is the latest development in a long-running dispute over whether Bill 55 is compatible with the Brussels I bis Regulation, which governs the recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgements across EU member states.

Top EU lawyer says Bill 55 unlawful

The opinion is not binding, and deliberations now pass to the court’s judges, who will reach their own conclusions. This is being closely watched by operators, lawyers and regulators across the bloc.

Emiliou’s primary argument was that the Austrian referral should not proceed at all. The central issue before that court, he said, was not whether Bill 55 was lawful under EU law, but whether a lawyer who wrote an opinion on that question had acted with sufficient diligence.

That assessment is governed by national law and falls outside the CJEU’s remit for preliminary rulings.

Despite that conclusion, he addressed the substance anyway. He found that the provision appeared to rest on an interpretation of freedom to provide services that the court has consistently rejected. That interpretation argues a Maltese gaming licence entitles operators to trade freely across the EU provided they comply with Maltese rules.

He also concluded that the measure appeared designed primarily to protect an industry the Maltese government itself describes as essential to the national economy, and that economic interests alone cannot justify invoking the public policy clause to block enforcement of foreign judgments.

Terence Cassar, a Maltese gaming lawyer, described the opinion as “ambiguous news,” noting that while the inadmissibility finding avoided a direct ruling against Article 56A, Emiliou’s substantive comments were “naturally not in the interest of the jurisdiction”.

He added: “We have nothing new that that has a legal impact yet.”

Cassar said a final court judgment will take a long time. Separately, European Commission infringement proceedings against Malta remain ongoing, though he said those were harder to forecast.

https://next.io/news/regulation/malta-bill-55-could-escape-eu-court-scrutiny/?fsp_sid=3131&fbclid=IwY2xjawRZshlleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETFyd1RwY09qeXlIRGlCNnd0c3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHlyf7ApdYEgHXC7AMwfdyDB0wV4W1r7nYnIAB08dLf1z7qfnGJXfRIxZTog2_aem_LrVi7RF4gNhX9YYyiF2eeQ