European Court of Justice Decision Intensifies Pressure on Malta Over Online Gambling Licensing

(AsiaGameHub) –   The European Court of Justice (CJEU) has made another ruling concerning how member state laws apply to recovering and compensating online gambling losses.

A ruling by Cypriot Advocate General (AG) Nicholas Emiliou states that: “A sports betting operator providing services in a national market without the necessary license may be required to return the money wagered by players.”

The AG’s opinion relates to a long-standing German dispute questioning Tipico Malta’s online gambling license regarding loss recovery for the 2013-2020 period.

A German customer attempted to reclaim losses from Tipico, which was operating in Germany with a license from the Malta Gambling Authority (MGA). At that time, German gambling regulations were in turmoil, as parliament hadn’t finalized terms for launching the fourth interstate market (GlüNeuRStv).

The AG considers that “under German law, the consumer’s claims against Tipico seem fundamentally justified. However, Tipico argues in its defense that it couldn’t secure a German license due to flaws in the licensing process.”

Per AG Emiliou, Tipico’s lack of a German license makes the agreement between the operator and consumer ‘invalid’.

However, the AG maintains that member states can apply tort laws (covering harm or loss) regardless of Tipico’s licensing status.

This case intensifies pressure on Malta regarding its use of Bill 55 as a defense for gambling licenses used throughout Europe.

However, in an earlier interview with Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), Tipico CEO Axel Hefer stated the company wouldn’t use the bill as a shield and doesn’t need to.

He said: “We’re a Maltese-German firm with 1,500 staff at multiple major German sites. We clearly don’t rely on Maltese law for protection. We’ve never used ‘Bill 55.”

Germany has strongly criticized this potential operator protection, with its regulator GGL saying: “We believe this law likely conflicts with European decision-recognition requirements (Regulation (EU) 1215/2002).

“However, GGL isn’t responsible for the final evaluation of this matter. We’ve notified the federal states of our view and remain in touch with relevant authorities.”

Continued pressure

The Tipico case comes after a recent CJEU AG ruling on the Wunner case (Austria v Malta), which confirmed that Member States can enforce their tort laws on gambling disputes, regardless of licenses issued in other EU jurisdictions.

A key point in the Wunner Case was the CJEU rejecting Malta’s “EU passporting” argument for gambling. The ruling clarified that, unlike financial services, a gambling license from one Member State doesn’t automatically permit operations in another.

Each country can establish its own requirements, as long as they’re proportionate, non-discriminatory, and transparent.

This maintains pressure as the unresolved legal conflict between Austria and Malta escalates, with Malta invoking Article 56A, widely known as Bill 55.

Malta’s courts activated this Article to dismiss prior CJEU opinions on the prolonged disputes between the two jurisdictions.

The operator is using Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) as its case basis—the freedom to provide services across EU member states—which Maltese law protects through Article 56A.

Instead of ignoring European Court of Justice rulings, Maltese courts are invoking public policy exceptions under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (EU) 1215/2012, strengthened domestically by Article 56A, to prevent enforcement of foreign civil judgments they claim threaten Malta’s gaming regulatory system.