EU court sets 19 November ruling date on Malta's Bill 55 gambling law

The Court of Justice of the European Union (EuGH) will deliver its judgment in case C-683/24 on 19 November 2026, according to a statement from the Berlin and Munich law firm Cocron Rechtsanwalt. The case concerns Malta's Article 56A, introduced by the gambling amendment known as Bill 55, and whether the Brussels Ia regulation permits it. The reference came from the Commercial Court of Vienna, which submitted its questions on 16 October 2024.

Bill 55 was introduced in Malta's parliament in April 2023 and adopted in June 2023 as an amendment to the Maltese gambling law, inserting Article 56A. Under the provision, Maltese courts must neither recognise nor enforce foreign judgments where three conditions are met: the judgment upholds a claim against a Malta-licensed gambling operator, it rests on the offering being unlawful in the player's state, and the same offering was permitted under Maltese law. Malta relies on the ordre public reservation, the public-policy exception allowing a state to refuse a foreign decision that is manifestly incompatible with the fundamental values of its own legal order.

The underlying dispute is not a player case but a liability claim before the Commercial Court of Vienna. A litigation funder financed claims by Austrian players against Maltese operators and, after Bill 55 took effect, obtained a legal opinion from a law firm. The opinion concluded that the provision was manifestly contrary to EU law and could not be applied by Maltese courts, and that enforcement proceedings in Malta at first instance had to be concluded within six months. The funder financed further proceedings on that basis. A few weeks later a Maltese court refused enforcement in one of those cases, citing Bill 55. The funder now seeks repayment of the fee and a declaration that the law firm is liable for further damage.

The Vienna court asks in essence whether the Brussels Ia regulation, Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, precludes a provision such as Article 56A. It puts two questions: whether a member state may order the ordre public exception by statute for a whole group of judgments against a particular sector, and whether the obligation of courts to decide on applications to refuse enforcement without delay is breached when Maltese courts do not decide for months or years.

Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou delivered his opinion on 23 April 2026. He considered the request for a preliminary ruling inadmissible, because the Vienna liability proceedings did not turn on whether Bill 55 was contrary to EU law; the decisive question was whether the opinion was prepared with the required care and was defensible at the time, a matter of national liability law outside the court's jurisdiction. The German and Maltese governments had raised the same objection. In the alternative, he set out that judgments from one member state must be recognised and enforced in the others without a special procedure, including judgments on players' claims for repayment; that the ordre public exception applies only in exceptional cases and does not permit a review of the substance of the foreign judgment; that Malta could not assume by statute that every judgment against a Maltese licensee breaches the freedom to provide services; that a licence is valid only in Malta, since no country-of-origin principle applies to online gambling; and that economic interests such as effects on operators, jobs or tax revenue do not justify applying the ordre public exception.

The source sets out three possible outcomes on 19 November 2026. If the court follows the Advocate General and rejects the reference as inadmissible, no decision on the merits of Bill 55 follows, and the matter would shift to the infringement procedure or a future reference. If the court finds the reference admissible and rules on the merits along the Advocate General's line, Article 56A would be incompatible with the Brussels Ia regulation and Maltese courts would have to leave it unapplied because of the primacy of EU law, with the interpretation binding on all national courts. In a third scenario, the court could declare the questions inadmissible while restating core principles such as the narrow reading of the ordre public and the prohibition of substantive review.

The source places the case in a wider context. The European Commission opened a formal infringement procedure against Malta over Bill 55 in June 2025, and observers expect it to await the judgment in C-683/24. In a judgment of 16 April 2026 in C-440/23, the court confirmed the right of member states to prohibit online gambling offerings licensed in other member states and to allow players' claims for repayment. In January 2026, in C-77/24 (Wunner), it held that in damages claims over illegal gambling the place where the damage occurred is the player's habitual residence. In a judgment of 21 May 2026 in C-198/24 (Mr Green), it examined whether rules such as Bill 55 can establish a risk of asset relocation; the case concerned an Austrian player who had obtained a judgment for €62,878.00 and applied for a European order for the provisional attachment of accounts.

According to the source, repayment judgments from Germany and Austria do not lose their enforceability permanently through Bill 55, and the provision is under pressure at several levels. A judgment on 19 November 2026 may make enforcement in Malta considerably easier, but need not do so, depending on whether the court decides on the merits. Regardless of the outcome, the source states that assets outside Malta remain reachable, for example claims against payment service providers or accounts in other EU states, and that claims not yet litigated can still be asserted, while waiting may be risky because of limitation periods. It advises securing documents, applying for the certificate under Article 53 of the Brussels Ia regulation, considering a European order for the provisional attachment of accounts, keeping limitation and procedural deadlines in view, and reassessing enforcement strategy immediately after the judgment.