Salzburg: The Malta gaming law that shields licensed online operators from foreign court rulings faces a decisive moment on 19 November 2026. The Court of Justice of the European Union is due to deliver its judgment in case C-683/24, Spielerschutz Sigma, a reference that grew out of Austrian player claims.
At the centre of the dispute sits Article 56A of Malta’s Gaming Act, introduced through what practitioners call Bill 55. The provision lets Maltese courts refuse to recognise or enforce foreign judgments against holders of a Maltese gaming licence when the activity was lawful under Maltese law.
Austrian players have tested that shield for years. Many sued Malta-licensed casinos at home, arguing that the operators lacked an Austrian licence and that their gaming contracts were void. Austrian courts often agreed and ordered repayment of losses. In February 2025, however, the Maltese Court of Appeal refused to enforce two Austrian judgments.
The European Commission responded in June 2025 by opening infringement proceedings against Malta over the provision. It gave Valletta two months to reply, and the case remains pending, with a possible referral to Luxembourg still on the table.
Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou weighed in on 23 April 2026. He proposed that the Court declare the Spielerschutz Sigma reference inadmissible on technical grounds. He nevertheless described the Malta gaming law as manifestly incompatible with EU rules on the recognition and enforcement of judgments, and he said economic interests alone cannot justify overriding EU freedoms.
The judgment arrives after two related rulings that already weakened the operators’ position. In Wunner, case C-77/24, decided in January 2026, the Court addressed jurisdiction over claims against gaming managers. In Mr Green, case C-198/24, decided on 21 May 2026, the Court dealt with a European Account Preservation Order for €62,878.
The ruling matters well beyond Austria. Players in Germany, the Netherlands and other states have filed similar claims, and claims-funding firms have built business models around them. Malta, in turn, hosts one of Europe’s largest online gaming hubs, and the sector provides thousands of jobs and significant tax revenue.
For consumers, the stakes are practical. Many Austrian claimants hold court orders for losses running into tens of thousands of euros, yet they cannot collect while the Malta gaming law blocks enforcement. Consumer advocates argue that mutual recognition of judgments lies at the heart of the EU area of justice and that no member state may carve out one sector. Defenders of the Malta gaming law reply that the EU has never harmonised online gambling and that Malta’s licensing regime meets strict standards.
Even if the Court follows the Advocate General and rejects the reference, its reasoning could shape the Commission’s infringement case. A judgment that addresses the substance would leave the Malta gaming law hard to defend, while a narrow ruling would push the fight back to national courts and the Commission’s own enforcement.
