Brussels Challenges Malta’s Gaming Shield in Cross-Border Judgments Dispute

EU Targets Malta Over Law Shielding Gaming Firms from Foreign Rulings

The European Commission has formally accused Malta of undermining the integrity of EU legal cooperation by enacting a domestic law that allows its courts to dismiss judgments from other member states if they are seen to contradict Malta’s gaming framework. The provision, Article 56A of the Gaming Act, was passed in 2023 and has already been applied in high-profile cases involving online gambling disputes.

According to the Commission, the measure violates Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, which guarantees the recognition and enforcement of judgments across the EU. In a formal notice issued on June 19, Brussels warned that Malta’s law “effectively shields the online gaming sector from cross-border litigation,” undermining “the principle of mutual trust in the administration of justice within the Union.”

The Commission’s concerns stem in part from the 2023 ruling of Maltese Judge Toni Abela, who refused to enforce an Austrian court decision against TSG Interactive Gaming Europe Limited, a Malta-licensed operator.

Abela argued that enforcing the foreign ruling would violate Malta’s constitutional protections of its gaming regime. The case drew attention for asserting the primacy of Malta’s national law over EU regulations—a position that sparked broader legal debate within the bloc.

The controversy has raised questions about whether Malta’s legislative approach creates a legal safe haven for gaming companies, discouraging claimants from pursuing cross-border redress.

Malta Defends Its Legal Autonomy

In its initial reaction, the Maltese government stood by the disputed provision, describing it as a formal expression of existing policy. “Malta remains fully committed to maintaining a constructive dialogue with the European Commission,” it said, confirming that a formal reply will be submitted within the two-month deadline.

The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) also issued a statement, rejecting the idea that Article 56A imposes a blanket immunity for gaming firms. The authority argued that the provision does not prevent enforcement of all foreign rulings, nor does it obstruct litigation initiated in other jurisdictions.

The MGA further defended the law as being in line with European Court of Justice precedents and internal market principles. It warned that over-interpreting EU law in this context “could unjustifiably interfere with the freedom to provide services across member states.”

Litigation Funding and Political Pressure Add Complexity

The origins of the EU case lie in 2023 complaints from an Austrian law firm and a German lawyer, who accused Malta of creating an artificial shield for its gaming companies. The MGA responded by accusing the claimants of using “aggressive advertising” to solicit legal claims from online gaming customers.

The broader legal environment is also being shaped by the rise of third-party litigation funding (TPLF). Nationalist MEP Peter Agius used the occasion to call for stricter oversight of TPLF mechanisms, which allow external investors to fund legal actions in exchange for a share of any winnings. He warned that this trend is fueling mass legal actions against Maltese operators and could distort access to justice.

Agius also urged the government to amend domestic law in line with EU obligations, warning that continued defiance could lead to Malta’s marginalisation within the single market.

Malta now has two months to respond to the Commission’s formal notice. If the response is deemed insufficient, the case could be referred to the European Court of Justice.