Malta Faces EU Legal Action Over Article 56A in Gaming Act

The European Commission has issued a formal notice to Malta over Article 56A’s inclusion in the Gaming Act.

The clause prevents Maltese courts from enforcing cross-border judgments against local licensees.

This legal impasse risks undermining mutual trust and forces Malta into high-stakes EU legal limelight.

Discover why Article 56A is contentious and how Malta is defending it.

EU Launches Infringement Proceedings Against Malta Over Gaming Act’s Article 56A Shield

3 Key Points

• Infringement Notice Issued: The EU accuses Malta of violating Regulation 1215/2012 by preventing enforcement of EU court rulings.
• MGA Defends Article 56A: Malta asserts the clause crystallises existing public policy and doesn’t prohibit enforcement entirely .
• ECJ & Mutual Trust at Stake: Several German courts have stalled cases pending the ECJ’s interpretation. EU trusts Malta to clarify within two months.

Malta’s recent amendment—Article 56A—to its Gaming Act has triggered serious legal friction with the European Commission. The controversy centers on whether the clause lawfully protects Malta-licensed gambling operators from enforcement actions issued by other EU member states.

What is Article 56A?

Enacted in 2023, the amendment directs Maltese courts to refuse to recognise or enforce foreign rulings that contradict Malta’s regulatory framework on gambling. Essentially, it offers a legal shield to local licence holders from punitive measures in other countries.

Why is this controversial?

The EU’s legal dilemma is that Article 56A may undermine mutual trust, a core principle underlying the Brussels I Recast (Regulation 1215/2012). This regulation ensures judicial cooperation across member states. The Commission views this amendment as a direct challenge to cross-border court effectiveness.

How did we reach this point?

In February, Malta’s Civil Court upheld Article 56A to block Austrian judgments awarding player refunds. Simultaneously, several German regional courts have placed similar cases on hold until the ECJ clarifies the legality of such national protections .

 Commission’s stance

On 18 June, the Commission announced formal infringement proceedings, noting Malta’s legislation:

• Creates automatic shielding for local licensees
• Discourages foreign litigants from suing in Malta
• Violates public policy and EU jurisdiction norms

Malta has two months to respond. If unsatisfactory, the EU may proceed with a reasoned opinion and escalate toward the ECJ.

Malta’s defense

The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) insists Article 56A does not impede all foreign judgments. Instead, it merely clarifies Malta’s existing public policy under the ordre public exception in the Brussels Regulation. It asserts that enforcement is still allowed on valid grounds and that the amendment ensures a point‑of‑supply licensing framework—consistent with TFEU freedoms.

James Baldacchino, MGA’s general counsel, reiterated that Maltese licensees must also comply with each member state’s licensing frameworks per ECJ rules. He emphasised that service provision freedoms don’t override EU jurisprudence.

Legal ecosystem in flux

Across Europe, regime clashes loom. Germany has already suspended numerous player-claim cases pending ECJ guidance . Meanwhile, Austria and other markets may face future enforcement barriers against Malta-based operators.

Such uncertainties threaten to splinter the unified internal market into competing jurisdictional camps—contradicting the EU’s egalitarian principles and complicating compliance for cross-border operators.

What’s next?

Malta has until July to respond. Its arguments may influence the ECJ’s upcoming verdict, expected shortly after. The outcome will have profound implications for:

• Judicial enforceability across the EU
• National sovereignty in public policy exceptions
• The regulatory harmony of the EU gam ing sector

A restrictive ruling from the ECJ may force Malta to align Article 56A with EU law. Conversely, a supportive ruling could redefine mutual recognition boundaries, reshaping future cross-border licensing policies.

Malta’s Article 56A ignited one of the most significant legal debates in EU gambling regulation. At stake are cross-border judicial trust, EU treaty consistency, and a unified online gaming market.

As the EU triggers infringement proceedings and the ECJ readies its interpretation, Malta stands at the crossroads of sovereignty versus supranational compliance. What follows could either reaffirm EU judicial cohesion or carve out competitive carve-outs for national licencing regimes.

Ultimately, this dispute will set a precedent: will public policy exceptions justify game‑focused protections, or will mutual trust and regulatory unity prevail? The verdict may reshape the EU’s digital services landscape—and Malta’s pivotal role within it.