ECJ reinforces Germany’s stance against Maltese gambling operators
A preliminary ruling backs the German regulator’s argument that EU law does not prevent it from banning Malta-licensed gambling operators.
Luxembourg.- The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has issued another opinion siding against Malta’s attempts to protect its igaming operators from legal challenges in other EU member states. A preliminary ruling in a case involving German regulators, Maltese authorities and the Malta-based divisions of Lottoland states that EU law does not prevent individual members from prohibiting online gambling services originating elsewhere in the Union.
This decision goes against Malta’s argument that such prohibitions breach the EU right to the free movement of services. It reinforces Germany’s restrictions on online gambling and provides support for claims from consumers who seek compensation for losses incurred with unlicensed operators lacking proper authorisation.
Although the ECJ ruling refers to the Lottoland case, it has potential implications for other ongoing disputes, including those involving Tipico in Germany and Virtual Services Digital Limited in Austria. The Lottoland case was brought by a player seeking reimbursement for losses incurred between 2019 and 2021, when Germany began regulating online gambling.
The court clarified that Article 56A of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union does not prevent national legislation from banning online casino games, slots or lottery betting, thus invalidating Malta’s main legal defence.
However, the disputes don’t end here. Malta amended its own Gambling Act in 2023 with Bill 55 to allow Maltese courts to dismiss foreign judgments against Malta-based operators, provided those firms comply with Maltese law, even if they breach regulations in other EU jurisdictions.
Malta argues that the amendment is grounded in the EU’s principles of free movement of services and trade. It also invokes the Brussels I Recast Regulation, which governs mutual recognition of judgments, claiming that foreign rulings conflicting with its domestic framework should not be enforced locally.
