Nicholas Emiliou, Advocate General of the European Court of Justice, in his professional opinion published on September 4, 2025, concluded that gamblers seeking a refund of their losses from foreign operators do not violate EU laws, even if their claims challenge the gambling regime of another EU member state. The observations could set a new precedent for iGaming regulations in Europe, challenging Malta’s supremacy as the hub of remote gambling operations.
A Summary of German Players’ Refund Claims from Operators Licensed in Malta
- The case originated when a German punter sued a Malta-based lottery operator to recover losses incurred in Germany. A local court ruled that the contract between the player and the operator was void under German law, as the company in question lacked the necessary clearance to offer gambling services in Germany.
- ECJ Advocate General Emiliou observed that the refund claims are not an abuse of EU law. Furthermore, restitution contracts fall under domestic contract law rather than the EU freedoms. Hence, players can seek compensation without undermining the internal market principles of EU member states.
- The ECJ observations recognise the legality of Germany blocking offshore gambling operators licensed in Malta. However, it does not clarify whether the German restrictions comply with EU laws. Therefore, while the ECJ’s opinion sets a new precedent, it fails to answer broader questions about the EU freedoms.
ECJ Observation Highlights the Complexities of iGaming Regulation in the EU
In his opinion on Case C‑440/23, Advocate General Emiliou observed that, as a locally regulated market, Germany is within its rights to block access to remote gambling operators licensed in Malta. He also opined that refund claims from German players against operators that did not possess a valid Gemeinsamen Glücksspielbehörde der Länder (GGL) licence are not an abuse of EU law.
This opinion provides the legal basis for claimants to initiate civil proceedings against online gambling operators licensed in Malta. Emiliou further noted that resolution claims are purported to be governed by national contract law rather than the EU freedoms. As a result, these claims fall outside the purview of abuse.
Although it falls short of verifying whether Germany’s restrictions comply with EU law, the observation provides legal grounds for claimants seeking refunds from offshore gambling sites within the EU’s jurisdiction. This not only puts additional stress on remote gambling operators but could also undermine Malta’s dominance as a global iGaming licensing hub.
The case was first heard at the ECJ on April 9 2025, after a Maltese court rejected a German court order directing the Malta-licensed company to reimburse a German player’s losses. The key issue at the hearing was whether a Maltese court has the authority to evaluate a German court’s compliance with EU laws.
Under German law, the contract between the company and the player was void, since the company did not have a valid local licence. The player assigned a plaintiff to sue the company in Malta. The operator argued that the German court order violates Article 56 of the Functioning of the European Union, which allows the freedom to provide services.
Legal Ramifications for Remote Gambling Operators in the EU
Earlier in 2023, Maltese lawmakers introduced Article 56A, also known as Bill 55, to the Malta Gaming Act 2018. The legislation enables Maltese courts to overrule foreign judgments against companies licensed in Malta, including rulings for the reimbursement of gambling losses.
EU Commissioner Michael McGrath had earlier announced the initiation of infringement proceedings against the Maltese government and the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA), challenging the legality of Article 56A. Any unsatisfactory reply from the Maltese representatives could lead to the case being escalated to the ECJ.
Although Emiliou’s opinion on case C-440/23 is non-binding, the ECJ has been known to follow the precedent set by the Advocate General. This means Emiliou’s observation carries weight, and his views could be used to rule on cases involving jurisdictional overlap in the future.
The Advocate General also evaluated whether an EU member state can review another’s gambling laws for conformity with EU legislation. National courts can compare foreign rulings against EU law in cases where it is a preliminary necessity. However, they can only review them in cases where there is a clear indication of incompatibility.
The ECJ asked Emiliou to abstain from stating his opinions on whether German gambling laws breach EU legislation. This prompted legal experts to ponder whether the top court is already leaning towards drawing substantive conclusions. The ECJ’s ruling is expected later this year. It will help set the boundaries for international iGaming jurisdictions.