Bill 55 under European scrutiny: what is at stake for Belgian gamblers? 

Winning a court case is not the same as receiving the money awarded by that judgment. This distinction lies at the heart of the debate surrounding Bill 55, the Maltese law that can block the enforcement of foreign gambling judgments. On November 19, 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union will deliver its ruling in a case concerning this legislation. The outcome is also relevant to Belgium. 

According to the official judicial calendar of the Court of Justice, the judgment in Case C-683/24, Spielerschutz Sigma, is scheduled for Thursday, November 19, at 9:30 a.m. The case is being heard by the Fourth Chamber. 

However, a definitive ruling on the substance of the Maltese legislation is not guaranteed. Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou has advised the Court to declare the questions referred for a preliminary ruling inadmissible. His critical assessment of Bill 55 comes only afterwards, in case the Court decides to examine the questions on their merits. 

What exactly is Bill 55? 

Bill 55 is the commonly used name for the Maltese legislative amendment that introduced Article 56A into the Gaming Act in June 2023. The provision concerns, among other things, the recognition and enforcement of foreign court judgments against operators holding a Maltese gambling licence. 

The central issue is that an activity may be permitted under Maltese law, while a court in another EU Member State may determine that the operator was providing services there without the required local licence. If that court subsequently orders a refund, enforcing the judgment in Malta may encounter resistance. 

This is not merely a theoretical problem. Gambling Club previously reported on an Austrian gambling judgment whose enforcement was refused in Malta. That case illustrates why successfully pursuing legal proceedings in one country does not necessarily mean that the creditor will actually receive payment in another. 

Bill 55 must therefore be described precisely. It is not a general rule allowing every Maltese company to disregard any foreign judgment. The debate concerns specific protections relating to gambling services and whether those protections comply with European law. 

The Austrian case concerns legal advice 

Anyone reading only the announcement of the upcoming judgment might assume that the Court is directly deciding a case involving a player seeking to recover gambling losses. However, the proceedings behind Case C-683/24 concern a different issue. 

The case before the Vienna Commercial Court (Handelsgericht Wien) involves a dispute between litigation funder Spielerschutz Sigma and a legal adviser. The funder supported legal proceedings involving consumer claims against Maltese gambling companies. Following the introduction of Article 56A, the company sought legal advice about the consequences for its activities. 

According to the account in the Advocate General’s Opinion, the litigation funder subsequently claimed that the advice it had received was incorrect. Among other things, it sought reimbursement of legal advisory fees and a declaration of liability for certain future losses. 

This explains why the admissibility of the questions referred to the European Court is so important. The Austrian court must resolve a dispute concerning legal services. The Court of Justice must first determine whether an answer concerning Bill 55 is necessary to resolve that particular dispute. 

Why the Advocate General recommends inadmissibility 

In his Opinion of April 23, 2026, in Case C-683/24, Emiliou proposes that the questions referred for a preliminary ruling be declared inadmissible. In his view, a distinction must be made between the correctness of a legal interpretation and the care exercised when providing legal advice at the time. 

A legal adviser can be assessed on the quality and defensibility of their work. According to the Advocate General, this does not necessarily require the Court to establish definitively how the underlying Maltese legislation relates to EU law. 

This procedural assessment could determine the outcome on November 19. If the Court follows this reasoning, it will not provide a substantive answer to the questions concerning Article 56A in this case. 

That would not mean the Court approves Bill 55. Inadmissibility means that the questions are not examined on their merits in the proceedings concerned. A ruling on whether this particular referral is appropriate is different from a ruling on the legality of the Maltese legislation. 

Emiliou is nevertheless critical of the Maltese legislation 

The Advocate General does not limit his analysis to admissibility. In case the Court reaches a different conclusion, he also examines the substantive questions. His assessment of Article 56A is critical. 

According to Emiliou, the relevant provisions of the Brussels I Recast Regulation preclude national legislation such as that questioned by the Austrian court. The issue concerns the refusal to recognise and enforce judgments on the grounds that the gambling services are permitted under Maltese law, even though a foreign court has found those services unlawful. 

His Opinion therefore presents two possible approaches. First, he recommends that the Court refrain from examining the substantive questions. He then explains what he considers the appropriate answer if the Court decides to overcome that procedural obstacle. 

An Advocate General’s Opinion is not a judgment. The Court is not obliged to follow the advice, either on admissibility or on the substance of the case. Until the judgment is delivered, it therefore remains uncertain which reasoning the judges will adopt. 

Why the Brussels I Recast Regulation matters so much 

The Brussels I Recast Regulation governs, among other things, the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters within the European Union. Its underlying principle is that a judgment issued in one Member State should also be capable of taking effect in another. 

This is particularly important in cross-border disputes. Without a common framework, a party that successfully pursues a claim elsewhere in the EU could repeatedly encounter significant legal obstacles whenever the debtor or their assets are located across a national border. 

The regulation does provide grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement. One of these concerns a judgment that is manifestly contrary to the public policy of the Member State where recognition is sought. The debate surrounding Bill 55 partly concerns the limits of this exception. 

According to the Advocate General, this exception cannot serve as a general mechanism for reassessing foreign gambling judgments based on Malta’s interpretation of whether the services were lawful. Differences between national gambling regulations do not automatically create an exemption from European rules on the recognition of judgments. 

Malta defends its own interpretation of the legislation 

Malta views Article 56A differently from its critics. In its response to European objections, the Malta Gaming Authority argued that the provision does not introduce a general prohibition on enforcing European judgments. According to the regulator, it clarifies existing Maltese public policy within the European legal framework. 

The European Commission, however, has raised formal objections. On June 18, 2025, it initiated infringement proceedings against Malta. According to the Commission, the legislation requires Maltese courts to systematically refuse certain foreign judgments, thereby exceeding the limits of the public policy exception. 

Gambling Club previously covered the European objections to Malta’s protection of gambling companies. This institutional dispute forms the broader background to the case. 

However, the infringement proceedings must be distinguished from Case C-683/24. The case scheduled for judgment on November 19 arises from questions referred by an Austrian court. It is not automatically the proceeding in which the Commission has brought Malta before the Court. 

Why Belgian players are following this case 

For Belgian players, the issue may become relevant when they have a civil claim against a company established in Malta. If a favourable judgment subsequently needs to be enforced in Malta, the European rules on recognition and enforcement may play an important role. 

This is a possible application of the legal issue, not a finding that every Belgian player is affected by Bill 55. Not every casino is based in Malta, not every claim involves the same circumstances, and not every judgment needs to be enforced there. 

A ruling on recognition and enforcement must also not be confused with an automatic right to a refund. A player must first have a legal basis for their claim and, where litigation is involved, obtain a favourable judgment. 

Gambling Club previously examined the European debate surrounding the recovery of gambling losses. That issue is connected to Bill 55 but remains a separate question: whether someone is entitled to money and whether an existing judgment can be enforced are two different stages. 

A Maltese licence is not Belgian authorisation 

Alongside the enforceability of judgments, another distinction matters: where is an operator allowed to offer its services? A Maltese licence does not automatically authorise a company to provide online gambling services in every other EU Member State. 

For the Belgian market, the required Belgian licence remains decisive. Referring to a licence issued by the Malta Gaming Authority does not replace that authorisation. Nor does the existence of Bill 55 make an operator without a Belgian licence legal in Belgium. 

Our explanation of the difference between legal and illegal gambling operators in Belgium provides background on these local licensing requirements. A company’s place of establishment, its foreign licence and its authorisation to operate in Belgium are separate matters. 

This distinction also prevents exaggerated conclusions about November 19. The judgment will not, by itself, establish that all Maltese operators are illegal. Nor will it create a general European gambling licence. 

What could the Court decide on November 19? 

If the Court declares the questions inadmissible, these proceedings will not produce a substantive answer about whether Bill 55 complies with EU law. The wider debate will continue, but this referral will not provide the hoped-for legal clarification. 

If the Court examines the questions on their merits, it may explain how much flexibility the Brussels I Recast Regulation allows for legislation such as Article 56A. The precise wording and scope of that answer will then be decisive for how national courts apply it. 

A preliminary ruling does not directly annul Maltese legislation. The Court provides an interpretation of EU law, which the national court must then apply when resolving the dispute. 

For Belgian players and their legal representatives, November 19 is therefore an important date, with one clear limitation: a judgment delivered in Luxembourg does not automatically result in money being credited to a player’s account. It will first be necessary to establish whether the Court answers the substantive questions and then determine what consequences that answer may have for individual cases.