CJEU Tipico opinion ramps up pressure on Malta

A fresh opinion from the European Court of Justice (CJEU) has added to growing pressure on Malta’s role in cross-border gambling disputes. This issue has been building for months. Now, the latest development centres on a long-running case involving Tipico and a German customer seeking to recover losses.

At the heart of it is a simple question: what happens when an operator offers services without a local licence?

Tipico case raises refund questions

Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou has stated that operators may be required to refund stakes if they offered services without the necessary national licence.

In this case,  Tipico operated in Germany under a Malta Gaming Authority (MGA)  licence between 2013 and 2020. At the time, Germany’s regulatory framework was unsettled, leaving operators in a grey area.

From a German legal perspective, the opinion suggests the player’s claim is valid. Without a local licence, the contract between operator and player could be considered void. That opens the door for customers to reclaim losses, even years after placing bets.

Malta’s Bill 55 under scrutiny

The case adds further pressure on Malta’s controversial Bill 55, which has been used to limit the enforcement of foreign court rulings against Malta-licensed operators.

Germany’s regulator has already questioned whether this approach aligns with EU law. The concern is that Malta may be shielding operators from liability in other member states.

However, Tipico itself has distanced its position from the legislation. CEO Axel Hefer has stated the company does not rely on Bill 55 and has not used it as a defence.

Even so, the broader legal tension remains.

“The freedom to provide services does not preclude the German authorities from requiring a German licence to offer sports betting services in Germany, nor does it in general preclude operators which did so without the required licence from being subject to consequences under civil-law, such as the nullity of the contracts they concluded with their clients” – Nicholas Emiliou, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union

No EU-wide licence recognition

The opinion follows a similar stance in the recent Wunner case between Austria and Malta.

There, the CJEU made it clear that gambling licences do not work like financial services “passporting”. A licence issued in one EU country does not automatically grant access to another.

Each member state retains the right to regulate its own market, provided rules are proportionate and transparent. This means operators must meet local licensing requirements, regardless of where they are based.

Legal pressure continues to build

Taken together, these cases point in the same direction. Member states are increasingly able to apply their own laws.

Malta, meanwhile, continues to defend its framework. Its courts have used public policy arguments under EU regulation to block the enforcement of some foreign judgments. But with repeated opinions from the CJEU pushing back on these interpretations, the pressure is unlikely to ease any time soon.

For operators and players alike, the message is becoming clearer. Licensing still matters at a local level. Relying on cross-border protections may not be enough.