Legal professionals in the Netherlands are urging their government to take a stand against a contentious Maltese law.
A group of Dutch legal experts have penned a collective letter to the Minister of Justice and Security, F. Weverwind, calling for action against the controversial Maltese legislation, widely known as Act 55.
The letter, bearing the signatures of five lawyers engaged in legal disputes against gambling enterprises, contends that the Dutch government should explicitly oppose Act 55, which they argue “significantly contravenes European law.”
Act 55, which came into force in June, shields gambling operators from legal responsibility for activities authorized by the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA).
The letter was signed by Benzi Loonstein, Herman Loonstein, and Johan Oosterhagen from Loonstein Law Firm, as well as Martijn Bonefaas and Anton Heilig from Van Diepen Van der Kroef Law Firm.
Will the Netherlands follow the lead of Austria and Germany?
As the letter points out, both firms are actively engaged in legal proceedings against MGA-licensed gambling companies operating in the European gray market.
Similar legal efforts in Austria and Germany have yielded legal precedents in higher courts, holding gambling companies accountable for all historical losses incurred by consumers.
This communication suggests that the Netherlands also anticipates and desires this outcome. The document cites a decision by the Dutch State Council, which determined that grey market goods were never authorized.
Although most businesses settled after losing the dispute, some operators continue to contest the ruling, particularly several brands associated with 888 and Flutter.
Legal representatives assert that Act 55 infringes upon Dutch law.
Legal representatives emphasize relevant case law within Europe and the Netherlands.
Legal representatives contend that Maltese operators should be obligated to reimburse players for all financial losses, as they provided gambling services without a license from the Dutch regulator Kansspelautoriteit (KSA).
As Casino Nieuws reports, this letter signifies that gambling companies are operating unlawfully due to breaches of Article 1 of the Dutch Gambling Act (KOA).
“The violation of the duty of care has also resulted in significant economic, personal, and social difficulties for numerous individuals involved and their surroundings,” the letter states. “Numerous instances of this exist, but unfortunately, they have been insufficiently exposed thus far.”
“A perilous precedent”
This communication indicates that Act 55 contravenes the Brussels Recast Regulation. This is EU legislation employed to manage legal rulings among member states.
However, the MGA defended the legislation last week, citing a provision of the law that permits exemptions if the legislation does not align with the principles of its legal system.
This letter also asserts that Act 55 constitutes an “intrusion into the autonomous judicial and legislative entities” of the Netherlands and Malta.
The enactment of the act has garnered criticism from European policymakers and regulatory bodies, with numerous individuals contending that it fundamentally clashes with European legislation. Many hold the view that the act ultimately conflicts with European law.
“Ultimately, individuals are endeavoring to hinder Maltese judges from acknowledging and enforcing rulings issued by Dutch, German, and Austrian judges. Laws akin to Act 55 lack any precedent within the EU. Consequently, this legislation will establish a perilous precedent.
“We implore the Dutch government to champion the interests of this contingent of Dutch citizens and to guarantee, through the European Commission, that Malta ceases to disregard the principle of the rule of law as enshrined in the EU Treaties.”
In the preceding month, the European Commission indicated that it would pursue a reassessment of Act 55 in a written response to German anti-gambling politician MEP Sabine Verheyen.
Subsequent to this, the German gambling regulator GGL declared in a written statement in August that Act 55 is not aligned with EU law.