On January 30, 2026, the Maltese Civil Court ruled against the enforcement of an Austrian court judgment requiring a Malta-licensed operator to repay almost €500,000 to a player. The decision is a significant development in Malta’s stance on cross-border “player recovery” cases, particularly those involving gambling losses incurred on Malta-registered platforms.

The case involved Virtual Digital Services Limited, which operates the Mr Green online casino under a license from the Malta Gaming Authority (MGA). The Austrian player, Marek Ehrlich, had petitioned Maltese courts to recognize a Vienna Regional Civil Court ruling that ordered the company to refund his losses of €488,546.47, plus over €16,000 in legal fees. Ehrlich’s claim was based on the argument that the Austrian court had ruled the operator’s activities illegal in Austria due to its lack of an Austrian gaming license, thus entitling him to a refund.

The Court’s Ruling: Upholding Malta’s Public Policy

However, the Maltese court, presided over by Mr Justice Mark Simiana, found that enforcing the Austrian ruling would violate Malta’s public policy. The court reasoned that such enforcement would undermine the legal validity of an MGA-issued license and interfere with Malta’s fundamental right to allow operators to offer services across the European Union.

This decision builds on Malta’s ongoing legal framework under the Gaming Act, particularly the recent enactment of Article 56A, commonly known as “Bill 55.” This provision aims to protect the rights of local gaming operators, asserting that Maltese courts will not recognize foreign judgments related to Malta-licensed operators that operate according to local regulations. The law reflects Malta’s commitment to uphold its sovereignty in the regulation of its gaming sector, reinforcing its position as a hub for cross-border online gaming within the EU.

The Austrian court had previously ruled in favor of Ehrlich, asserting that because Virtual Digital Services Limited lacked the necessary Austrian gaming license, it was in breach of Austrian law, and thus his losses should be refunded. In a move to have the Austrian decision enforced, Ehrlich filed a case in Malta. However, the Maltese court noted that while EU regulations, specifically Regulation 1215/2012, facilitate the recognition of judgments between EU member states, this rule does not apply if the enforcement of such judgments conflicts with the public policy of the country in question. In this case, Malta’s legal framework was considered to have precedence, as it supports the freedom of Maltese operators to provide services across the EU.

In reaching its decision, the court also considered the European Commission’s ongoing infringement proceedings against Malta regarding Bill 55. Although the Commission has raised concerns that the law may breach EU law, the court held that the provision remains in force, and there was no legal basis to disapply it in this instance.

This ruling is the latest chapter in a series of legal battles between operators licensed in Malta and players from other EU countries seeking to recoup gambling losses. Maltese regulators have previously criticized aggressive marketing campaigns by Austrian law firms encouraging gamblers to pursue similar claims against Malta-licensed operators, highlighting the complexity of cross-border gambling disputes.

The Bigger Picture: Malta’s Role in EU Gambling Regulation

In addition to its impact on gambling regulation, the ruling also underscores the broader issue of how each EU member state governs the online gaming sector. As reported by Times of Malta, while gambling is not regulated at the EU level, the court’s decision reinforces the autonomy of each member state to create and enforce its own laws within its jurisdiction.

Though the court’s ruling favors the operator, this case may not mark the end of the dispute. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) had previously ruled that a player can seek legal action in their country of residence even if the gambling platform is based in another EU member state. This ECJ ruling did not directly address Bill 55, but the European Commission’s ongoing investigation suggests that the matter may ultimately be taken up again by the ECJ.