The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that courts across the European Union may consider Malta’s controversial gambling liability protections when deciding whether to freeze the bank accounts of online gambling operators.

The judgment centers on a dispute involving Austrian player TQ and online casino operator Mr Green, a Malta-licensed platform. The case has drawn renewed attention to Malta’s Article 56A, commonly referred to as Bill 55, which has become a major point of conflict between Malta and several European countries pursuing claims against online gambling companies.

The ECJ’s Fourth Chamber issued the ruling while interpreting the legal standards tied to European Account Preservation Orders, which are used to freeze bank accounts across EU member states in cross-border debt disputes.

Although the court did not decide whether Malta’s law itself breaches European law, it concluded that judges may take the existence of such protective legislation into account when evaluating whether there is enough urgency or risk to justify freezing assets.

Austrian Player Sought Cross-Border Asset Freeze

The legal dispute originated after Austrian player TQ reportedly lost €62,878 gambling on Mr Green’s platform between 2017 and 2019.

Austrian courts later ruled in favor of the player and ordered Mr Green to repay the losses. According to the case, Austrian authorities determined the gambling contract was void because the operator held a Maltese license but lacked an Austrian license.

After the judgment remained unpaid, TQ sought a European Account Preservation Order targeting accounts connected to Mr Green in Malta, Ireland, Luxembourg, and Sweden.

The ECJ was asked to clarify what factors national courts may consider when determining whether such an order is necessary.

The court ruled that judges are allowed to consider both older conduct by the debtor and the existence of national laws that may obstruct enforcement of claims.

That finding directly affected discussion around Malta’s Article 56A, which prevents Maltese courts from recognizing or enforcing certain foreign judgments against Malta-licensed gambling operators.

TQ argued that assets could potentially be moved into Malta where they would benefit from the legal protections provided by Bill 55.

Court Stops Short of Ruling on Legality of Bill 55

The ECJ did not declare Malta’s legislation unlawful. Instead, it stated that courts may treat such legislation as one factor among several when assessing potential risks tied to enforcement.

The judgment specifically noted that the existence of a blocking law alone does not automatically prove there is a “real risk” that assets may become unreachable. However, judges carrying out a broader assessment may consider such legislation as relevant context.

The ruling also referenced the past behavior of operators. According to reports tied to the case, Mr Green ended its relationship with an Austrian payment provider after the original court ruling in 2021, making debt recovery efforts more difficult.

Gaming lawyer and GTG partner Terence Cassar said the judgment still carries important implications for the gambling sector.

“What the court is stating here is that yes, it may take into account, on the one hand, conduct of a debtor that took place long ago, and on the other hand, the existence of a law in another member state that can prevent the recovery of the claim concerned,” Cassar said.

He also explained that courts have traditionally focused on immediate risks tied to debtors moving assets or emptying bank accounts.

“It has always been interpreted as courts look at real urgency and real risk from the aspect of what the debtor is doing, maybe emptying bank accounts or trying to move money to some jurisdiction where they are outside of their reach,” Cassar added.

Wider EU Conflict Over Gambling Regulation Continues

The case forms part of a broader legal clash between Malta and several central European countries including Austria and Germany.

Players in those countries have increasingly pursued refund claims against Malta-licensed operators by arguing the companies lacked valid local licenses under national gambling laws.

Malta introduced Article 56A to shield locally licensed operators from foreign judgments, citing the importance of the gambling sector to the country’s economy.

European courts, however, have increasingly issued decisions that favor consumer protection rules in players’ home countries over Malta’s domestic gambling framework.

Cassar suggested that the larger issue goes beyond the individual dispute itself and reflects the lack of unified gambling regulation across the European Union.

“The reality is going to be that the resolution on Article 56A ultimately derives from the infringement action ongoing between the Commission and Malta, and to my mind the dynamic is not per se legal, it is political, and the resolution here has to be a political solution, not a legal solution,” he said.

He also pointed to future anti-money laundering rules as one of the first attempts to create more harmonized definitions of gambling services across the bloc.

“The more sane approach would be if the EU could come up with some form of regime similar to adjacent areas like currencies or financial services,” Cassar said, as reported by Public Gaming Research Institute (PGRI).

The case involving TQ and Mr Green will now return to Austrian courts for further proceedings following the ECJ’s interpretation of EU law.