A ruling by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) could have wider implications for how national courts across the European Union handle cross-border gambling disputes and enforce claims against operators licensed in other member states.
The case centers on an Austrian player identified only as TQ, who successfully sued online casino operator Mr Green in Austria after losing nearly €62,900 between 2017 and 2019. The player argued that the company, although licensed by the Malta Gaming Authority, was not authorized to offer gambling services in Austria.
An Austrian court sided with the player and ordered repayment of the losses. However, despite the ruling, the compensation has not yet been paid, prompting the player to seek a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO). The legal mechanism allows courts to freeze assets held in EU member states in an effort to secure outstanding claims.
The ECJ has now clarified that national courts may take cross-border risks into account when deciding whether such preservation measures should be granted. At the same time, the court stressed that local legal frameworks within member states, including Malta’s controversial Article 56A, must also be considered.
Article 56A has drawn attention because it may shield Malta-licensed gambling operators from the enforcement of certain foreign court judgments. Critics argue that the provision complicates attempts by players in other EU countries to recover gambling losses from companies based in Malta.
In the latest proceedings, TQ claimed there was a risk that assets linked to the operator could be moved or protected within Malta, making enforcement more difficult. The requested preservation order reportedly targets accounts in several EU jurisdictions, including Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, and Sweden.
While the ECJ ruling does not directly settle the broader conflict between national gambling laws and EU market rules, legal observers believe it could influence future cases involving offshore gambling operators serving players in countries where they lack domestic licenses.
The decision may also encourage courts across the EU to more carefully examine cross-border enforcement tools in gambling-related disputes, particularly as regulators continue to debate how national licensing systems should interact within the bloc.