• Home
• CJEU Clarifies Role of Malta’s Article 56A in EU Freeze Orders

CJEU Clarifies Role of Malta’s Article 56A in EU Freeze Orders

CJEU Allows Austrian Courts to Consider Malta’s Article 56A – Freeze Orders Against Malta-Licensed Operators Face Renewed Scrutiny

Key Takeaways

• The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that Austrian courts may take Malta’s Article 56A into account when assessing a European Account Preservation Order.
• The case concerns Malta-licensed operator Mr Green and an Austrian court order to refund a player’s losses from 2021.
• Article 56A, formerly known as Bill 55, has been used since 2023 by Maltese courts to limit enforcement of foreign rulings against Malta-licensed operators.
• The CJEU confirmed that courts may also consider the debtor’s prior conduct, including changes in payment service providers.
• Several similar claims from Austrian and German players against Malta-licensed operators are currently pending.

Dispute Between Austrian Player and Malta-Licensed Operator

The ruling follows a dispute involving Mr Green, a Malta-licensed online gaming operator. In 2021, Austrian courts ordered the company to refund a domestic customer for gambling losses incurred on its platform. Mr Green did not comply with the ruling.

After exhausting domestic legal remedies, the claimant sought further enforcement measures. In 2024, the Austrian courts were asked to review the use of a European Account Preservation Order, or EAPO, targeting Mr Green’s funds held in Ireland, Luxembourg and Sweden.

An EAPO is a legal mechanism that enables creditors to freeze a debtor’s bank funds across multiple European Union member states through a single application. It is designed to prevent the dissipation of assets while a claim is being enforced.

CJEU Clarifies Role of Article 56A in Cross-Border Enforcement

At the center of the case is Article 56A of Maltese law, previously known as Bill 55. Since 2023, Maltese courts have applied this provision to stop or limit the enforcement of foreign judgments against Malta-licensed gaming operators.

The CJEU ruled that Austrian courts are entitled to take the existence of Article 56A into account when deciding whether to grant a European Account Preservation Order. The judgment therefore allows national courts to consider the protective framework established by Malta when assessing cross-border enforcement measures.

At the same time, the decision reinforces the CJEU’s broader position that Article 56A cannot be used by Malta to shield its licensees from legal action brought in other EU member states. In previous cases where Maltese courts invoked Article 56A, the CJEU held that the national laws of the player’s country of residence at the time of the gambling activity take precedence over Maltese legislation.

For operators licensed in Malta and active in other EU markets, this clarification directly affects how foreign judgments may be pursued and enforced.

Debtor Conduct Can Influence Freeze Order Decisions

In addition to the role of Article 56A, the CJEU stated that Austrian courts may also consider the debtor’s previous actions when assessing whether to issue a preservation order.

In this case, the court referred to Mr Green’s decision to sever ties with its Austrian payment service provider following the 2021 ruling. According to the judgment, such conduct may be relevant in determining whether there is a risk that funds could be moved or made unavailable to creditors.

This aspect of the ruling highlights that enforcement proceedings can take into account not only legal provisions but also operational decisions made by operators after a judgment has been issued.

Broader Context: Ongoing Claims From Austria and Germany

The decision comes amid multiple ongoing cases involving players from Austria and Germany who are seeking to reclaim gambling losses from Malta-licensed platforms under their respective national laws.

In situations where Maltese courts have relied on Article 56A to block or limit the recognition of foreign judgments, the CJEU has consistently ruled that the consumer’s national law applies if the player was residing in that country at the time of the gambling activity.

The latest judgment adds another procedural dimension by addressing how cross-border asset freezes may be evaluated when Malta’s protective legislation is involved. It signals that national courts retain discretion to examine both the legal framework in Malta and the conduct of the operator when deciding on preservation measures.

For international users and operators active across several EU jurisdictions, the interaction between national consumer protection laws and Malta’s regulatory framework remains a central legal issue.

Implications for Malta-Licensed Operators Operating Across the EU

Malta has long been a licensing hub for online gaming businesses serving multiple European markets. Article 56A was introduced to limit the enforcement of foreign judgments that conflict with Maltese law, particularly in cases where other member states consider certain forms of online gambling unlawful under domestic rules.

The CJEU’s latest ruling does not invalidate Article 56A. However, it confirms that its existence does not prevent courts in other member states from taking enforcement action, including freezing assets under an EAPO.

For operators, this increases the importance of assessing cross-border legal exposure in markets where consumer claims may arise. For players pursuing reimbursement claims, the ruling clarifies that preservation tools remain available even when Maltese law seeks to limit foreign enforcement.

Our Assessment

The CJEU has confirmed that Austrian courts may consider Malta’s Article 56A when evaluating a European Account Preservation Order, while reiterating that the provision cannot shield Malta-licensed operators from legal action in other EU states. The judgment also allows courts to assess an operator’s prior conduct when deciding on asset freezes. The ruling forms part of a broader series of cases involving Austrian and German players seeking reimbursement from Malta-licensed platforms under national law.