Key Moments:
- Advocate General Anthony Michael Emiliou delivered an opinion on October 30 questioning Malta’s Article 56A protections for gambling operators.
- Mr Green, owned by Evoke and based in Malta, was ordered by Austrian courts to refund €62,878 to a local player, despite lacking an Austrian license.
- The European Commission has expressed concerns that Article 56A may undermine EU-wide judicial trust and recognition of court rulings.
European Court Opinion Challenges Article 56A
On October 30, Advocate General Anthony Michael Emiliou delivered an opinion to the European Court of Justice questioning the effectiveness of Malta’s Article 56A. The provision was designed to shield Malta-licensed gambling firms from lawsuits in other EU states. However, Emiliou warned that the law could instead raise legal risks, especially for operators with assets outside Malta.
Mr Green Case Illustrates Legal Risks
The issue came to the forefront through a lawsuit in Austria involving Mr Green, a Malta-licensed gaming company owned by Evoke. Between 2017 and 2019, an Austrian customer lost €62,878 on Mr Green’s platform, although the company did not possess a local license. Austrian courts nullified the customer’s contract and ordered the operator to reimburse the lost funds with accrued interest and legal expenses.
Later, the customer requested a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) to freeze assets across EU member states. Although the Austrian court rejected the request for lack of urgency, it also questioned whether Article 56A could block future cross-border enforcement.
Analysis of Article 56A’s Impact
Enacted in 2023, Article 56A blocks the automatic recognition of foreign court rulings against Malta-based gambling operators. It was meant to protect licensees from lawsuits in EU markets where they have no license. Nevertheless, the Advocate General warned that this same safeguard might push other courts to act faster or impose tougher scrutiny on operators’ assets abroad.
Licensed Operators Potentially Exposed
In his argument, Emiliou stated that the Maltese licensing regime does not grant immunity from legal action by authorities or claimants in other EU countries. Operators who delay cooperation, conceal assets, or otherwise evade legal requests may still find themselves subject to preservation orders and forced collection on their non-Malta assets. Additionally, Emiliou noted that Mr Green’s termination of its Austrian payment partner in early 2021 was taken into consideration by the court when ruling on the EAPO, demonstrating how shifts in business operations can influence case outcomes.
Mounting Pressure from European Institutions
The European Commission has also voiced concern about Malta’s Article 56A, saying it “undermines mutual trust in the administration of justice” within the EU. Furthermore, it has formally challenged whether the measure aligns with EU law, warning that it might block the recognition of legitimate foreign judgments.
If the European Court of Justice agrees with Emiliou’s view, Malta’s operator protection system may be at risk. As a result, Malta-licensed firms could face more frequent asset freezes abroad. In addition, the country’s laws might come under pressure to align more closely with EU standards.
Potential Consequences for Malta-Based Gaming Firms
In essence, Article 56A, which was intended as a barrier against external legal claims, now faces the prospect of becoming a liability that heightens legal vulnerability for Malta’s operators throughout the European Union.
| Key Parties | Action | Potential Impact |
|---|---|---|
| Mr Green (owned by Evoke) | Ordered to refund €62,878 by Austrian court | Increased exposure to cross-border legal actions |
| Malta 56A | Blocks automatic enforcement of foreign judgments in Malta | May trigger stricter enforcement outside Malta |
| European Commission | Questioned legality of Article 56A | Ongoing review; possible legislative changes |
- Author
Daniel Williams
