On Thursday, 21 May 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will deliver its judgment in Case C‑198/24 (Mr. Green). At its core is a question with considerable practical consequences for thousands of players in Germany and the EU: can a Member State – here Malta – use national law to effectively block the enforcement of gambling judgments against providers licensed in Malta, and are there nevertheless effective ways to access their assets?
The focus is on the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) under Regulation (EU) No 655/2014. This instrument allows creditors to freeze a debtor’s bank accounts in other EU states at short notice – without a prior declaration of enforceability or recognition proceedings in the target state. The Regional Civil Court of Vienna (Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien) has asked the CJEU when such an order may be issued. Specifically: can acts of the debtor that lie further in the past (three years or more) and statutory obstacles to enforcement in the state of establishment establish the urgency required for an EAPO?
The underlying facts
An Austrian player lost around EUR 63,000 with Mr. Green Limited. Mr. Green operated under a Maltese licence but held no licence in Austria. The Austrian courts declared the gambling contract void and, at the end of 2021, ordered Mr. Green to repay the full amount; the judgment has been final since April 2022. As the amount was not paid, the player applied for an EAPO in early 2024 in order to freeze the provider’s accounts in Malta, Sweden, Luxembourg and Ireland. The explosive detail: as early as the beginning of 2021 – i.e. before the judgment – Mr. Green had terminated its relationship with the Austrian payment service provider Dimoco Europe. The court of first instance regarded this as a deliberate attempt to make future enforcement more difficult.
The enforcement problem: “Malta versus Europe”
Many providers licensed in Malta concentrate their assets on the island and rely on the regulation there – the place of establishment and the place of enforcement coincide, which structurally disadvantages creditors. In June 2023, Art. 56A Maltese Gaming Act (“Bill 55”)
was introduced in Malta. The law declares actions against Malta-licensed providers before foreign courts inadmissible and refuses recognition of such judgments in Malta. In practice, this creates a barrier for creditors holding, for example, German or Austrian enforceable titles.
Why Bill 55 conflicts with EU law – and why it is relevant for the EAPO
Bill 55 is not a neutral regulatory act but a protective shield for Maltese gambling providers at the expense of European consumers. The law runs counter to the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions laid down in the Brussels Ia Regulation (EU No 1215/2012). For the EAPO, Bill 55 is significant in two ways:
- It shows that enforcement in Malta is objectively made more difficult or frustrated.
- It gives rise to a structural risk of assets being removed, which supports the urgency of an account preservation order in other EU states.
In his Opinion of 30 October 2025, Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou recommends:
- Bill 55 must clearly be taken into account when assessing urgency; it indicates the risk that enforcement in Malta will be frustrated.
- Creditors do not have to file their EAPO application at the exact moment the risk arises. What matters is whether the risk still exists at the time the application is filed.
If the CJEU follows this line – which, in our experience, is often the case – players will gain simplified access: via an EAPO, they can provisionally secure assets in Sweden, Luxembourg, Ireland or other EU states before funds are placed beyond the reach of creditors.
Consequences for players in Germany
Mr. Green also offered its services to customers in Germany without a German licence. Under Section 4(4) of the Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2012 (GlüStV 2012), online gambling without a licence was prohibited; the gambling contract is therefore void under Section 134 of the German Civil Code (BGB). Lost stakes can be reclaimed under Section 812(1) BGB (unjust enrichment). In its judgment in C‑440/23 of 16 April 2026, the CJEU confirmed that the former German ban on online gambling was compatible with EU law. This means that the civil-law repayment claims of players in Germany remain in place – regardless of a licence in another EU state.
Today’s case C‑198/24 adds a procedural lever: if the CJEU confirms that Bill 55 and earlier transfers of assets support the urgency of an EAPO, claimants in Germany will also be able to have accounts in other EU states provisionally frozen – without first having to go through recognition or enforcement proceedings there. The result: more pressure in settlement negotiations and better protection of claims.
Limitation in 2026: act now
Irrespective of today’s judgment, deadlines are expiring for many older cases. Under Section 852 sentence 1 BGB (10-year limitation period for residual damages claims), claims arising from gambling losses incurred in 2016 become time-barred on 31 December 2026. If you played with Mr. Green or other Maltese providers without a German licence between 2012 and 2016, you should make use of the time remaining. A judgment alone is not enough if no attachable assets can be reached later. Acting early improves your chances – both of obtaining a judgment and of enforcing it.
Support and strategy
Have you lost money with Mr. Green or another online casino without a German licence? The Cocron law firm reviews your case individually – including enforcement strategies in several EU countries – and assists with securing evidence and with EAPO applications. Contact: www.ra-cocron.de
What is the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO)?
The EAPO under Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 is an EU-wide instrument for the rapid, provisional freezing of bank accounts in other Member States – without separate recognition proceedings in the state of enforcement. This allows claims to be secured effectively across borders.
What is Bill 55 and why does it matter?
Bill 55 (Art. 56A Maltese Gaming Act, June 2023) declares actions against providers licensed in Malta before foreign courts inadmissible and refuses recognition of such judgments. In Case C‑198/24, Advocate General Emiliou regards Bill 55 as a relevant obstacle to enforcement that establishes the urgency of an EAPO.
Can I, as a player in Germany, reclaim my losses?
Yes. In C‑440/23 of 16 April 2026, the CJEU confirmed that the German ban on unlicensed online gambling was compatible with EU law. Civil-law repayment claims (Section 812 BGB) remain in place – regardless of a foreign licence.
Which limitation period applies?
For unjust enrichment claims arising from older cases, the ten-year period under Section 852 sentence 1 BGB generally applies. Losses from 2016 become time-barred on 31 December 2026. If you played with unlicensed providers between 2012 and 2016, you should act without delay.
What if the CJEU follows the Advocate General?
Then creditors with a final enforceable title, or in ongoing proceedings, will be able to obtain EAPOs and have the provider’s accounts in other EU states provisionally frozen. This makes it harder to shift assets and secures claims before actual enforcement begins.
