{"id":5976,"date":"2026-05-20T22:24:02","date_gmt":"2026-05-20T20:24:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/?post_type=news&p=5976"},"modified":"2026-10-27T08:24:13","modified_gmt":"2026-10-27T07:24:13","slug":"cjeu-c-198-24-malta-block-enforcement-gambling-losses","status":"publish","type":"news","link":"https:\/\/ra-cocron.de\/en\/news\/cjeu-c-198-24-malta-block-enforcement-gambling-losses\/","title":{"rendered":"CJEU C-198\/24: Can Malta Block Enforcement of Gambling Losses?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On Thursday, 21 May 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will deliver its judgment in Case C\u2011198\/24 (Mr. Green)<\/strong>. At its core is a question with considerable practical consequences for thousands of players in Germany and the EU: can a Member State \u2013 here Malta \u2013 use national law to effectively block the enforcement<\/strong> of gambling judgments against providers licensed in Malta, and are there nevertheless effective ways to access their assets?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The focus is on the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO)<\/strong> under Regulation (EU) No 655\/2014. This instrument allows creditors to freeze a debtor’s bank accounts in other EU states at short notice \u2013 without a prior declaration of enforceability or recognition proceedings in the target state. The Regional Civil Court of Vienna (Landesgericht f\u00fcr 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<\/strong> required for an EAPO?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The underlying facts<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

An Austrian player lost around EUR 63,000 with Mr. Green Limited<\/strong>. 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<\/strong>. The explosive detail: as early as the beginning of 2021 \u2013 i.e. before the judgment \u2013 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<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The enforcement problem: \u201cMalta versus Europe\u201d<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Many providers licensed in Malta concentrate their assets on the island and rely on the regulation there \u2013 the place of establishment and the place of enforcement coincide, which structurally disadvantages creditors. In June 2023, Art. 56A Maltese Gaming Act (\u201cBill 55\u201d)<\/strong>
was introduced in Malta. The law declares actions against Malta-licensed providers before foreign courts inadmissible and refuses recognition<\/strong> of such judgments in Malta. In practice, this creates a barrier for creditors holding, for example, German or Austrian enforceable titles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why Bill 55 conflicts with EU law \u2013 and why it is relevant for the EAPO<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Bill 55 is not a neutral regulatory act but a protective shield<\/strong> 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<\/strong> (EU No 1215\/2012). For the EAPO, Bill 55 is significant in two ways:<\/p>\n\n\n\n