European Court of Justice casts doubt on Article 56A protections of Malta’s igaming companies
The Advocate General believes that judgments from other EU countries can still be executed against Malta-licensed gambling operators.
Luxembourg.- Advocate General Anthony Michael Emiliou of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has issued an opinion on Malta’s contentious Article 56A casting doubt on its protective scope for igaming operators. Emiliou, whose role is to provide unbiased legal opinions on cases, has suggested that the amendment could expose gambling operators to greater vulnerability regarding cross-border asset freezing in the European Union (EU).
The Advocate General observed that Maltese legislation could arguably heighten the likelihood of operators either dissipating their assets or failing to comply with freezing orders. This, he noted, could lead to increased scrutiny of operator-held assets located outside Malta. This could be particularly pertinent in the context of ongoing litigation related to player losses.
The opinion stems from a legal dispute involving Evoke’s Mr Green, which was sued in Austria over losses from unlicensed gambling. The case was brought by an Austrian player who lost €62,878 while gambling with Mr Green between January 2017 and April 2019. The claimant argued that the contract with Mr Green was invalid under Austrian law, and Austrian courts sided with the player, ordering Mr Green to reimburse the full amount lost, along with interest and legal costs.
The player applied for a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) to freeze Mr Green’s bank accounts in several EU countries, including Ireland, Malta, Sweden and Luxembourg. Initially, the court declined, citing a lack of “urgent need.” A key issue was whether enforcement would be obstructed by Malta’s Article 56A, which aims to shield locally licensed operators from legal actions initiated in other EU jurisdictions.
The court also raised concerns about potential asset transfers and procedural delays that could hinder enforcement. The Advocate General has now expressed the opinion that judgments from other EU countries, including EAPOs, could still be executed, regardless of Article 56A’s protections and that holding a Maltese licence does not grant immunity from legal proceedings in other EU states.
The Advocate General’s stance is only an opinion. However, it aligns with recent criticism from the European Commission, which has argued that Article 56A does not offer blanket protection to Malta-licensed operators.
