Malta refused to enforce an Austrian ruling to return money to a player

A Maltese civil court has declined to enforce a judgment issued by an Austrian court that ordered a Malta-licensed online gambling operator to reimburse an Austrian player for heavy gambling losses. The ruling represents one of the clearest practical uses so far of Malta’s controversial Article 56A of the Gaming Act, a provision intended to prevent the execution of certain foreign court decisions against locally licensed gaming companies.

At the centre of the dispute was an Austrian resident who sought to recover nearly €488,546 lost while gambling online with Virtual Digital Services Limited. Although the company holds a licence from the Malta Gaming Authority, it is not authorised to operate in Austria. In January 2022, a regional court in Vienna found in favour of the player and ordered the operator to repay the losses, along with interest and legal costs.

After securing that judgment, the claimant moved to have it recognised and enforced in Malta under EU rules governing the cross-border execution of civil judgments. That attempt failed. On 30 January 2026, the Maltese court dismissed the application.

Public Policy Prevails

In its decision, the court held that enforcing the Austrian ruling would conflict with Malta’s public policy. The judge relied on Article 56A of the Gaming Act — often referred to as Bill 55 — which requires Maltese courts to refuse recognition of foreign judgments that could undermine the legal standing of operators licensed in Malta.

The court reasoned that giving effect to the Austrian decision would erode the legal force of the operator’s Maltese licence and interfere with the freedom to provide services from Malta to other EU member states. That freedom, the judgment noted, forms a fundamental component of Malta’s legal framework.

Justice Mark Simiana emphasised that Maltese courts are not permitted to reassess the merits of foreign judgments when dealing with recognition proceedings. Their task is confined to determining whether enforcement would breach core principles of domestic law. In this instance, the court found such a breach to be clear.

Court Dismisses Timing Objections

The claimant argued that Article 56A should not apply because it entered into force after the Austrian judgment was issued and after the Maltese proceedings had already been initiated. The court rejected that argument, concluding that the provision is procedural in nature rather than substantive.

Under Maltese law, procedural rules apply immediately to pending cases unless the legislation explicitly provides otherwise. As a result, the timing of the Austrian decision had no bearing on the outcome.

The player also contended that the operator’s services were unlawful under Austrian law and therefore should not benefit from protection in Malta. The court dismissed this claim as well, stating that the legality of the services under Austrian legislation was irrelevant when assessing Maltese public policy.

Clear Message to the Gambling Sector

Legal representatives for Virtual Digital Services Limited welcomed the ruling. Joseph Mizzi of Muscat Mizzi Advocates said the decision confirms that a Maltese gaming licence carries substantial legal authority within Malta and cannot simply be displaced by judgments from foreign courts.

For Malta’s gambling industry, the ruling strengthens a defensive legal regime that has drawn sharp criticism elsewhere in Europe. Proponents of Article 56A argue that it safeguards the integrity of the national licensing system, while opponents say it places unjustified obstacles in the path of players seeking restitution.

Friction With EU Institutions Continues

The decision comes against a backdrop of ongoing tension with EU authorities. Last year, the European Commission launched infringement proceedings against Malta, claiming that Bill 55 improperly invokes public policy to block legitimate cross-border claims. Brussels has argued that the law undermines mutual trust between member states and conflicts with established principles of judicial cooperation.

Despite that challenge, the Maltese court made clear that Article 56A remains binding law unless and until it is set aside by European courts. Until then, domestic courts are required to apply it.

EU Case Law Points the Other Way

We previously reported on a separate gambling case that reached the Court of Justice of the European Union earlier this year. In January 2026, the court ruled that players may rely on the law of their country of residence when seeking compensation from operators that offered services without a local license. The judges said the loss is suffered where the player lives, giving national courts jurisdiction over such claims.

The outcome differs from the approach taken by the Maltese court in the present case, which focused on the protection attached to a Maltese gaming license rather than on the player’s place of residence.