Mr Green Case Sparks Debate Over Malta’s Article 56A and the Future of Operator Asset Security
Malta’s controversial Article 56A amendment is once again under scrutiny, as a recent opinion from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) raises concerns about its potential impact on the safety of operator assets beyond Maltese borders. The opinion, delivered by Advocate General Anthony Michael Emiliou on October 30, suggests that Malta’s legal framework might expose assets held in other EU countries to increased risks of freezing orders, thereby complicating cross-border enforcement. Malta’s Article 56A
In his assessment, the AG argued that Maltese law could inadvertently heighten the chances of an operator dissipating its assets or resisting enforcement actions. This, in turn, could lead to assets situated outside Malta facing more rigorous scrutiny and potential freezing measures. This issue is particularly pertinent in ongoing cases involving player losses, whether these are being litigated domestically or within the broader EU jurisdiction.
The specific case underpinning this opinion involved a dispute against Mr Green, owned by Evoke, which was initiated in Austria—despite the fact that Mr Green does not hold a license to operate there. In this case, an Austrian player lost €62,878 ($72,419) while gambling with Mr Green between January 2017 and April 2019. The player filed civil proceedings in Austria, claiming that their contract with the Malta-based operator was void. The Austrian courts sided with the player, ordering Mr Green to refund the stakes along with interest and legal costs.
However, the player was determined to escalate the matter further. In February of the previous year, they sought an European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) to freeze Mr Green’s bank accounts across several EU countries—including Ireland, Malta, Sweden, and Luxembourg. An EAPO is an important legal tool within the EU designed to aid creditors in debt recovery by freezing funds in a debtor’s bank account across member states.
The application for the EAPO initially faced rejection. The court questioned whether Malta’s Article 56A could obstruct such measures, citing concerns over the potential for assets to be moved or hidden, and the risk of enforcement obstacles delaying proceedings. The court also expressed doubts about the urgency of the case, emphasizing that delays in filing the claim might diminish the likelihood of successful enforcement. Importantly, the AG warned that judgments from other EU countries, including EAPOs, could still be enforced despite the protections allegedly offered by Article 56A.
Read also: Estonia Moves Forward with Reforms to Gambling Tax Policy
The AG clarified that simply holding a license in Malta does not automatically shield an operator from legal actions pursued in other jurisdictions. He stressed the importance for operators to maintain meticulous records, avoid dispersing or concealing assets after a judgment, and respond promptly to legal claims. Neglecting these precautions increases the risk of successful overseas enforcement actions.
Timing also plays a crucial role in enforcement efforts. In Mr Green’s case, the AG noted that the operator had terminated its Austrian payment service provider arrangement in early 2021. This detail was considered relevant when the EAPO was filed, indicating that delays or changes in operational arrangements could influence enforcement outcomes.
In conclusion, the opinion underscores the potential limitations of Article 56A, suggesting that it may do more to complicate foreign court rulings than to provide genuine protection. While the amendment can be invoked in certain circumstances, its effectiveness is questionable if it is used to prevent enforcement of legitimate judgments from other EU states. As a result, EU authorities are still able to pursue EAPOs, which could lead to the freezing of assets outside Malta—highlighting the risks for operators with Maltese licenses.
This ECJ opinion echoes recent concerns voiced by the European Commission, which criticized the amendment for undermining judicial cooperation across EU member states. In June, the Commission formally addressed the Maltese government, stating that Article 56A does not automatically shield Malta-licensed operators from overseas judgments. The Commission argued that the provision unfairly protects Maltese licensees against legal challenges from other EU markets, thereby undermining the fundamental principle of mutual trust in the administration of justice within the Union.
