EU Courts Can Consider Malta’s Gaming Law in Asset Freezing Decisions
EU Courts and Malta’s Gaming Protection Law
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled that national courts within the EU may take into account Malta’s gambling protection legislation, along with similar regulations, when deciding on urgent asset freezing measures. Although the ruling stops short of declaring Malta’s law unlawful, it recognizes such legal protections as relevant in asset freezing cases.
Background: The Case Between an Austrian Player and Mr Green
This decision arose from a dispute involving an Austrian gambler, identified as TQ, and the Malta-based gambling operator Mr Green. Several years ago, TQ lost a substantial amount of money while betting on Mr Green’s platform. TQ later sought to recover these losses by arguing that Mr Green was not licensed to operate in Austria during that time, rendering the bets invalid.
While Austrian courts initially sided with TQ, Mr Green did not return the funds. In response, TQ requested a European Account Preservation Order aimed at freezing Mr Green’s accounts held across multiple EU countries, including Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, and Sweden.
The ECJ was tasked with determining the criteria that national courts should use to assess whether there is sufficient urgency and justification to grant such freezing orders.
The ECJ’s Guidance on Legal Protections and Asset Freezing
The ECJ clarified that courts should consider both the debtor’s previous behavior and the existence of any legislation that might prevent asset freezing claims. Malta’s law specifically protects its local gambling operators from liability when operating in foreign markets.
The plaintiff suggested that Mr Green could potentially transfer assets to Malta to avoid asset freezing, given the protective nature of Maltese law.
This perspective introduced a new factor: the possibility that asset transfers to jurisdictions with protective laws could justify freezing assets elsewhere within the EU.
Despite this ruling, the legal conflict between TQ and Mr Green continues. Austrian courts will now have to decide how to proceed based on the ECJ’s interpretation.
