Malta’s Civil Court has refused to enforce a final judgment handed down by an Austrian court in an online gambling case, citing its national legislation known as Bill 55. The decision concerns a financial claim by an Austrian player against an operator licensed in Malta.
A case that goes back a long way
In December 2021, a regional civil court in Vienna, Austria, ruled in favour of an Austrian gambler, aka TQ, who was claiming nearly €48,546 in refunds from an online gambling operator, Virtual Digital Services Limited. According to the Austrian court, the operator had served the player without holding a local licence in Austria, which, under Austrian law, made its activity illegal and gave rise to a right to restitution.
Three years later, this judgment, which had become final – upheld on appeal in April 2022 – was brought before a court in Malta, with the claimant seeking to have the judgment enforced in the country where the operator was licensed. But on 30 January 2026, the First Civil Chamber of the Court of Malta rejected this attempt. The judge ruled that recognising the foreign judgment was contrary to Maltese public policy, citing section 56A of the Gaming Act – better known as Bill 55.
Bill 55: protecting or circumventing European rules?
Passed by the Maltese Parliament in 2023, Bill 55 amends the country’s legal framework for online gaming by inserting Article 56A into national law. This provision gives Maltese courts the power to refuse the recognition and enforcement of foreign judicial decisions where they consider that such judgements conflict with or undermine the legality of the provision of gaming services from or under a Maltese licence.
On the Maltese side, this text is defended as a clarification and codification of a long-standing policy aimed at protecting the integrity of its licensing regime, which is considered strict and reliable by its supporters. The Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) argues that the country has a robust framework in place for anti-money laundering, responsible gambling audits and player protection, and that Bill 55 does not add new immunities but simply interprets existing rights under already applicable EU law.
But for several Member States and European lawyers, Maltese law goes beyond this framework. According to the principle of mutual recognition of civil judgements enshrined in the Brussels I bis Regulation, national judgements from one Member State must be recognised and enforced in another, except in very limited circumstances. Critics believe that this clause goes well beyond what is permitted under European law, establishing Malta as a legal sanctuary for operators who do not wish to comply with local obligations elsewhere in Europe.
An institutional clash
Malta’s decision to set aside the enforcement of the Austrian judgement was not taken in a legal vacuum. Since Bill 55 came into force, the European Commission has taken formal steps against Valletta. In June 2025, Brussels sent a letter of formal notice to the Maltese authorities, considering that the country had infringed the rules of the single market and the principle of trust between Member States.
This infringement procedure could lead to a reasoned opinion or even a referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) if Malta refuses to adapt its legislation. In the Commission’s view, Malta’s systematic recognition of public policy grounds for rejecting judgements from other Member States runs counter to the spirit of the European regulation.
While Malta defends its position behind a dense and complex legal curtain, the European institutions and several Member States continue to support the line that mutual recognition of judicial decisions is an essential pillar of the single market. The next stage is now before the European courts and, if necessary, the CJEU. A decision by the CJEU could redefine the balance between national sovereignty in regulating gambling and Community obligations.