OGH Ordination Malta-Vollstreckung (3 Nc 72/24d) (OGH): Status, Rulings and What It Means for Players

What this case is about

OGH 3 Nc 72/24d, decided on 17 December 2024 by the Oberster Gerichtshof, is an ordination decision under § 28 JN that lets an Austrian player enforce a gambling-loss judgment against a Maltese bank. The OGH designated the Bezirksgericht Salzburg to hear the enforcement request, because enforcement in Malta is unreasonable for the creditor.

The creditor held a final Austrian judgment for EUR 21,743.63 against C* Limited, a Maltese operator, and sought to attach its account at Bank of Valletta p.l.c. The OGH found that Maltese courts refuse to enforce Austrian gambling judgments under Act XXI/2023 (Cap. 583) and refuse to refer the question to the CJEU.

The decision belongs to the Online Casino Refund Litigation in Germany and Austria line, at the stage where a won judgment has to be collected.

Who is covered

The decisions concern Austrian judgment creditors, meaning players who won refund judgments, against Maltese operators as debtors and Maltese banks or financial service providers as third-party debtors. Each decision applies to the creditor named in it.

Earlier in 2024, 3 Nc 10/24m of 3 April 2024 had already granted Ordination because enforcement in Malta is unreasonable, while 3 Nc 35/24p, 36/24k and 37/24g denied it for lack of a domestic connection. The country overview is on Gambling Lawsuits in Austria.

Is there a payout?

No payout exists in this case. These orders designate which Austrian court hears an enforcement request and do not themselves order any operator or bank to pay. No fund and no claim process exists.

The sums named are the creditors' existing judgments: EUR 21,743.63 in 3 Nc 72/24d and EUR 574,148 in 3 Nc 22/25b.

What the court decided

As of 14 November 2026 the line stands as decided, with the latest order in the record dated 24 September 2025. In 3 Nc 72/24d the OGH designated the Bezirksgericht Salzburg because enforcement in Malta is unreasonable.

The 2025 series applies the same route. In 3 Nc 22/25b of 16 June 2025, a creditor with a title of EUR 574,148 against B* Ltd, with Maltese financial service providers as third-party debtors, got the Bezirksgericht Döbling designated.

The OGH relied on Art. 56A of the Maltese Gaming Act (Bill 55, Act XXI/2023) as a ground of unreasonableness.

Further orders include 3 Nc 70/25m and 3 Nc 76/25v of 7 July 2025 and 3 Nc 97/25g of 24 September 2025.

Why it matters

The series gives Austrian players with final judgments a route to collect from Maltese banks through an Austrian court, because the OGH treats enforcement in Malta as unreasonable.

Winning a judgment and collecting on it are separate steps. See Can You Get Gambling Losses Back? for what courts have ordered in each country.

Questions people ask

What does an ordination decision do?

Under § 28 JN the OGH designates an Austrian court to hear a case that would otherwise lack one. Here it names the court for an enforcement request against a Maltese bank.

Why is enforcement in Malta unreasonable?

The OGH found that Maltese courts refuse to enforce Austrian gambling judgments under Act XXI/2023 (Cap. 583) and refuse to refer the question to the CJEU.

Which amounts are involved?

EUR 21,743.63 in 3 Nc 72/24d and EUR 574,148 in 3 Nc 22/25b. These are the creditors' judgment amounts, not payments ordered in these decisions.

Related cases

• C-683/24 Spielerschutz Sigma (GL-EU-0003) is the Malta Bill 55 reference from the Handelsgericht Wien and is listed as filed.
• C-198/24 Mr Green (GL-EU-0004) concerns the European account preservation order and is listed as judgment.