Malta Bill 55 (Article 56A Gaming Act): Enforcement of Austrian and German Judgments, Infringement and the CJEU

Since June 2023 Maltese courts have refused to recognize or enforce every Austrian online casino refund judgment that reached them, as far as the public record shows: 0 decisions applying Article 56A of the Gaming Act are on record as of 14 November 2026, among 0 Malta-jurisdiction cases in the refund category of 25. All are refusals or suspensions, and no settlement, claim form or payout exists on this page.

The guide belongs to the wider online casino refund litigation in Germany and Austria and explains the Maltese step.

Status is the court's order and its date; Maltese case numbers and amounts are attributed to casinoklage.at because ecourts.gov.mt could not be read; checked 14 November 2026.

Short answer: what Bill 55 does to a refund judgment

Bill 55 stops an Austrian or German refund judgment at the Maltese border and leaves it valid everywhere else.

Act XXI of 2023 inserted Article 56A into the Gaming Act in June 2023, the European Commission sent Malta a letter of formal notice on 18 June 2025, and the Court of Justice judgment in C-683/24 is reported for 19 November 2026, a date not confirmed on the court's own site at our last check.

Why does a final judgment stop at the Maltese border? Maltese courts treat the legality of gaming under a Maltese license as public policy, so a judgment that says the opposite is, in their reading, not enforceable under Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012.

Creditors therefore use Austrian attachment orders, European account preservation orders, claims against directors and recognition in Curaçao; for the wider question of what players can recover, see what the courts have decided on getting gambling losses back, country by country.

What the courts have actually decided

Every Article 56A ruling so far comes from one Maltese first-instance court, the Civil Court First Hall, and the only appellate step is the Court of Appeal's referral of 26 October 2026.

Article 56A decisions and the cases around them, as of 14 November 2026

The table lists the decisions that carry the answer; the status is the court's order and its date, not a press headline. Maltese case numbers, dates and amounts are reported per the Austrian law firm Peschel & Partner (casinoklage.at); the Maltese texts could not be read.

The island's full record is on gambling lawsuits in Malta.

What Article 56A says and how Maltese courts read it

Article 56A of the Gaming Act (Cap. 583), inserted by Act XXI of 2023 and approved by Parliament in June 2023, directs Maltese courts to refuse recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment that conflicts with or undermines the legality of gaming services offered in or from Malta under an MGA license, framing that legality as Maltese public policy.

The First Hall applied it in two steps. On 27 February 2025 it held that an MGA license confers rights under Article 56 TFEU, that the Austrian monopoly is suspect and that Article 56A codifies public policy (per the Austrian law firm Peschel & Partner, casinoklage.at).

On 30 January 2026 it held that it does not review the merits, that the article is procedural and applies to pending cases, and that nothing justified disapplying it despite the infringement case.

Earlier, a garnishee order against TSG Interactive was refused weeks after the June 2023 vote, reported by the press only.

The Malta Gaming Authority and the Government stated on 18 June 2025 that there is no blanket ban and that the article adds no ground beyond Regulation 1215/2012, a position tracked on Malta Gaming Authority lawsuits.

The Brussels Ia conflict: the Commission's infringement case and C-683/24

On 18 June 2025 the European Commission sent Malta a letter of formal notice in infringement procedure INFR(2025)2100, stating that Article 56A obliges Maltese courts to refuse systematically the recognition and enforcement of other Member States' judgments against Malta-licensed gaming companies, in breach of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012.

The case is one of the matters on gambling lawsuits in the European Union (CJEU).

A complaint states one side's allegations, only the court's orders decide anything, and a letter of formal notice is likewise the first step of the infringement procedure, not a finding. Malta had two months to reply. No reasoned opinion has been found in any source as of 14 November 2026.

The reference in C-683/24 was lodged on 16 October 2024 by an Austrian court (the Handelsgericht Wien per secondary sources) in a dispute about a lawyer's opinion on Bill 55. Advocate General Emiliou proposed on 23 April 2026 that it is inadmissible and, if examined, that Article 56A is manifestly incompatible with Brussels Ia.

Why might the Court not answer at all? Because an inadmissible reference ends without a ruling, which is why the Maltese Court of Appeal's own reference of 26 October 2026, which asks the question directly and has no published C-number, matters.

Every pending ruling is listed in the Court of Justice gambling judgments, the full list.

Routes around Malta that courts have accepted

Because no Maltese court has enforced an Austrian refund judgment since June 2023, creditors have tested four other routes, and three of them have court decisions behind them.

Austria: Ordination for attachment of Maltese bank accounts

The Oberster Gerichtshof opened the Austrian answer on 17 December 2024 in 3 Nc 72/24d: because Maltese courts apply Act XXI of 2023 to Austrian gambling judgments and refuse to refer the question to the CJEU, enforcement in Malta is unreasonable, so an Austrian court (the Bezirksgericht Salzburg, for a title of EUR 21,743.63 against a Maltese operator with an account at Bank of Valletta p.l.c.) is designated under § 28 JN to hear the attachment against the Maltese bank as third-party debtor. The decision is catalogued as OGH Ordination for enforcement against Maltese banks.

The 2025 series followed: 3 Nc 22/25b of 16 June 2025 (title EUR 574,148, Bezirksgericht Döbling), 3 Nc 70/25m of 7 July 2025 and 3 Nc 97/25g of 24 September 2025, within 1 dockets.

The 2024 decisions in 3 Nc 10/24m and its companions are recorded with conflicting outcomes in our sources. The OGH held in 7 Ob 16/25s (19 February 2025) that Malta's refusal does not make the action hopeless. The line is explained in OGH-Rechtsprechung zur Rückforderung von Online-Glücksspielverlusten.

European account preservation orders and the C-198/24 ruling

On 21 May 2026 the Court of Justice held in C-198/24 (Mr Green) that a court asked for a European Account Preservation Order under Regulation (EU) 655/2014 may take into account, when assessing urgency, conduct of the debtor dating back several years and the existence in the debtor's Member State of a law capable of impeding enforcement.

The Austrian judgment was final on 13 April 2022 and unpaid, and the 2024 application covered accounts in Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta and Sweden. The underlying amount is not confirmed in the court record. The ruling is catalogued as EuGH C-198/24 (Mr Green).

Directors, parents and payment agents as defendants

The Court of Justice held on 15 January 2026 in C-77/24 (Wunner, a fictitious name) that a player's tort claim against the directors of a Maltese operator that offered gambling without the license required in the player's state falls under Rome II and that the damage occurs at the player's habitual residence, so Austrian law applies as a rule.

The OGH applied it in 9 Ob 8/26f of 19 February 2026 (EUR 24,098.04 claimed; director claim remanded to the OLG Innsbruck), catalogued as OGH director-liability jurisdiction after Wunner (2026).

Parent companies are the open question: C-574/24 Flutter Entertainment v KJ, lodged on 27 August 2024, is reported as pending and is not confirmed on curia. Flutter's annual report for 2025 says no Maltese court has enforced a foreign player judgment, tracked under Flutter (Paddy Power, Sky Bet, Betfair) lawsuits.

Curaçao operators: the mirror image

Curaçao's courts went the other way: on 10 March 2026 the Joint Court of Justice confirmed twelve first-instance judgments recognizing Austrian refund judgments against Raging Rhino N.V., holding that recognition under art. 431(2) RvC involves no review of the merits and that Austrian law voiding unlicensed gambling contracts offends no fundamental Curaçao value.

One first-instance judgment was EUR 464,460 plus interest (CUR202302650, 26 May 2025), and any cassation appeal against the 2026 judgments is not confirmed in the record. The island is covered under gambling lawsuits in Curaçao.

What happens next: the dates

Four dates govern the next twelve weeks, and two of them rest on secondary reports:

• 19 November 2026: the CJEU judgment in C-683/24, reported by a German legal news service and not confirmed on curia at our last check.
• 7 December 2026: the end of the TRIS standstill on Austria's gambling reform after Malta's detailed opinion, per a law-firm report citing the Commission's register.
• 1 January 2027: the stop date for unlicensed offers under the Austrian draft, which is a draft and not law.
• 28 January 2027: the BGH's lead verdict in Germany (I ZR 216/25 and I ZR 78/25), scheduled for 8:45.
• No date: the Commission's reasoned opinion (none found) and the C-number of the Court of Appeal reference.

Appeals that reach the top courts are tracked on pending appeals and high court gambling cases.

Differences by country: Austria, Germany, Malta-forum claims

Bill 55 bites hardest in Austria, where the monopoly law reaches every Malta-only operator and about 25,000 funder-led cases worth about EUR 440 million were in dispute by autumn 2023 (a DOSSIER and ORF figure, not a court count). The Austrian side is covered by gambling lawsuits in Austria.

In Germany most large operators obtained GGL licenses in 2021 to 2023 and are enforced against domestic assets or settle.

Entain's FY2025 annual report records a provision of GBP 15 million for German settlements and GBP 105 million for other outstanding claims, mostly stayed. The German legal theory belongs to why German courts order online casinos to refund losses.

A third group is claims brought in Malta itself. FB v European Lotto and Betting is a claim brought there in January 2023 by a vehicle holding a German player's assigned claims, which ran behind C-440/23 (judgment 16 April 2026), and Article 56A does not govern it; see the Lottoland Malta case behind C-440/23.

What this page does not cover

This page does not say whether a player should sue, which funder to use or what a funder charges; the measured fee range and the court treatment of funding contracts are on litigation funders and online casino claims in Germany.

The merits of the refund claim and the other CJEU gambling judgments belong to the online casino refund litigation in Germany and Austria hub.

Maltese cases not about enforcing foreign judgments, such as winnings confiscation and license appeals, sit with operator pages such as Lottoland lawsuits.

Questions people ask

When does the CJEU rule on Bill 55 and will the judgment end it?

The judgment in C-683/24 is reported for 19 November 2026 by a German legal news service, a date not confirmed on curia at our last check, and it may not end the dispute: the Advocate General proposed on 23 April 2026 that the reference is inadmissible, so the direct answer may come from the Maltese Court of Appeal's reference of 26 October 2026. The docket is on EuGH C-683/24 (Bill 55).

Has any Austrian or German judgment been enforced in Malta since 2023?

Not in the public record: an Austrian law firm counts five Maltese decisions in 2026, all refusals or suspensions, and zero recognitions since June 2023, and Flutter told the SEC in its FY2025 report that no Maltese court has enforced a foreign player judgment. The 2026 referral is on Malta Court of Appeal refers Bill 55 to the CJEU.

Is a judgment against a Maltese operator worthless?

No: it cannot be enforced in Malta for now, but Austrian courts attach Maltese bank accounts from Austria under the OGH's Ordination decisions, Curaçao courts enforce Austrian judgments against Curaçao operators, and the OGH held on 19 February 2025 (7 Ob 16/25s) that Malta's refusal does not make the Austrian action hopeless. The route is explained under OGH Ordination Malta-Vollstreckung (3 Nc 72/24d).

What does Bill 55 mean for an Austrian claim right now?

An Austrian judgment is still obtained in Austria and still carries the OGH's full line of 2021 to 2025 behind it; only the Maltese enforcement step is blocked. The Austrian-language page on claims, limitation and Bill 55 keeps the current status: Online Casino Klage in Österreich: Verjährung, Malta Bill 55.

Does Bill 55 affect German claims against licensed operators?

Only indirectly: an operator with a GGL license has German assets and a German regulator, and German judgments against such operators are enforced or settled in Germany, so Article 56A matters mainly for Malta-only operators. Why German courts void the contracts is explained on why German courts order online casinos to refund losses.

Sources and method

Of the 0 Article 56A decisions on this page, none could be read in the court's own text at our last check: ecourts.gov.mt returned HTTP 403 to automated readers, so every Maltese case number, date and amount is attributed to the Austrian law firm Peschel & Partner (casinoklage.at, 10 September and 29 October 2026) and to trade press, while the Austrian, EU and Curaçao decisions were read in full on RIS, curia and rechtspraak.nl.

Primary sources are RIS, the Court of Justice press releases, the Commission's June 2025 infringement package, the MGA statement of 18 June 2025 and Flutter's FY2025 Form 10-K; law-firm and trade-press items are cited as such.

GamblingLawsuits.org is a non-profit public record, not a law firm and not a claims administrator; filing a claim is free. Read how each page is sourced in our methodology and report mistakes through corrections.