The Advocate General of the European Court, Anthony Michael Emiliou, recently expressed his opinion, questioning the protective efficacy of the Amendment 56A to the Maltese Gambling Law for operators, warning that this clause may expose the assets of operators outside Malta to a higher risk of cross-border freezing. This opinion is in response to a lawsuit for player losses under Evoke's Mr Green, where an Austrian consumer, after losing €62,000, filed a lawsuit and was supported by the court, subsequently applying for a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) to freeze Mr Green's bank accounts in several EU countries. The Advocate General pointed out that a Maltese license does not automatically protect operators from legal actions in other jurisdictions, and improper management of records and assets may increase the risk of freezing orders, further weakening the actual effectiveness of Article 56A.
Case Background and EAPO Freezing Mechanism
The opinion of the Advocate General of the European Court stems from an Austrian consumer's lawsuit against Mr Green, where the player lost €62,000 between 2017 and 2019. The Austrian court declared the contract invalid and ordered a refund. The player then applied for a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO), requesting the freezing of Mr Green's bank accounts in Ireland, Malta, Sweden, and Luxembourg. EAPO is a legal tool used by the EU to recover debts, capable of freezing the debtor's assets across borders. Initially, the court rejected the application due to a lack of "urgent need," but the Advocate General's opinion emphasizes that Article 56A of Malta might not effectively obstruct the execution of EAPO.
Legal Dispute and Clause Effectiveness Analysis
Article 56A of Malta aims to protect local licensed gambling companies from legal actions in other EU member states, but the Advocate General pointed out that the clause does not provide automatic protection. Operators need to properly keep records, avoid transferring assets after judgments, and respond promptly to legal proceedings, otherwise, the risk of assets being frozen abroad increases. The opinion emphasizes that despite Article 56A, judgments from other EU member states, including EAPO, can still be executed. The European Commission had previously written to the Maltese government, stating that the clause unfairly protects license holders, undermining the principle of mutual trust in judicial administration.
Industry Impact and Risk Warning
This case highlights the limitations of Article 56A of Malta in actual cross-border legal conflicts, with operators' assets outside Malta potentially facing higher freezing risks. The Advocate General warns that the clause not only fails to provide protection but may also trigger stricter scrutiny due to the risk of asset transfer. EU member states can continue to seek the implementation of EAPO on operators' foreign assets on the grounds that Article 56A poses a risk to judicial procedures. Operators are advised to strengthen compliance management and prudently handle cross-border business risks to cope with the increasingly strict EU legal environment.
