An Austrian doctor who lost almost €500,000 while gambling on Malta-registered sites has lost a legal bid to force the company to pay him back his losses.
The court decision is the latest legal salvo in a back-and-forth battle over gaming sector regulation that has also seen the European Court of Justice get involved.
The player, Marek Ehrlich, petitioned a Maltese court to force Virtual Digital Services Limited – which operates the Malta Gaming Authority licensed Mr Green online casino – to refund him €488,546 plus interest, as well as over €16,000 in legal fees, on the back of a judgment by an Austrian court.
An Austrian court had ruled in the player’s favour, saying that because Virtual Digital Services Limited did not hold an Austrian gaming licence, it was operating illegally in Austria and the player’s losses, therefore, had to be refunded.
The applicant then filed court action before the Maltese courts, seeking to have that judgment enforced in Malta.
In a judgment handed down on Friday, a Maltese court refused that request.
Judge Mark Simiani in the first hall of the civil court found in favour of Virtual Digital Services Limited, which based its defence on a legal provision introduced to Malta’s Gaming Act in 2023.
That provision, informally dubbed Bill 55, was introduced to shield Malta-based gaming firms from judgments by foreign courts that go against the Maltese gaming framework.
Maltese regulators have previously warned that Austrian law firms are running “aggressive” advertising campaigns on Austrian TV, print publications and bus stops, encouraging gamblers who lost money on Malta-registered gaming sites to file court claims to recoup their losses.
Unlike various other sectors, gaming is not regulated at EU level, with each member state free to introduce its own legal frameworks as they see fit. Austria operates an effective monopoly in the sector, only granting an online gaming licence to a single operator.
The player argued that EU Regulation 1215/2012 explicitly allows decisions by courts in one EU member state to be enforceable in others – effectively meaning that the Maltese courts had to enforce the Austrian court’s decision in his favour.
The Maltese court, however, noted that the EU regulation is not absolute and that courts can refuse to recognise judgments that are “manifestly contrary to public policy” of that country.
The Maltese government’s amendment to the Gaming Act made it clear that recognising foreign courts’ judgments in cases such as that of Ehrlich would breach Malta’s public policy.
The court therefore dismissed the claim and ordered the applicant to pay court fees.
The decision will, however, not be the last word on the matter.
In December, the European Court of Justice ruled that a gambler can file court action in their country of residence, even if the gambling platform is based in another EU member state.
Though the ECJ decision did not examine the legality of Bill 55, it may yet do so: the European Commission last summer filed infringement proceedings against Malta, saying Bill 55 breaches EU law. Should those proceedings not be resolved, the matter will be referred to the ECJ for judgment.