Bill 55 survives ‘first substantive’ court test as Malta blocks Austrian ruling
A Maltese court has refused to recognise an Austrian judgment ordering an MGA-licensed online gambling operator to refund nearly half a million euros to a player, in a decision that strengthens Malta’s legal wall against cross-border “player recovery” claims.
As Antonio Ghio, a partner at the Maltese law firm Fenech and Fenech Advocates, wrote in a legal commentary on the case, the decision “represents the first substantive judicial endorsement of Article 56A of the Gaming Act – Malta’s controversial public policy shield for licensed gaming operators.”
In a judgment delivered on 30 January 2026, the First Hall of the Civil Court dismissed an application seeking to have an Austrian ruling treated as enforceable in Malta.
The case turns on Malta’s controversial Article 56A of the Gaming Act, commonly known as “Bill 55”, and on the narrow circumstances in which a Maltese court can refuse to recognise an EU judgment on public policy grounds.
The Austrian order and the Maltese pushback
The underlying dispute began in Austria. The Maltese court noted that, by a judgment delivered on 28 January 2022, the Civil District Court of Vienna condemned the operator to pay “€488,546.47 together with interest at 4% from 4 July 2019, as well as legal costs of €16,613.24”.
The Maltese proceedings were brought under the EU’s Brussels I Recast rules, with the applicant asking the court “to declare that… there exists no reason for refusal of recognition” so that the Austrian judgment would “constitute an enforceable and executable title in Malta”.
The operator, Virtual Digital Services Limited, argued that recognition should be refused because it would be “manifestly contrary to the public policy (ordre public) of the Maltese State” under Article 45(1) of the EU regulation.
The judge, Mr Justice Mark Simiana, accepted that Maltese courts are tightly constrained when asked to enforce an EU judgment. The ruling stresses that the court addressed “is entirely precluded from examining the substance of the foreign judgment” and “cannot consider matters that form part of the substance decided by the foreign judgment”.
The question, the judge said, was whether recognition would “manifestly lead to a breach of Malta’s public policy”.
Article 56A gets its “first real judicial test”
Article 56A, or Bill 55, states that “as a principle of public policy,” the Maltese courts must refuse recognition of certain foreign judgments linked to gaming services provided under an MGA licence. The provision says “the Court shall refuse recognition and/or enforcement in Malta of any foreign judgment and/or decision” tied to actions that undermine the legality of those services.
One of the claimant’s arguments was timing, pleading that Article 56A should not apply because it came into force after the Austrian judgment and after the Maltese case was filed.
Justice Simiana rejected that, treating Article 56A as procedural in nature. The court held that “changes in procedural laws apply immediately even to pending proceedings, unless otherwise provided”.
Ghio, in a legal commentary on the case, underlined the same point, writing that the judge relied on “established principles of transitional law: amendments to procedural law apply immediately to pending proceedings unless expressly provided otherwise”.
The claimant also argued that Article 56A should not help where the operator’s activity was prohibited under Austrian law. Justice Simiana dismissed that, holding that Austria’s rules were beside the point for the Maltese definition.
Public policy, and the freedom to provide services
The court’s broader reasoning links the dispute to the EU’s internal market. Justice Simiana wrote that recognition of the foreign judgment would have “the primary effect of impacting the strength/validity of the licence granted to the respondent by the Malta Gaming Authority”.
The court framed the central issue as the operator’s ability to provide services across borders: “The right of a person established in one EU Member State to provide services in other Member States is one of the fundamental freedoms.”
In the judge’s view, that right is “an essential right within the Maltese legal order”. He concluded that recognition would “seriously and irreparably” prejudice that right, and that “such recognition is contrary to Malta’s public policy”.
Ghio argued that the judge consciously avoided relitigating Austria’s licensing approach. “The Court was careful to note that it was not pronouncing upon the compatibility of Austrian gaming law with EU law,” Ghio wrote, saying the ruling instead rested on whether enforcement in Malta would amount to “a manifest breach of Maltese public policy”.
Justice Simiana ultimately upheld the operator’s third plea, “dismisses the applicant’s claims”, and ordered that costs “are to be borne by the applicant”.
Ghio placed the decision in the bigger political fight with Brussels, writing: “The plaintiff additionally observed that the European Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against Malta in respect of Article 56A.” Article 56A is currently under formal infringement proceedings brought by the European Commission, which argues that the law misuses the EU public policy exception to block cross-border enforcement of judgments in gaming disputes. But, Ghio added, the court’s reply was clear: “Unless and until the CJEU rules otherwise, the law remains in force and must be applied.”
Stay ahead of iGaming’s biggest stories with SiGMA’s Top 10 News countdown. The world’s biggest iGaming community brings you weekly insights and subscriber-only offers. Join HERE today.
