April 10, 2025

Maltese Courts Refuse to Recognize Austrian Judgments on Gambling Loss Refunds

A recent ruling by the Maltese Civil Court has rejected the enforcement of Austrian court decisions that awarded refunds to players who lost money on unlicensed gambling websites. The affected players had placed bets on platforms licensed in Malta but not licensed in Austria. This ruling has significant implications for Austrian citizens seeking legal recourse—particularly those attempting to recover losses related to online gambling.

The decision also raises fundamental questions about cross-border recognition and enforcement of court judgments within the European Union—a matter that could be relevant to users of low-deposit casinos when disputes involving foreign operators arise.

Background & Legal Context

Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the EU – The enforcement of foreign judgments within the European Union is primarily governed by the Brussels I Regulation (Recast), which aims to simplify mutual recognition and enforcement of court decisions among member states. Generally, rulings made in one EU country are recognized in another, unless legal exceptions apply.

Exceptions can occur when enforcement contradicts national laws or key EU principles. For instance, a judgment may be denied recognition if it conflicts with public policy or fundamental EU freedoms—such as the free movement of services.

Gambling Regulation in Austria

Austria maintains a strict gambling regime, dominated by the state-owned Casinos Austria AG. Under Austrian law, gambling services without a local license are illegal. Players who suffer losses on such platforms are entitled to seek refunds through the courts.

In recent years, Austrian courts have issued numerous rulings in favor of players, ordering unlicensed operators to reimburse gambling losses. However, enforcing these judgments abroad—especially in Malta—has proven challenging, as many online casinos are licensed there.

Details of the Maltese Court’s Decision

The Case of European Lotto and Betting Limited (Lottoland)

A key case illustrating Malta’s stance involves European Lotto and Betting Limited (Lottoland). An Austrian court had ordered Lottoland to repay €38,325 to a player who lost this amount on the platform. The player attempted to have the ruling enforced in Malta, where Lottoland holds its license.

However, the Maltese Civil Court refused to recognize the Austrian judgment, citing Article 56 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which protects the freedom to provide services across the EU. The court questioned whether Austria’s strict gambling monopoly is compatible with EU law.

Key Legal Arguments

Freedom to Provide Services in the EU: The court argued that Austria’s gambling monopoly could be seen as a restriction on the free movement of services.
Malta’s Sovereign Role as Regulator: Malta sees itself as an independent regulatory authority with the right to license operators as it sees fit.
Public Policy Considerations: The Maltese judiciary expressed concern that enforcing Austrian rulings could undermine Malta’s own licensing system.
Impact on Austrian Players – Broader Industry Consequences The ruling sets a precedent that favors Malta-licensed gambling operators by limiting the ability of Austrian players to claim refunds. This could encourage operators to continue serving the Austrian market without fear of financial penalties.

For Austrian players, this decision introduces a new layer of legal uncertainty, making it harder to take action against unlicensed platforms.

Possible Responses from Austrian

Authorities In response, Austrian regulators may consider:

Strengthening measures to block unlicensed gambling sites, making them harder for players to access.
Requesting a legal review by the European Commission to determine whether Malta’s actions align with EU law.
Filing a case at the EU level to challenge Malta’s stance as anti-competitive.

Implications for the EU

This legal conflict may prompt broader scrutiny by the European Commission, as it touches on the fundamental issue of whether national gambling monopolies are compatible with the principles of the EU single market. Should Austria file an official complaint, it could have far-reaching consequences for the European gambling landscape.

Conclusion & Outlook

The Maltese court’s decision highlights ongoing tensions between national regulatory frameworks and the principles of the EU internal market. While Malta defends its position as a leading hub for online gambling, Austrian players now face new legal barriers in recovering their losses.

The evolving legal landscape may soon require clearer EU-wide rules on gambling regulation, recognition of judgments, and consumer protection across borders.