Austrian player's legal win could affect how national courts view gambling cases across the EU

• ECJ has ruled in a case regarding the application of the European Account Preservation Order
• The case was brought by an Austrian player who is awaiting payment from a gambling company he sued in his home country
• The ECJ simply sought to clarify what factors national courts should consider when making a ruling

A new ruling by the European Court of Justice may further clarify how cross-border enforcement measures can be applied against European Union-based gambling companies through existing mechanisms such as the European Account Preservation Order. However, it is too early to tell whether the ECJ’s consideration will lead to any practical or consistent enforcement outcomes.

While the latest ruling does not resolve the issue of offshore operators targeting citizens of the political bloc, the ECJ’s decision in the case of an Austrian player known simply as TQ could one day pave the way for stricter application of gambling laws across member states’ borders.

Who is TQ, and why does his case matter?

TQ is an Austrian player who successfully sued Mr Green, a gambling website operating under a Malta Gaming Authority (MGA) license, in Austrian courts. The player had spent about two years (2017-2019) playing on Mr Green’s platform and amassed losses to the tune of €62,878.

Eventually, TQ won the case against the company at home, arguing that they were entitled to reclaim their losses as Mr Green did not hold a license in the country, but the player was still able to access its platform and accumulate the losses.

TQ was never paid back after the court ruling, and this is when they sought a European Account Preservation Order, which essentially allows for enforcement action against a guilty party across the entire European Union.

The follow-up

Now, the ECJ has ruled that national courts may, in certain circumstances, seek cross-border asset preservation through existing EU mechanisms, as Malta in particular has very specific national laws that may shield its gambling industry.

Article 56A could protect locally-licensed gambling companies from prosecution abroad. The European Account Preservation Order, however, also targets accounts in Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, and Sweden, with TQ seeking cross-border cooperation to obtain the funds they are owed.

The ECJ has indicated that national courts may consider cross-border risk when assessing whether to grant an asset preservation measure, but also noted that laws such as Article 56A that are based on a national gambling framework are also important and relevant, and must be taken into consideration when making a ruling.

TQ has already suggested that Mr Green could attempt to move its assets away from the other jurisdictions and shield them in Malta, but the owed sum seems too little for the platform to overhaul the way it handles its assets across the EU.

Image credit: Unsplash.com