The Maltese court has ruled in two separate cases that Austrian courts do not have the power to dictate whether gaming operators in Malta compensate Austrian players.
The cases centre around two gamblers, who both lost significant amounts with a Maltese operator.
Between 2017 and 2019, Gerhard Posch €40,500 with TSG Interactive Gaming Europe, which he later tried to recoup when he pursued a requisition order against the company.
Philipp Wahl also looked to secure a case against European Lotto and Betting, after he lost €38,000 over an 11-day span.
The Austrian framework currently deems any overseas operator as being illegal in the country.
The decision marks a shift in the legal trajectory of the case, with it previously being found in the favour of players by Austrian courts. However, the Maltese court has reached a different conclusion.
Although courts in Austria both sided with the players, these were rejected by the courts in Malta, as both operators underlined the free market and EU Laws enabling free movements of services, meaning the original Austrian decision was invalid.
Key to the case in Bill 55, which strengthens Maltese safeguards from international legal action from other jurisdictions, the latest decision further escalates the tussle between Austria and Malta over the bill and the legislative volatility between the two countries.
The MGA has previously underlined that the bill is seeking to protect Maltese operators from “baseless legal challenges”.
Defending the bill, the MGA has previously emphasised its intentions to ensure that “its licensees are allowed to operate where they have a justifiable legal reason to do so, and always in a compliant manner.”
Epitomising the latest case – the MGA has previously emphasised Bill 55 takes steps to “protect against procedures that do not respect the European principle of a free market”.
The bill has previously come under scrutiny within EU courts – with a specific focus on ensuring there is enough transparency around the bill.
The German regulator, the GGL has also taken issue with the bill, stating its belief that it doesn’t feel it is compatible with EU law.
