Menu
I. The Residual Domestic Framework
The Maltese legal regime governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is primarily set out in Title V of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta (the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure). Following Malta’s accession to the European Union, this framework performs a residual function, applying only in circumstances not regulated by directly applicable European instruments.
In practical terms, this regime remains relevant in respect of judgments delivered by courts outside the European Union. In such cases, enforcement is not automatic. The creditor must institute proceedings before the competent Maltese court, ordinarily the First Hall of the Civil Court, seeking recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment.
The court is then required to assess the application against the limitations set out in the Code, including, inter alia, whether the foreign judgment is final and enforceable, whether it was delivered by a competent court, and whether its recognition would be contrary to Maltese public policy. This judicial scrutiny reflects a traditional, state-centred approach to cross-border enforcement, in which sovereignty considerations remain prominent.
II. Enforcement Within the European Union
A fundamentally different approach applies within the European Union. Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (the Brussels I Recast Regulation) is premised on the principle of mutual trust between Member States and has significantly streamlined cross-border enforcement in civil and commercial matters.
Under this framework, a judgment delivered in one Member State is recognised and enforceable in another without the need for any intermediate procedure. The abolition of the exequatur requirement means that the enforcing party need only produce the relevant judgment and certificate and may proceed directly to enforcement as if the judgment had been delivered by the courts of the Member State addressed.
The Regulation, however, preserves a closed list of defences. Recognition and enforcement may be refused only on limited grounds, including where it would be manifestly contrary to public policy, where the defendant was not properly served, or where the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier decision.
These grounds are to be interpreted restrictively. The courts of the Member State addressed are not entitled to review the substance of the foreign judgment, nor to revisit the merits of the case. The system thus reflects a deliberate shift away from domestic control towards a harmonised, trust-based enforcement regime.
III. Public Policy and the Maltese Legislative Response
Notwithstanding the narrow scope of the public policy exception under Regulation 1215/2012, recent litigation before the Maltese courts has increasingly centred on this ground, particularly in the context of claims arising out of online gaming.
In this context, the Maltese legislature enacted Article 56A of the Gaming Act (Chapter 583 of the Laws of Malta). The provision seeks to limit the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments which undermine the legality of gaming services provided from Malta by operators licensed by the Malta Gaming Authority.
The stated objective of Article 56A is to protect Malta’s regulatory framework and to reflect what is characterised as the State’s ordre public in the field of online gambling. However, the provision has proven controversial. The European Commission has initiated infringement proceedings against Malta, questioning whether Article 56A is compatible with Regulation 1215/2012, in particular the principle that Member States may not introduce additional grounds for refusing recognition or enforcement beyond those exhaustively set out in the Regulation.
The resulting tension raises a broader structural issue: the extent to which national legislative measures may rely on the public policy exception without undermining the uniform operation of EU law.
IV. The Impact of TQ v. Mr. Green Limited
This tension has been brought into sharper focus by the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in TQ v. Mr Green Limited (Case C‑198/24, 21 May 2026). The case arose from proceedings in Austria, where a player successfully obtained a judgment against a Malta‑licensed operator for the repayment of gambling losses.
In the context of an application for a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO), the referring court sought clarification on whether obstacles to enforcement in the Member State of the debtor, including the existence of national legislation, could be taken into account when assessing the risk that enforcement might be frustrated.
The Court of Justice held that such obstacles are indeed relevant. In assessing the urgency of a preservation measure, national courts may consider not only the debtor’s conduct but also the legal environment in the Member State where enforcement is to be sought, insofar as that environment may render enforcement more difficult or uncertain.
While the judgment does not directly determine the validity of Article 56A, it is significant in that it implicitly recognises that national legislative barriers to enforcement may have tangible consequences for creditors. In doing so, it highlights the practical reality that the effectiveness of EU enforcement mechanisms can be influenced by domestic legal interventions.
V. Concluding Remarks
The evolving interplay between Maltese law and EU enforcement frameworks illustrates the limits of domestic autonomy in an integrated legal order. While the public policy exception remains an established safety valve within Regulation 1215/2012, its scope is deliberately narrow and must be applied with restraint.
Article 56A represents a robust assertion of national regulatory policy in a sensitive economic sector. However, its compatibility with EU law remains under scrutiny, both at the level of infringement proceedings and in the broader context of judicial developments.
As the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice continues to develop, it is increasingly clear that national measures which materially impede the recognition and enforcement of judgments within the Union will be subject to close examination. Maltese courts, in turn, will be required to navigate this tension carefully, ensuring that domestic provisions are applied in a manner consistent with the primacy and effectiveness of EU law.