I. Traditional Recognition and Enforcement

Since Malta’s accession into the European Union, cross-border enforcement of judgements under Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta has assumed a residual function in instances which are not governed by the European legal framework. The Maltese legal framework remains particularly relevant when it comes to the recognition and enforcement of judgements delivered by Courts outside Malta which do not form part of the Union.

In this context, the Maltese Court addressed plays a more vital role, in that the enforcing creditor is to file an application demanding enforcement, allowing the Court to review the demand in terms of the limitations contemplated by article 827 of Chapter 12 of the Laws of Malta.

II. Cross-Border Enforcement within the EU Framework

In the context of cross-border litigation between Member States within the European Union, Regulation 1215/2012 streamlines enforcement to an even greater extent, manifesting the inevitable encroachment upon national sovereignty in exchange for free movement, mutual trust, and reciprocity upon accession into the Union.

In particular, Regulation 1215/2012 facilitates cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters by safeguarding that a judgement delivered by the Courts of a Member State is to be recognised and enforced as if it had been given by the Courts of the Member State addressed, without the need for any special procedure, now that the declaration of enforceability prior to enforcement before a Member State has been abolished.

Regulation 1215/2012 also caters for exceptionsto this general rule, permitting the debtor to demand the refusal of recognition and enforcement on the limited grounds permitted by article 45 (1).

In light of the fact that such said exceptions essentially limit the scope of Regulation 1215/2012, it goes without saying that the Courts of the Member States addressed are expected to limit this general rule with caution, consideration, and in the spirit of the general principles of the European legal framework.

III. Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement on Grounds of Public Policy

A common ground for refusal being cited in recent legal proceedings before the Maltese Courts is the ground of public policy, in particular against the recognition and enforcement of judgements delivered by the Austrian Courts.

In an attempt to protect gaming companies licensed by Maltese authorities, under the pretence of free movement of services, the legislative arm of the Maltese state has unilaterally imposed a legislative barrier against the recognition and enforcement of such claims through the enactment of Article 56A of Chapter 583 of the Laws of Malta, a law criticised by the European Commission in its infringement proceedings against Malta as an obstruction to cross-border enforcement.

IV. TQ v. Mr. Green Limited

In the above context, a recent case delivered by the Court of Justice following a referral by the Vienna Court in the names ‘TQ v. Mr. Green Limited’ delivered on the 21^st of May 2026 (Case C-198/24) requesting clarity on the compliance of cross-border account freezing with the EAPO Regulation has explored the broader repercussions on the likelihood of such creditors successfully enforcing their executive title in Malta in light of Article 56A.

Here the Court interestingly considered the safe-haven being provided by the Maltese state through the enactment of this law by shielding Maltese-licensed gaming companies against such claims, essentially incentivising the same to transfer its assets to Malta to conceal its patrimony.

Here the Court concluded that the Member State addressed is to take into account the existence of barriers to a creditor’s right of enforcement of the claim, with reference to Article 56A, when determining whether to adopt an application for a European Account Preservation Order.

V. Concluding Remarks

This decision continues to bring to light to limiting effects of Article 56A, and how Malta, as a member state, is failing to honour the obligations it undertook upon accession, which obligations today form part and parcel of the Laws of Malta.

The evolving jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union makes it clear that national legislative shields cannot override EU principles, and the Maltese courts will increasingly be required to reconcile domestic provisions with the primacy of EU law.