The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has delivered its opinion that insolvency proceedings should enable EU states to freeze the bank accounts of non-European licensed online gambling operators.
The legal opinion, published on 5 March, was delivered by Advocate General Rimvydas Norkus in his review of Case C-716/24.
The AG was tasked with examining the interaction between “EU cross-border debt recovery and insolvency proceedings” and how certain mechanisms can be applied to offshore gambling operators operating outside of the EU’s remit.
The decision has been fuelled by a claim brought by a German player seeking to recover approximately €57,000 in online gambling losses from an operator incorporated in Curaçao. After obtaining a default judgment in Germany, the claimant applied to freeze bank accounts believed to belong to the operator in the member state of Cyprus using the European Account Preservation Orders (EAPO).
The EAPO scheme was created to enable creditors to secure assets across EU Member States before enforcement takes place. In practice, the mechanism allows state courts to freeze funds held in bank accounts in EU jurisdictions. EAPO is primarily used to prevent debtors from transferring or withdrawing assets before a claim can be enforced.
However, in the case of the German plaintiff, the dispute became more complex as insolvency proceedings were opened against the Curaçao-licensed operator referenced as DX Ltd NV.
Curaçao falls outside the EU’s legal framework, making proceedings unaligned with the EU insolvency framework of the Recast Insolvency Regulation.
AG Norkus probed the legal question: whether the existence of insolvency proceedings in a non-EU jurisdiction should prevent a European court from issuing a preservation order freezing the operator’s bank accounts held within the Union.
On review, AG Norkus concluded that insolvency proceedings opened in a third country should not automatically block the use of the EU preservation order mechanism.
The opinion states that Article 2(2)(c) of the EAPO Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that it “does not preclude the issuing of a Preservation Order… where the national law of the Member State responsible for issuing the Preservation Order recognises the insolvency proceedings in the third country concerned.”
In practical terms, this means that EU courts may still issue preservation orders freezing bank accounts within “the EU even when insolvency proceedings against the debtor have been opened abroad and recognised under national law.”
The Advocate General emphasised that the EAPO framework is intended to function as a uniform cross-border enforcement tool across the EU. Allowing national recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings to block preservation orders at the initial stage would undermine the regulation’s objective.
He noted that “the reference to insolvency proceedings in the EAPO Regulation concerns only insolvency proceedings opened in the Member States,” meaning that proceedings initiated in third countries fall outside the regulation’s exclusion.
Instead, potential conflicts between a preservation order and a foreign insolvency process should be addressed later in due legal proceedings – “the potential impact of foreign insolvency proceedings should be assessed at the enforcement stage rather than at the stage of issuing the preservation order.”
This distinction is significant as preservation orders serve only as a “temporary measure to secure assets”. Whether those assets can ultimately be enforced against may depend on how courts reconcile the preservation order with any foreign insolvency regime during the enforcement phase.
The Advocate General also warned that preventing courts from issuing preservation orders in such circumstances could fragment the EU’s cross-border debt recovery system.
Because recognition of third-country insolvency proceedings is governed by national law rather than EU law, some Member States may recognise those proceedings while others may not. Blocking preservation orders in jurisdictions that recognise foreign insolvency could therefore undermine the uniform application of the EAPO framework.
As the opinion notes, such an approach could “fragment the scope of the EAPO Regulation according to the recognition or non-recognition, by the national law of a Member State, of insolvency proceedings of a third country.”
The case highlights the legal risks facing offshore gambling operators that serve EU markets while maintaining corporate structures outside the bloc.
Many operators licensed in jurisdictions such as Curaçao maintain payment infrastructure within EU financial centres, including Cyprus, Malta, Luxembourg and Ireland. These arrangements enable operators to access European payment networks even when they do not hold national licences in the jurisdictions where their players reside.
The Advocate General’s interpretation suggests that such offshore structures may offer limited protection against asset-preservation actions if EU players obtain court judgments against operators.
The opinion also follows recent developments strengthening players’ claimants’ ability to pursue cases involving online gambling platforms. In January 2026, the CJEU ruled in Wunner Case C‑77/24 that plaintiffs may generally bring claims under the law of their home country when prosecuting unlicensed operators.
In the Wunner Case, the CJEU favoured the view of Austrian courts that irrespective of no harmonised EU laws on gambling, legal disputes can be pursued under national consumer and tort laws. The determination was rejected by Malta, which deems that foreign courts cannot intervene in the governance of gambling licences set by the Malta Gambling Act.
Taken together, these rulings point to a tightening legal environment for offshore gambling operators targeting EU customers.
A final judgment in case C-716/24 is expected later in 2026 and will determine whether the Court adopts the same interpretation of the EU preservation order framework.
#GamingRegulation #EUGaming #OnlineGambling #LegalUpdate #Compliance #GamingIndustry #RegulatoryUpdate
Welcome to Gambling Consulting Authority (GCA) - Your Strategic Partner in Gambling Industry Advancement
