On the 21 May 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) delivered its judgment in Case C-198/24, TQ v Mr Green Limited, addressing the interpretation of Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 on the European Account Preservation Order (“EAPO” and “EAPO Regulation”).

The reference arose in Austrian proceedings in which a player sought an EAPO against a Malta-based online gambling operator to secure enforcement of an Austrian judgment ordering repayment of gambling losses. The decision is significant because it clarifies the meaning of the “real risk” requirement and the circumstances which a national court may consider when deciding whether urgent protective relief is justified.

The facts of this case arise in the context of a much broader wave of cross-border gambling litigation. The claimant (“TQ”), resident in Austria, had obtained a final and enforceable res judicata Austrian judgment against Mr Green, but later sought an EAPO over accounts in several Member States after payment was refused by the operator (on grounds of public policy).

In support of that application, TQ relied on two main circumstances. The first was the company’s earlier termination of a relationship with an Austrian payment service provider through which enforcement had previously been facilitated. The second was the existence of Maltese legislation which, TQ argued, was capable of obstructing the recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments against licensed gambling operators – a direct challenge to Article 56A of the Maltese Gaming Act.

The referring Austrian court asked, in substance, whether:

1.  Article 7(1) of the EAPO Regulation permits account to be taken of debtor conduct that occurred three years or more before the application, and whether
2. Article 7(1) of the EAPO Regulation permits account to be taken of obstacles to enforcement stemming from legislation in the debtor’s Member State.

In answering that question, the CJEU first made clear that the structure of Article 7(1) should not be fragmented into separate conditions of urgency and risk. Rather, urgency exists where there is a real risk that, without the preservation order, subsequent enforcement will be impeded or made substantially more difficult. This inseparability is important because it aligns the evidential inquiry with the practical objective of the Regulation – the preservation of funds where enforcement is genuinely endangered, while maintaining an appropriate balance between creditor protection and the debtor’s ability freely to dispose of assets.

The Court then addressed the content of the notion of “real risk”. Drawing on the wording of Article 7(1), recital 14, and the overall mechanism of the EAPO Regulation, stating that the risk must be specific and current at the time when the application is lodged. However, the Court stated that EAPO Regulation does not impose any temporal rule under which past conduct becomes automatically irrelevant after a fixed period. What matters is whether the facts and circumstances relied on still support the conclusion that the relevant risk persists when the court is asked to issue the EAPO.

That aspect of the ruling is particularly notable. The Court accepted that earlier conduct, including the termination of a payment arrangement in the creditor’s Member State, may form part of the overall assessment carried out by the national court. For an online operator with limited tangible assets outside its state of establishment, a credit balance held through a payment intermediary may be one of the few practical enforcement targets available to creditors. The Court thus ruled that the removal of that channel may constitute evidence of a broader strategy of making enforcement more difficult, even if the act itself occurred some years before the preservation application.

The Court took a more qualified approach to the relevance of Maltese legislation. It held that legislation in the debtor’s Member State which may hinder recognition or enforcement cannot, by itself, establish the real risk required by Article 7(1), because that provision is directed to the danger that the debtor may evade payment through conduct affecting assets. Nevertheless, such legislation may still be considered as a contextual element in the national court’s overall assessment of the circumstances. This is an important distinction. It preserves the debtor-focused protection established in Recital 14, while allowing national courts to consider the real enforcement realities in which the creditor may have to operate.

The practical consequence is a judgment that is creditor-friendly, but not without qualifications. The CJEU did not endorse a reading under which any legal or commercial obstacle to cross-border recovery automatically justifies an EAPO. Instead, it confirmed that the creditor must still present specific evidence capable of showing that, without the EAPO, the debtor may dissipate, conceal, destroy, or otherwise place assets beyond effective enforcement. At the same time, the CJUE recognises that this assessment must be holistic and realistic, not artificially confined to the debtor’s immediate conduct or stripped of the legal context surrounding enforcement.

This judgment strengthens the effectiveness of the EAPO as a cross-border enforcement tool. It confirms that national courts may consider older conduct where it remains relevant to ongoing enforcement risks and may also treat domestic rules in the debtor’s State as part of the broader factual context.

In cases involving Malta-based online gaming operators, the ruling will inevitably attract attention because it further analyses Malta’s Article 56A Gaming Act – even though this judgment does not delve into the merits of such provision. The enforcement and recognition strategies adopted by both sides in respect of the Player Claims are expected to be shaped by this judgment and by further developments anticipated from the CJEU in the coming months.