A European Account Preservation Order allows a creditor to prevent money from being withdrawn or transferred from a bank account in another Member State, up to the amount stated in the order. It is not, however, an automatic consequence of an unpaid debt. A general concern that cross-border enforcement may be slow or difficult is not enough.

In its judgment of 21 May 2026 in Case C-198/24, TQ v Mr Green Limited, the Court of Justice of the European Union explained how Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 must be applied. Older conduct by the debtor may be considered, and foreign legislation may illuminate the factual setting. Neither replaces proof that, when the application is made, there is a specific and current risk arising from intentional conduct by the debtor aimed at avoiding payment.

1. What the European order does and does not do

Regulation 655/2014 created an autonomous Union procedure for cross-border civil and commercial matters. The order temporarily preserves funds held in an account so that enforcement of an existing or future judgment is not frustrated. It is recognised and enforceable in participating Member States without a separate declaration of enforceability.

Preservation does not transfer the money to the creditor, amount to payment, or determine who is right in the underlying dispute. If the creditor has not yet obtained a judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument, Article 7(2) also requires sufficient evidence that the creditor is likely to succeed on the substance of the claim. A creditor who already has an enforceable title, as TQ did, must still prove the urgent need required by Article 7(1).

The European procedure is an alternative to national protective measures. Choosing it does not displace jurisdiction rules, the enforcement State's exemptions from seizure, or the requirement that the measure remain proportionate to the claim.

2. What happened in TQ v Mr Green

TQ, an Austrian resident, had taken part from Austria in online games of chance offered by Mr Green Limited, a company established in Malta. The Austrian courts found that the company did not hold the required Austrian gambling licence and ordered it to reimburse losses of EUR 62,878, plus interest and costs. The judgment became final and enforceable on 13 April 2022.

After the amount remained unpaid, TQ applied in February 2024 for a European Account Preservation Order targeting company accounts in Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta and Sweden. He relied, among other matters, on the company's termination in 2021 of its relationship with an Austrian payment service provider through which claims had previously been paid, and on a 2023 amendment to Maltese gaming legislation which, he argued, hindered recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments.

The Austrian court at first instance rejected the application. It considered the 2021 conduct too old and found no urgency. The appellate court made a preliminary reference. The CJEU did not decide whether TQ's evidence ultimately met the threshold. It interpreted the Union rule and left the overall factual assessment to the Austrian court.

3. Urgency and real risk form one condition

Article 7(1) requires sufficient evidence that a protective measure is urgently needed because there is a real risk that, without it, subsequent enforcement will be impeded or made substantially more difficult. The Court clarified that urgency and real risk are not two independent requirements. They are inseparable aspects of the same condition.

The risk must be specific and current when the application is lodged, not merely potential or possible. It must arise from intentional action by the debtor aimed at avoiding payment, such as dissipating, concealing or destroying assets, or disposing of them below value, to an unusual extent or by unusual means.

This does not require a confession or direct proof of the debtor's subjective intention. The creditor must present specific evidence capable of showing that, without the order, the debtor is likely to move, conceal, destroy or dispose of assets below value before enforcement can take place. The court draws an inference from the evidence as a whole rather than treating one fact as conclusive.

4. Older conduct has no automatic expiry date

The judgment rejects a rigid temporal rule. The Regulation does not say that conduct becomes irrelevant after a fixed number of months or years, and it does not require the creditor to apply at the very moment when the alleged risk first appears. An action taken several years earlier may therefore remain evidentially relevant.

Age still matters to weight and connection. The central question changes from “When did it happen?” to “What does it show now?” The creditor must explain why the earlier act forms part of a continuing strategy, a stable arrangement of assets, or repeated avoidance of enforcement. If the risk has ceased, historical conduct cannot by itself recreate urgency.

In C-198/24, termination of the relationship with the Austrian payment provider could carry particular significance because an online company may have limited or no physical assets outside its State of establishment. A credit balance with a payment provider may then be one of the few practical assets available for enforcement. The Court said that termination may indicate a broader strategy. It did not say that it necessarily proves one.

5. Foreign law is context, not standalone proof

A legislative obstacle in the debtor's State of establishment may affect the practical prospect of enforcement. Article 7 does not, however, cover every objective difficulty. It requires a real risk connected to the debtor's action and to avoidance of payment.

The CJEU therefore held that merely invoking the Maltese legislation could not be sufficient. That conclusion applies with even greater force when the requested order targets accounts in Member States other than Malta. Foreign law may be considered as part of the factual context in which the court assesses the scope and purpose of the debtor's actions. It is not a self-standing presumption of urgency.

The Court did not rule on whether Article 56A of the Maltese Gaming Act complies with EU law and did not invalidate it. In this reference, it interpreted only Article 7(1) of Regulation 655/2014. An application that substitutes a legal dispute about foreign legislation for concrete evidence of debtor conduct does not satisfy the reasoning of the judgment.

6. Evidence that may carry weight, and facts that do not suffice alone

Recital 14 and the judgment call for an overall rather than mechanical assessment. Relevant matters can include the debtor's conduct concerning the creditor's claim, conduct in an earlier dispute between the parties, credit history, the nature of the assets and recent actions concerning those assets.

Dated and verifiable events will usually be more useful than general allegations:

  • asset transfers or restructurings that coincide with judgments, service of process or identified enforcement steps,
  • termination of a payment relationship that had provided a practical enforcement point,
  • repeated conduct across jurisdictions with the common effect of moving reachable assets away,
  • unusual transfers, below-value disposals or concealment of the true location of assets,
  • documents connecting those steps to the disputed debt or a defined class of enforceable judgments.

By contrast, mere non-payment or contesting of the claim is not sufficient by itself. Nor are the existence of several creditors, poor or deteriorating finances, ordinary business expenditure or recurring family costs. Those facts may contribute to the complete picture, but they do not automatically establish deliberate payment avoidance.

7. Practical checklist for a creditor in Greece

A persuasive application should start with a controlled record of facts, not with the sentence “the debtor will not pay”. Before filing, the creditor and counsel should test the following:

  1. Cross-border scope. Identify the court with jurisdiction, the State in which the account is maintained and the basis on which the Regulation applies.
  2. Claim and title. State the principal, interest and recoverable costs, whether a judgment or other title exists, and whether it is enforceable.
  3. Present connection. Explain how every earlier act supports a risk that still exists on the filing date.
  4. Dated chronology. Put judgments, service, account movements, provider changes, corporate steps and unsuccessful enforcement attempts in a clear sequence.
  5. Source of each assertion. Court documents, public registers, lawfully obtained information and certified decisions generally carry more evidential weight than inferences or media reports.
  6. Role of foreign law. Show how the foreign rule interacts with the debtor's identified actions, rather than stating only that enforcement abroad is difficult.
  7. Proportionate amount. Limit the request to the amount that may lawfully be secured and account for other preservation measures so that excess preservation is avoided.
  8. Procedural duties. Forms, translations, service, possible creditor security and prompt release of any over-preserved amount are part of the protection, not clerical afterthoughts.

If the creditor does not know the precise account, Article 14 provides a mechanism for obtaining account information under defined conditions. It is not a general discovery right into the debtor's financial life. A court-based route and the Regulation's necessity limits still apply.

8. Debtor safeguards and remedies

The initial procedure is ex parte. Under Article 11, the debtor is not notified or heard before the order is issued. That preserves the effectiveness of the measure, but it also makes the safeguards available after preservation especially important.

  • Security from the creditor: Article 12 generally requires it where no judgment or equivalent title exists and allows the court to require it even after a title has been obtained when necessary and appropriate.
  • Liability for damage: Article 13 makes a creditor liable for damage caused by a preservation order through the creditor's fault and creates presumptions of fault in specified situations.
  • Service after preservation: the order, application and supporting documents must be served after funds are preserved. Failure to serve within the regulatory period can support revocation.
  • Exempt amounts: money exempt from seizure under the law of the enforcement State is also exempt from preservation under Article 31.
  • Revocation or modification: Article 33 covers absent conditions, service or language failures, excess preservation, payment, dismissal of the claim, and the setting aside of the underlying title.
  • Challenge to enforcement: Article 34 permits limitation or termination in the enforcement State for exempt amounts and other specified grounds.
  • Changed circumstances and appeal: Articles 35 to 37 provide for adjustment when circumstances change, an inter partes remedy process and a right to appeal decisions on those remedies.
  • Substitute security: Article 38 allows the debtor to seek release of the preserved funds by providing security equal to the order or another acceptable assurance of equivalent value.

For a debtor, the first practical steps are to record the time and completeness of service, the exact amount and accounts affected, identify exempt or third-party funds, and gather evidence that weakens the allegation of a current risk. A lawful business restructuring should not be defended in abstract terms. Its timing, commercial purpose and consistency with ordinary payment conduct should be documented.

9. The practical route in Greece

The Greek national page of the European e-Justice Portal, last updated on 31 July 2026, identifies the Courts of First Instance as the courts competent to issue an order. It lists the Directorate for Audit Business Planning of the Independent Authority for Public Revenue as the account-information authority, and bailiffs as responsible for service and enforcement. Greek is the accepted language for translated documents.

The same official notice states that maintenance claims, wages, pensions, insurance benefits and other categories under Article 982(2) of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure are exempt from seizure, and that those listed exemptions apply without an application by the debtor. It identifies the issuing court for remedies against the order itself and the Court of First Instance for Article 34 enforcement remedies.

Jurisdictional and implementation information can change. Before an application or remedy is filed, the national page, the official forms and the procedural law then in force should be checked again. This overview does not determine the competent court in an individual case.

10. What the CJEU did not decide

  • It did not issue a preservation order or freeze any bank account.
  • It did not decide whether TQ's evidence ultimately meets the threshold. That remains for the Austrian court.
  • It did not reopen or determine the gambling-loss reimbursement dispute. The Austrian judgment was already final and enforceable.
  • It did not invalidate Maltese legislation or rule that it was incompatible with Union law.
  • It did not create a fixed age limit after which debtor conduct becomes irrelevant.
  • It did not turn non-payment, multiple creditors or financial weakness into automatic evidence of risk.

Those limits matter. A headline saying that the CJEU “froze Mr Green's accounts” would be factually wrong. The judgment is interpretive and defines the evidential framework for the national court.

11. The practical conclusion for both sides

For a creditor, the judgment removes one rigid obstacle: evidence is not excluded solely because it is old. At the same time, it makes it particularly important to show a concrete link between earlier conduct and the present risk. Earlier events must support an evidence-based account of the current situation, not a general suspicion about solvency or willingness to pay.

For a debtor, the response cannot stop at “that happened years ago”. The stronger answer examines whether the risk still exists, whether the acts had a lawful and ordinary commercial explanation, whether accounts or assets remain available, and whether the application genuinely links foreign law to the debtor's own conduct.

C-198/24 preserves the balance built into the Regulation: effective cross-border protection where a real risk exists, but no preventive freezing for every difficult debt. A reliable chronology, traceable evidence and the present connection are more important than a dramatic but abstract claim of danger.

12. Frequently asked questions

Is failure to pay a final judgment enough?

No. Non-payment may be taken into account, but it is not sufficient on its own under Article 7(1). There must be specific evidence making intentional action that would impede or substantially complicate enforcement probable.

How old can relevant conduct be?

The Court set no numerical limit. The older the event, the more important it is to explain why the risk persists when the application is made. The absence of a fixed limit does not make every historical event permanently relevant.

Is a law in the debtor's State that obstructs enforcement enough?

No. Foreign law can provide context for assessing the debtor's conduct and intention. It does not independently prove the real risk required by the Regulation.

Can wages or pension money in a Greek account be preserved?

The Regulation defers to exemptions in the enforcement State. Greece's official notice lists categories under Article 982(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Application to a particular payment and account requires a current assessment of the facts and national law.

Does the order immediately give the money to the creditor?

No. It preserves funds until the order is revoked, its enforcement ends, or a measure enforcing the underlying title takes effect. Actual satisfaction follows the applicable enforcement process and is distinct from preservation.

13. Official sources

Legal information: The official sources were reviewed on 30 August 2026. At that review, CURIA still labelled the judgment “Provisional text”. This article explains the general framework and is not individual legal advice on an application, remedy or enforcement step in a specific case.