Instrument

The European Account Preservation Order

The European Account Preservation Order freezes money held in a bank account in another EU member state before the debtor can move it. It works only inside the EU, under Regulation (EU) No 655/2014, and only for cross-border civil and commercial claims. It preserves funds; it does not itself recognise or enforce a judgment.

Scope

Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 set up a single procedure across EU member states for freezing money in a bank account before a debtor can dissipate it. It covers cross-border civil and commercial claims, where the account sits in a member state different from the one where the claim or judgment originates. Enforcement of the underlying claim is a separate step, governed by national rules once a title exists; this instrument acts earlier, at the point where funds are still reachable. See the enforcement overview for how the later stage works.

It does not cover claims that fall outside the EU civil and commercial framework, and it is not a substitute for a judgment or an enforcement title. Where the claim or the assets sit outside the EU, a different instrument applies; the Riyadh Convention page sets out one such route. Exact exclusions for particular claim types sit in the regulation text itself and should be checked against the current version before any filing.

Where it applies

The order operates between EU member states. The underlying claim sits in one; the bank account sits in another. It can be sought whether the claimant already holds a judgment or is still pursuing the claim, subject to the conditions set out in the regulation. Where a judgment already exists and remains unpaid, our page on refusal type O8 covers what happens once payment is refused outright, which sits alongside rather than inside this mechanism.

Which national rules govern a given application depends on where the claim and the account sit, and that is not something this page determines. Related material on account freezes and non-payment is collected in the O8 insight index.

Traps

EAPO only works where the claim and the account sit in different member states; a purely domestic freeze is outside this instrument. The competent authority to hear an application varies by member state and by the stage the claim has reached, and that determination is not made on this page.

Whether the order can be obtained without notifying the debtor in advance, and how quickly a bank must respond, depends on the same national rules and needs checking against the specific claim. Where the frozen asset is not an ordinary bank balance, for example a crypto exchange account, the mechanics diverge from what the regulation assumes; our note on demanding money back when a judgment goes unpaid and accounts are frozen sets out why. A cross-border recognition and enforcement review is the way to test whether this route fits a given claim before relying on it.

How it is used in practice

In practice, EAPO is used to stop a debtor emptying a named account before a claim can be enforced against it. A claimant sets out the underlying claim and the risk that funds will be moved or hidden; the application is typically examined without giving the debtor advance notice. Whether relief of this kind is available on a given set of facts, and on what terms, is decided under the applicable procedural rules rather than assumed in advance.

An initial assessment, priced under our fee schedule, is the first step to check whether this route matches a claim. We do not work on a result-only basis, and the entity instructed can be checked against the public register referenced in the footer; our guide to checking a law firm covers what to look for.