EU Account Preservation Orders
On the 21st May 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) delivered its preliminary ruling in TQ v Mr Green Limited (C-198/24), providing an important clarification on Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 (the “EAPO Regulation”) establishing the European Account Preservation Order (“EAPO”). The ruling refines the concepts of “urgency” and “real risk” in cross-border enforcement proceedings and effectively means that national courts may adopt a flexible evidentiary approach, not only reliance on historical debtor conduct, but also relevant legislative context outside of a debtor’s control.
The case arose from online gaming enforcement proceeding involving Mr Green Limited, a Malta-licensed online gaming operator, and contributes to the growing body of CJEU jurisprudence addressing the balance between effective creditor protection and safeguards for debtors within the EU judicial framework.
Background
The dispute originated from online gambling services provided by Mr Green to TQ, an Austrian resident, between 2017 and 2019, during which TQ incurred losses exceeding €62,000. Under Austrian law, operators offering such services must hold a domestic licence. Mr Green operated solely under a Maltese licence and lacked the required Austrian authorisation. TQ initiated proceedings seeking restitution, arguing that the contracts were void from the Austrian law point of view – effectively a situation identical to the various player claims related litigation that has been ongoing for years.
In December 2021, the Austrian court upheld the claim and ordered repayment with interest and costs. The judgment became final in April 2022 after the operator’s appeal was dismissed. Despite obtaining an enforceable judgment, TQ encountered difficulties recovering the sums. In February 2024, he applied for an EAPO targeting accounts allegedly held by Mr Green in Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta and Sweden.
To demonstrate urgency under Article 7(1), TQ relied on two main factors. First, he referred to conduct from 2021, namely the termination of Mr Green’s relationship with an Austrian payment services provider. Second, he relied on legislative amendments introduced in Malta in 2023, specifically Article 56A of Malta’s Gaming Act, which may restrict actions against Malta-licensed operators.
The Austrian court referred questions to the CJEU regarding whether such historical conduct and legislative developments could be considered when assessing the existence of a “real risk” to enforcement.
The Legal Framework of the EAPO
The CJEU interpreted Article 7(1) within the broader framework of the EAPO Regulation, which establishes a uniform EU mechanism enabling creditors to secure funds held in accounts in cross-border disputes. Its objective is preventative: to avoid the dissipation or concealment of assets before effective enforcement can occur.
A preservation order may be granted where the creditor demonstrates urgency because there is a real risk that, without the order, enforcement will be prevented or rendered significantly more difficult. The Court emphasised that the EAPO is an exceptional measure, as it restricts a debtor’s ability to dispose of assets prior to enforcement, and must therefore be interpreted strictly to preserve proportionality and legal certainty.
Urgency and Real Risk as a Single Standard
A key clarification concerned the relationship between urgency and real risk. The referring court had treated these as separate cumulative conditions. The CJEU rejected this approach, holding that urgency is not an independent requirement but reflects the existence of a real risk. The assessment is therefore a single inquiry: whether enforcement is genuinely at risk in the absence of such protection.
Defining “Real Risk”
The Court further clarified that a “real risk” must be concrete, current and assessed at the time of the application. Hypothetical or speculative concerns are insufficient.
The Regulation primarily focuses on risks arising from the debtor’s conduct, particularly behaviour aimed at frustrating recovery. This may include dissipation or concealment of assets, transfers at an undervalue, or other arrangements designed to hinder enforcement. However, the Court rejected the requirement for proof of subjective intent. Such a burden would be overly restrictive and undermine the effectiveness of the EAPO.
Instead, national courts may rely on objective indicators suggesting a likelihood of evasive behaviour.
Temporal Relevance
The CJEU also addressed whether older conduct may be relevant, confirming that the EAPO Regulation imposes no strict temporal limitation. The decisive factor is whether past behaviour remains indicative of a continuing risk at the time of the application.
Historical conduct may therefore be significant where it forms part of a broader pattern suggesting avoidance of enforcement. In this case, the termination of the payment services relationship was considered potentially relevant. For online operators with limited physical assets, payment intermediaries may represent key access points for enforcement. Their removal may indicate efforts to complicate recovery.
Legislative Measures as Contextual Evidence
The Court also examined the relevance of Malta’s Article 56A. It held that national legislation restricting recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments cannot, on its own, establish the “real risk” required under Article 7(1). The EAPO Regulation is primarily concerned with debtor conduct rather than differences between national legal systems.
However, such legislation may still be taken into account as contextual evidence. When combined with other factors, it may support a finding that enforcement will encounter practical obstacles and that the debtor operates within a legal environment that may facilitate resistance to enforcement.
Conclusion
The Court ultimately ruled that Article 7(1) of Regulation 665/2014 must be interpreted as meaning that a national court before which an application for a EAPO is brought may take into account, in order to establish whether there is an urgent need to adopt that order, first, conduct of the debtor which occurred a number of years before that application was lodged and, second, the existence, in the Member State where the debtor is established, of a law capable of impeding the enforcement of the claim concerned.
For any additional information or assistance, please contact us at info@gtg.com.mt
Author: Dr Terence Cassar and Dr Mattea Pullicino
