Agrégateur de flux

This report was written by Carlos Santaló Goris, postdoctoral researcher at the University of Luxembourg

Recent developments on the application of the EAPO Regulation

On 3 December 2024, the conference ‘European Account Preservation Order: Practical Challenges and Prospects for Reform’ took place at the University of Luxembourg, organized by Prof. Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg). The conference also served as an occasion to present the book ‘European Account Preservation Order – A Multi-jurisdictional Guide with Commentary’, published by Bruylant/Larcier. The book was co-edited by Dr. Nicolas Kyriakides (University of Nicosia), Dr. Heikki A. Huhtamäki (Huhtamäki Brothers Attorneys Ltd), and Dr. Nicholas Mouttotos (University of Bremen), and offers a comprehensive overview on the application of the European Account Preservation Order (‘EAPO’) at the national level. It contains a report for each Member State where the EAPO Regulation applies, addressing specific aspects of the EAPO procedure that depend on domestic law.

The conference was structured into two panel discussions. The first panel focused on the specific issues regarding the application of the EAPO Regulation identified by practitioners with first-hand experience with this instrument. The second panel discussion explored the potential reform of the EAPO Regulation and which specific changes should be implemented to improve its application. This report aims to offer an overview of the main highlights and outputs of the presentations and discussions of the conference.

First panel discussion: the use of the EAPO application in the practice

The first panel was composed of Dr. Laurent Heisten (Moyse & Associates Law Firm, Luxembourg), Alexandra Thépaut (Étude Calvo & Associés, Luxembourg), and Lionel Decotte (SAS Huissiers Réunis, France) and moderated by Dr. Elena Alina Ontanu (University of Tilburg). This first panel aimed to explore specific issues in the application of the EAPO Regulation from the practice perspective. The discussion was opened by Dr. Laurent Heisten, who indicated that the EAPO is way more complex than the Luxembourgish national provisional attachment order, the saisie-arrêt. He highlighted that the Luxembourgish saisie-arrêt has more lenient prerequisites than the EAPO. In his view, that might explain why creditors often opt for the saisie-arrêt instead of the EAPO.

The complexity of the EAPO compared to the Luxembourgish saisie-arrêt was also remarked by Ms. Alexandra Thépaut. However, she also acknowledged that the EAPO presents some advantages against the Luxembourgish national equivalent procedure. In particular, she referred to the certificate that banks have to issue immediately after the implementation of an EAPO (Article 28). This is something that does not occur with the Luxembourgish saisie-arrêt. Another advantage of the EAPO she referred to is the possibility of obtaining information about the debtors’ bank accounts (Article 14).  The Luxembourgish saisie-arrêt also lacks an equivalent information mechanism.

During the discussion, Prof. Gilles Cuniberti intervened to indicate that using the EAPO could be less costly than relying on equivalent domestic provisional measures. He refers to a specific case in which the creditor preferred to apply for an EAPO in Luxembourg instead of a domestic provisional attachment order in Germany. The reason was that in Germany, the fee for applying for a national provisional measure would be in proportion to the amount of the claim, while in Luxembourg, there is no fee to obtain an EAPO.

A second recurrent issue identified by the panellists was the use of standard forms. In this regard, Mr. Lionel Decotte highlighted while standard forms can seem practical in a cross-border context, they are rather complicated to fill in. Ms. Alexandra Thépaut mentioned finding particularly complex the section on the interest rates of the EAPO application standard form.

Second panel discussion: the future reform of the EAPO Regulation

The second panel focused on the potential reform of the EAPO Regulation. The panellists were Prof. Gilles Cuniberti, Dr. Carlos Santaló Goris, and Dr. Nicolas Kyriakides, and it was moderated by Dr. Nicholas Mouttotos. Prof. Gilles Cuniberti explored the boundaries of the material scope of the EAPO Regulation. He first advocated suppressing the arbitration exception. He explained that it had been adopted by a political decision which was not submitted to the discussion of the expert group. This was most unfortunate, as the rationale for excluding arbitration from the Brussels I bis and other judgment regulations (the existence of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards) was inexistent concerning a remedy belonging to enforcement per se, which was always outside of the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

Prof. Gilles Cuniberti also defended making available the EAPO Regulation in claims regarding matrimonial and succession matters, both expressly excluded from its scope. In his view, there is no reason for these two subject matters to be excluded as the Succession and Matrimonial Property Regimes Regulations, again, only apply to jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments (and choice of law), but do not offer any remedy to attach bank accounts. Lastly, he advocated expanding the use of the EAPO to provisional attachment of financial instruments. This is a potential reform of the EAPO Regulation expressly foreseen in Article 53.

Dr. Carlos Santaló Goris focused on the reform of the EAPO Regulation from the creditors’ perspective.  He observed that national case law on the EAPO shows that creditors with an enforceable title encounter many difficulties satisfying the EAPO’s periculum in mora. This is due to the strict interpretation that courts have of this prerequisite in light of Recital 14 of the Preamble. He also mentioned that there is a pending preliminary reference on the interpretation of the EAPO’s periculum in mora before the European Court of Justice (C-198/24, Mr Green).

Regarding the creditor’s security, he stated that the vague criteria used to calculate the amount of the security is also a source of divergences on how the amount of the security is established from one Member State. He provided the example of Germany, where courts often require 100% of the amount of the claim. This percentage contrasts with other Member States, such as Spain, where the amount of the security represents a much lower percentage of the amount of the claim. Additionally, he also suggested reforming the EAPO to transform it into a true enforcement measure. In his view, creditors with an enforceable title should not only have the possibility of obtaining the provisional attachment of the funds in the debtors’ bank accounts but also the garnishment of those funds.

Finally, Dr. Nicolas Kyriakides explored how to foster the use of the EAPO Regulation across the EU. In his view, it would be necessary to expand the use of the EAPO Regulation to purely domestic cases. He referred to the case of the European Small Claims Procedure and how this instrument served as an inspiration for some national legislators to introduce equivalent domestic procedures. In his view, when judges and practitioners use these equivalent domestic procedures, indirectly they become familiar with the EU civil proceedings on which the equivalent domestic procedure was modeled. This is a way of integrating the EU civil proceedings into the legal practice. Therefore, when judges and practitioners have to apply the EU civil procedures, they already know how to do it. This can result in a more efficient and effective application of these EU instruments. On a second level, Dr. Nicolas Kyriakides identified the legal basis that the EU legislator might have to adopt such kinds of measures. He considered that the EU could invoke Article 81 (Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters), and Article 114 (Harmonization for the Internal Market) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union could serve to harmonize domestic procedural rules within the boundaries of the principles of subsidiarity, proportionality, and procedural autonomy.

The panelists’ presentations were followed by an open discussion with the audience. One of the issues that was addressed during this discussion was the use of the IBAN to determine the location of the bank accounts. Prof. Gilles Cuniberti expressed his concern about the use of the IBAN since nothing prevents a bank from opening an account with an IBAN that does not correspond to the Member State where the account is effectively held.

Waiting for the Commission’s report on the EAPO Regulation

Following Article 53(1) of the EAPO Regulation, the Commission should have elaborated a report on the application of the EAPO by 18 January 2024. This conference offers a glimpse into what might eventually appear reflected in that report. The EAPO Regulation seems still far from being an instrument often relied on by creditors who try to recover a cross-border claim. The conference, which combined a practical and academic analysis of the EAPO regulation, served to identify some of the problems that might be preventing the EAPO from being perceived by creditors as an efficient tool to secure cross-border claims. Initiatives like this conference can help prepare the ground for designing a more effective EAPO procedure.

 

The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) is holding a webinar on Thursday 30 January 2025 at 14:30 (Mexico City time – CST), 21:30 (CET time). The topic of the webinar is: From the Old to the New Private International Law: Contexts, Objectives, Methods and Practice and will be presented by HE Ambassador Mario J. A. Oyarzábal (in Spanish).

The details of the webinar are:

Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83362977786?pwd=VsniAolvT9vCNnbjVl4FdbAqXkOX9E.1

Meeting ID: 833 6297 7786

Password: AMEDIP

Participation is free of charge.

This event will also be streamed live: https://www.facebook.com/AmedipMX

Issues 3 and 4 of 2024 of ZEuP – Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht have recently been published. They feature various contributions that may be of interest for the readers of this blog. Specifically, issue 3 includes the following articles and case note. Die Europäisierung des internationalen Erwachsenenschutzes Jan von Hein on the proposal for a […]

While the implementation of Directive (EU) 2024/1069 is underway across EU Member States, and it will have to be done according to the timing already indicated in this blog, attention is increasingly turning to the pressing need to strengthen anti-SLAPPs protections in the Western Balkans. The issue of SLAPPs is a growing concern in this […]

Cet épisode vous propose des clefs de compréhension de la résistance des juges face au gouvernement italien, depuis l’ouverture des centres de rétention de migrants, externalisés en Albanie. Les juridictions italiennes ordonnent le rapatriement des migrants vers l’Italie, en se basant sur un arrêt récent de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne. Plusieurs questions préjudicielles ont été posées à la Cour de justice. La Commission européenne annonce une nouvelle proposition de directive « retour » au printemps 2025. Le Conseil des Barreaux européens invite la Commission à veiller aux garanties en termes de respect des droits fondamentaux, de recours effectifs et d’accès au droit.

en lire plus

Dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre d’un instrument de reconnaissance mutuelle relatif à l’exécution des jugements en matière pénale (Décision-cadre 2008/909/JAI du 27 nov. 2008), la chambre criminelle affirme, d’une part, sa compétence pour placer le mis en examen sous contrôle judiciaire en présence d’une détention provisoire irrégulière, réserve faite du cas de la violation du principe de spécialité. Elle étend, d’autre part, l’applicabilité de ce principe au contrôle judiciaire et précise son application quant à l’autorité apte à y renoncer, à savoir l’État de condamnation. 

en lire plus

Royal Football Club Seraing
Arbitrage sportif : selon l’avocate générale Ćapeta, les sentences du Tribunal arbitral du sport doivent pouvoir faire l’objet d’un contrôle complet par les juridictions nationales afin de vérifier la compatibilité des règles de la FIFA avec le droit de l’Union

Ministarstvo financija (Bourse Erasmus+)
Citoyenneté européenne
Bourse Erasmus + : le montant versé à un étudiant ne doit pas être pris en compte pour le calcul de l’impôt sur le revenu du parent l’ayant à sa charge

The Société de législation comparée has published a compendium of legal studies on foreign law (Le Droit Étranger). The scholarly works in this 3-volume collection examine the role of foreign law in shaping legal thought and practice, offering insights into its academic contributions, practical applications, and future perspectives. Background Over the last ten years, the […]

An online conference on International Recovery of Maintenance on the Basis of Authentic Instruments is set to take place on 29 January 2025 from 3 to 5 PM CET, hosted by the German Institute for Youth Services and Family Law (DIJuF). Authentic instruments, such as enforceable deeds, allow maintenance debtors to commit to child support […]

MegaFon / Conseil
Relations extérieures
Guerre en Ukraine : le Tribunal confirme les mesures restrictives adoptées contre l’opérateur de téléphonie mobile russe MegaFon

Johan Tufte-Kristensen (Copenhagen University) and Mustafa Sert (Gorrissen Federspiel law firm) have authored a new Danish textbook titled International privatret (Private International Law). The book focuses exclusively on choice of law issues, omitting procedural aspects such as jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments. It offers a comprehensive overview of choice of law issues from […]

Nouvelle année, nouvelle présidence tournante du Conseil de l’Union européenne par la Pologne qui succède à la Hongrie jusqu’en juillet prochain. Le programme polonais met un accent particulier sur la sécurité européenne, entendue très largement et couvrant différents secteurs qu’il s’agisse de la sécurité territoriale, énergétique, alimentaire, mais aussi économique, prenant acte de certains aspects mentionnés par Mario Draghi en septembre dernier.

en lire plus

Many thanks to the members who have informed me of the relatively sophisticated phishing email that they received today in my name, asking for assistance. As always, the email address was suspicious. If you reply to this email, you will be asked: Thank you for your kind reply. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience, but […]

Francesca Farrington (University of Aberdeen) and Michiel Poesen (University of Aberdeen) has made available on SSRN the Research Project Papers No 2024.13-05 on Applicable Law in Claims for Damage Arising Out of Unsafe Working Conditions: The Case of Begum v Maran. This publication is part of an ongoing series of outputs from the LSGL-funded project […]

As announced on this blog, the Faculty of Laws of University College London will host the 20th Anniversary Conference of the Journal of Private International Law on 11, 12 and 13 September 2025. The call for paper issued for this purpose will end on 17 January 2025. Submissions should be sent by that date to […]

Les deux derniers mois de l’année 2024 ont été marqués par l’absence d’arrêts ou de décisions de grande chambre, par une relative discrétion des affaires françaises et par des affaires venues d’ailleurs qui ont permis à la Cour de Strasbourg de renforcer sa détermination à participer à la lutte contre la traites des êtres humains, les violences domestiques ou le sort des personnes atteintes de troubles psychiatriques, ainsi que de confirmer son intérêt pour les droits des détenus ou sa prudence face aux questions migratoires.

en lire plus

Il n’est pas nouveau, en droit de la concurrence, qu’une entente puisse être réprimée, au titre de l’article 101 du Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne, si les effets restrictifs de concurrence qu’elle produit sont seulement potentiels, dès lors qu’ils sont suffisamment sensibles. C’est ce que rappelle classiquement la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne dans une décision du 5 décembre 2024. Allant plus loin, elle établit explicitement un parallèle entre l’article 101 et l’article 102 du Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne, qui prohibent les abus de position dominante, en énonçant que, en ce qui concerne la démonstration d’effets anticoncurrentiels, l’interprétation faite de l’article 101 correspond à celle de l’article 102, ce qui mérite d’être souligné.

en lire plus

This submission written by Celeste Hall, JD Candidate at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law and Global Legal Scholar.

The legal news has been awash lately in the recognition and enforcement of investment arbitration awards by U.S. courts. Most of the press is on the long-running and still-unfolding saga regarding Spain (see here and here). And a new decision recognizing an award against Zimbabwe was just issue at the end of December, as well. Here, however, we would like to add to the news with the recent decision recognizing an investment arbitration award against Mexico in United Mexican States v. Lion Mexico Consolidated.

Like most investment arbitrations, the decision tells a sordid tale. Lion Mexico Consolidated (LMC) is a Canadian company which provided financing to a Mexican businessman, Mr. Hector Cardenas Curiel, to develop real estate projects in Nayarit and Jalisco, Mexico. Cardenas’ company failed to pay on the loans, and LMC tried for years to obtain payment, all to no avail. Cardenas then began what was described as a “complex judicial fraud” to avoid payment, including a forgery and a subsequent lawsuit in a Jalisco court to cancel the loans. LMC was never informed of the suit and therefore, never appeared. The Jalisco Court issued a default judgment discharging the loans and ordering LMC to cancel the mortgages; Cardenas then arranged for an attorney to act fraudulently on LMC’s behalf to file and then purposefully abandon the appeal. LMC only learned of the entire scheme when they attempted to file their own constitutional challenge and were rejected. The Mexican Courts refused to allow LMC to submit evidence of the forgeries, so LMC brought a NAFTA Chapter 11 arbitration against Mexico for its failure to accord Lion’s investments protection under Article 1105(1) of NAFTA.

In the arbitration, Mexico argued that Article 1105(1)(b) only applies to investments, and because LMC is an investor, it could not seek relief under Article 1105(1). The arbitral tribunal disagreed and awarded LMC over US$ 47 million in damages. In the U.S. courts, Mexico petitioned to vacate the Award, and LMC cross-petitioned to affirm it.

Mexico conceded that the DC Circuit’s power to vacate an arbitral award is limited: as long as the tribunal “interpreted” 1105(1) the Court must confirm the award even if serious interpretive error was committed. Mexico attempted to skirt this issue by claiming that the Tribunal did not “interpret” anything. Instead, in Mexico’s view, they simply ignored the literal meaning of investments of investors by granting relief to Lion.

The Court was not impressed by this argument. It held that “[t]he Tribunal addressed Mexico’s interpretation of Article 1105(1) head on, employed common interpretative tools to reach a different conclusion, cited authorities in support of its reading, and explained its reasoning. By any definition of the word, the Tribunal interpreted Article 1105(1). Because the Court can’t second-guess that interpretation, the Court DENIED Mexico’s Petition to Vacate the Arbitral Award, and GRANTED LMC’s Cross- Petition for Confirmation, Recognition, and Enforcement of the Arbitral Award.”

Additionally, the Court denied a motion to intervene filed Hector Cardenas Curiel. Cardenas knew that the arbitral case hinged upon his fraud but did not pursue intervention at the arbitral stage. The Court found that Cardenas’ attempt to intervene at this stage was “too little too late”, and Cardenas did not meet the requirements for intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) or 24(b).

This decision is important because it follows a long line of cases giving deference to arbitrators in investment treaty cases; when they interpret the governing treaty and decide cases thereunder, their decisions will not be second-guessed by U.S. courts later.

As posted earlier here, the conference organizers and editors of the JPIL are welcoming submissions for the 20th Anniversary Conference of the Journal of Private International Law, to be held in London 11–13 September 2025.

Proposals including an abstract of up to 500 words can be send to JPrivIL25@ucl.ac.uk until 17 January 2025.

More information can also be found here.