Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The European Account Preservation Order in Dutch Practice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Effective Enforcement of Creditors’ Rights

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 91))

  • 249 Accesses

Abstract

Since EU Regulation No. 655/2014 has been entered into force, life looks more easy to creditors as they can obtain an European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) from a court in their own state to freeze funds in the account of their debtor in another Member State. In this contribution, light is shed on the first experiences with the EAPO in the Netherlands. After giving some information with regard to the EAPO in general, and the enforcement and prejudgment attachment in the Netherlands, the Dutch implementation Act on the EAPO is discussed. Although the Dutch legislator stated that the implementation Act would tailor the European procedure as closely as possible to the national procedure on prejudgment attachment, it turned out that this was not always possible. Subsequently, Dutch case law on the EAPO is discussed with regard to the following subjects: security to be provided by the creditor, the request for information, jurisdiction and the revocation of an EAPO. In the final paragraph, some concluding remarks are given.

Bart Krans is full professor of private law and civil procedure law at Leiden University (the Netherlands). Pauline Ribbers is a PhD-fellow at Leiden University (the Netherlands). This chapter was finished in June 2020.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Court of Justice 21 May 1980 (Denilauler v. SNC Couchet Frères), Case C-125/79, EU:C:1980:130, p. 1572, cf. Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar, delivered on 29 July 2019, Case C-555/18 (ECLI:EU:C:2019:652), para 1. Cf. CJEU 7 November 2019 (K.H.K. v. B.A.C. and E.E.K.), Case C-555/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:937.

  2. 2.

    Green Paper on improving the efficiency of the enforcement of judgments in the European Union: the attachment of bank accounts {SEC(2006) 1341}/*COM/2006/0618 final*/, Brussels, 24 October 2006.

  3. 3.

    Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council–Creating a European Account Preservation Order to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters, COM(2011) 445 final, Brussels, 25 July 2011.

  4. 4.

    Cf. Art. 54 Regulation (EU) No. 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters. The Regulation applies from 18 January 2017 (Art. 54). Legal basis: Art. 81(2) TFEU.

  5. 5.

    G. Cuniberti & S. Migliorini, The European Account Preservation Order Regulation: A Commentary, Cambridge University Press 2018 (online), p. 10.

  6. 6.

    Denilauler: see footnote 1. Brussel I bis Regulation in full: Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast).

  7. 7.

    See for example C. Santaló Goris, ‘First impressions from Kirchberg on the EAPO Regulation–Opinion of AG Spuznar in Case C-555/18’, in June 2020 consulted on conflictoflaws.net/2019/first- impressions-from-kirchberg-on-the-eapo-regulation-opinion-of-ag-szpunar-in-case-c-555–18/.

  8. 8.

    Regulation (EC) No. 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure and Regulation (EC) No. 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure.

  9. 9.

    It does not apply in Denmark.

  10. 10.

    Art. 2(1) EAPO Regulation.

  11. 11.

    Art. 2(2) EAPO Regulation.

  12. 12.

    Art. 3 EAPO Regulation.

  13. 13.

    There is a special rule on jurisdiction in Article 6 of the EAPO Regulation for cases where the debtor is a consumer who has concluded a contract with the creditor, cf. no. 10 of this contribution.

  14. 14.

    Cf. recital 5 of the preamble of the EAPO Regulation.

  15. 15.

    Cuniberti & Migliorini 2018, p. 10.

  16. 16.

    See EAPO Regulation, Chap. 2 (‘Procedure for obtaining a Preservation Order’).

  17. 17.

    Art. 8 EAPO Regulation.

  18. 18.

    Art. 41 EAPO Regulation.

  19. 19.

    Art. 11 EAPO Regulation.

  20. 20.

    Art. 7(1) EAPO Regulation.

  21. 21.

    Art. 7(1) EAPO Regulation.

  22. 22.

    Art. 7(2) EAPO Regulation.

  23. 23.

    Art. 14(5) EAPO Regulation.

  24. 24.

    So, with good reason that this topic was already addressed in the rapport by Burkhard Hess of 2004, see: B. Hess, Study No. JAI/A3/2002/02 on making more efficient the enforcement of judicial decisions within the EU: Transparency of a Debtor’s Assets, Attachment of Bank Accounts, Provisional Enforcement and Protective Measures, 18 February 2004.

  25. 25.

    Art. 14(1), first subparagraph of the Regulation reads as follows: ‘Where the creditor has obtained in a Member State an enforceable judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument which requires the debtor to pay the creditor’s claim and the creditor has reasons to believe that the debtor holds one or more accounts with a bank in a specific Member State, but knows neither the name and/or address of the bank nor the IBAN, BIC or another bank number allowing the bank to be identified, he may request the court with which the application for the Preservation Order is lodged to request that the information authority of the Member State of enforcement obtain the information necessary to allow the bank or banks and the debtor’s account or accounts to be identified.’.

  26. 26.

    Art. 14(2) EAPO Regulation.

  27. 27.

    Art. 14(3) EAPO Regulation.

  28. 28.

    In no. 6 of this contribution, the question of how this request is dealt with in the Dutch EAPO implementation Act will be discussed.

  29. 29.

    In Dutch: Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, see for the text of the Code: wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0039872/2019–01-01.

  30. 30.

    See: Article 439 et seq. CCP, cf. e-justice.europa.eu/. The attachment in execution has to be distinguished from the prejudgment or conservatory attachment (Art. 700 et seq. CCP, conservatoir beslag), an example of a so-called ‘preservative measure’ (conservatoire maatregel), which is taken pending the obtaining of a title to enforcement.

  31. 31.

    Three categories of execution can be distinguished: i) right to redress without the need of a title, see, inter alia, Article 3:248 Dutch Civil Code (parate executie); ii) forced execution of one or more assets of the debtor in order to collect a monetary claim, Article 3:276 DCC (verhaalsexecutie); iii) execution for specific performance, Articles 3:297–301 Dutch Civil Code and Articles 491–500 CCP (reële executie).

  32. 32.

    Art. 585–600 CCP.

  33. 33.

    Art. 611a-611i CCP.

  34. 34.

    These two coercive measures are also labelled as ‘indirect’ (because there is a certain ‘incentive’ to the debtor to comply with the judgment) means of enforcement (indirecte executiemiddelen), whereas attachment is an example of a ‘direct’ (because no cooperation by the debtor is needed) mean of enforcement (direct executiemiddel).

  35. 35.

    Art. 430(1) CCP. E.g. the first enforceable authenticated copy (grosse) of a judgment (vonnis) delivered in the Netherlands, a decision (beschikking) of a Dutch court or an authentic deed executed in the Netherlands.

  36. 36.

    Art. 430(3) CCP.

  37. 37.

    Article 430(3) CCP in conjunction with Article 45(1) CCP.

  38. 38.

    See Art. 700 et seq. CCP. See, in general, e.g. A. Steneker, Mr. C. Assers Handleiding tot de beoefening van het Nederlands Burgerlijk Recht. Procesrecht. 5. Beslag en executie, Deventer: Wolters Kluwer 2019; GS Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, commentaar op titel Vierde titel Rv, in: P. Vlas & T.F.E. Tjong Tjin Tai (ed.), Groene Serie Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, Deventer: Wolters Kluwer (online).

  39. 39.

    Cf. Art. 1(1) EAPO Regulation: ‘(…) which prevents the subsequent enforcement of the creditor’s claim from being jeopardised through the transfer or withdrawal of funds up to the amount (…)’.

  40. 40.

    Art. 700(1) CCP. See also: the attachment syllabus (beslagsyllabus), version February 2020 (source: www.rechtspraak.nl/sitecollectiondocuments/beslagsyllabus.pdf). This syllabus contains requirements that seizure assessments must comply with in order to sufficiently inform the preliminary relief judge. The syllabus is published under the responsibility of ‘Landelijk overleg Vakinhoud Civiel, Kanton en Toezicht van de rechtbanken’ (which can be translated as: ‘National Consultation Course Content Civil, District and Supervision of the District Courts’).

  41. 41.

    Article 700(2) in conjunction with Article 700(1) CCP.

  42. 42.

    Art. 700(2) CCP.

  43. 43.

    Art. 700(2) CCP: ‘(…) De voorzieningenrechter beslist na summier onderzoek. (…)’.

  44. 44.

    Asser Procesrecht/Steneker 5 2019, nos. 197, 198.

  45. 45.

    This can be very soon as it concerns preliminary relief proceedings.

  46. 46.

    Art. 702 CCP.

  47. 47.

    The preliminary relief judge will determine this period.

  48. 48.

    Art. 700(3) CCP: ‘Tenzij op het tijdstip van het verlof reeds een eis in de hoofdzaak is ingesteld, wordt het verlof verleend onder voorwaarde dat het instellen daarvan geschiedt binnen een door de voorzieningenrechter daartoe te bepalen termijn van ten minste acht dagen na het beslag. (…)’.

  49. 49.

    Art. 700(3) CCP.

  50. 50.

    Art. 704(1) CCP. Nevertheless, the title to enforcement has to be served on the debtor (Art. 704(1) CCP).

  51. 51.

    Art. 700(2) CCP.

  52. 52.

    Art. 705(1) CCP, cf. Art. 705(2) CCP.

  53. 53.

    In full: Wet van 14 november 2016, houdende uitvoering van Verordening (EU) nr. 655/2014 van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 15 mei 2014 tot vaststelling van een procedure betreffende het Europees bevel tot conservatoir beslag op bankrekeningen om de grensoverschrijdende inning van schuldvorderingen in burgerlijke en handelszaken te vergemakkelijken (PbEU 2014, L 189) (Uitvoeringswet verordening Europees bevel tot conservatoir beslag op bankrekeningen). See for (the text of) the implementation Act: wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0038749/2017–01-18. See, in general, Explanatory Memorandum of the implementation Act (Kamerstukken II 2015/16, 34 462, 3, p. 1–21), see also: C.E. Oudshoorn, Grensoverschrijdend bankbeslag op geldvorderingen, Deventer: Wolters Kluwer 2018, no. 4.3.3.7.

  54. 54.

    Cf. the degree implementing this Act stating that the implementation Act entered into force on 18 January 2017 (Besluit van 17 november 2016 tot vaststelling van het tijdstip van inwerkingtreding van de Uitvoeringswet verordening Europees bevel tot conservatoir beslag op bankrekeningen, see: zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stb-2016–441.html).

  55. 55.

    Kamerstukken II 2015/16, 34 462, 3, p. 8: ‘Dit wetsvoorstel geeft daarom alleen uitvoering aan bepalingen die uitvoering behoeven’. See for an overview, the appendix to the Explanatory Memorandum (ibid. p. 18–21). Interesting is the expectation, expressed by the Dutch legislator in the Explanatory Memorandum, that the legislative proposal will lead to a change in the workload of the judiciary; the Council for the Judiciary (Raad voor de rechtspraak) expected the total workload consequences for the procedure to be € 269,512 per year (from 2017) (ibid. p. 10).

  56. 56.

    Nederlandse Vereniging voor Rechtspraak.

  57. 57.

    Koninklijke Beroepsorganisatie van Gerechtsdeurwaarders.

  58. 58.

    Raad voor de rechtspraak.

  59. 59.

    Nederlandse Vereniging van Banken.

  60. 60.

    Adviescommissie voor burgerlijk procesrecht.

  61. 61.

    Kamerstukken II 2015/16, 34 462, 3, p. 10.

  62. 62.

    See: zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-34462–3.html.

  63. 63.

    Kamerstukken II 2015/16, 34 462, 3, p. 8: ‘Het wetsvoorstel laat de Europese procedure zo veel mogelijk aansluiten bij de nationale procedure voor het leggen van conservatoir beslag’, cf. ibid. p. 9: ‘Het wetsvoorstel zorgt ervoor dat de Europese procedure zoveel mogelijk aansluit bij de nationale procedure’.

  64. 64.

    See: Art. 12(1) EAPO Regulation, cf. Kamerstukken II 2015/16, 34 462, 3, p. 8.

  65. 65.

    See: Art. 701(1) CCP.

  66. 66.

    Kamerstukken II 2015/16, 34 462, 3, p. 8: ‘In de praktijk wordt hier weinig gebruik van gemaakt’.

  67. 67.

    Ibid. p. 8.

  68. 68.

    Ibid. p. 8.

  69. 69.

    See: Kamerstukken II 2015/16, 34 462, 3, p. 8 with a reference to Article 718 CCP in conjunction with Article 475 CCP.

  70. 70.

    Other differences are, inter alia, different terms and different conditions under which the parties can be heard, see: Kamerstukken II 2015/16, 34 462, 3, p. 8–9 and C.G. Van der Plas & D. Beunk, ‘Het Europees bankbeslag in de Nederlandse praktijk. Een herijking van beslagroutes in grensoverschrijdend verband’, Tijdschrift Financiering, Zekerheden en Insolventierechtpraktijk 2018, issue 6, p. 34–40.

  71. 71.

    Cf. Oudshoorn 2018, no. 4.3.3.7. Cf. Art. 46(1) EAPO Regulation: ‘All procedural issues not specifically dealt with in this Regulation shall be governed by the law of the Member State in which the procedure takes place’.

  72. 72.

    Pursuant to Articles 10(2), 23(3), (5) and (6), 25(3), 27(2) and 28(3) and the second subparagraph of 36(5) of the EAPO Regulation.

  73. 73.

    The bailiff as defined in the Bailiffs Act, see: Kamerstukken II 2015/16, 34 462, 3, p. 10–11. So, the bailiff will serve the Preservation Order to the bank, as is currently also the national procedure (ibid. p. 11).

  74. 74.

    Art. 5(2) implementation Act, cf. Art. 14(5) EAPO Regulation. See with regard to the procedure: Kamerstukken II 2015/16, 34 462, 3, p. 13–14. See also Van der Plas & Beunk 2018, p. 38–39. See with regard to the costs of such an information-request: Art. 11 implementation Act.

  75. 75.

    Kamerstukken II 2015/16, 34 462, 3, p. 13.

  76. 76.

    ‘bevel tot conservatoir beslag’, Art. 5(3) implementation Act, cf. Art. 14(8) EAPO Regulation.

  77. 77.

    Article 14(5) of the EAPO Regulation gives Member States a number of options for ensuring that account information can be obtained. See: Kamerstukken II 2015/16, 34,462, 3, p. 12: ‘Het strekt te ver om een dergelijk register op te tuigen voor deze Europese procedure met beperkt toepassingsgebied’. See also, inter alia, Th. P. Ten Brink, M.H. Gardien & S.E. Poutsma, ‘Het Nederlandse bankbeslag; Hoe kunnen de knelpunten worden opgelost?’, in: S.J.W. van der Putten & M.R. van Zanten (ed.), Compendium Beslag- en executierecht, Den Haag: Sdu 2018, p. 594–596; O.J. Boeder, ‘Het Europese bankbeslag creëert rechtsongelijkheid’, Tijdschrift voor de Procespraktijk 2016, afl. 4, p. 91–92. Cf. Art. 14(5) (a) EAPO Regulation.

  78. 78.

    Kamerstukken II 2015/16, 34 462, 3, p. 12: ‘(…) De mogelijkheid om de deurwaarder toegang tot informatie van het UWV te geven, zal dus weinig doeltreffend zijn. (…)’. Cf. Art. 14(5) (b) EAPO Regulation.

  79. 79.

    Ibid. p. 12: ‘(…) In Nederland kennen we een dergelijk systeem niet. (…)’. Cf. Art. 14(5) (c) Regulation.

  80. 80.

    Art. 3 implementation Act, see also: Kamerstukken II 2015/16, 34 462, 3, p. 11.

  81. 81.

    See: Art. 700(1) CCP, see also: Kamerstukken II 2015/16, 34 462, 3, p. 11.

  82. 82.

    Kamerstukken II 2015/16, 34 462, 3, p. 11: ‘(…) Omdat de voorzieningenrechter van de rechtbank al ervaring heeft met het beoordelen van verzoeken om conservatoir beslag, ligt het voor de hand om deze rechter ook verzoeken om een Europees beslagbevel te laten behandelen. (…)’.

  83. 83.

    Art. 14(5) EAPO Regulation.

  84. 84.

    Explanatory Memorandum to the implementation Act, see: Kamerstukken II 2015/16, 34 462, 3, p. 12.

  85. 85.

    The bailiff is the information authority as mentioned in the Regulation; the Netherlands have chosen to use the method as mentioned in Article 14(5) under d EAPO Regulation.

  86. 86.

    See for this example the Explanatory Memorandum to the implementation Act (Kamerstukken II 2015/16, 34 462, 3, p. 13).

  87. 87.

    Art. 8(2) under f EAPO Regulation.

  88. 88.

    The EAPO Regulation wants to make sure that banks do not pass on the request for information to the debtor. In this contribution, the question whether the general bank terms in the Netherlands need to be adjusted, is not discussed, because it may be that general bank terms contain(ed) a clause that the banks have to inform the debtors in case of a request for information.

  89. 89.

    Art. 5(3) implementation Act.

  90. 90.

    On the basis of Article 475g(1) CCP, a general obligation for the debtor exists to ‘declare his sources of income’, if so requested by a bailiff. With a reference to this article, in 1991 the Dutch Supreme Court ruled that a debtor had an obligation to provide information to the creditor in the execution phase (Supreme Court 20 September 1991, ECLI:NL:HR:1991:ZC0338, NJ 1992/552 (Tripels v. Masson), para 4.1); in September 2018, the District Court of Amsterdam held that the obligation to provide information also applied in the conservatory phase (District Court Amsterdam 18 September 2018, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2018:6641, para 4.4). The obligation to provide information arises from the principle of ‘reasonableness and fairness’ (Art. 6:2 and 6:248 Dutch Civil Code)) (see: Annotation J.B.M. Vranken, Supreme Court 20 September 1991, NJ 1992/552, no. 9). However, the obligation to provide information is not unlimited; the Dutch Supreme Court (also) ruled in 1991 that the obligation did not go that far that the debtor can, in fact, be held accountable for his own financial position (para 4.1). In addition, the obligation did not go that far as to require the debtor to (documented) account for the amount of the income he had received (Court of Appeal Leeuwarden 30 March 2010, ECLI:NL:GHLEE:2010:BL9953, para 11). In short: the extent of the obligation may vary from case to case (cf. District Court Limburg 17 April 2018, ECLI:NL:RBLIM: 2018:3649, para 4.5). Any bailiff, who is entitled to seize against a debtor, is authorized to ask the person, he assumes making or arguably making periodic payments to the debtor, whether this is the case (Art. 475g(2) CCP).

  91. 91.

    In the Netherlands, Dutch case law will be published on the official website of the Dutch judiciary: www.rechtspraak.nl. However, not all judgments that are delivered, are published on this website. In a decision, the ‘Besluit selectiecriteria uitsprakendatabank Rechtspraak.nl’, a description of the categories and/or characteristics of judgments that will be published on www.rechtspraak.nl, is given. On enquiry (by e-mail) at the Council for the Judiciary (Raad voor de rechtspraak) in June 2020, it turned out that no (more) quantitative information in this regard was available. Cf. Van der Plas & Beunk 2018, p. 30: ‘In heel Nederland zouden er in totaal (slechts) 26 bevelen zijn uitgevaardigd.11’; in their contribution, authors quote from an unpublished decision of the District Court of Amsterdam (from this decision it would follow that the District Court gave precedence to the EAPO Regulation over the Brussels I bis Regulation) (ibid. p. 33–34).

  92. 92.

    In several of these cases more subjects come across, but we have categorized this case law so far based on these four main subjects.

  93. 93.

    District Court Gelderland 1 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2018:1217. See also: Asser Procesrecht/Steneker 5 2019, no. 210; M. Zilinksy, GS Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, aanhef EAPO-Vo, note 22 (online, updated until 4 November 2019); Oudshoorn 2018, no. 7.5.2.2; Van der Plas & Beunk 2018, p. 30, 36.

  94. 94.

    Ibid. para 1.7.

  95. 95.

    As required by the preliminary relief judge in February 2018 (ibid. para 1.3).

  96. 96.

    Cf. recital 18 of the preamble of the EAPO Regulation.

  97. 97.

    District Court Gelderland 1 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2018:1217, para 1.6.

  98. 98.

    Ibid. para 1.7.

  99. 99.

    Ibid. para 1.7.

  100. 100.

    Ibid. para 1.7.

  101. 101.

    Ibid. paras 1.7, 2.

  102. 102.

    District Court Den Haag 2 November 2018, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:14523, paras 2.6, 3, see also ibid. para 2.3.

  103. 103.

    Ibid. para 2.4.2. Due to its (unintentional) share in the unlawful conduct of the respondent, the other applicant argued that she incurred considerable damage to her reputation, as a result of which she was dealing with loss of income (ibid. para 2.4.2). In paras 2.1–2.3 the judge gave an outline of the legal framework (i.e. Art. 7(1) and (2) EAPO Regulation).

  104. 104.

    Ibid. para 2.5.

  105. 105.

    Ibid. para 2.5.

  106. 106.

    Ibid. para 2.5.

  107. 107.

    Ibid. para 2.6.

  108. 108.

    District Court Rotterdam 27 November 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:9770, para 1.1. See also: R.E. van Esch, Giraal betalingsverkeer/Elektronisch betalingsverkeer, Deventer: Wolters Kluwer 2019, no. 13.2.2. Applicant already submitted this request in September 2018 (ibid. para 1.1).

  109. 109.

    Ibid. para 1.2.

  110. 110.

    Ibid. para 1.3.

  111. 111.

    Ibid. para 1.4.

  112. 112.

    Ibid. para 1.5.

  113. 113.

    Ibid. para 1.5.

  114. 114.

    District Court Noord-Holland 15 January 2020, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2020:1471 and ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2020:1472.

  115. 115.

    See (both decisions): para 3.1.

  116. 116.

    See (both decisions): para 2.1.

  117. 117.

    See (both decisions): para 2.2.

  118. 118.

    Art. 12(1), second subparagraph EAPO Regulation: ‘By way of exception, the court may dispense with the requirement set out in the first subparagraph if it considers that the provision of security referred to in that subparagraph is inappropriate in the circumstances of the case’.

  119. 119.

    See (both decisions): para 2.3.

  120. 120.

    Such circumstances could be, for instance, that the creditor has a particularly strong case but does not have sufficient means to provide security, that the claim relates to maintenance or to the payment of wages or that the size of the claim is such that the Order is unlikely to cause any damage to the debtor, for instance a small business debt, see (both decisions): para 2.3 (and recital 18 of the preamble of the EAPO Regulation).

  121. 121.

    See (both decisions): para 2.4.

  122. 122.

    See (both decisions): para 2.4.

  123. 123.

    See (both decisions): para 2.5.

  124. 124.

    See (both decisions): para 2.5.

  125. 125.

    See (both decisions): para 2.6. Cf. ibid. para 2.7 in which the judge made a reference to the draft summons of applicants.

  126. 126.

    See (both decisions): para 2.8.

  127. 127.

    See (both decisions): para 3.1.

  128. 128.

    District Court Rotterdam 4 April 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:3235. See also: Asser Procesrecht/Steneker 5 2019, no. 264; M. Zilinksy, GS Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, aanhef EAPO-Vo, note 33 (online, updated until 4 November 2019); Van der Plas & Beunk 2018, p. 30, 31, 38.

  129. 129.

    Ibid. para 2.3. The judge made a reference in this regard to the implementing regulation (ibid. para 2.3).

  130. 130.

    Since no standard form has been established for the refusal of these requests, the refusal has, according to the judge, to be included in a decision (and not in a judgment) (ibid. para 2.4).

  131. 131.

    Ibid. para 2.5.

  132. 132.

    Ibid. para 2.5.

  133. 133.

    District Court Rotterdam 23 May 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:6658. See also: Van der Plas & Beunk 2018, p. 30, 38.

  134. 134.

    Ibid. para 2.3.

  135. 135.

    Ibid. para 2.4.

  136. 136.

    District Court Den Haag 13 February 2019, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2019:1289. See also: Van Esch 2019, no. 13.2.2.

  137. 137.

    Ibid. para 2.3. The judge made a reference to the (separate) standard forms in which the granting would take place (para 2.3).

  138. 138.

    Ibid. paras 2.4, 2.5, see also: para 3.1.

  139. 139.

    Ibid. para 2.6.

  140. 140.

    Ibid. para 2.7.

  141. 141.

    Court of Appeal’s-Hertogenbosch 29 August 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3764. See also: Asser Procesrecht/Steneker 5 2019, no. 168; M. Zilinksy, GS Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering, aanhef EAPO-Vo, notes 15, 21 and 28 (online, updated until 4 November 2019); Oudshoorn 2018, nos. 5.4.2, 7.5.2.2; Van der Plas & Beunk 2018, p. 30.

  142. 142.

    Ibid. para 3.1.1.

  143. 143.

    Ibid. paras 3.1.1, 3.1.2.

  144. 144.

    Ibid. para 3.1.3.

  145. 145.

    Ibid. para 3.1.4. The Dutch buyer submitted his claim in the principal action in February 2017; he based this claim on the fact that X failed in the performance of its obligations (ibid. para 3.1.6).

  146. 146.

    Ibid. para 3.2.1.

  147. 147.

    Ibid. paras 3.2.2, 3.7.

  148. 148.

    Ibid. para 3.4.

  149. 149.

    Ibid. paras 3.6–3.6.6.

  150. 150.

    Ibid. para 3.16.

  151. 151.

    Ibid. paras 3.9–3.9.2.

  152. 152.

    Ibid. para 3.9.3. In para 3.9.4, the Court of Appeal made reference(s) to case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in this context.

  153. 153.

    Ibid. paras 3.10–3.11.10.

  154. 154.

    Ibid. para 3.11.11.

  155. 155.

    Ibid. para 3.11.11.

  156. 156.

    Ibid. paras 3.12–3.13.

  157. 157.

    Ibid. para 3.16.

  158. 158.

    Ibid. para 3.16.

  159. 159.

    Ibid. paras 3.17–3.25.

  160. 160.

    Court of Appeal Arnhem-Leeuwarden 5 June 2020, ECLI:NL:GHARL:2020:5062.

  161. 161.

    Ibid. para 3.1.

  162. 162.

    Ibid. para 3.1.

  163. 163.

    Ibid. para 3.2.

  164. 164.

    Ibid. para 3.2.

  165. 165.

    Ibid. para 3.2.

  166. 166.

    Ibid. paras 3.5–3.11, cf. paras 3.3–3.4.

  167. 167.

    Ibid. para 3.8 in conjunction with para 3.7.

  168. 168.

    Ibid. para 3.8 in conjunction with para 3.7.

  169. 169.

    Ibid. para 3.9.

  170. 170.

    Ibid. para 3.10.

  171. 171.

    Ibid. para 3.11.

  172. 172.

    Ibid. para 3.12.

  173. 173.

    Ibid. para 3.13.

  174. 174.

    Ibid. para 3.14.

  175. 175.

    Ibid. paras 5.1–5.2, cf. para 4.

  176. 176.

    District Court Rotterdam 28 March 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:2712. See also: Van Esch 2019, no. 13.2.2; Oudshoorn 2018, no. 7.5.2.2; Van der Plas & Beunk 2018, p. 30, 35.

  177. 177.

    Ibid. paras 2.14, 3.1.

  178. 178.

    Ibid. para 4.1–4.15.

  179. 179.

    Ibid. para 4.18.

  180. 180.

    Ibid. para 4.19. The judge considered defendant not to be prejudiced in her defense due to the late submission of the form as defendant could expect the other party to contest the attachment at law. In addition, defendant had been offered sufficient opportunity to respond to this remedy at the hearing (ibid. para 4.20).

  181. 181.

    Ibid. para 4.23. The judge made a reference to Article 7(2) of the Regulation in conjunction with Sect. 6.1.1.5 of the model form.

  182. 182.

    Ibid. para 4.24.

  183. 183.

    Ibid. para 4.24.

  184. 184.

    Ibid. para 4.25. Cf. the following, interesting, consideration of the preliminary relief judge; since there was no separate model form for the decision (in the present case: beslissing) to be taken on the remedy to revoke or modify a European bank attachment, the decision (beslissing) will be recorded in the present judgment as it concerned a remedy (ibid. para 4.21).

  185. 185.

    District Court Midden-Nederland 24 June 2020, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2020:2301.

  186. 186.

    Ibid. para 2.4.

  187. 187.

    Ibid. para 3.1 in conjunction with para 5.1 under a.

  188. 188.

    Ibid. para 5.2 in conjunction with paras 5.3, 5.4.

  189. 189.

    Ibid. para 5.2 in conjunction with para 5.6.

  190. 190.

    Ibid. para 5.2, cf. para 5.8.

  191. 191.

    Ibid. para 5.2, cf. para 5.11.

  192. 192.

    Ibid. para 5.2 in conjunction with para 5.13.

  193. 193.

    Ibid. para 5.1 under b (cf. under c) in conjunction with para 5.17.

  194. 194.

    Ibid. para 5.1 under d, cf. para 5.22.

  195. 195.

    Ibid. para 5.5.

  196. 196.

    Ibid. para 5.7.

  197. 197.

    Ibid. para 5.7.

  198. 198.

    Ibid. para 5.10, cf. para 5.9.

  199. 199.

    Ibid. para 5.12.

  200. 200.

    Ibid. para 5.14.

  201. 201.

    Ibid. para 5.20.

  202. 202.

    Ibid. para 5.23.

  203. 203.

    In Dutch literature, however, it has been argued that this creates legal inequality, see: Boeder 2016, p. 89: ‘Die bevragingsbevoegdheid bestaat niet voor een Nederlandse beslaglegger die ten laste van een Nederlandse schuldenaar bankbeslag legt. De Verordening is alleen van toepassing op grensoverschrijdende inning van schuldvorderingen. Dit creëert rechtsongelijkheid en is daardoor schadelijk voor de civiele invordering.’.

  204. 204.

    Cf. the ‘Besluit selectiecriteria uitsprakendatabank Rechtspraak.nl’.

  205. 205.

    See: Van der Plas & Beunk 2018, p. 40: ‘Onbekend maakt onbemind. Het EAPO lijkt hiervan een sprekend voorbeeld. In de praktijk wordt het EAPO nog weinig toegepast, terwijl het EAPO bij de gelijktijdige beslaglegging van verschillende bankrekeningen in diverse lidstaten wel degelijk interessante voordelen biedt ten opzichte van de lokale- of de Brussel Ibis-route. (…) Voor beslaglegging op in Nederland gelegen bankrekeningen zullen vooral de verplichte zekerheidstelling en de beperkte omvang van het EAPO reden zijn voor een schuldeiser om toch te kiezen voor een Nederlands conservatoire derdenbeslag.’.

References

  • Boeder OJ (2016) Het Europese bankbeslag creëert rechtsongelijkheid. Tijdschrift voor de Procespraktijk issue 4

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuniberti G, Migliorini S (2018) The European account preservation order regulation: a commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2018 (online)

    Google Scholar 

  • Oudshoorn CE (2018) Grensoverschrijdend bankbeslag op geldvorderingen. Deventer: Wolters Kluwer

    Google Scholar 

  • Ten Brink ThP, Gardien MH, Poutsma SE (2018) Het Nederlandse bankbeslag; hoe kunnen de knelpunten worden opgelost? In: van der Putten SJW, van Zanten MR (eds) Compendium Beslag-en executierecht, Den Haag: Sdu 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Plas CG, Beunk D (2018) Het Europees bankbeslag in de Nederlandse praktijk. Een herijking van beslagroutes in grensoverschrijdend verband. Tijdschrift Financiering, Zekerheden en Insolventierechtpraktijk, issue 6

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands

    Bart Krans & Pauline Ribbers

Authors
  1. Bart Krans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pauline Ribbers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bart Krans .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan

    Masahisa Deguchi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Krans, B., Ribbers, P. (2022). The European Account Preservation Order in Dutch Practice. In: Deguchi, M. (eds) Effective Enforcement of Creditors’ Rights. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 91. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5609-5_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-5609-5_14

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-16-5608-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-16-5609-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation