The European Account Preservation Order (EAPO), based on Regulation (EU) No. 655/2014, allows creditors to make cross-border attachments of bank assets in EU member states. The instrument simplifies securing claims by filing an application in the national court, without the need for a separate procedure abroad. An EAPO attachment is particularly valuable in cases where swift action is required to prevent a debtor from hiding assets to frustrate recovery.

The CFD broker case: seizure of Cypriot accounts

In the case ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2022:402, a Cypriot broker challenged the validity of a European bank attachment. A Dutch plaintiff, a client of our firm, had applied to the Gelderland District Court for leave to preserve on the broker’s Cypriot bank. The court granted the order, after which three accounts at Eurobank Cyprus Ltd. were seized. By doing so, our client sought to secure redress for a claim related to unfair trading practices.

Arguments for lifting the attachment

The CFD broker opposed the attachment, stating that:

  1. Client accounts under MiFID II: According to the broker, the blocked accounts were client accounts, whose funds legally belonged to clients and not to the CFD broker. According to MiFID II regulations, these funds could not be used for business purposes.

  2. No pressing need: There would be no risk that the plaintiff would be unable to recover its claim because the accounts do not contain assets of the CFD broker itself.

The judicial consideration

The preliminary injunction judge denied the request for dissolution based on the following considerations:

  1. Urgent need for batter:

    • The CFD broker’s business model (CFD trading) has an inherent risk of asset fluctuations and diversion of funds.

    • The accounts at Eurobank Cyprus Ltd and Bank of Cyprus were the only known assets on which the claimant could recover.

    • Previous case law on similar CFD cases supported fears of uncollectability.

  2. Jurisdiction over account type:

    • The question of whether client accounts are exempt from attachment under Cypriot law is within the jurisdiction of Cypriot courts (Art. 31(3) EAPO Regulation). The Dutch court limited itself to assessing the urgency of the attachment.

  3. Procedural aspects:

    • The CFD broker should have challenged the objections to the account type through separate proceedings in Cyprus, not through summary proceedings in the Netherlands.

Key lessons from the judgment

  1. Focus on urgency: Dutch judges’ primary test in EAPO petitions is whether there is a real risk of irrecoverability, not the legal status of blocked accounts.

  2. International division of roles: The EAPO only regulates the enforcement of attachments. Questions about national attachment exemptions (e.g. client funds) remain subject to the law of the member state where the attachment is executed.

  3. Strategy for creditors: An EAPO provides quick security, but requires detailed substantiation of both the claim and the risk of asset withdrawal.

Conclusion

The CFD broker case illustrates how the EAPO Regulation helps creditors in cross-border debt collection, but also exposes the limits of the regime. Especially with complex financial structures (such as CFD brokers), close cooperation with local experts in the Member State of enforcement remains essential. The ruling further emphasizes the importance of proactive risk documentation to meet the EAPO criteria.