Written by Bas van Vliet and Yuan Groeneveld.

When a debtor holds funds in a foreign account or a foreign debtor has a Dutch bank account, securing their claim can be challenging. The European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) can offer a solution. But how exactly does this procedure work, and how does it compare to the Dutch prejudgement garnishment (conservatoir derdenbeslag).

Approximately eight years after its introduction, practice shows that the European bank attachment is still relatively unknown. In this blog, we provide insight into the possibilities this instrument offers. We will explain what the EAPO entails, compare it to the Dutch prejudgement garnishment, outline its advantages and disadvantages, and discuss when a creditor can utilise the EAPO.

 

What is the EAPO Regulation?

Since its entry into force on 18 January 2017, EAPO has made it easier for creditors to secure funds held in foreign bank accounts until a final judgment is rendered in the proceeding on the merits.[1]This prevent debtors from transferring their assets before the court issues a ruling. The ultimate aim of EAPO is to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters.

Previously, a creditor had to file a separate applications for account preservation in each country where the debtor held a bank account. This meant that the creditor had to deal with different legal systems and procedures, resulting in additional time and costs. With the introduction of EAPO, creditors can now obtain a single order from one court to impose account preservation on multiple bank accounts across almost all EU member states, with the exception of Denmark. For example, a Dutch court can order the account preservation of a debtor’s bank account in Spain.

 

Comparison with Dutch prejudgement garnishment

When a creditor suspects that a debtor holds funds in a bank account, they can request the preliminary relief judge to freeze the assets. This prevents the debtor from transferring or spending the money before a final judgment is issued. In the Netherlands, this is done through a prejudgement garnishment.

Imposing a prejudgment garnishment on a Dutch bank account is relatively straightforward. The creditor, through their lawyer, submits a digital request for a prejudgment garnishment – known in Dutch as a “beslagrekest” - to the preliminary relief judge. If granted, a bailiff garnishes the debtor’s bank account(s).

But what if the debtor holds a bank account in another EU country? In that case, the EAPO can provide a solution.

 

The advantages and disadvantages of the EAPO Regulation compared to the Dutch prejudgment garnishment

The EAPO Regulation offers several advantages for creditors dealing with a debtor's bank account in another EU country, but it also has certain drawbacks.

Advantages
The EAPO Regulation eliminates the need for creditors to initiate separate account preservation procedures in each country where the debtor holds a bank account. Instead, the creditor can initiate the procedure in a single jurisdiction by requesting the court that has jurisdiction over the proceedings on the merits to issue an account preservation order. Additionally, the application for an EAPO is submitted using standardised forms rather than a formal prejudgement garnishment request (beslagrekest). Another advantage is that the debtor is not notified of the application for an EAPO before the order is issued. Furthermore, if the court rejects the EAPO application in whole or in part, the creditor has the right to appeal. In addition, the EAPO application form can be filed without the assistance of a lawyer. However, in practice, we get the impression that the Dutch courts significantly complicate this process.   

The EAPO also enables creditors to request account information from the same court, including whether the debtor holds a bank account in a specific country, the name of the bank, and the IBAN number of the bank account.

Disadvantages
The EAPO is subject to strict evidentiary requirements. If a creditor applies for an EAPO before obtaining a judgement, they must provide security, as specified in the standardised application form. In the event of the dismissal of the claim in the proceedings on the merits, the creditor must compensate the debtor for any damages caused by the temporary freezing of their bank account(s). Only if the creditor can provide sufficiently convincing evidence that the main claim is likely to be upheld are they exempt from the obligation to provide security. Additionally, the creditor must provide evidence showing that there is an urgent need for a EAPO order and that the claim in the proceedings on the merits is likely to be upheld. In practice, if the debtor has acknowledged or has not contested the claim, security may not be required.

Moreover, the EAPO imposes a maximum amount that may be seized. If the balance in the bank account exceeds this limit, only the specified amount imposed in the order may be seized. This differs from the Dutch prejudgement garnishment, which allows for the seizure of the debtor’s entire positive bank balance. Additionally, unlike the Dutch prejudgement garnishment, the EAPO does not allow for a so-called “repetitive seizure” on funds deposited into the bank account after the seizure date.

Finally, the costs of filing an EAPO application vary per country. In the Netherlands, the costs for an EAPO application are equivalent to the costs for a Dutch prejudgement garnishment request. As of 2025, these costs amount to EUR 714 for legal entities and EUR 331 for a natural person.

 

When is the EAPO useful?

The EAPO exists alongside the national procedure of EU member states, allowing creditors to choose between them. The EAPO is particularly useful when a debtor holds multiple bank accounts in different EU countries, as it enables the creditor to secure funds without initiating separate account preservation procedures in multiple jurisdictions. For bank accounts located in the Netherlands, creditors may prefer the Dutch prejudgement garnishment due to the mandatory security requirement and the limited scope of the EAPO.

 

Conclusion

Although EAPO is still relatively infrequently used, it can be highly beneficial when freezing multiple bank accounts across different EU member states simultaneously. It offers several advantages over the local routes, particularly in countries where account preservation/prejudgement garnishment via national procedures is (almost) impossible. If you have any questions after reading this blog, please feel free to contact us. We are happy to assist you exploring (international) garnishment possibilities.

[1] The European Account Preservation Order for debt recovery between EU countries.