- Consideration of the European Account Preservation Order Regulations No 655/2014 (KHK v BAC C-555/18)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Questions were referred to the Court of Justice as regards the interpretation of Regulation (EU) 655/2014 (Regulation) which sets up the procedure for European Account Preservation Orders (EAPOs). EAPOs are an alternative to national preservation measures. Article 5 of the Regulation provides that the EAPO shall be available to the creditor, inter alia, after the creditor has obtained in a Member State a judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument which requires the debtor to pay the creditor’s claim. Recital 37 of the Regulation provides that time limits shall be established to ensure swift issuance and enforcement, and such time limits shall only be derogated from in exceptional circumstances. The Bulgarian Court referred questions to the Court of Justice concerning the parameters of ‘authentic instrument’, and whether judicial vacation constituted exceptional circumstances. Written by Angharad Parry, barrister at Twenty Essex.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial