Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2026:165
Date: 2026-03-05
Language of the case: German

summary hearing in the Member State of origin, with the result that it constitutes a judgment within the meaning of Article 2(a) of [the Brussels Ia Regulation]’. See judgment of 7 April 2022, H Limited (C‑568/20, EU:C:2022:264, paragraph 32). 34 Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. 35 See judgments of 17 November 1983, Merck (292/82, EU:C:1983:335, paragraph 12), and of 25 February 2025, BSH Hausgeräte (C‑339/22, EU:C:2025:108, paragraph 27). 36 See judgment of 7 November 2019, K.H.K. (Account preservation) (C‑555/18, EU:C:2019:937, paragraphs 31 and 32). 37 As regards the territorial scope of the EAPO Regulation, Article 3(1) defines a cross-border case as ‘one in which the bank account or accounts to be preserved by the Preservation Order are maintained in a Member State other than: (a) the Member State of the court seised of the application for the Preservation Order pursuant to Article 6; or (b) the Member State in which the creditor is domiciled’. 38 See recital 8 of the EAPO Regulation. 39 In that respect, an administrator or liquidator may request, inter alia, that such an order be issued in the interest of the body of creditors in order to recover a payment made by the debtor before the date of the opening of the insolvency proceedings, so as to facilitate the pursuit of claims against an insolvent debtor or claims protecting the interests of the creditors. Moreover, the insolvent debtor may also obtain such an order if it is not dispossessed of its assets following the opening of the insolvency proceedings. 40 See, also, Article 7(2)(f) of the recast Insolvency Regulation. 41 This is also apparent from the texts that preceded the Brussels Ia Regulation, namely Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) and the 1968 Brussels Convention. 42 See, inter alia, judgment of 14 November 2024, Oilchart International (C‑394/22, EU:C:2024:952, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited). 43 See point 23 of this Opinion. 44 As a reminder, that principle is recognised in recital 63 of the recast Insolvency Regulation. 45 See Article 7(2)(f) of the recast Insolvency Regulation. 46 See, by way of illustration, Article 20 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. 47 Although the European Preservation Order may be enforced in the Member State of origin, its main objective is to facilitate the recovery of claims in a Member State other than the State of the court that ruled on the application for that Order. 48 See point 46 of this Opinion. 49 Note that Article 4(6) of the EAPO Regulation defines ‘creditor’ as ‘a natural person domiciled in a Member State or a legal person domiciled in a Member State or any other entity domiciled in a Member State having legal capacity to sue or be sued under the law of a Member State, who or which applies for, or has already obtained, a Preservation Order relating to a claim’. 50 See point 15 of this Opinion. 51 See Article 1(2) of the EAPO Regulation. 52 See Article 2 of the EAPO Regulation. 53 See Article 7 of the EAPO Regulation. 54 See recital 5 of the EAPO Regulation. See, in that regard, point 37 of this Opinion. 55 It should also be recalled that the exclusion contained in that provision of the EAPO Regulation constitutes an exception to the scheme established by that regulation and must, as a derogating provision, be strictly interpreted. See, by analogy, judgment of 6 June 2019, Weil (C‑361/18, EU:C:2019:473, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited). 56 Such a situation would even be conducive to forum shopping, particularly if the creditor considers applying for a Preservation Order before bringing substantive proceedings and before the courts of several Member States have jurisdiction to settle the case. 57 See point 49 of this Opinion. 58 Depending on the recognition or non-recognition of the opening of the insolvency proceedings of a third country. 59 Where the Member State of origin is also the Member State of enforcement, that factor should be taken into account to determine the effects of the recognition of insolvency proceedings of a third country. 60 See point 40 of this Opinion. 61 See point 52 of this Opinion.