Green Ltd: A View from Vilnius

This post was contributed by Daryna Shykeriava, who is a PhD researcher at Mykolas Romeris University (Vilnius, Lithuania). It is the first contribution to the online symposium on Mr Green Ltd.

On 21 May 2026 the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter – CJEU) rendered the judgment in the case C-198/24 (TQ v Mr Green Limited) (hereinafter – Judgment) related to the interpretation of the conditions for the issuance of the European Account Preservation Order (hereinafter – Preservation Order). The Judgment deals with the application of Article 7(1) of the Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 (hereinafter – Regulation) regarding the conditions for issuing a European Account Preservation Order and addresses the questions under which conditions the Preservation Order may be issues in cross-border civil proceedings.

Facts

The dispute arose between TQ (natural person residing in Austria) and Mr Green (online gambling company established in Malta), after TQ suffered losses amounting EUR 62 878 from the gambling activities on the online gambling platform held by Mr Green (para. 9). It was established that Mr Green holds Maltese license for online gambling but lacks Austrian license which is required according to the local legislation (para. 9).

TQ sued in Vienna, Austria, where its action was upheld in first instance and appeal. The decision became enforceable (res judicata) on 13 April 2022, but the judgment was not executed (paras. 10-11). Subsequently, on 13 February 2024 (three years after final decision were made) TQ applied for a Preservation Order and asked to target the bank accounts of Mr Green in Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta and Sweden (para. 12). TQ argued that since Mr Green had already closed the bank account in Austria such action indicates that it seeks to avoid reimbursement of losses to previous debtors and may transfer his assets to Malta, where enforcement of foreign judgements is prohibited under the national law (para. 13). The national court dealing with the request of TQ for the application of the Preservation order referred the question to the CJEU asking how to interpret Article 7(1) of the Regulation, namely whether debtor’s actions to prevent enforcement of the claim done three (or more) years ago should be taken as a justification for issuing a Preservation Order (para. 21).

Assessment of the conditions for the issuance of the Preservation Order

In the Judgment the CJEU addressed one of the major elements of the Regulation, namely how the conditions for the issuance of the Preservation Order should be interpreted and what actions of the debtor may be taken by the national courts when dealing with the application for the issuance of the Preservation Order.

The CJEU highlighted that the creditor must prove “urgent need” of such measure in the light of “real risk” that enforcement will be impeded or made substantially difficult (para. 39). “Real risk” must originate from intentional actions of the debtor to evade payment of the creditor’s claim, but not from the threat to enforcement (para. 45).

The court found that the creditor can prove the “real risk” as the basis for the issuance of the Preservation Order relying on the debtor’s conduct in respect of the claim or previous disputes, credit history or any recent actions taken regarding the assets (para. 51). At the same time, non-payment of previous debts, multiple creditors or poor financial situation do not constitute sufficient grounds for issuing Preservation Order (para. 44). All the circumstances must be taken into account to make the overall assessment by the court (para. 54).

The CJEU established what are the relevant circumstances which the national court should consider when hearing the request for the issuance of the Preservation Order, namely:

• the previous actions of the debtor; however, the Regulation does not indicate the relevance of the time when it took place (para. 57).
• credit balance at the local payment operator may be the only one way to enforce the claim and account closure may constitute evidence of avoiding of payment (or at least making enforcement more difficult) (para. 58).
• amendments to the national legislation of the Member State where the debtor is established should be analysed not through the threat to enforcement of the debt, but through a real risk concerning debtor’s intention to avoid payment. However, it might be taken into account as a contextual element to assess potential debtor’s actions (paras. 59-61).

The CJEU ruled that the national court before which the application for Preservation Order is brought deciding whether there is an urgent need under Article 7(1) of the Regulation may take into account (i) debtor’s conduct regarding previous claims a number of years ago; (ii) the law of the Member State where the debtor is established to determine whether it may impede the enforcement of the claim (para. 62). Thus, the court found that not only subjective intentions of the debtor such as closing a payment account, but also objective factors, including the legislation of the country of the residence (establishment) of the debtor may be relevant when the national courts deal with the request for the issuance of the Preservation Order.

Analysis of the Judgment

The Judgment deals with the very essence of the application of the Regulation. The Preservation Order is the measure established under the Regulation to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters. The procedure allows to receive a Preservation Order which prevents the debtor from withdrawing funds from bank accounts maintained in the Member States and therefore protects enforcement of the creditor’s claim. The Preservation Order is issued upon the application of the creditor. However, the creditor must submit to the court sufficient evidence to prove that there are an “urgent need” and a “real risk” of impediment (complication) of enforcement of the claim. In other words, the application of the Preservation Order is linked with the assessment of debtor’s behavior.

Though the Judgment provides more clarify regarding which circumstances of the debtor’s behavior should be considered by the national court when dealing with the application for the issuance of the Preservation Order under Article 7(1) of the Regulation, it also raises certain doubts regarding how such circumstances should be assessed and what other factors besides debtor’s behavior may be considered.

First, the question remains for what period of time should the actions of the debtor be assessed. TQ argued that the actions of Mr. Green performed three years before the request for the issuance of the Preservation Order was filed to the court should be also considered by the national court. The Regulation is silent when the actions serving as the basis for the issuance of the Preservation Order should have taken place. Though the referring court asked whether the behavior of the debtor three or more years justifies issuance of the Preservation Order, the CJEU found that the number of years may be taken into account, leaving apart the three or more years period condition. Such vague time period for the assessment of debtor’s behavior raises the question whether the proper balance is established between the interest of the debtor and the creditors and whether it is compatible with the aims of the Preservation Order to ensure effective enforcement of the judgment.

Second, the CJEU did not elaborate why actions of Mr Green closing the payment account should be regarded as triggering the “real risk” since the closing of a bank account itself is not an unlawful action. On the one hand, such actions as closing of payment account may create hurdles for enforcement of the claim. On another hand, it does not directly give rise to the “real risk” since it must be proved that the reason lies in intention of the debtor to evade payment of the claim.

Third, it is debatable whether the actions of the Member States of the European Union (its national law) correspond to the debtor’s intentions and should be considered while deciding the “real risk”. While it does not depend on the debtor, it still may be presented by the creditor as the argument for issuing a Preservation Order. The Regulation couples assessment of the “real risk” with the assessment of the actions of the debtor (Recital 14 of the Regulation), however, it is not linked with assessment of the actions of the third parties outside the case.

Though the Judgement brings more clarity which circumstances could be relevant for the assessment of the issuance of the Preservation Order under Article 7(1) of the Regulation, it leaves a rather vague impression. It illustrates that each fact is valuable for the assessment of “real risk” and “urgent need” while missing explanation which facts are decisive and which are not. Although the Judgments provides more leverage for the creditor to prove the conditions for the issuance of the Preservation Order, it leaves doubts whether it also provides the fair balance for the debtor.