The CJEU clarifies that an insolvency opened outside the EU does not close the door to the European Account Preservation Order (C-716/24, Ponner)

The Fourth Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled, in its judgment of 5 November 2026 in case C-716/24, Ponner, on a request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main, Germany), with two findings of great practical use for the cross-border enforcement of claims: the opening of insolvency proceedings against the debtor in a third country (in this case, Curaçao) excludes from the scope of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 neither the issue of a European Account Preservation Order nor the request for information on bank accounts, and the "substantiated grounds" that article 14 requires for requesting that information may be established through demonstrated economic links between the debtor and the Member State concerned, even where no specific account is known.

The instrument at stake: Regulation 655/2014

Regulation (EU) No 655/2014, of 15 May 2014, establishes a European procedure for the preservation of bank accounts "in order to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters". Its mechanism allows the creditor to request that the debtor's funds deposited in bank accounts in another Member State be preserved, and its article 14 adds an essential tool for the common cases where the creditor does not know where the debtor holds accounts: the request for the obtaining of account information, by which the court asks the information authorities of another Member State for the data needed to identify the debtor's bank and accounts. The substantive condition of article 7, which the German appellant invoked relying on the insolvency, is the risk that the subsequent recovery of the claim will be prevented or considerably impeded.

The facts: an online gambling debt and a "shell" company

The main dispute pits EJ, domiciled in Germany, against DX NV, a company incorporated under the law of Curaçao engaged in the operation of games of chance. EJ obtained from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main a final and enforceable default judgment ordering DX to pay 57,364 euros, plus interest and costs, by way of reimbursement of the losses EJ suffered in online gambling.

On 29 May 2024, EJ filed with that same court a request to obtain information on bank accounts which, in its view, DX maintained in Cyprus (article 14 of Regulation 655/2014), together with an application for a European Account Preservation Order over those accounts (article 7). In support of both it argued that the stakes were transferred to DX through two Cypriot companies and that the debtor had no attachable assets in Curaçao, being, in its opinion, a "shell" company. The Landgericht dismissed the information request on 5 June 2024 (the involvement of Cypriot companies in the transfers did not prove that DX held accounts there) and announced the dismissal of the preservation order, because neither the absence of attachable assets in Curaçao nor any account had been established.

EJ appealed on 20 June 2024 to the Oberlandesgericht, submitting a new fact: according to the Curaçao Commercial Register, insolvency proceedings had been opened against DX on 10 June 2024, which, in its view, established the risk that enforcement would be impeded. The referring court explained that German law (article 343.1 of the Insolvency Code) recognises the opening of foreign insolvency proceedings pursuing equivalent objectives, a requirement the Curaçao proceedings met, and put to the Court of Justice the core question: whether that third-country insolvency excludes the application of Regulation 655/2014 and how the "substantiated grounds" of article 14 are to be understood.

First question: the article 2.2.c) exclusion does not reach third-country insolvencies

Article 2(2)(c) of Regulation 655/2014 excludes from its scope "claims against a debtor in respect of whom proceedings for the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons have been initiated". The lower court considered that, in the light of recital 8, that exclusion prevented the order from being issued against a debtor in insolvency. The Court of Justice dismantles that reading with a systematic argument: recital 8 refers to the insolvency proceedings defined in Regulation No 1346/2000, now replaced by Regulation (EU) 2015/848, and the latter (articles 1.1 and 2.4) defines insolvency proceedings as those listed in its Annex A, which covers only proceedings opened in Member States.

Curaçao, the judgment recalls, appears in Annex II to the TFEU as an overseas country and territory (OCT) subject to the association regime of articles 198 to 204 TFEU, and neither the Treaties nor Decision 2021/1764 extend Regulation 655/2014 or Regulation 2015/848 to the OCTs: for the purposes of both regulations, DX's insolvency is an insolvency opened in a third country. The judgment reinforces the conclusion with article 46.2 of Regulation 655/2014, which allocates effects only between preservation and insolvencies opened in Member States, with no rule at all for those opened in third countries.

The operative part, in its first point, declares that article 2(2)(c), "in the light of its recital 8, must be interpreted as not excluding from the scope of that Regulation claims against a debtor in respect of whom insolvency proceedings have been opened in a third country", so that it excludes neither the issue of the preservation order nor the information request, provided that the national law of the competent Member State recognises those insolvency proceedings (as German law did in this case).

Second question: "substantiated grounds" and demonstrated economic links

The article 14 request for account information requires that the creditor have "substantiated grounds for believing that the debtor holds one or more accounts with a bank in a specific Member State" and that the request be "well-founded". The Court of Justice interprets that account must be taken of circumstances which, without specifically indicating the existence of a bank account in that Member State, allow the existence of demonstrated economic links between the debtor and that State to be shown.

The case provides the example: DX operated, according to its own website, a company established in Cyprus that served as its local agency through a Cypriot branch; the payment service provider involved in the transfer of the stakes formed part of DX's group, and DX's managing director was also managing director of a company with its registered office in Cyprus. The referring court had already held that those close links sufficed to justify the application, and the Court of Justice has endorsed that line: article 14 does not require knowing the bank and the account number (precisely what the request seeks to discover), but serious indications of an economic connection.

Practical significance for enforcement in Europe

The judgment reinforces the European Account Preservation Order as a useful instrument against debtors structured through third jurisdictions (online gambling companies domiciled in territories such as Curaçao are the case's own example) and dispels two frequent excuses: neither foreign insolvency paralyses the European route by itself, nor does the information request demand impossible prior identification. For cross-border civil enforcement practices, Ponner sets an attainable evidentiary standard consistent with the purpose of the mechanism. It forms part of the Court of Justice's intense recent activity in civil justice, on which this publication has reported in cases such as judgment C-798/24, Jautiva or the right to legal assistance in case C-660/24.

The costs of the preliminary ruling proceedings fall to the referring court, as they are incidental to the main dispute.

Frequently asked questions

Does a debtor's insolvency outside the EU prevent the European preservation order?

No. The CJEU interprets article 2.2.c) of Regulation 655/2014 as referring only to insolvency proceedings listed for the Member States, not to those opened in third countries, provided national law recognises those proceedings.

What must be shown to request account information in another Member State?

Substantiated grounds that the debtor holds accounts there, which can be demonstrated through established economic links (subsidiaries, payment providers, common directors) without needing to know the bank or account number.

What is the European Account Preservation Order?

The mechanism of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 allowing a creditor with an enforceable title to preserve the debtor's funds in bank accounts located in another Member State, simplifying cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters.

Sources

• Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) of 5 November 2026, C-716/24, Ponner (EUR-Lex)