Short answer
There is no single EU-wide freezing, disclosure and service order. A claimant must match the measure to its purpose.
For money in a bank account, Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 creates the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO). It can freeze funds in a cross-border civil or commercial case before proceedings, during them, or after a judgment. The creditor must show a real risk that later enforcement would be impeded; before judgment, the creditor must also show a likely success on the claim and will normally provide security. The debtor is not heard before issue, but receives notice and remedies afterwards.
Other asset freezes and general evidence-preservation orders principally come from national procedural law. Brussels I bis allows a court to grant provisional measures available under its own law even where another Member State's court has jurisdiction on the merits. Intellectual-property claims receive a specific minimum evidence-preservation regime under Directive 2004/48.
Regulation 2020/1784 governs cross-border service. Regulation 2020/1783 lets courts request another Member State's court to take evidence or seek permission to take it directly, including by videoconference. Both still require national-law preparation.
Preserve the right asset with the right order
Brussels I bis separates jurisdiction over the merits from urgent protection. Article 35 says:
“application may be made to the courts of a Member State for such provisional ... measures as may be available under the law of that Member State”. —
This can support a national freezing, sequestration, inspection or evidence order. Proof, security and third-party effects remain national questions, and the applicant should show a real territorial link.
An order from a court with jurisdiction over the substance may circulate under Brussels I bis as a “judgment.” A provisional order made without the defendant being summoned cannot be enforced in another Member State under that regime until it has been served before enforcement. An applicant should therefore distinguish an urgent domestic order from one intended for cross-border recognition and plan service at the outset.
The European Account Preservation Order
The EAPO is an optional alternative to national preservation measures. It prevents transfer or withdrawal of funds up to the specified amount from a debtor's bank account in a participating Member State. It does not decide the merits or transfer money to the creditor. Enforcement and exempt amounts are governed largely by the enforcement state's law.
The procedure is available for pecuniary claims in cross-border civil and commercial matters, subject to exclusions such as revenue and administrative matters, certain matrimonial-property and succession claims, insolvency and arbitration. Denmark does not participate. A case is cross-border where the account is in a different participating Member State from the court handling the application or from the creditor's domicile.
The creditor may apply:
- before commencing merits proceedings, but must start them within the Regulation's deadline;
- while merits proceedings are pending; or
- after obtaining a judgment, court settlement or authentic instrument requiring payment.
Article 7 requires evidence of an urgent need because there is a real risk that, without preservation, later enforcement will be impeded or made substantially more difficult. Before an enforceable title exists, the creditor must also satisfy the court that the claim is likely to succeed. Mere non-payment, poor finances or foreign residence is not automatically enough; evidence of asset dissipation, transfers, concealment or an enforcement pattern is more persuasive.
In TQ v Mr Green, C-198/24, the Court held that older debtor conduct and home-state legislation capable of impeding enforcement may be considered. Neither automatically proves urgency: the risk must remain specific and current, and legislation is contextual evidence for assessing whether the debtor intends to avoid payment.
The application is ex parte so the debtor cannot move funds first. That advantage comes with safeguards. Before judgment, the court normally requires security sufficient to compensate the debtor for damage caused by a wrongful order. The creditor can be liable for fault-based damage, and the debtor can seek release, limitation or replacement security after service.
If the creditor does not know the account number, Article 14 can route a request through the enforcement state's information authority. Access is clearest once the creditor has an enforceable title; a not-yet-enforceable title requires a substantial claim and urgent account information, and pre-title access depends on the Regulation's narrower conditions and national method.
In K.H.K., C-555/18, the Court held that a national order for payment that was not enforceable was not an “authentic instrument” for the Regulation's post-title route. The classification and enforceability of the creditor's title therefore matter before selecting the application path.
Preserve evidence before it disappears
General evidence preservation remains primarily a matter of the forum's procedural law. An application should identify the evidence precisely, explain why it is relevant, show the risk of alteration or destruction, and propose proportionate protections for confidentiality, privilege, personal data and third-party rights. An overly broad request to search an opponent's entire business is vulnerable even where an ex parte measure exists.
For intellectual-property infringement, Article 7 of Directive 2004/48 requires Member States to provide prompt and effective provisional measures to preserve relevant evidence. They can include detailed description, sampling, physical seizure of infringing goods and, where appropriate, materials and documents used in production or distribution. Measures may be ordered without hearing the other side where delay risks irreparable harm or destruction of evidence.
The court may order evidence-preservation measures “without the other party having been heard”. —
The applicant may have to provide security, must promptly notify the respondent, and must start merits proceedings within the prescribed period. If the measure lapses or infringement is not established, compensation may follow. Trade-secret confidentiality measures should be requested rather than assuming all seized material will remain sealed.
Serve proceedings in another Member State
Regulation 2020/1784 applies where a judicial or extrajudicial civil or commercial document must be transmitted from one participating Member State to another for service and the recipient's address is known or can be determined through the available assistance. Denmark does not participate.
The principal route is between designated transmitting and receiving agencies using standard forms and, since 1 May 2025, the decentralised IT framework where applicable. The receiving agency serves under its own law or by a requested method compatible with that law. Other routes include postal service, service through diplomatic or consular channels in limited circumstances, electronic service where Article 19's consent and technical conditions are met, and direct service where the addressed state's law permits it.
The addressee may refuse a document not written in, or accompanied by a translation into, a language the addressee understands or an official language of the place of service. The refusal right and Form L must be communicated. Translation is therefore a litigation-risk decision: omitting one can save cost but may cause refusal, delay and later challenge.
Service should be proved with the Regulation's certificate and retained transmission record. If the defendant does not appear, the court must apply the default-judgment safeguards rather than treating dispatch as enough. Address checks, limitation periods and local rules on when service is legally complete should be addressed before the deadline.
Take evidence in another Member State
Regulation 2020/1783 offers two court-cooperation routes in pending or contemplated civil or commercial proceedings:
- the seised court requests the competent court in another Member State to take evidence; or
- the seised court asks the other state's central body or competent authority for permission to take evidence there directly.
Under the first route, the requested court normally applies its own procedure and should execute a complete request within 90 days. The requesting court may ask for a special procedure, participation by parties or judges, and communications technology. The requested court can refuse only on the Regulation's limited grounds.
Direct taking is voluntary: no coercive measures may be used. It is particularly useful for a willing witness by videoconference. The requested state's authority may impose conditions and must answer within 30 days. The court should settle identity checks, oath or affirmation, interpretation, privilege, recording, exhibits and data security before the hearing.
In Aucrinde, C-196/24, the Grand Chamber held that a requested court could not refuse a genetic-sampling request merely because its substantive law prohibited taking that evidence after exhumation. Subject to exceptional fundamental-rights cases, Article 12(2)'s refusal grounds cannot be expanded by domestic substantive law.
The Regulation is a cooperation mechanism, not an EU discovery code. In ProRail, C-332/11, interpreting its predecessor, the Court held that the regime did not prevent a court from appointing an expert under national law to work in another Member State where the expert would not need the public authority of that state. The boundary changes if coercion or sovereign powers are required.
Conclusion
EU civil-justice instruments are specialised: EAPO targets bank funds; Brussels I bis connects national provisional measures to cross-border litigation; and separate instruments preserve IP evidence, serve documents and take evidence. Correct classification, national procedure and sequencing remain essential.
Sources
This article provides general legal information, not advice for a specific matter. Laws, facts and procedural deadlines may change the result. Follow the linked primary sources and obtain local advice before acting.