Page - 57 - in Austrian Law Journal, Volume 2/2017

ISSN: 2409-6911 (CC-BY) 3.0 license DOI: 10.25364/1.4:2017.2.1 www.austrian-law- journal.at Fundstelle: Anzenberger/Ivanc, Provisional Account Preservation Measures in European Civil Procedure Law, ALJ 2/2017, 57–70 (http://alj.uni-graz.at/index.php/alj/article/view/86). Provisional Account Preservation Measures in European Civil Procedure Law A comparison between Brussels Ia and the Regulation on the European Account Preservation Order from an Austrian and a Slovenian perspective Philipp Anzenberger*, University of Graz Tjaša Ivanc**, University of Maribor Abstract: With the Regulations 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia Regulation) and 655/2014 (EAPO Regulation), the European legislator has created two new and very distinct instruments to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters. While the Brussels Ia Regulation provides for an easier recognition and enforcement of national interim measures in other EU Member States, the EAPO Regulation creates a single provisional and protective measure enabling creditors to prevent the transfer or withdrawal of the debtors' assets from any bank account located in the EU. This paper provides a comparative analysis of these European legal instruments by evaluating the rules on preconditions, legal remedies and the different effects of national interim measures that shall be recognised and enforced within the Brussels Ia regime and the new EAPO. Keywords: European Account Preservation; Brussels Ia Regulation; cross-border debt recovery; provisional and protective measures; recognition and enforcement of interim measures; effects of a European Account Preservation Order I. Introduction One of the major issues regarding the European internal market is the lack of payment disci- pline. Studies show that 98 % of enterprises face payment delays from their customers.1 While European civil procedure law entails effective instruments to produce internationally enforceable titles in the substance of the matter, until very recently there were no satisfactory solutions for the issuing of internationally enforceable provisional measures.2 Yet, provisional measures * Philipp Anzenberger is an assistant professor at the Institute of Civil Procedure and Insolvency Law, University of Graz. ** Tjaša Ivanc is an assistant professor for Civil Procedure Law at the Faculty of Law, University of Maribor. 1 Euler Hermes, Credit insurance supports companies’ profitable growth – An independent research study of 2000 busi- nesses in 10 European economies (2006), http://www.fecma.eu/media/text/UKStudyBrochureCreditIn-surance.pdf (last visited Mar. 13, 2017). 2 Friedrich L. Cranshaw, Der europäische Beschluss zur vorläufigen Kontenpfändung, 22 DEUTSCHE ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR WIRTSCHAFTS- UND INSOLVENZRECHT 399, 399–400 (2012); Bettina Nunner-Krautgasser, Der geplante Rechtsakt zur europä- ischen Kontenpfändung, in DIE ANERKENNUNG IM INTERNATIONALEN ZIVILPROZESSRECHT – EUROPÄISCHES VOLLSTRECKUNGSRECHT 125, 126–130 (Burkhard Hess ed., 2014); JULIA RIEBOLD, DIE EUROPÄISCHE KONTENPFÄNDUNG 395 (2014); also cf. Tanja