Page - 70 - in Austrian Law Journal, Volume 2/2017

ALJ 2/2017 Philipp Anzenberger / Tjaša Ivanc 70 (Art. 34 para. 1 point b subpoint iv EAPO Regulation). Challenging a “foreign” interim measure (to be enforced according to the Brussels Ia Regulation) is thus significantly more difficult than contesting an EAPO in the Member State of enforcement. V. Conclusion The efficiency of legal interim measures for cross-border debt recovery62 in civil and commercial matters across Europe was significantly increased with the Brussels I recast and the EAPO Regu- lation. In particular, the new grounds for enforcing ex parte interim measures grant the creditor a certain surprise effect and thus provide a realistic chance to prevent the withdrawal or transfer of funds held by the debtor. The effects of an interim measure to be enforced within the Brus- sels Ia regime are mostly determined by the law of the Member State of origin, whereas the ef- fects of an EAPO at least partly depend on the legal situation of the Member State of enforce- ment. The choice of the most suitable way to freeze the debtor’s bank accounts will therefore significantly vary from case to case. 62 There has been concern regarding cross-border recovery of debt collection shown in the professional environ- ment; cf. Vesna Rijavec, Jorg Sladič & José Caramelo Gomes, Introductory chapter, in SIMPLIFICATION OF DEBT COLLEC- TION IN THE EU 1, 1 et seq. (Vesna Rijavec, Tjaša Ivanc & Tomaž Keresteš eds., 2014).