Identifying another party’s asset position within the EU can be challenging due to the diverse legal systems and privacy regulations. However, there are several methods and tools available to creditors and other interested parties.

Registers and Databases

Several EU member states have public registers and databases that often prove useful in identifying another party’s assets. By way of illustration, member states may have the following:

• land registers, providing information on ownership of immovable assets and on mortgages;
• company registers, providing information on annual accounts, ownership structure, and the identity of directors;
• vehicle registers, providing information on vehicle ownership;
• insolvency registers, providing information on bankruptcy or other insolvency proceedings debtors may be caught up in;
• IP registers, providing information on ownership of registered IP rights; and
• registers of the member states’ national banks.

European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) Regulation

Regulation No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters (the “EAPO Regulation”) allows for a creditor who holds an enforceable judgment to formulate a request to obtain information on the accounts the debtor presumably holds in a member state. Even if the judgment is not yet enforceable, such a request can still be made if the creditor substantiates that there is an urgent need for the account information because the subsequent enforcement could be in jeopardy. Furthermore, the EAPO Regulation allows a creditor to freeze a debtor’s bank accounts across member states. It can be obtained without the debtor’s prior knowledge to prevent the transfer or withdrawal of funds.

Domestic Particularities

For domestic particularities (eg, insolvency proceedings, credit reporting agencies, private investigators, and court orders such as asset disclosure orders and freezing orders), please refer to the relevant national chapters of this Global Practice Guide.

In Europe, types of domestic judgments vary by country, but they generally fall into a few broad categories. For the recognition and enforcement of judgments, the following categories are particularly important.

• Final judgment ‒ this is the decision on the merits of the case.
• Default judgment ‒ conversely to a judgment rendered by adversarial hearings, a default judgment is issued if the defendant fails to appear at the hearing in the proceedings. In some jurisdictions, default judgments are deemed to be contradictory in particular circumstances and/or give rise to an additional means of redress known as opposition.
• Interim measure judgments (such as injunctions or temporary restraining orders that are intended to preserve the status quo until the final judgment is issued) ‒ these are decisions issued in anticipation of or during the course of ongoing proceedings (including provisional measures), without prejudgment of the decision on the merits.

EU Particularities

At the EU level, there are certain instruments that may be used to obtain orders facilitating enforcement, as follows.

• The European Payment Order (Regulation (EU) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure) grants an enforceable title. Its primary goal is to facilitate cross-border debt recovery by providing a uniform and efficient method for creditors to enforce claims without needing to navigate the various national legal systems. Concerning the application process, the creditor submits a standard application form to the competent courts, including details about the parties involved, the amount claimed and the basis for the claim.
• The EAPO Regulation facilitates cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters within the EU. It allows a creditor to freeze funds held in a debtor’s bank account(s) in a member state other than the member state where the creditor is domiciled or where the court is located (not applicable to Denmark). This instrument is issued by domestic courts and allows for the freezing of bank accounts within the EU. It can be used either as an interim relief by securing the enforcement of a yet-to-be pronounced judgment or as a way to enforce an already rendered judgment.
• The European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims) simplifies the cross-border recognition and enforcement of EU judgments, court settlements and authentic instruments without intermediate proceedings for claims that are no longer contested by the debtor. This regulation is applicable to judgments from all EU member states, except for Denmark. It abolishes the requirement for specific enforceability proceedings (exequatur) for judgments falling within the scope of the regulation, allowing for swift and efficient cross-border recognition and enforcement.

Enforcing a domestic judgment within the same domestic state involves using the mechanisms and procedures available within that jurisdiction. Please refer to the national enforcement options and procedures set out in the other chapters of this Global Practice Guide.

However, instruments at the EU level have led to certain harmonisation in this field (eg, Directive 2004/48/EC of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of IP rights).

The costs and time required to enforce domestic judgments will significantly depend on the national jurisdiction in which the judgment is being enforced, primarily depending on the specific legal procedures and the court system in general. Please refer to the national enforcement options and procedures set out in the other chapters of this Global Practice Guide.

Post-judgment procedures for determining defendants’ assets are mainly regulated at the national level. Please refer to the national enforcement options and procedures set out in the other chapters of this Global Practice Guide.

However, next to national asset disclosure procedures, the European Account Preservation Order introduced in Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 includes provisions for obtaining information about the defendant’s assets. Creditors can request the court to obtain information about the defendant’s bank accounts.

In Europe, defendants have several avenues to challenge the enforcement of a domestic judgment within their own country, based on national rules. These mechanisms are generally designed to ensure fairness and due process, and the specific procedures can vary from country to country. Such mechanisms may include, for example, an appeal or revision of the enforcement measure itself, an application for a stay or suspension of enforcement pending an appeal of the original judgment, and an option for third parties to reclaim assets subject to enforcement by asserting objections based on their property rights over the property seized.

An appeal or revision of the measure may, for example, be based on substantive grounds (eg, the lack of a current and effective title further to a change in the relationship between the creditor and debtor) or procedural grounds (eg, use of the wrong attachment procedure).

Please refer to the national enforcement options and procedures set out in the other chapters of this Global Practice Guide.

The EU primarily influences cross-border legal matters between its member states rather than purely domestic situations. The enforceability of judgments without cross-border elements is, in principle, governed by the national laws of the member states in question.

Please refer to the national enforcement options and procedures set out in the other chapters of this Global Practice Guide.

There is no centralised register of domestic judgments across all member states. Nevertheless, in Europe, several countries have registers for judgments, which are publicly available.

Please refer to the national enforcement options and procedures set out in the other chapters of this Global Practice Guide.

Enforcement of foreign judgments within the EU is governed by several EU regulations and international treaties.

Recognition and Enforceability of Judgments in General

Depending on the specific regulation or treaty applicable, foreign judgments may be recognised and considered enforceable automatically, meaning that there is immediate access to national means of enforcement in the jurisdiction where enforcement is sought.

In other instances, recognition may not be automatic, and specific proceedings may need to be followed in order to obtain access to national means of enforcement. Such proceedings are typically referred to as exequatur proceedings – ie, proceedings geared at obtaining a declaration of enforceability by the competent court.

Even under mutual recognition regimes, there are grounds upon which a member state can refuse to enforce a foreign judgment (see 3.6 Challenging Enforcement of Foreign Judgments).

Applicable Legislation

Multiple legal instruments can govern the enforcement of foreign judgments (eg, domestic law, multilateral conventions, bilateral conventions, EU regulations). In the EU, the principal international treaties/conventions relevant to the enforcement of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters are:

• the Convention of 30 October 2007 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the “Lugano Convention”), which applies to judgments rendered in the EU and Norway, Switzerland and Iceland;
• the Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (the “Hague Choice of Court Convention”), which only applies to judgments in international cases rendered by courts that assumed jurisdiction based on an exclusive choice of court agreement concluded in civil or commercial matters; and
• the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (the “Hague Judgments Convention”), which is complementary to the Hague Choice of Court Convention.

As for EU regulations, the principal legal instrument governing the recognition and enforceability of foreign judgments is Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast) (the “Brussels I Recast Regulation”). Other EU regulations are also of particular importance, such as:

• Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims;
• Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European Order for Payment Procedure;
• Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure;
• Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters; and
• Regulation (EU) No 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on Insolvency Proceedings (Recast).

Post-Brexit Considerations

Since Brexit, the legal framework for the recognition and enforcement of judgments between the UK and the EU has changed (see 3.2 Variations in Approach to Enforcement of Foreign Judgments).

Recognition and Enforceability of Judgments in General

Depending on the specific regulation or treaty applicable, foreign judgments may be recognised and considered enforceable automatically, meaning that there is immediate access to national means of enforcement in the jurisdiction where enforcement is sought.

In other instances, recognition may not be automatic, and specific proceedings may need to be followed in order to obtain access to national means of enforcement. Such proceedings are typically referred to as exequatur proceedings – ie, proceedings geared at obtaining a declaration of enforceability by the competent court.

Even under mutual recognition regimes, there are grounds upon which a member state can refuse to enforce a foreign judgment (see 3.6 Challenging Enforcement of Foreign Judgments).

Enforcement of judgments varies depending on the type of judgment and the legal instruments governing its recognition and enforcement.

Generally, final judgments (decisions on the merits of the case) benefit from broader recognition and enforcement under international conventions and regulations (the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the Lugano Convention, the Hague Choice of Court Convention, and the Hague Judgments Convention).

The situation is more complex for judicial decisions ordering provisional measures.

• Under the Brussels I Recast Regulation and the Lugano Convention, except in certain instances, provisional measures may also benefit from recognition and enforceability.
• The Hague Choice of Court Convention and the Hague Judgments Convention do not govern interim measures of protection.

Judgments may of course only qualify for recognition and enforcement under the European and international enforcement regimes if they fall within the substantive scope of application. The instruments applicable in civil and commercial matters (which typically exclude, for instance, tax matters or administrative matters) are discussed herein. In addition, the European and international instruments include grounds allowing member states to refuse recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment (see 3.6 Challenging Enforcement of Foreign Judgments).

Furthermore, some types of foreign judgments do not qualify for recognition and enforceability under the European and international regimes. Notably, under the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the regime for interim measures is stricter than for final judgments, as the regime for the recognition of interim measures requires that the court issuing interim relief also has jurisdiction for the main proceedings on the merits. Moreover, interim measures will not benefit from the Brussels I Recast Regulation’s recognition regime if they were ordered without the defendant being summoned to appear, unless the judgment containing the order is served on the defendant prior to enforcement.

The actual enforcement of foreign judgments will be governed by the law of the member state involved, so domestic law applies in this regard.

As for the recognition and enforceability that precede actual enforcement, the main element to verify is whether a party seeking enforcement is required to initiate specific proceedings to obtain the recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment. This differs depending on the European or international instrument, as follows:

• under the Brussels I Recast Regulation, a foreign judgment is automatically recognised and considered enforceable;
• under the Lugano Convention, even though recognition is automatic, a party will still have to obtain a prior declaration of enforceability to be able to proceed to actual enforcement; and
• under the Hague Choice of Court Convention and the Hague Judgments Convention, there is no automatic recognition or enforcement.

If there is no applicable regulation or convention, the domestic laws of each country where enforcement is sought will govern the question of recognition and enforceability. They will typically provide for a requirement to initiate specific proceedings to obtain recognition and/or enforceability.

Similar to domestic judgments (see 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments), the costs and time required for the enforcement of foreign judgments will depend significantly on the national jurisdiction in which the judgment is being enforced ‒ primarily depending on the specific legal procedures and the court system in general. Please refer to the national enforcement options and procedures set out in the other chapters of this Global Practice Guide.

Where recognition and/or enforceability is granted automatically under a European regulation or international instrument, this naturally reduces the costs and time required. In addition, instruments such as the European Payment Order Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006) and the EAPO Regulation aid further in reducing the burden of enforcement.

Where European and international instruments such as the Brussels I Recast Regulation, the Lugano Convention, the Hague Choice of Court Convention and the Hague Judgments Convention facilitate enforcement, they each provide a limited list of grounds on which the jurisdiction where enforcement is sought may refuse recognition and enforcement.

Under the Brussels I Recast Regulation, recognition may be denied if:

• such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the member state where enforcement is sought;
• the judgment was given in default of appearance, if the defendant was not served with the document that instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable them to arrange for their defence, unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for them to do so;
• the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment between the same parties pronounced in the member state where enforcement is sought;
• the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in a different state (including third states) involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that this earlier judgment is eligible for recognition; and
• the judgment conflicts with the Brussels I Recast Regulation’s:
1. specific jurisdictional grounds relating to insurance matters, consumer contracts and employment contracts where the policyholder, the insured, a beneficiary of the insurance contract, the injured party, the consumer or the employee was the defendant; or
2. exclusive jurisdiction grounds.

The conventions provide similar refusal grounds, with some slight variations.

Please refer to the national sections of this Global Practice Guide for a detailed outline of the issues that could arise when enforcing arbitral awards in the respective national jurisdictions.

One of the key legislative instruments limiting issues regarding the enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is the 1958 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”). The New York Convention is adopted by numerous jurisdictions, including the member states of the EU. Enforcement can only be refused on a limited number of grounds at the request of a party or by the competent authority where enforcement is sought (see 4.6 Challenging Enforcement of Arbitral Awards).

Furthermore, the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration (the “UNCITRAL Model Law”) constitutes a basis for the harmonisation and improvement of national legislation concerning international commercial arbitration. However, please refer to the national sections of this Global Practice Guide on whether and to what extent the national jurisdictions have implemented the UNCITRAL Model Law.

A distinction must be made between “domestic” or “national” awards and “international” or “foreign” awards, respectively rendered in and outside the state where enforcement is sought. For purposes of enforcement, some countries may treat these awards as equal, whereas other countries may provide for a separate set of rules for each type.

As for foreign arbitral awards, the New York Convention greatly facilitates recognition and enforcement, owing to the large number of countries that have ratified it.

Another difference in enforcement for different types of arbitral awards concerns the enforcement of interim awards. Since the New York Convention only applies to final awards, this would not serve as a solution for the enforcement of interim awards. The UNCITRAL Model Law, however, provides for specific rules for the enforcement of interim awards. These rules do not differ much from the rules regarding the enforcement of final arbitral awards, but several conditions were added, such as that the interim award cannot have been overruled. Of course, it is to be verified if and to what extent national law has implemented the UNCITRAL Model Law or otherwise provides for specific rules relating to interim awards.

National law determines the process to be followed for enforcing an arbitral award. Apart from providing for certain formalities (such as providing the original or duly certified copy of the arbitral award and arbitration agreement), the New York Convention itself does not provide for procedural rules. Please therefore refer to the national enforcement options and procedures set out in the other chapters of this Global Practice Guide.

As was mentioned for judgments (see 2.3 Costs and Time Taken to Enforce Domestic Judgments), the costs and time required for enforcing arbitral awards will also significantly depend on the national jurisdiction in which the arbitral award is being enforced ‒ primarily depending on the specific legal procedures and the court system in general. Please refer to the national enforcement options and procedures set out in the other chapters of this Global Practice Guide. Where the New York Convention applies, this naturally reduces the costs and time required.

For the avenues under domestic law to challenge enforcement, please refer to the national chapters of this Global Practice Guide.

Where the New York Convention applies, recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award may still be denied based on a limitative list of refusal grounds, including that:

• the parties were under some incapacity to enter into the arbitration agreement or the agreement is invalid;
• the party against whom the award is invoked was not given proper notice of the appointment of the arbitrator or of the arbitration proceedings, or was otherwise unable to present its case;
• the award deals with matters that were not submitted to arbitration;
• the composition of the arbitral authority or the arbitral procedure was not in accordance with the parties’ agreement or the law where the arbitration took place;
• the award has not yet become binding on the parties or has been set aside or suspended;
• the subject matter is not capable of settlement by arbitration under the law where recognition and enforcement are sought; and
• the recognition or enforcement of the award would be contrary to the public policy of the country where such recognition or enforcement is sought.