In its judgment of 9 October 2025, the Luxembourg Summary Court (tribunal d’arrondissement de et à Luxembourg siégeant en matière de référé) provided clarification on the procedural requirements for initiating a recourse in revocation (recours en revocation) of a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) under Regulation (EU) No. 655/2014. The decision provides practical guidance on the interplay between the European procedural framework and Luxembourg domestic law.
The proceedings originated from an action brought by a French-based company, which lodged two recourses in revocation against preservation orders previously issued in Luxembourg. These orders had been obtained at the request of a Luxembourg bank, seeking to secure an alleged claim of several million euros. Acting under Regulation (EU) No. 655/2014, the Luxembourg court had authorised the execution of EAPOs in France.
In contesting these measures, the debtor filed its applications by way of petition (par voie de requête), using the standard European form provided under Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1823. This regulation establishes uniform procedural templates to facilitate recourses under the EAPO framework.
Before the Summary Court, the applicant argued that pursuant to Article 33(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No. 655/2014, a debtor may seek revocation or modification of a preservation order on the ground that the conditions or requirements of the Regulation have not been met. Furthermore, Article 36 provides that any application for recourse under Articles 33 to 35 must be introduced using the standard form and may be lodged at any time and by any means of communication accepted under the procedural rules of the relevant Member State.
The applicant therefore contended that the use of the standard European form, filed by way of petition, was sufficient to validly initiate the recourse procedure. In its view, requiring the service of a formal writ of summons (assignation) would not only add an unnecessary layer of procedural formality but would also run counter to the very purpose of the European Account Preservation Order Regulation, which seeks to simplify and accelerate cross-border debt recovery within the European Union.
This position finds support in Recitals 40 and 41 of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014, which expressly emphasise the simplification and efficiency of the procedure through the creation of standardised forms and the encouragement of modern means of communication, including electronic submission and digital signatures. According to the applicant, the European legislator’s intention was clearly to remove procedural barriers, not to impose parallel national formalities that would undermine the Regulation’s practical effectiveness.
The Summary Court, however, took a more cautious view. It recalled that Article 46(1) of the Regulation expressly provides that any procedural matter not specifically governed by the Regulation shall be determined in accordance with the national law of the Member State where the proceedings take place. This provision preserves a measure of national procedural autonomy, ensuring that domestic rules continue to apply whenever the European instrument is silent.
Applying this principle, the court referred to Article 685-5(4) of the Luxembourg New Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that recourses for revocation or modification of a European preservation order involving claims exceeding EUR 15,000 must be brought before the President of the District Court and are to be “introduced and adjudicated as in summary proceedings.” From this, the court inferred that, under Luxembourg procedural law, such proceedings must be initiated by means of a formal writ of summons (assignation), rather than by simple petition accompanied by the European form.
The court thus reaffirmed the role of national procedural law in defining how such recourses are to be initiated, even within the context of an EU-harmonised mechanism. The judgment therefore provides an important clarification of how the European procedural framework must be coordinated with domestic procedural requirements.
Until this decision, Luxembourg case law had not expressly addressed the procedural requirements for initiating such recourses in revocation. The Court of Appeal, in its decision of 7 June 2023 (No. 80/23, 7th Chamber), had implicitly accepted that a recourse filed directly with the court registry by way of petition using the European form under Article 36 was validly introduced. However, in that case, no procedural objection had been raised by the parties, and the court was not required to rule specifically on the method of initiation.
By contrast, the Summary Court’s decision of 9 October 2025 represents the first explicit judicial analysis of this procedural question in Luxembourg. While acknowledging the binding effect of EU procedural instruments, the decision underscores that national procedural autonomy remains a determining factor where the European framework does not provide comprehensive procedural guidance.
Share on
