Your Assets Are Being Frozen Across Europe. The CJEU Just Told You How to Fight Back.
- Maria Barbancho
- 10 hours ago
- 5 min read
We are seeing a sharp increase in cross-border asset freezing and confiscation requests reaching our clients across Europe. Foreign confiscation orders — transmitted under Regulation (EU) 2018/1805 — are being enforced faster, broader, and with less scrutiny than ever before. Clients are waking up to find their bank accounts frozen, their shares blocked, their businesses paralysed — on the basis of proceedings conducted in another country, in another language, in which they were never properly heard.
The Grand Chamber’s judgment of 17 March 2026 in Case C‑8/24 is the most important ruling on this Regulation to date. It defines exactly when a court can — and must — refuse to enforce a foreign confiscation order. Every defence lawyer in Europe needs to know it.
The executing authority may refuse recognition of a confiscation order — but only in exceptional situations, where there is specific and objective evidence of a manifest breach of the right to an effective remedy, the right to a fair trial, or the rights of the defence.— Article 19(1)(h), Regulation (EU) 2018/1805
The CJEU Case in 30 Seconds
A Slovenian court acquitted four defendants of the charge against them — and in the very same judgment confiscated shares held by a Croatian company (Company D.), declaring them proceeds of two different offences for which no one was ever charged. Slovenia transmitted the confiscation order to Croatia for enforcement. Company D. appealed. The Croatian High Criminal Court referred the case to the CJEU.
The Grand Chamber's answer redraws the map of cross-border confiscation defence.
Two Holdings. One Expansive. One Restrictive.
1. The Regulation Applies — Even to Confiscation in an Acquittal
Regulation 2018/1805 covers all confiscation orders issued following criminal proceedings, including those issued without a conviction. It does not matter that the defendants were acquitted, that the confiscation is based on different uncharged offences, or that the alleged perpetrators of those offences were never indicted. If it happened in criminal proceedings, it falls within the Regulation.
This matters: it means the broadest and most unusual confiscation orders — especially those attaching to acquittals and affecting third parties — are subject to cross-border enforcement. Which makes the refusal ground all the more important.
2. Refusal Is Available — But the Bar Is High
Under Article 19(1)(h), an executing authority may refuse recognition only where: (i) the situation is exceptional; (ii) there are substantial grounds based on specific and objective evidence; of (iii) a manifest breach of the right to an effective remedy, a fair trial, or the rights of the defence.
Critically: unlike the two-stage Aranyosi test for European Arrest Warrants, there is no need to establish systemic deficiencies in the issuing State. The assessment is purely individual. But the threshold is still high — and it comes with a trap.
The Trap: If You Didn't Appeal in the Issuing State, You're Barred
The most consequential holding of the judgment:
A person who did not use the available remedies in the issuing Member State cannot, as a rule, invoke a violation of fundamental rights at the stage of recognition and execution under Article 19(1)(h) — unless it can demonstrate that particular circumstances made it impossible or at least excessively difficult to exercise those remedies.— CJEU, C‑8/24, para. 82
Company D. challenged the freezing orders — but never appealed the confiscation order itself. On the Court's framework, that prima facie bars the Article 19(1)(h) argument. Unless D. can demonstrate those particular circumstances.
Three Violations That Unlock the Exception
The referring court identified three concrete breaches of Company D.'s fundamental rights in the Slovenian proceedings. These are the key arguments for the defence — in this case and in every comparable case:
Not summoned to all phases of the proceedings. The confiscation request was made at the closing arguments of the trial. Company D. was heard once — in January 2020 — before the request was even formulated.
Not informed of the right to a lawyer. Article 8(7) of Directive 2014/42/EU requires the issuing State to actively inform the affected person of the right to legal counsel throughout the entire confiscation procedure. That did not happen.
Not notified of the full judgment in a language it understands. Company D. received only excerpts — translated into Croatian — never the full text. It denied receiving even those excerpts on the stated date.
The Notification Standard That Unlocks the Trap
This is the doctrine that makes the three violations above legally decisive. The CJEU reaffirms in paragraph 84 of C‑8/24 — citing Prokuratura Rejonowa Łódź-Bałuty, C‑338/20 — that the right to an effective remedy requires more than formal delivery of a document. Notification must enable the addressee to know:
— The precise grounds on which the decision is based
— The available remedies and the competent court
— The applicable time limits with sufficient precision to comply with them
— All of this in a language they actually understand
The argument that locks it together: a notification that does not satisfy these requirements is not a notification at all — for the purpose of the right to an effective remedy. A person who did not receive a compliant notification was never in a position to appeal. And a person who was never in a position to appeal has not failed to exhaust remedies. The remedy-exhaustion bar does not apply.
Defective notification is the circumstance that makes the remedy "impossible or at least excessively difficult." The trap has an exit.
For Defence Counsel: The Four Questions
In any cross-border confiscation case, ask these four questions before accepting that the order must be enforced:
Was the affected person summoned to all phases — including when the confiscation request was formally made?
Was the affected person informed of the right to a lawyer throughout the confiscation procedure?
Did the notification contain the full grounds, the available remedies, the time limits — in a language the person understands?
Was the notification actually received — verifiably, on the stated date, by the stated person?
If the answer to any of these is no or uncertain, Article 19(1)(h) is engaged. The executing court is then obliged, under Article 19(2), to consult the issuing authority before enforcing. That consultation is mandatory — and it is a lever the defence can use.
Mutual recognition is the rule. Fundamental rights are its limit. The right to a fair trial, the right to a lawyer, the right to know why and how to challenge a decision against you — these are not footnotes. They are the named grounds for refusal in Article 19(1)(h). When they are violated, execution can and must be refused.
The Joint Defense Team advises on criminal confiscation, cross-border asset freezing, and fundamental rights challenges across Europe. If you are facing enforcement of a foreign confiscation order, contact us.