1. Introduction. – 2. Methodology. – 3 Results and Discussion with Analysis of Legal Issues. – 3.1. Possession of Digital Objects. – 3.2. Interim Protection of Possession and Provisional Regulation of Status. – 3.3. The Boundaries Between Self-Help and Provisional Judicial Protection. – 3.4. Cross-Border Effect and Enforcement of Orders for Possessory or Detentive Provisional Measures. – 4. Conclusion.
Background: The expansion of digital assets increasingly challenges the effectiveness of judicial protection mechanisms traditionally designed for tangible goods. Cryptocurrencies, smart technologies, and digitally controlled environments disrupt established notions of possession, enforcement and interim relief.
Method: The research employs a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology, focusing on selected jurisdictions (Germany, Greece, and the United Kingdom), alongside relevant EU law. It examines how these systems conceptualise possession, regulate interim judicial protection, and address digital control in technologically mediated environments.
Results and Conclusions: The analysis demonstrates that traditional possessory protection offers a useful but only partially adaptable framework for digital assets. While common law jurisdictions show greater flexibility in recognising cryptocurrencies and NFTs as property subject to interim protection, civil law systems remain more constrained by the requirement of tangibility. However, all examined systems increasingly rely on functional equivalents of possession, particularly through access-based control.
The article argues that effective judicial protection of digital assets requires a reconceptualisation of possession as control over access rather than physical detention. Interim judicial measures can provide adequate protection, provided that courts are willing to intervene through orders directed at intermediaries and technological infrastructures. The study concludes that future doctrinal development and legislative clarification at the EU level are necessary to ensure legal certainty and cross-border effectiveness in digital asset disputes.