Activites

• 2004/04/30 Final act published in Official Journal
  • Regulation 2004/805
  • OJ L 143 30.04.2004, p. 0015-0039
• 2004/04/21 Final act signed
• 2004/04/21 End of procedure in Parliament
• 2004/03/30 Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading
  • T5-0193/2004 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Joachim WUERMELING (EPP-ED, D) approving the Council's common position.�

• 2004/03/17 Vote in committee, 2nd reading
  • A5-0187/2004
• 2004/02/12 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 2nd reading
• #2560
• 2004/02/10 Council Meeting
• 2004/02/06 Council position published
  • 16041/1/2003 summary

    The common position, adopted unanimously, remains largely faithful to the Commission's original proposal as modified by the amended proposal. The Council considers that the text of the common position on the creation of an enforcement order for uncontested claims achieves the balance desired between protection of the rights of the debtor on the one hand, and, on the other, the establishment of an efficient certification system so as to permit the free movement of judgements by removing obstacles to recognition and enforcement in the Member State of enforcement. It should be noted that the United Kingdom and Swedish delegations lifted their parliamentary scrutiny reservation on this common position. The main changes made in the common position concern the following issues: - the common position no longer requires the final nature of a judgement as a prerequisite for its certification as a European enforcement order but considers the enforceability of a judgement as being sufficient in spite of its being subject to the possibility of an appeal. If an appeal or another challenge materialises the decision following that challenge is enforceable in other Member States under the same conditions, i.e. without exequatur, even though the underlying claim is no longer uncontested since it would be unacceptable to invalidate the European enforcement order and oblige the creditor to start all over again with an exequatur procedure in that situation. Indeed, in the case of such a solution, any debtor against whom a certificate has been issued could delay enforcement of the judgement by lodging an appeal, even an obviously unfounded one, in the country of origin and annulling the beneficial effect of the use of the European enforcement order. This would undermine the very objective of the Regulation, the simplification and the acceleration of cross-border enforcement, to the point of rendering the instrument counter-productive. The debtor's legitimate interests in the event of an appeal subsequent to the issuance of a European enforcement order certificate are adequately safeguarded by Articles 8Y and 23 that relate to the stay or limitation of enforcement; - the common position retains the principle that no appeal lies against the issuing of the European enforcement order certificate. It newly introduces, however, the possibility for the debtor to apply for the rectification of material errors in the certificate (e.g. a typing error) and for the withdrawal of the certificate where it has been clearly wrongly granted; - consumers as judgement debtors are accorded special protection going beyond the control of compliance with the jurisdictional rules of Council Regulation 44/2001/EC ("Brussels I"). A judgement delivered against a consumer in the absence of an explicit admission of the claim in question can only be certified as a European enforcement order if the consumer is domiciled in the Member State of origin; - instead of a hierarchical structure of methods of service which would require an attempt to serve on the debtor in person before resorting to other means of service, the Councilhas agreed to permit the unrestricted choice of any of the admissible methods of service as exhaustively listed in the proposal and has added the possibility, under certain conditions, of postal service without proof of receipt or delivery; - on the other hand, all those methods of service that provide a high degree of likelihood but no full proof that the document served has reached its addressee are admissible only on the condition that under the law of the Member State of origin the debtor is entitled to apply for a full review of the judgement in those exceptional cases where in spite of service in compliance with this Regulation the debtor has not taken cognisance of the document at issue in sufficient time to be able to arrange for his defence. The amendments accepted by the Parliament and the Commission and which were incorporated into the common position : - take note of the applicability of the co-decision procedure since the entry into force of the Nice Treaty, has been taken on board with a slightly shortened wording but without any substantive change; - combine two modification of the definition of one sub-category of the term "uncontested claims". The first one aimed at clarifying that, in order to constitute a valid grounds for opposition of a claim, the debtor's conduct must be in conformity with the procedural requirements of the Member State of origin. The second modification which would render inadmissible as a valid objection to a claim "statements of opposition in pre-litigation proceedings if they automatically lead to court litigation proceedings" was rejected by the Commission and not taken on board by the Council either; - rephrase the description of the legal effect of the certification of a judgement as a European Enforcement Order, the abolition of exequatur, by explicitly equating it with a "national enforcement order"; - to equate the debtor's refusal to accept the document in question attested by the competent person effecting the service with successful personal service on the debtor; - clarify that the very brief description of the justification of the claim at issue that is usually sufficient in summary debt collection procedures (injonction de payer, Mahnverfahren) also meets the requirements for certification as a European Enforcement Order. As regards the amendments rejected by the Commission and not incorporated in the common position, they concern the following issues: - introducing the requirement of the debtor's fault in order to consider his non-appearance in a court hearing as a case of an uncontested claim; - adding the compliance with the domestic law of Member State of origin to the requirements for the admissibility of the use of a substitute method of service. The introduction of such a prerequisite would be new and alien to the proposal. The courts of the Member State of origin have to scrutinise compliance with the rules on the service of documents in the main proceedings anyway. Repeating the requirement of compliance with the law of the Member State of origin in thecontext of the certification would entail a duplication of work for the courts of the Member State of origin; - incorporating a new provision according to which every reference to a court hearing in the proposal shall be understood as a reference to the other procedure held in lieu of such hearing with the intention of duly taking into account those procedures that do not include a hearing. Such a new Article is superfluous since the provisions referring to a court hearing simply become irrelevant and inapplicable if no hearing has taken place. In that event there is only a need for those procedural minimum standards that do not presuppose a hearing. It remains unclear what should replace the hearing as a point of reference and what purpose such a modified reference should serve in practice.�

• 2003/06/11 Modified legislative proposal published
  • COM(2003)0341 summary

    The Commission stated that it could 11 of the amendments made by Parliament in whole or in part. These include: - part of the definition of "uncontested claim"; - a judgement certified as a European Enforcement Order will be enforced in other Member States without the need for a declaration of enforceability and without any possibility of opposing its recognition; - amendments relating to the methods of service of the document instituting the proceedings; - one unsuccessful attempt at personal service on the debtor is sufficient to allow recourse to substituted service; - a very brief description of the justification of the claim will meet the requirement for certification as a European Enforcement Order. The Commission rejected 5 amendments, amongst them, the possibility of appeal for both judgement debtor and judgement creditor to the extent that the domestic law of the Member State of origin allows an appeal against a national enforcement order. The Commission gave several reasons, among them that the proposal deals with uncontested claims only.�

  • DG [{'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/justice/', 'title': 'Justice'}],
• #X018
• 2003/06/05 Council Meeting
  • X018 summary

    The Council had an orientation debate on the draft Council Regulation creating a European enforcement order (EEO) for uncontested claims. The debate focused on the following key issues: - the definition of an uncontested claim, - the minimum standards on the service of documents, - the possibility of appealing against the decision certifying a judgement as a EEO, - the enforceability of the judgement in the Member State of origin as a sufficient requirement for certification as a EEO, - the possibility of a refusal of enforcement in the Member State of enforcement, including on the basis of the "public policy" criteria, and - the inclusion or not of consumer cases in the scope of application of the Regulation. In the light of the discussion, the Council agreed on general guidelines for future work and consequently instructed the preparatory instances of the Council to further examine the draft Regulation.�

• 2003/04/08 Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
  • T5-0135/2003 summary

    The European Parliament adopted a resolution based on the report by Joachim WUERMELING (EPP-ED, Germany) and made some amendments to the Commission's proposal. (Please refer to the summary dated 25/03/03).�

• 2003/03/25 Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
  • A5-0108/2003
• #2436
• 2002/06/13 Council Meeting
  • 2436
• 2002/05/29 Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
• 2002/04/18 Legislative proposal published
  • COM(2002)0159 summary

    PURPOSE: to establish a European Enforcement Order (EEO) for uncontested claims. CONTENT: judicial co-operation in civil matters was transferred from the third pillar of the TEU to the first pillar following the ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam. This transfer from the third to the first pillar allows the European Commission the right of initiative in all civil matters relating to judicial affairs with cross border implications. As part of the on-going work into judicial co-operation in civil matters the Community is seeking to develop measures which improve and simplify the enforcement of decisions in civil and commercial cases - this within the context of mutual recognition. In March 2002 Council Regulation 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition of judgements in civil and commercial matters came into force. Its purpose being to streamline procedures for obtaining a declaration of enforceability (exequatur) and replaces the previously used 1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters. In spite of the improvements brought about by the Regulation there are nevertheless a number of shortcomings in the existing legislative structure, notably that not all the obstacles to the unhindered movement of judgements within the European Union have been removed. Further, the current legislative landscape allows for the continuation of restrictive intermediate measures. Consequently joint Commission/Council working committees have concluded that the complete withdrawal of the exequatur - in the case of uncontested claims - should become a Community priority and be replaced by the European Enforcement Order. As a first step it has been decided to apply the abolition of exequatur in cases where judgements have not been challenged by a debtor. The Commission is therefore proposing a Council Regulation for a European Enforcement Order - in the case of uncontested pecuniary claims. The aim is to eliminate all checks on judgements handed down in one Member State as a prerequisite for enforcement in another Member State. In the area of uncontested claims the Commission seeks to present a proposal which: - Eliminates all intermediate measures for the enforcement of decision attained in the absence of any dispute by the debtor over the nature or extent of the debt. (At the same time the Commission is preparing a Green Paper examining the creation of uniform or harmonised procedures for a European order for payment). - Establishes minimum standards with regard to the service of documents covering the admissible methods of service, the time of service enabling the preparation of defence and the proper information of the debtor. - Control for the compliance with the requirements of the proposal should be vested in the courts of the Member State where the judgement was given. - The creditor may decide to choose between either the EEO or for a declaration of enforceability under Council Regulation 44/2001.�

  • DG [{'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/justice/', 'title': 'Justice'}],

Documents

• Legislative proposal published: COM(2002)0159
• Debate in Council: 2436
• Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A5-0108/2003
• Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading: T5-0135/2003
• Debate in Council: X018
• Modified legislative proposal published: COM(2003)0341
• Council position published: 16041/1/2003
• Committee recommendation tabled for plenary, 2nd reading: A5-0187/2004
• Decision by Parliament, 2nd reading: T5-0193/2004
• : Regulation 2004/805
• : OJ L 143 30.04.2004, p. 0015-0039

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)