In accordance with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006, the Commission presents a report on the application of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European Order for Payment Procedure, which is an optional procedure that can be used in cross-border cases as an alternative to domestic payment orders.

General assessment of the Regulation : overall, the objectives of the Regulation to simplify, speed up and reduce the costs of litigation in cases concerning uncontested claims and to permit the free circulation of European payment orders in the EU without exequatur was broadly achieved , though in most Member States the procedure was only applied in a relatively small number of cases. From the studies and consultation carried out, it appears that there have been no major legal or practical problems in the use of the procedure or in the fact that exequatur is abolished for the recognition and enforcement of the judgments resulting from the procedure. The report reviews the existing case-law.

Between 12,000 and 13,000 applications for European orders for payment are received by the courts of Member States per year. The highest numbers of applications (more than 4,000 annually) are in Austria and Germany where also most European orders for payment are issued. Between 300 and 700 applications are received annually in Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal and Finland. In the other Member States, the procedure has been taken up to a more limited extent.

The Commission considers that the application of the Regulation has generally improved, simplified and accelerated the handling of uncontested pecuniary claims in cross-border disputes. In the light of this, it is therefore considered not appropriate at this time to change the fundamental parameters of the European procedure.

Awareness of the existence and operation of the procedure : a 2010 Eurobarometer showed that awareness and use of the European procedures including the European order for payment procedure among citizens is relatively low: only 6 % of those asked had heard about the European order for payment procedure. The Commission states that further awareness-raising is necessary , both at European and at Member State level. Efficient and active promotion of the Regulation should take place, providing the general public and professionals with information on the European order for payment procedure.

Electronic submission of the application : many Member States allow the electronic submission of the application (Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, France, Lithuania, Austria, Slovenia, Slovak Republic, Finland, Sweden, UK, Cyprus) or envisage developing electronic processing in the future in all courts having jurisdiction to deal with the European order for payment procedure ( Ireland, Italy, Malta, Portugal) . Following a Commission study on the feasibility of electronic application for European payment orders, a pilot project on this issue is being co-funded by the Commission. Nine Member States are participating in the e-CODEX pilot for the European order for payment procedure.

In addition, the operation of the Regulation may be improved through non-legislative and implementation measures. The Commission will use the cooperation mechanism of the European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters in a proactive manner to improve the implementation and promote the take-up of this useful instrument.

Merits of a centralised system: five Member States have concentrated jurisdiction to handle European orders for payment in a single specific court/authority. In the other Member States, district and regional courts (or notaries for instance in Hungary) are competent for issuing European orders for payment. Overall, the data on the use of the procedure as to whether a centralised system leads to a more frequent use of the procedure are inconclusive. Nevertheless, in the light of the written and non-adversarial nature of the procedure, where no debate on the substance of the claim takes place, and which is thus particularly suited for electronic processing, the European order for payment procedure does appear better suited for centralised court handling than other procedures which require a debate on the substance and consideration of evidence and therefore may call for closer proximity of the court to the litigants.

COM(2015)0495
EUR-Lex

PURPOSE: to simplify, speed up and reduce the costs of litigation in cross-border cases.

LEGISLATIVE ACT: Regulation 1896/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council crating a European order for payment procedure.

CONTENT: the swift and efficient recovery of outstanding debts is of paramount importance for economic operators in the EU. Late payments are a major cause of insolvency. The issue of mass recovery of uncontested claims is a major policy issue in the majority of Member States. However, the content of national legislation and the performance of domestic procedures vary substantially. Further, the procedures that currently exist are either inadmissible or impracticable in cross-border cases.

The purpose of this legislation, therefore, is:

- to simplify, speed-up and reduce the costs of litigation in cross-border cases in uncontested pecuniary claims by creating a European order for payment procedures; and

- to permit the free circulation of European orders for payment throughout the Member States. It does so by laying down minimum standards the compliance of which renders any intermediate proceedings in the Member States, of enforcement prior to recognition, unnecessary.

The Regulation neither replaces nor harmonises the existing mechanisms for the recovery of uncontested claims under national law.

In terms of the Regulation’s scope, it will apply to civil and commercial matters in cross-border cases, whatever the nature of the court of tribunal. It will not extend to revenue, customs or administrative matters or the liability of the State for actors and omissions in the exercise of State authority. Similarly, the Regulation will not apply to: rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship, wills and succession; bankruptcy, insolvency, judicial arrangements, composition and analogous proceedings; social security; and most claims arising from non-contractual obligations.

The Regulation sets up cross-border cases procedures, whereby a cross-border case is defined as one in which at least one of the parties is domiciled or habitually resident in a Member State other than the Member State of the court seised.

In addition, the Regulation establishes a European order for payment procedure for the collection of pecuniary claims for a specific amount that has fallen due at the time when the application for a European order for payment is submitted. The court seised of an application for a European order for payment will examine, on the basis of strict criteria, whether the claim appears to be will founded. This examination may take the form of an automated procedure. If the requirements are met, the court will issue, normally within 30 days, a European order for payment using standard forms as set out in Annex to the Regulation.

A European order for payment which has become enforceable in the Member State of origin will be recognised and enforced in the other Member States without the need for a declaration of enforceability and without any possibility to oppose its recognition.

The Regulation applies to all EU Member States other than Denmark.

ENTRY INTO FORCE: 31/12/2006.

APPLICATION: the Regulation applies from 12 December 2008, with the exception of provisions on: Information relating to service costs and enforcement; Information relating to jurisdiction, review procedures, means of communication and languages; Amendments to the Annexes and the establishment of a Committee, which will apply from 12 June 2008.

Regulation 2006/1896
OJ L 399 30.12.2006, p. 0001

03659/2/2006

The Commission accepts the European Parliament’s amendment in Standard Form A aiming to move the warning on languages from the guidelines to the Standard Form to the top of this form. It also accepts the European Parliament’s proposal to amend Article 31 concerning the exercise of implementing powers and provides that the new regulatory procedure with scrutiny, as created by Council Decision 2006/512 of 22 July 2006, amending Decision 1999/468, shall apply.

COM(2006)0797
EUR-Lex

The European Parliament adopted the resolution drafted by Arlene McCARTHY (PES, UK) and made just two amendments to the common position. Parliament did not vote through the amendment concerning the nature of a cross-border case, and accordingly, the regulation will not apply to the EEA.

Parliament went on to insert a new clause introducing a new section to appear at the top of the form clearly stating that the form must be completed in the language or one of the languages accepted by the court to be seized and informing users that the form is available in all official EU languages.

T6-0440/2006

Debate in Parliament

A6-0316/2006

A6-0316/2006

The committee adopted the report by Arlene McCARTHY (PES, UK) approving the Council's common position under the 2nd reading of the codecision procedure, subject to just three amendments:

- the definition of a cross-border case was amended slightly so as to include a case in which at least one of the parties is domiciled or habitually resident in a State (rather than a "Member State" as proposed in the common position) other than the Member State of the court seised. This amendment will allow the Regulation to have EEA relevance, in that the European order for payment procedure (EOPP) can be used by non-EU domiciled claimants or against non-EU domiciled defendants in cases where EU courts have jurisdiction, in particular under Brussels I;

- the committee deleted Article 30 (Amendments to the Annexes) on the grounds that the content of the forms for the EOPP was a matter that should be regulated by the codecision procedure and not by comitology. Consequently, Parliament should also have a say in updating or adapting the forms;

- lastly, a new clause introduced a new section to appear at the top of the form clearly stating that the form must be completed "in the the language or one of the languages accepted by the court to be seised" and informing users that the form is available in all official EU languages.

PE378.619

PE376.758

The Commission can accept the common position which, although modifying some specific features of the Commission’s original proposal as amended following Parliament’s opinion, remains faithful to the objective of simplifying, speeding up and reducing the costs of litigation concerning uncontested pecuniary claims.

All amendments of Parliament were included in the amended proposal of the Commission and also in the common position.

There is one case of divergence between the amended proposal and the common position. It concerns the definition of the term “cross-border case”. The Commission regrets the limitation to cases where both parties are domiciled in a Member State and has made a declaration accordingly.

The common position of the Council has been negotiated together with the European Parliament in view of reaching a first-reading agreement. Therefore the European Parliament should not request any amendments of the common position.

COM(2006)0374
EUR-Lex

The Council’s common position was adopted by unanimity. It preserves the essentials of the Commission’s initial proposal as modified by the amended proposal.

The main changes made in the common position concern the following issues:

- the common position limits the scope of application to cross-border cases; a cross-border case is defined as a case is one in which at least one of the parties is domiciled or habitually resident in a Member State other than the Member State of the seized court;

- several changes have been made to the text to enable electronic and automated processing of the application;

- the initial two-step order for payment procedure has been replaced by a single phase procedure. However, additional procedural guarantees have been inserted in the text to protect the rights of the parties to the proceedings. Thus, the court upon receiving an application will examine on the basis of the application form whether the admissibility criteria are met and whether the claim appears to be founded. Based on that examination, the court could either reject the application or deliver a European order for payment;

- the Regulation now foresees a possibility for issuing a European order for payment for a part of the claim in case the claimant agrees;

- the Regulation has clarified the deadlines for different procedural phases. In order to assure consistency, the Regulation makes use of a uniform 30-day deadline for the delivery of the European order for payment and for sending the statement of opposition;

- differently from the original proposal, the Regulation now includes provisions on enforcement. The abolition of exequatur has been included in the text of the Regulation itself, accompanied by the minimum standards already foreseen in Regulation 805/2004/EC creating a European enforcement order for uncontested claims;

- the common position includes a detailed review clause.

07535/3/2006

The Council’s common position was adopted by unanimity. It preserves the essentials of the Commission’s initial proposal as modified by the amended proposal.

The main changes made in the common position concern the following issues:

- the common position limits the scope of application to cross-border cases; a cross-border case is defined as a case is one in which at least one of the parties is domiciled or habitually resident in a Member State other than the Member State of the seized court;

- several changes have been made to the text to enable electronic and automated processing of the application;

- the initial two-step order for payment procedure has been replaced by a single phase procedure. However, additional procedural guarantees have been inserted in the text to protect the rights of the parties to the proceedings. Thus, the court upon receiving an application will examine on the basis of the application form whether the admissibility criteria are met and whether the claim appears to be founded. Based on that examination, the court could either reject the application or deliver a European order for payment;

- the Regulation now foresees a possibility for issuing a European order for payment for a part of the claim in case the claimant agrees;

- the Regulation has clarified the deadlines for different procedural phases. In order to assure consistency, the Regulation makes use of a uniform 30-day deadline for the delivery of the European order for payment and for sending the statement of opposition;

- differently from the original proposal, the Regulation now includes provisions on enforcement. The abolition of exequatur has been included in the text of the Regulation itself, accompanied by the minimum standards already foreseen in Regulation 805/2004/EC creating a European enforcement order for uncontested claims;

- the common position includes a detailed review clause.

07535/3/2006

10414/2006

The Commission presents an amended proposal which adapts the original proposal in response to amendments voted by the European Parliament. 34 of the Parliaments amendments were accepted by the Commission, since they simplify the proposed procedure, add an additional dimension relating to the free circulation of European orders for payment, or they make improvements relating either to the clarity of the instrument or to questions of detail, and add material that will be potentially useful in implementing the proposed Regulation. Almost all the key amendments voted by Parliament were accepted. (For key amendments please see the summary of 13/12.2005.)

The inclusion of the abolition of exequatur in the Regulation requires the inclusion of additional recitals which are derived, to a large extent, from Regulation 805/2004/EC creating a European enforcement order for uncontested claims. However, one technical modification is needed, resulting from the definition of “cross-border cases”. Under this definition, it is possible that the defendant is domiciled or habitually resident in a State other than a Member State of the European Union. In that case, the rules on service of that State will apply when serving a European order for payment upon the defendant. The text should therefore refer to the rules of service of the “State” rather than “Member State”.

A further 13 amendments were accepted in principle, subject to redrafting. These include the following amendments:

- clarifying that Regulation 1182/71/EC determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits applies for purposes of computing time limits;

- the courts must take into account any form of opposition by the defendant if it is expressed in a clear manner. In the light of the protection of the rights of the defense, it is important to stress the importance of this obligation. The language of the recital should therefore be stronger;

- Parliament has provided for a detailed review clause concerning the operation of the Regulation in the light of national order for payment procedures. Such a review shall take place five years after the date of entry into force of the Regulation. In the light of the proposed distinction between the date of entry into force and the date of entry into application of the Regulation, it is more appropriate to refer, in to the date of entry into application rather than the date of the entry into force. This is also in line with discussions in Council;

The Commission accepted three amendments partially:

- one aims at clarifying the objective pursued by the special review offered to defendants after the expiry of the time limit for opposition to the European order for payment. Because this review is important in the light of the protection of the rights of the defence, it should be more specific and clarify that the term “other exceptional circumstances” could include the situation where a European order for payment was based on false information provided by the claimant in the application form. This is also in line with discussions in Council;

- w hile the Commission can accept the restriction of the Regulation to cross border cases and agrees to a large extent with the proposed definition, it cannot accept the reference to “Member State” with respect to the domicile or habitual residence of the parties. The reference to “Member State” with respect to the parties has significant legal and political consequences. This reference means that the European order for payment procedure cannot be used by non-EU domiciled claimants or against non-EU domiciled defendants, in certain cases where European Union courts have jurisdiction, in particular under Council Regulation 44/2001/EC. Prohibiting the use of the procedure by non-EU domiciled claimants is highly doubtful in the light of existing international obligations of the European Union, in particular obligations arising under GATT 1994, the GATS and the TRIPS Agreement. Also, the combined application of the future instrument with the 1988 Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters creates highly undesirable situations with respect to claimants domiciled or habitually resident in a non-EU State party to that Convention. Finally, the definition raises questions under the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

- one amendment proposes to delete annexes 2 and 3 of the original Commission proposal. While Annex 2 may be deleted, this is not the case of Annex 3. Annex 3, as well as the other annexes constituting the standard forms, must be redrafted in order to bring them in line with the amended proposal, on the basis of the software needed to ensure an electronic processing of the European order for payment.

The Commission rejected one amendment in its entirety for technical reasons.

COM(2006)0057
EUR-Lex

The Commission presents an amended proposal which adapts the original proposal in response to amendments voted by the European Parliament. 34 of the Parliaments amendments were accepted by the Commission, since they simplify the proposed procedure, add an additional dimension relating to the free circulation of European orders for payment, or they make improvements relating either to the clarity of the instrument or to questions of detail, and add material that will be potentially useful in implementing the proposed Regulation. Almost all the key amendments voted by Parliament were accepted. (For key amendments please see the summary of 13/12.2005.)

The inclusion of the abolition of exequatur in the Regulation requires the inclusion of additional recitals which are derived, to a large extent, from Regulation 805/2004/EC creating a European enforcement order for uncontested claims. However, one technical modification is needed, resulting from the definition of “cross-border cases”. Under this definition, it is possible that the defendant is domiciled or habitually resident in a State other than a Member State of the European Union. In that case, the rules on service of that State will apply when serving a European order for payment upon the defendant. The text should therefore refer to the rules of service of the “State” rather than “Member State”.

A further 13 amendments were accepted in principle, subject to redrafting. These include the following amendments:

- clarifying that Regulation 1182/71/EC determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits applies for purposes of computing time limits;

- the courts must take into account any form of opposition by the defendant if it is expressed in a clear manner. In the light of the protection of the rights of the defense, it is important to stress the importance of this obligation. The language of the recital should therefore be stronger;

- Parliament has provided for a detailed review clause concerning the operation of the Regulation in the light of national order for payment procedures. Such a review shall take place five years after the date of entry into force of the Regulation. In the light of the proposed distinction between the date of entry into force and the date of entry into application of the Regulation, it is more appropriate to refer, in to the date of entry into application rather than the date of the entry into force. This is also in line with discussions in Council;

The Commission accepted three amendments partially:

- one aims at clarifying the objective pursued by the special review offered to defendants after the expiry of the time limit for opposition to the European order for payment. Because this review is important in the light of the protection of the rights of the defence, it should be more specific and clarify that the term “other exceptional circumstances” could include the situation where a European order for payment was based on false information provided by the claimant in the application form. This is also in line with discussions in Council;

- w hile the Commission can accept the restriction of the Regulation to cross border cases and agrees to a large extent with the proposed definition, it cannot accept the reference to “Member State” with respect to the domicile or habitual residence of the parties. The reference to “Member State” with respect to the parties has significant legal and political consequences. This reference means that the European order for payment procedure cannot be used by non-EU domiciled claimants or against non-EU domiciled defendants, in certain cases where European Union courts have jurisdiction, in particular under Council Regulation 44/2001/EC. Prohibiting the use of the procedure by non-EU domiciled claimants is highly doubtful in the light of existing international obligations of the European Union, in particular obligations arising under GATT 1994, the GATS and the TRIPS Agreement. Also, the combined application of the future instrument with the 1988 Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters creates highly undesirable situations with respect to claimants domiciled or habitually resident in a non-EU State party to that Convention. Finally, the definition raises questions under the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

- one amendment proposes to delete annexes 2 and 3 of the original Commission proposal. While Annex 2 may be deleted, this is not the case of Annex 3. Annex 3, as well as the other annexes constituting the standard forms, must be redrafted in order to bring them in line with the amended proposal, on the basis of the software needed to ensure an electronic processing of the European order for payment.

The Commission rejected one amendment in its entirety for technical reasons.

COM(2006)0057
EUR-Lex

SP(2006)0053

Results of vote in Parliament

The European Parliament adopted a resolution drafted by Arlene MCCARTHY (PES, UK) and made several amendments to the Commission’s proposal. The amendments are the result of an agreement between Parliament and Council to approve this regulation at first reading. The main amendments are as follows:

-t he purpose of this Regulation is: to simplify, speed up and reduce the costs of litigation in cross-border cases concerning uncontested pecuniary claims by creating a European order for payment procedure; and to permit the free circulation of European orders for payment throughout all Member States by laying down minimum standards whose observance renders unnecessary any intermediate proceedings to be brought in the Member State of enforcement prior to recognition and enforcement;

- Parliament’s Legal Affairs Committee had voted to give member states or civil parties the option of applying the procedure to domestic cases. (Please see the summary of 14/07/2005.) However, Parliament decided that the procedure should only apply to cross-border cases, not domestic ones too as the European Commission wanted;

- a cross-border case is one in which at least one of the parties is domiciled or habitually resident in a Member State other than the Member State of the court seized. Domicile shall be determined in accordance with Regulation 44/2001/EC. The relevant moment for determining whether there is a cross-border case is the time when the application for a European order for payment is submitted in accordance with the Regulation;

-jurisdiction will be determined in accordance with the relevant rules of Community law, in particular Regulation 44/2001/EC. However, if the claim relates to a contract concluded by a person, the consumer, for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession, and if the defendant is the consumer, only the courts in the Member State in which the defendant is domiciled, will have jurisdiction;

-there are a number of amendments aiming to simplify the procedure, including new provisions regarding service of the EPO, the a bolition of exequatur, enforcement and review in exceptional cases.

Those owed money should state in their application that the information they have provided is true. The order for payment should be issued within 30 days of the application being made.

The defendant would have 30 days to oppose the order after being served with it. If he/she does not

object, the court must enforce the order automatically. However, the defendant can lodge an appeal in specified “exceptional cases”;

-Some exceptions to the use of the new system are also inserted. The EPO could not be used in case of contested property arising out of a matrimonial relationship, including wills and succession, or claims arising from non-contractual obligations except under certain circumstances;

- Five years after entry into force of the legislation, the Commission must present a detailed report reviewing the operation of the European order for payment procedure. That report must contain an assessment of the procedure as it has operated and an extended impact assessment for each Member State. To this end and in order to ensure that best practice in the EU is duly taken into account and reflects the principles of better legislation, Member States will provide the Commission with information relating to the cross-border operation of the EPO. This information should cover court fees, speed of the procedure, efficiency, ease of use and the internal payment order procedures of the Member States.

T6-0499/2005

The Council reached a general approach on the text of this draft Regulation, on the basis of a Presidency compromise package.

Adoption of a Regulation creating a European order for payment procedure is listed as a priority for 2006 in the Council and Commission Action Plan implementing the Hague programme on strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union.

2696

The Council took note that a very large majority of delegations could agree on a uniform method for the production and examination of evidence, in the context of the negotiation of a Regulation creating a European order-for-payment procedure.

Alongside an explanation of the circumstances giving rise the claim, the application form would require claimants to describe the evidence that could be used in support (for example, the claimant might make reference to an invoice which the defendant is liable to pay). However, claimants would not need to produce the supporting documentary evidence.

To help claimants complete forms in this way, the application form1 should include an exhaustive a list as possible of examples of the types of evidence that are usually produced, although it would be open to the claimant to refer to whatever evidence appears appropriate.

To promote completion of the application form in good faith, the form would include, in clear language, a statement to the effect that the information provided is true to the best of the claimant’s knowledge and belief, and that he understands that any deliberate false statement could lead to an appropriate criminal or other sanction under applicable national laws.

The court would examine the application on the basis of the information provided in the form, including the description of evidence. This would allow the court to examine prima facie the merits of the claim and to exclude clearly unfounded or inadmissible claims.

Such a solution would allow for automatic processing of claims and reduce the cost of the procedure by avoiding the costs of translating evidence. It would establish a uniform, simple and effective procedure while guaranteeing appropriate safeguards for the defendant.

The speedy recovery of outstanding debts whose justification is not called into question is of paramount importance for economic operators in the European Union and for the proper functioning of the internal market.

2683

A6-0240/2005

A6-0240/2005

The committee adopted the report by Arlene MCCARTHY ( PES , UK ) amending the proposal under the 1st reading of the codecision procedure:

- although it amended Article 1 so as to specify that the regulation shall apply only to cross-border cases rather than to all cases, as proposed by the Commission, the committee also proposed a new article setting out a possible compromise. The article, which specified the objective of the regulation, also provided for Member States to be able to adopt the European order for payment (EPO) for use in purely national as well as cross-border cases, provided they notify the Commission. It added that private parties should be allowed to apply the EPO procedure to cases other than cross-border cases, if they have expressly agreed to do so;

- another new article provided a definition of a cross-border case: "one in which the creditor and the debtor are domiciled or habitually resident, at the moment when the request for an order is brought before the competent court, in different Member States";

- the committee specified that the standard EPO application form should be available in all official EU languages;

- the committee adopted a series of amendments aimed at simplifying the procedure;

- lastly, a new article stipulated that the Commission should report on the operation of the EPO procedure five years after the regulation's entry into force, including a cost-benefit analysis of the possible extension of the procedure to purely national cases. Depending on the conclusions of that report, the Commission could propose amendments to the regulation to facilitate the use of the EPO procedure in Member States for national cases.

PE360.209

PE357.775

PE359.902

Pending the European Parliament's opinion, the Council held a general discussion on this proposal for a Regulation so that proceedings could continue within the preparatory subordinate bodies.

The purpose of the proposal is to create a European order for payment procedure that will enable creditors to collect pecuniary claims of a specific amount as swiftly and as simply as possible.

In the light of the discussion, the Presidency noted that:

• on the matter of whether the Regulation should be confined to cross-border situations or be applied also to national order for payment procedures, a very great majority of delegations took the view that the European order for payment procedure should be confined solely to cross-border disputes;

• as to whether or not supporting documents were to be produced when submitting the application, the Council reached broad agreement on the requirement that in the European order for payment application the applicant should always give a brief description of at least one means of evidence to support his claim. In addition, the relevant supporting documents or copies thereof should be attached to the application if the Member State of origin so required, as indicated in a communication from that State;

• a large majority of delegations thought that the court should issue a European order for payment while informing the defendant of the claim and of his right to oppose it within a period of one month. At the end of that period, and after verification, the court of the Member State of origin could issue an enforceable order for payment;

• all delegations considered that it should be possible for a European order for payment issued to become enforceable in the other Member States of the European Union without any intermediate procedure, i.e. without any declaration of enforceability being required in the Member State of enforcement provided that the procedural guarantees were sufficient.

2652

CES0133/2005
OJ C 221 08.09.2005, p. 0077-0086

COM(2004)0173
EUR-Lex

COM(2004)0173
EUR-Lex