Awaiting committee decision
Next event: Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading 2016/12/01
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | JURI | CHRYSOGONOS Kostas (GUE/NGL) | BUDA Daniel (EPP), REGNER Evelyn (S&D), CAVADA Jean-Marie (ALDE), ANDERSSON Max (Verts/ALE) |
| Opinion | LIBE |
Legal Basis RoP 052
Activites
-
2016/12/01
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
-
2016/01/21
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
-
2015/10/13
Non-legislative basic document published
-
COM(2015)0495
summary
PURPOSE: to assess the application of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European Order for Payment Procedure. CONTENT: 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 the first true European civil payments procedure. It has been applied since December 2008 in all Member States except Denmark. The procedure is an optional procedure that can be used in cross-border cases as an alternative to domestic payment orders. The procedure allows creditors to recover uncontested civil and commercial claims according to a uniform procedure available in 27 Member States. General assessment of the Regulation: the Commission considers that, 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. On-line claims: the Commission considers that the operation of the procedure could further be improved by ensuring its electronic processing. 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 European Commission. Nine Member States are participating in the e-CODEX pilot for the European order for payment procedure. Merits of a centralised system: Member States are encouraged to give further consideration to the suitability of centralisation of the handling of cases under the procedure. 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.
- DG {'url': 'http://ec.europa.eu/justice/', 'title': 'Justice'}, JOUROVÁ Věra
-
COM(2015)0495
summary
Documents
- Non-legislative basic document published: COM(2015)0495
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 57 |
2016/2011(INI)
2016/07/14
JURI
57 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 7 a (new) – having regard to three preliminary rulings by the European Court of Justice on the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European Order for Payment Procedure,1a __________________ 1aCases C-215/11, C-324/12 and Joined Cases C-119/13 and C-120/13
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C c (new) Cc. whereas the procedure provides a rapid and efficient short-term means of settling claims, since there is no assessment of the basis of the legal relations between the parties, and whereas the rapid and efficient recovery of debts that are not the subject of any legal proceedings is of paramount importance for economic operators in the European Union;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C d (new) Cd. whereas Regulation EC No 1896/2006 falls into the category of measures in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross- border implications and needed for the functioning of the internal market;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C e (new) Ce. whereas late payments are a key cause of insolvency, which threatens the survival of businesses – and in particular of small and medium-sized enterprises – and results in numerous job losses;
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas more should, therefore, be done to inform businesses, legal professionals, citizens and other relevant parties of the existence and advantages of the procedure through targeted awareness campaigns;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas more should, therefore, be done to inform businesses, legal professionals and other relevant parties of the existence
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas, in certain Member States in which the European Order for Payment Procedure is not applied in conformity with the current Regulation, orders should be issued more quickly
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas, in certain Member States, orders should be issued more quickly and within the 30-day deadline set by the regulation, provided the obligation to pay a sum of money is not called into question by the debtor;
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas, in certain Member States, orders should be issued more quickly
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas, in certain Member States, orders should be issued more quickly
Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the report is almost two years late and does not include an extended and up-to-date impact assessment
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas the development of the e- Codex system to allow the online submission of
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas more Member States should follow the French example and allow claimants to submit their applications in additional languages or otherwise facilitate support measures, in order to minimise error-margins resulting from the use of a foreign language;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas more Member States should follow the example of Fr
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas the streamlined nature of the procedure does not mean that it can be misused to enforce unfair contractual terms, since Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 calls on the court to examine whether the claim is founded, on the basis of the information available to it, thus ensuring compatibility with the relevant case law of the Court of Justice on this subject;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas the streamlined nature of the procedure does not mean that it can be misused to enforce unfair contractual terms and all relevant parties should be informed about rights and procedures;
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas the standard forms need revising and amending in order to update the list of EU Member States and currencies, and to make better provision for an appropriate description of the interest to be recovered, with a view to the payment of interest on claims;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas the standard forms need revising and future periodic review in order to update the list of EU Member States and currencies, and to make better provisions for the payment of interest on claims;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I a (new) Ia. whereas the costs of the judicial affairs abroad, and also the excessive length of proceedings in some Member States, to hold proceedings on the basis of the European Order for Payment is much cheaper and faster, especially in times of such intense international exchange of goods;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J J. whereas the Commission should consider
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas the report is almost two years late and does not include an extended impact assessment for each Member State as required, considering the different legal provisions in all Member States and their interoperability, but only an incomplete statistical table;
Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the successful operation in all the Member States of the European Order for Payment Procedure, a procedure applicable in civil and commercial matters relating to uncontested claims whose main objective is to simplify and speed up the procedure for the cross-border recognition and enforcement of creditors’ rights in the EU;
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 2 2. Deplores the significant delay, of almost two years, in the submission of the Commission’s report reviewing the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European Order for Payment Procedure;
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Regrets the lack of an extended, detailed impact assessment for each Member State in the Commission’s report, as required by Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 3. Regrets the lack of an extended impact assessment for each Member State in the Commission
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 4 a (new) 4а. Points out that members of the public use the procedure most often, and are best informed about it, in Member States with similar instruments at national level;
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Considers that
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Considers that it is necessary to further inform relevant businesses and legal professionals of the availability of the European Order for Payment Procedure in cross-border cases; regulation No 1896/2006 is an optional procedure that can be used in cross-border cases as an alternative to domestic payment orders;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Considers that it is necessary to further inform relevant businesses and legal professionals of the availability of the European Order for Payment Procedure in cross-border cases and of how it works;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B.
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 5 5. Considers that it is necessary to further inform all relevant
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Stresses the need to hold Member States to account in providing the Commission with accurate
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Stresses the need to
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 6 6. Stresses th
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Encourages the Member States to strive to issue orders within 30 days, and to accept applications in
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Encourages the Member States to strive to issue orders within
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 7 7. Encourages the Member States to strive to issue orders within 30 days, and to accept applications in
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Fully supports the work being done to allow, in the future, the electronic submission of applications for a European Order for Payment; urges, in this connection, that firm steps be taken to create the e-Codex system for the online submission and effective transmission of the corresponding application forms, thereby helping to make the use of the procedure more efficient;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Fully supports the work being done to allow, in the future, the electronic submission of applications for a European Order for Payment; calls on the Commission, in this connection, to encourage use of the е-CODEX pilot project and to extend it to all Member States;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas according to statistics the operation of the procedure seems largely satisfactory, but the procedure is still under-used, while its practical application in the Member States on the whole leaves something to be desired, with it being used most frequently in countries which have a similar procedure at national level;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 8 8. Fully supports the work being done to allow, in the future, the electronic submission of applications for a European Order for Payment, following a commission study that was made regarding the feasibility of electronic application for European payment orders;
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Calls on the Commission to adopt updated, revised and amended standard forms as required, in order to make better provision, inter alia, for an appropriate description of the interest to be recovered, with a view to the payment of interest on claims;
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 9. Calls on the Commission to adopt updated standard forms as required, and preferably multilingual versions of these;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 9 a (new) 9а. Calls on the Member States to extend the assistance offered to members of the public in connection with the European Small Claims Procedure, and to provide assistance in respect of the completion of forms and regarding the European Order for Payment Procedure;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers that a future review of
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers that a future review of the regulation should look at removing certain exceptions to the scope of the procedure, which do not undermine existing law or Member States specific national competences and at revising the provisions on the review of European Orders for Payment;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 10 10. Considers that a future review of the regulation should
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas the operation of the procedure seems largely satisfactory, but the procedure is
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) Ca. whereas the European Order for Payment Procedure establishes a rapid mechanism on the basis of which creditors can recover debts effectively and efficiently, and which reduces the costs of litigation and improves access to justice;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C a (new) Cа. whereas the procedure is mainly used in Member States whose legislation includes a similar national procedure;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C b (new) Cb. whereas this procedure was created to enable the rapid recovery of sums arising from debts that are certain, of a fixed amount and due, and uncontested by the defendant;
source: 587.422
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
| activities/2 |
|
| activities/3 |
|
| procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
| activities/1/committees/0/shadows/3 |
|
| committees/0/shadows/3 |
|
| activities/1/committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
| committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
| activities/2 |
|
| activities/0/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
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. New
PURPOSE: to assess the application of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European Order for Payment Procedure. CONTENT: 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 the first true European civil payments procedure. It has been applied since December 2008 in all Member States except Denmark. The procedure is an optional procedure that can be used in cross-border cases as an alternative to domestic payment orders. The procedure allows creditors to recover uncontested civil and commercial claims according to a uniform procedure available in 27 Member States. General assessment of the Regulation: the Commission considers that, 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. On-line claims: the Commission considers that the operation of the procedure could further be improved by ensuring its electronic processing. 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 European Commission. Nine Member States are participating in the e-CODEX pilot for the European order for payment procedure. Merits of a centralised system: Member States are encouraged to give further consideration to the suitability of centralisation of the handling of cases under the procedure. 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. |
| activities/0/docs/0/text/0 |
Old
PURPOSE: to assess the application of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European Order for Payment Procedure. CONTENT: 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 the first true European civil payments procedure. It has been applied since December 2008 in all Member States except Denmark. The procedure is an optional procedure that can be used in cross-border cases as an alternative to domestic payment orders. The procedure allows creditors to recover uncontested civil and commercial claims according to a uniform procedure available in 27 Member States. General assessment of the Regulation: the Commission considers that, 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. On-line claims: the Commission considers that the operation of the procedure could further be improved by ensuring its electronic processing. 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 European Commission. Nine Member States are participating in the e-CODEX pilot for the European order for payment procedure. Merits of a centralised system: Member States are encouraged to give further consideration to the suitability of centralisation of the handling of cases under the procedure. 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. New
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. |
| activities/0 |
|
| activities/1/committees |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
| activities/0 |
|
| activities/0/committees |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/1 |
|
| activities/1/committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
| committees/0/shadows/1 |
|
| activities/0/docs/0/text |
|
| activities/1/committees/0/shadows |
|
| committees/0/shadows |
|
| activities/0/commission/0 |
|
| activities/1 |
|
| other/0 |
|
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
JURI/8/05517
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|