# EUR-Lex - 52013PC0794 - EN

*|*

# 52013PC0794

**Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure and Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure /* COM/2013/0794 final - 2013/0403 (COD) */**

			*

			*

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1.           CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

1.1.        General context of the
proposal

Regulation 861/2007 establishing a European
Small Claims Procedure was adopted on 11 July 2007[1] with the aim to enhance access
to justice by simplifying and speeding up cross-border litigation concerning
small claims and reducing the costs of such litigation. Furthermore, the
Regulation aimed at facilitating enforcement by eliminating the need for
intermediate proceedings (exequatur) to enable recognition and enforcement
in other Member States than the country where the judgment was given.

The Regulation introduced an alternative
procedure, in addition to the procedures existing under the laws of the Member
States, for cross-border cases concerning claims which do not exceed EUR 2 000.
The Regulation is applied in the EU (except in Denmark) as of 1 January 2009. The procedure is in principle a
written procedure on the basis of standard forms and is governed by strict
deadlines. Representation by a lawyer is not mandatory and the use of
electronic means of communication is encouraged. Furthermore, the unsuccessful
party only has to bear the costs of the proceedings of the successful party to
the extent that they are proportionate to the claim. The
procedure is available for use by both consumers and businesses doing
cross-border transactions in the EU as a means of improving access to justice
and enforcement of their rights.

Article 28 of the Regulation requires the
Commission to present by 1 January 2014 to the European Parliament, the Council
and the European Economic and Social Committee a detailed report on the
operation of this Regulation, including in particular the EUR 2 000 threshold.
The report should be accompanied, if appropriate, by proposals for amendments.

1.2.        Need for a revision of the
European Small Claims Procedure

At a time where the
European Union is facing the biggest economic crisis in its history, improving
the efficiency of justice in the European Union has become an important factor
in supporting the economic activity[2].
One of the measures promoting the efficiency of justice in the EU is the
revision of the Regulation establishing a European
Small Claims Procedure.

The Regulation was adopted in recognition
of the fact that the problems of
inefficient litigation of small claims are amplified
when claims of low value are made across the borders of the EU Member States.
Additional problems arise in such situations, such as the unfamiliarity of the
parties with the foreign laws and procedures of the foreign courts, the
increased need for translation and interpretation, and the need to travel
abroad for oral hearings. With the increase in
cross-border trade in the EU in the recent years and the further increase
expected in the years to come, the need to provide for efficient redress
mechanisms as a means of supporting the economic activity will become even more
acute.

By providing for
standard forms and free assistance for the parties in filling in the forms, the procedure enables courts to process applications entirely by
means of a written procedure, removing the need to travel for oral hearings -
except in exceptional circumstances where a judgment cannot be given on the
basis of written evidence - as well as the need to be represented by a lawyer.
The Regulation also encourages the courts and tribunals to use distance means
of communication for accepting claim forms and for organising oral hearings.
Finally, the resulting judgment circulates freely among
Member States, without the need for any additional intermediate proceedings
necessary to enable recognition and enforcement[3].

However, despite the benefits it could
bring in terms of reducing the costs and time of litigating cross-border
claims, the procedure is still little known and remains under-used several
years after the entry into application of the Regulation. The European
Parliament affirmed in a 2011 Resolution[4] that more needs to be done in
terms of legal certainty, language barriers and transparency of proceedings. It
called on the Commission to
take steps to ensure that consumers and businesses are made more aware and make
use of existing legislative instruments, such as the ESCP. Consumer and
business stakeholders have also raised the fact that the Regulation should be
further improved to benefit consumers and businesses, in particular SMEs.
Member States have also identified certain shortcomings in the current
Regulation which should be addressed.

The problems are
arising mainly from the deficiencies in the current rules, such as the limited
scope of application in terms of low threshold as well as cross-border
coverage, and a procedure that is still too cumbersome, costly and lengthy and which
does not reflect the technological progress achieved in the Member States'
justice systems since the adoption of the Regulation. Even where problems are
related to the poor implementation of the current rules – as is the case to a
certain extent with the problem of the lack of transparency - it must be
acknowledged that the rules of the Regulation are not always clear. In order to
address the problem of lack of awareness, the European
Commission launched already several actions, for example a series of thematic
seminars in the Member States to
inform SMEs about this procedure, the publication of a practice guide and the
distribution of teaching modules to train European entrepreneurs on this
subject.

The Commission identified the revision of
the Regulation in the 2013 EU Citizenship Report[5] as one of the actions to strengthen the
rights of Union citizens, by facilitating
the settling of disputes regarding purchases made in another Member State. The initiative is also included in the European Consumer Agenda[6] as a means of improving
enforcement of consumer rights. Moreover, the
modernisation of the Regulation supports the EU's current political priorities
to promote economic recovery and sustainable growth, by advancing more
efficient, simplified court procedures and by making them more accessible to
SMEs.

1.3.        Need for revision of
Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006

In the context of the European order for
payment procedure, a statement of opposition entered by the defendant leads to
an automatic continuation of proceedings under ordinary civil procedures. Since
the European Small Claims Procedure has been put in place however, this
restriction is no longer justified in respect of claims falling within the
scope of Regulation 861/2007.

Therefore, it should be clarified in
Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 that where a dispute falls within the scope of the
European Small Claims Procedure, this procedure should also be available to a
party in a European Order for Payment Procedure who has lodged a statement of
opposition to a European order for payment.

2.           RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE
INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS

The Commission has carried out several consultations
to gather information about the current application of the Regulation as well
as of the possible elements of its revision. The results gave useful policy
indication of the positions of the stakeholders and the Member States and were
taken into account throughout the IA process.

A Eurobarometer survey to assess
awareness, expectations and experiences of the European citizens with regard to
the application of the Regulation was carried out in November-December 2012[7]. According to the survey, 71%
of consumer claims are currently within the €2,000 threshold set up by the
Regulation. The average minimum amount for which consumers are willing to
litigate in another Member State is €786. 12% of the respondents were aware of the existence of the ESCP,
with 1% of all respondents declaring that they already used the procedure. 69%
of those who already used the ESCP were satisfied. 97% of all respondents who
took businesses to court and won within last 2 years (both domestically and
cross-border) had their judgements enforced successfully. The most important
factors which would encourage citizens to go to court are: the possibility to
carry out proceedings in writing without appearing in the court (33%), carrying
out the proceedings without instructing a lawyer (26%), carrying out the
proceedings on-line (20%) and using their own language (24%).

A web-based public consultation was carried
out between 9 March and 10 June 2013. The consultation gathered views on the
possible improvements and further simplification which could further enhance
the benefits of the ESCP, in particular for the consumers and SMEs. 80
responses were received from a broad range of stakeholders, such as consumer
and business associations, judges, lawyers and academics. The results[8] of the consultation show that
66% of respondents support an extension of the threshold up to €10,000, 63% are in favour of using electronic
means in the course of the procedure and 71% support the idea of courts being
equipped with videoconferencing or other electronic communication equipment. Only 28% of respondents thought that free of charge assistance is
provided by the Member States.

A detailed questionnaire on the
operation and practical application of the Regulation was sent to the Member
States at the beginning of April 2013 and to the European Judicial Network .
The questions sought to gather data about the number of cases using the ESCP in
the Member States, the use of electronic means of communication used in court
proceedings, the existence and modalities of assistance to citizens in completing
the forms, procedural deadlines, hearing and evidence, costs of proceedings and
the need for increasing the threshold for eligible small claims. The deadline
for answers was 15 May 2013. In total, 20 Member States have sent their replies[9].

The European Judicial Network has on
several occasions discussed the application of the European Small Claims
Procedure, the measures to be taken to raise awareness of its existence and
operation as well as the possible elements of its revision. At the meeting of 17
May 2011, some Member States noted that the ESCP was not used in practice to
its full potential and that procedural improvements as well as awareness
raising measures should be taken. A working group was created and mandated to
draft a Practice Guide on the ESCP for the benefit of legal practitioners. At the
meeting of 29/30 May 2013, several aspects amenable to review were discussed
such as an increase of the threshold, the use of electronic means of
communication between courts and parties, the establishment of EU minimum
standards for the conduct of the procedure such as: the availability of
videoconferencing to carry out oral hearings and the transparency of court fees
calculation and payment and the assistance to the users of the procedure,
including legal representation.

3.           LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL

3.1.        Main elements of the
proposed action

The main elements of the proposed revision
are:

· 
Extension of the scope of the Regulation to cross-border
claims up to EUR 10,000;

· 
Extension of the definition of cross-border
cases;

· 
Improving the use of electronic communication,
including for service of certain documents;

· 
Imposing an obligation on courts to use
videoconferencing, teleconferencing and other means of distance communication
for the conduct of oral hearings and taking of evidence;

· 
Providing a maximum limitation on court fees
charged for the procedure;

· 
Providing for an obligation on the Member States
to put in place distance means of payment of court fees;

· 
Limiting the requirement to translate Form D,
containing the Certificate of enforcement, to only the substance of the
judgment;

· 
Imposing information obligations on the Member States in respect of court fees, methods of payment of court fees and the
availability of assistance in filling in the forms.

3.1.1.     Extension of the scope of
the Regulation to cross-border claims up to EUR 10 000

The threshold of EUR 2,000 limits the scope
of the Regulation. While this is less important for consumers, since most of
their claims do not exceed EUR 2,000, it severely limits the availability of
the procedure for SMEs. Only 20% of business claims are below EUR 2 000, while
claims between EUR 2,000 and EUR 10,000 amount to approximately 30% of all
cross-border business claims.

45% of companies which experience a cross-border
dispute do not go to court because the costs of proceedings are
disproportionate to the value of the claims, while 27% do not go to court
because proceedings would take too long. By making the European simplified
procedure available also to cross-border claims with a value between EUR 2,000
and EUR 10,000, the costs and length of litigation in such cases will be considerably
reduced.

In recent years, a number of Member States
increased the scope of their national simplified procedures by raising the
thresholds. This on-going trend testifies to the need to modernise justice
systems and make them more accessible to citizens by providing simplified,
cost-effective and speedy procedures for more claims of a low value. In this
context, the current threshold of EUR 2,000 for the European Small Claims
Procedure must also be raised.

Raising the current threshold will allow parties
to litigate a substantially bigger number of cases on the basis of the
simplified European procedure. Due to the increased simplification, the reduction
of costs and length of the proceedings it is to be expected that claims that
were abandoned and not pursued will be recovered. The main group benefiting
from this solution will be SMEs, but consumers will also benefit, since about
one fifth of consumer claims exceed EUR 2,000. Both businesses and consumers
will benefit from the fact that an increased use of the procedure will allow judges,
court clerks and lawyers to become more acquainted with the procedure and will conduct
it better and more efficiently.

3.1.2.     Extension of the definition
of cross border cases

The Regulation currently applies only to
disputes where at least one of the parties is domiciled or habitually resident
in a Member State other than the Member State of the court or tribunal seized. However,
disputes involving parties domiciled in the same Member State which have an
important cross-border element and could therefore benefit from the European
simplified procedure are left outside the scope of the Regulation. Examples
include cases where:

· 
the place of performance of the contract
is in another Member State, for example a lease contract for a holiday property
situated in another Member State; or

· 
the place of occurrence of the harmful event is
in another Member State, for example when parties are involved in a car
accident in a border region situated in another Member State; or

· 
the enforcement of the judgment is to
take place in another Member State, for example when a judgment must be
executed on the defendants salary which he receives in another Member State.

In particular, where the claimant may choose
under the provisions of Regulation [(EC) No 44/2001]/[(EU) No 1215/2012]
between the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where both him and
the defendant are domiciled and the jurisdiction of the Member State where for
example the contract is performed or the harmful event took place, the actual
choice of the claimant in favour of the courts or tribunals of the Member State
of the common domicile should not have the effect of depriving him of the
possibility to use the European Small Claims Procedure which would otherwise be
available.

Furthermore, the current limitation bars
applications under the European Small Claims Procedure lodged before courts of
EU Member States by or against third country residents, while no national
procedure in Europe is reserved for nationals of the country concerned or for
EU citizens.

The amendment would result in making the
European Small Claims Procedure available in all cases with a cross-border
element, including those involving third countries. This would lead to a
simplification and reduction of the costs and length of litigating for those
citizens who could benefit from the European simplified procedure, for example where
experts need to be heard in the Member State where the contract was performed
or the harmful event took place. Similarly, a judgment given under the European
Small Claims Procedure would be easier to enforce in another Member State where the procedure which led to the particular judgment is also well-known and
trusted.

Since courts have according to Article 4(3)
of the Regulation the power to examine if the grounds for jurisdiction under
the Regulation are fulfilled, the risk of abuse on the part of claimants is minimal.

3.1.3.     Improving the use of
electronic means of communication, including for service of documents

Several communications between the parties
and the courts could in principle be carried out by electronic means, which would
save time and costs with the procedure in cross-border cases, especially where
long distances are involved. The initial application can already be lodged via
electronic means where Member States accept this method. However, in those
instances where documents need to be served on the parties during the procedure[10], the Regulation sets postal
service with acknowledgement of receipt as the primary method of service. Other
service methods could be applied only if service by post is not possible.

Nevertheless, electronic service is already
in place in several Member States. The proposal will put postal service and
electronic service on the same footing, in order to allow these Member States
to make these electronic means available to the parties using the European
Small Claims Procedure. Simplification, time and cost
savings would be possible only for litigation in the Member States that decide
to implement electronic service of documents; however it is expected that the
number of Member States taking advantage of these technological developments
will continue to increase.

For other, less important communications
between the parties and the courts, the proposal will make electronic
communication the rule, subject only to the agreement of the parties.

3.1.4.     Imposing an obligation on
courts to use videoconferencing, teleconferencing or other means of distance
communication for the conduct of oral hearings and taking of evidence

The European Small Claims Procedure is essentially
a written procedure. However, in exceptional circumstances, where an oral
hearing or the hearings of an expert or witness are necessary for rendering a
judgment, the court or tribunal may organise an oral hearing. Oral hearings may
be conducted through videoconferencing or other means of distance communication.
In practice however, oral hearings are routinely organised and often the
physical presence of the parties is required, leading to increased travel costs
and delays for the parties.

The amendment would first emphasize more
strongly the exceptional nature of oral hearings in the context of this
simplified procedure. Second, it would impose an obligation on courts and
tribunals to always make use of distance means of communication such as
videoconference or teleconference where an oral hearing is held. In order to
safeguard the rights of the parties, an exception will be made for the party
who expressly requests to be present in court.

This amendment may require Member States to
equip their courts with appropriate communication technology, where such
technology is not yet in place. The technological possibilities at the Member
States' disposal are varied, and include cost efficient Internet facilities.

3.1.5.     Providing a maximum
limitation on court fees charged for the procedure

Court fees are levied up-front when an
application is lodged. When these court fees are above 10% of the value of the
claim they are considered to be disproportionate. In such cases, claimants may
be dissuaded from pursuing their claims. In many Member States, minimum fees
are also put in place to discourage frivolous or abusive litigation. The
average minimum court fee is €34.

The proposed provision will not harmonise
court fees in the Member States. Instead, it would set
a maximum cap on court fees for applications under the Regulation, calculated
as a percentage of the value of the claim above which court fees are considered
to be disproportionate to the value of the claim and therefore to impede access
to justice for claimants with small value claims. Setting
a maximum limit on court fees for the European Small Claims Procedure would
reduce costs in those Member States where the fees are disproportionate to the
value of such claims. This would increase the attractiveness of the procedure
for claimants.

Furthermore, the measure allows the Member
States to maintain a fixed minimum court fee which however should not prohibit
access to justice for claims of a lower value. The measure is proportionate
given the specific nature of cross-border disputes which – as opposed to
domestic disputes – routinely require the claimant to incur additional costs,
such as translation costs and, if oral hearings are organised, travel and
interpretation costs.

3.1.6.     Providing for an obligation
on the Member States to put in place on-line means of payment of court fees

Payment methods concerning court fees differ
across Member States. Especially when payment in cash or stamps is the only
acceptable means of payment, parties need to incur travel costs or hire a
lawyer in the Member State of the court, which may discourage them from pursuing
their claims. Similar problems arise when payment is accepted only by cheques,
which are not in general use in many Member States, or only through lawyers.

The proposal aims at obliging Member States
to put in place distance means of payment, as a minimum bank transfers and
credit/debit card on-line payment systems. The overall efficiency of the
judicial system is likely to increase, since parties will experience reduced
time and cost savings.

3.1.7.     Limiting the requirement to
translate the certificate of enforcement in Form D to only the substance of the
judgment

At the stage of enforcing a judgment, the
party seeking enforcement must translate the certificate of enforcement in Form
D by a certified translator into the language(s) of the Member State of enforcement. Only a few Member States accept Form D in other languages than their own.

The obligation to translate Form D imposes
unnecessary costs in that only Section 4.3 of the form (Substance of the
judgment) should need to be translated, as the other fields are already available
in all languages. However, translators often charge for translating the whole
form. For the party wishing to enforce a judgment, the resulting unnecessary
costs, added to other costs, may act as a disincentive to pursuing a claim or
seeking its enforcement.

The amendment will limit the requirement of
translation to only the substance of the judgment in point 4.3 of Form D.

3.1.8.     Imposing information
obligations on the Member States in respect of court fees, methods of payment of
court fees and the availability of assistance in filling in the forms

Although Member States are currently
required to notify the Commission, for the purposes of making the information
publicly available, of competent courts, accepted means
of communication, availability of appeal, accepted languages for enforcement and
enforcement authorities (Article 25), information on court fees and methods of payment of court fees is
currently missing. The obligation of cooperation between the Member States in
making information on costs available to the public (Article 24) has not
resulted in more transparency on these elements. Furthermore, the obligation of
Member States to provide practical assistance in filling in the forms (Article
11) has in many cases not been implemented.

Imposing an obligation on Member States to
inform the Commission of court fees and methods of payment for the European
Small Claims Procedure, as well as of the availability of practical assistance
to the parties, and the Commission's obligation to make such information
publicly available would improve transparency and ultimately access to justice.

3.2.        Other technical amendments

Several provisions of Regulation (EC) No
861/2007 can be improved, to take into account the latest developments, such as
the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon and the case law of the Court of
Justice of the European Union.

First, Article 26 and 27 of the Regulation
need to be brought in line with the new delegation procedure established by
Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Second, Article 18 of the Regulation will
need to be clarified in order to avoid difficulties in practice similar to
those raised in a recent request for a preliminary ruling lodged before the
Court of Justice, in which the Court was called to interpret a similarly
provision in the context of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006[11]. The same right to apply for
review is formulated in a slightly different, but already clearer way, in
Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and
enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance
obligations. There is no reason why these provisions on review, which pursue
exactly the same objective, are formulated differently in the various European
regulations. The proposed revision aims at clarifying the right to apply for a
review in a manner consistent with Regulation 4/2009.

3.3.        Legal basis

Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 was adopted
under Article 61(c) TEC stipulating that the Council shall adopt measures in
the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters and Article 67(1) TEC
defining the legislative procedure to be followed. Following the entry into
force of the Lisbon Treaty, any revision to Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 will be
based on Articles 81(2) (a), (c) and (f) TFEU.

3.4.        Subsidiarity and
proportionality

The need for EU action has already been
established in 2007 when the Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 was adopted. The issue being addressed has transnational
aspects, which cannot satisfactorily be dealt with by the Member States’
individual action. The objective of enhancing the confidence of consumers and
businesses, particularly SMEs, in cross-border trade and access to justice in
cross-border disputes cannot be achieved without an amendment of the existing Regulation
to better reflect developments since 2007 and reported short-comings in the
application of Regulation (EC) No 861/2007.

National simplified
procedures, where they exist, are extremely diverse both
in terms of threshold and the procedural simplification achieved. In the
absence of uniform EU-wide procedural standards, the additional inherent
complexity and cost of pursuing a cross-border claim, resulting from the lack
of familiarity of the parties with a foreign procedural law, the need for
translation and interpretation and the need to travel for oral hearings, would amplify the disproportionate costs and
length of litigation as compared to domestic disputes. Distortions of
competition within the internal market due to imbalances with regard to the
functioning of the procedural means afforded to claimants/creditors in
different Member States entails the need for EU action that guarantees a
level-playing field for creditors and debtors throughout the EU. For example,
in the absence of a revision, the current threshold will continue to leave many
SMEs having a cross-border dispute without access to a simplified and uniform
court procedure in all the Member States. Similarly, in the absence of a
EU-wide cap on disproportionate court fees and of a EU-wide possibility to pay
court fees via distance means of payment, many creditors would not have access
to courts.

Furthermore, action at
EU level would produce clear benefits compared to Member States’ action in
terms of effectiveness as the amended Regulation will set up uniform procedural
tools for all cross-border claims within its scope, regardless of where in the
EU the court hearing the case is situated. The revision will improve access to
justice in particular for a large proportion of SME's small claims which are
now outside the scope of the Regulation, as well as for consumers and SMEs
which have cross-border claims outside the current definition of the
Regulation. Furthermore, the revision would make the procedure more efficient
for all claims within its scope, by making available uniform procedural rules
which further simplify and make less costly litigation in cross-border
disputes. Better access to efficient judicial procedures for more creditors
having claims of a small value will un-block the flow of capital, leading to
increased confidence in cross-border trade and to a better functioning of the
internal market.

The revision will also
further simplify the enforcement of judgments, especially for claims above the
current threshold, and create more trust among the courts and enforcement
authorities who would become familiar with the European Small Claims Procedure.

3.5.        Fundamental rights

As set out in detail in the Impact
Assessment accompanying this proposal and in accordance with the Union's strategy for the effective implementation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of
the European Union, all elements of the reform respect the rights set out in
the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The right to a fair
trial (Article 47(2) of the Charter) is guaranteed, since the amendment will
result in increased access to justice for claims of a small value in all
cross-border cases. Furthermore, procedural safeguards are put in place to
ensure that the increased simplification of the procedure achieved by the
proposed amendments does not negatively impact on the rights of the parties. Thus,
electronic services with an acknowledgement of receipt
will be used only when parties so agree; an exception to compulsory
videoconference or teleconference hearing will always be made for the party who
wishes to appear in court; and, for claims above EUR 2,000, courts will not be
able to refuse an oral hearing carried out by distance means of communication if
at least one party requests it.

3.6.        Budgetary implications

The only implications for the budget of the
European Union resulting from the proposed Regulation consist of the one-off
costs for the preparation of a report 5 years after the date of application of
the Regulation.

2013/0403 (COD)

Proposal for a

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
AND OF THE COUNCIL

amending Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of
the European Parliament and the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European
Small Claims Procedure and Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment
procedure

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE
COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the
Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 81 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the
European Commission,

After transmission of the draft legislative
act to the national Parliaments,

Having regard to the opinion of the
European Economic and Social Committee[12],

Acting in accordance with the ordinary
legislative procedure,

Whereas:

(1)       Regulation (EC) No
861/2007 of the European Parliament and the Council[13] established the European Small
Claims Procedure. It applies to both to contested and uncontested cross-border
civil and commercial claims of a value not exceeding EUR 2,000. It also ensured
that the judgments rendered within this procedure are enforceable without any
intermediate procedure, in particular without the need for a declaration of
enforceability in the Member State of enforcement (abolition of exequatur). The
general aim of the Regulation was to improve access to justice by reducing
costs and accelerating civil procedure with regard to claims within its scope
for both consumers and businesses.

(2)       Regulation (EC) No
861/2007 instructs the Commission to present by 1 January 2014 to the European
Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee a
detailed report reviewing the operation of the European Small Claims Procedure,
including the limit of the value of the claim that may be pursued under that procedure.

(3)       The Commission's report[14] on the application of
Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 identified the obstacles to the full potential of
the European Small Claims Procedure to the benefit of consumers and businesses,
in particular Small and Medium Enterprises. The report shows, among others,
that the low threshold of the current regulation deprives many potential
claimants having cross-border disputes of the use of a simplified procedure.
Furthermore, several elements of the procedure could be further simplified in
order to reduce costs and time of litigation. The report concludes that these
obstacles could be removed most effectively through an amendment of the
Regulation.

(4)       Consumers should be able
to use the opportunities given by the single market to the fullest extent, and
their confidence should not be limited by the lack of the effective legal
remedies for disputes in which a cross–border element is present. The
improvements of the European Small Claims Procedure proposed in this Regulation
aim at providing the consumers with the means of effective redress, thus
contribute to the practical enforcement of their rights.

(5)       Increasing the threshold
up to EUR 10,000 would be particularly beneficial for small and medium
enterprises, which are currently discouraged from considering court action
because under national ordinary or simplified procedures the costs of
litigation are disproportionate to the value of the claim and/or the judicial proceedings
are too lengthy. Raising the threshold would improve access to an effective and
cost efficient judicial remedy for cross-border disputes involving Small and
Medium Enterprises. Increased access to justice would enhance the trust in
cross-border transactions and contribute to the fullest use of the
opportunities offered by the internal market.

(6)       The European Small Claims
Procedure applies to all claims with a cross-border element. This includes
cases where the parties are both domiciled in the same Member State and only the place of performance of the contract, the place where the harmful event
takes place or the place of enforcement of the judgment is situated in another Member State. In particular, where the claimant may choose under Council Regulation (EC) No
44/2001[15][Regulation
(EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council[16]] between the jurisdiction of
the courts of the Member State where both him and the defendant are domiciled
and the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where the contract is
performed or the harmful event took place, the actual choice of the claimant in
favour of the courts or tribunals of the Member State of the common domicile
should not have the effect of depriving him of the possibility to use the
European Small Claims Procedure which would otherwise be available.
Furthermore, the European Small Claims Procedure should also be available in
cases lodged before courts of EU Member States by or against third country
residents.

(7)       This Regulation should apply
only in cross-border disputes, but nothing should prevent Member States from
applying identical provisions also to purely internal proceedings concerning
claims of a low value.

(8)       The European Small Claims
Procedure could be further improved by taking advantage of the technological
developments in the field of justice which eliminate geographical distance and
its consequences in terms of high costs and length of proceedings as factors
discouraging access to justice.

(9)       To further reduce the
length of the procedure, the use of modern communication technology by the
parties and the courts should be further encouraged. Lodging an application under
the European Small Claims Procedure via electronic means of communication
should be possible whenever the technology is already in place in the Member
States. For documents which need to be served on the parties, electronic service
should be on an equal footing with postal service whenever the technology is in
place in the Member States. For all other written communications between the
parties and courts or tribunals, electronic means should be preferred to postal
service. In all cases, the parties should have a choice between electronic
means and more traditional means for application, service or communication.

(10)     The court or tribunal
giving judgment should serve the judgment on both the claimant and the
defendant in accordance with the methods provided for in this Regulation.

(11)     The European Small Claims
Procedure is essentially a written procedure. However, oral hearings may be held
exceptionally where it is not possible to render the judgment on the basis of
the written evidence provided by the parties. Furthermore, in order to
safeguard the procedural rights of the parties, an oral hearing should always
be organised upon the request of at least one of the parties where the value of
the claim exceeds EUR 2,000. Finally, courts should seek to reach a settlement
between the parties and therefore, where the parties declare their willingness
to reach a court settlement, the court should organise an oral hearing for this
purpose.

(12)     Oral hearings as well as
taking of evidence by means of hearings of witnesses, experts or parties,
should be carried out by distance means of communication. This should not
affect the right of a party to the proceedings to appear in court for the oral
hearing. In the context of oral hearings and the taking of evidence, the Member
States should use modern, distance means of communication enabling persons to
be heard without the need to travel to the court or tribunal. Where the person
heard is domiciled in a Member State other than the Member State where the court seised is located, oral hearings should be organised in accordance with
the rules set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001[17]. Where the party to be heard
is domiciled in the Member State where the court or tribunal with jurisdiction
is located or in a third country, an oral hearing may be held through
videoconference, teleconference or other appropriate distance communication
technology in accordance with national law. A party should always be entitled
to appear in court at an oral hearing if that party so requests. The court or
tribunal should use the simplest and least costly method of taking evidence.

(13)     The potential costs of litigation
may play a role in the claimant's decision to consider court action. Among
other costs, court fees may discourage claimants from taking court action, in
particular in those Member States where court fees are disproportionate. The court
fees should be proportionate to the value of the claim in order to ensure
access to justice for cross-border small claims. This Regulation does not aim
at harmonising court fees; instead, it puts in place a maximum limit on court
fees which would make the procedure accessible to a significant proportion of
claimants, while at the same time allowing Member States wide discretion in
choosing the method of calculation and the amount of court fees.

(14)     The payment of court fees
should not require the claimant to travel or hire a lawyer for this purpose. As
a minimum, bank transfers and credit or debit card on-line payment systems should
be accepted by all courts and tribunals with jurisdiction in European Small
Claims Procedures.

(15)     Information about the court
fees and the methods of payment, as well as about the authorities or
organisations competent to give practical assistance in the Member States
should be made more transparent and easily available on the Internet. The
Member States should provide this information to the Commission, which in turn
should ensure that it is made publicly available and widely disseminated.

(16)     It should be clarified in Regulation
(EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council[18] that where a dispute falls
within the scope of the European Small Claims Procedure, this procedure should
also be available to a party in a European Order for Payment Procedure who has
lodged a statement of opposition to a European order for payment.

(17)     To improve the protection
of the defendant, the standard forms contained in Annexes I, II, III and IV to Regulation
(EC) No 861/2007 should contain information about the consequences for
the defendant if he or she does not object to the claim or does not appear in
court, in particular the possibility that a judgment may be given or enforced
against the defendant and that liability may be incurred for costs related to
the court proceedings. The information in the Annexes should reflect the changes
provided for by this regulation, for example those aimed at facilitating the
use of distance means of communication between court and tribunals and the
parties.

(18)     In
respect of changes to Annexes I, II, III and IV to this Regulation, the power to adopt acts in accordance with
Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union should be
delegated to the Commission. It is of particular importance that the Commission
carries out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at
expert level. The Commission, when preparing and drawing up delegated acts,
should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant
documents to the European Parliament and to the Council.

(19)     In accordance with Article
1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in
respect of the area of freedom, security and justice annexed to the Treaty on
European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, [the
United Kingdom and Ireland have given notice of their wish to take part in the
adoption and application of this Regulation]/[without prejudice to Article 4 of
the Protocol, the United Kingdom and Ireland will not participate in the
adoption of this Regulation and will not be bound by it or be subject to its
application].

(20)     Denmark, in accordance with
Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of Denmark annexed to the
Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union, is not participating in the adoption of this Regulation, and is
therefore neither bound by it nor subject to its application.

(21)     Regulations (EC) No 861/2007
and No 1896/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 is amended as
follows:

(1) 
Article 2 is replaced by the following:

"Article 2

Scope

1.           This Regulation shall
apply to civil and commercial matters, whatever the nature of the court or
tribunal, where the value of a claim does not exceed EUR 10,000 at the time
when the claim form is received by the court or tribunal with jurisdiction,
excluding all interest, expenses and disbursements. It shall not extend,
in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters or to the
liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State
authority (acta jure imperii).

2.           This Regulation shall not apply
where, at the time when the claim form is received by the court or tribunal
with jurisdiction, all of the following elements, where relevant, are in a
single Member State:

(a) 
the domicile or habitual residence of the
parties;

(b) 
the place of performance of the contract;

(c) 
the place where the facts on which the claim is
based arose;

(d) 
the place of enforcement of the judgment;

(e) 
the court or tribunal with jurisdiction.

Domicile shall be determined in accordance
with [Articles 59 and 60 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001]/[Article 62 and 63 of
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012].

3.           This Regulation shall not
apply to matters concerning:

(a) 
the status or legal capacity of natural persons;

(b) 
rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship,
maintenance obligations, wills and succession;

(c) 
bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the
winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial
arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings;

(d) 
social security;

(e) 
arbitration;

(f) 
employment law;

(g) 
tenancies of immovable property, with the
exception of actions on monetary claims; or

(h) 
violations of privacy and of rights relating to
personality, including defamation.

4.           In this Regulation, the
term "Member State" shall mean Member States with the exception of Denmark."

(2) 
Article 3 is deleted.

(3) 
Article 4 is amended as follows:

(a) 
In paragraph 4 second subparagraph, the
following sentence is added:

"The court shall inform the claimant of
such dismissal."

(b) 
Paragraph 5 is replaced by the following:

"5. Member States shall ensure that the
standard claim Form A is available in paper form at all courts and tribunals at
which the European Small Claims Procedure can be commenced, as well as in
electronic form on the websites of those courts or of the relevant central
authority."

(4) 
In Article 5, paragraph 1 is replaced by the
following:

1. The European Small Claims Procedure shall
be a written procedure. The court or tribunal shall hold an oral hearing if it
considers that it is not possible to render the judgment on the basis of the written
evidence submitted by the parties or if a party so requests. The court or
tribunal may refuse such a request if it considers that with regard to the
circumstances of the case, an oral hearing is not necessary for the fair conduct
of the proceedings. The reasons for refusal shall be given in writing. The
refusal may not be contested separately from any challenge of the judgment
itself.

The court or tribunal may not refuse a request
for an oral hearing where:

(a) 
the value of the claim exceeds EUR 2,000, or

(b) 
both parties indicate their willingness to
conclude a court settlement and request a court hearing for that purpose. "

(5) 
Article 8 is replaced by the following:

"Article 8

Oral hearing

1.           An oral hearing shall be
held through videoconference, teleconference or other appropriate distance communication
technology in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 where the
party to be heard is domiciled in a Member State other than the Member State of
the court or tribunal with jurisdiction.

2.           A party shall always be
entitled to appear before the court or tribunal and be heard in person if that
party so requests."

(6) 
Article 9 is replaced by the following:

"Article 9

Taking of evidence

1.           The court or tribunal
shall determine the means of taking evidence and the extent of the evidence
necessary for its judgment under the rules applicable to the admissibility of
evidence. The court or tribunal may admit the taking of evidence through
written statements of witnesses, experts or parties. Where taking of evidence
implies that a person is heard, the hearing shall be carried out in accordance
with the conditions set out in Article 8.

2.           The court or tribunal may
take expert evidence or oral testimony only if it is not possible to render the
judgment on the basis of the evidence submitted by the parties.

3.           The court or tribunal
shall use the simplest and least burdensome method of taking evidence."

(7) 
Article 11 is replaced by the following:

"Article 11

Assistance for the parties

1.           The Member States shall
ensure that the parties can receive practical assistance in filling in the
forms. Such assistance shall in particular be available for determining whether
the procedure may be used to resolve the dispute concerned and for determining the
court with jurisdiction, for calculating interest due and for identifying the
documents which need to be attached.

2.           The Member States shall
ensure that information on the authorities or organisations competent to give
assistance in accordance with paragraph 1 is available in paper form at all
courts and tribunals at which the European Small Claims Procedure can be
commenced, as well as in electronic form on the websites of those courts or of
the relevant central authority."

(8) 
Article 13 is replaced by the following:

"Article 13

Service of documents and other
communications between the parties and the court or tribunal

1.           The documents mentioned in
Article 5(2) and 7(2) shall be served by postal or by electronic means attested
by an acknowledgment of receipt including the date of receipt. Documents shall
be served electronically only on a party who expressly accepted in advance that
documents may be served electronically. Service by electronic means can be
attested by an automatic confirmation of delivery.

2.           All written communications
not referred to in paragraph 1 between the court or tribunal and the parties
shall be carried out by electronic means attested by an acknowledgment of
receipt, where such means are acceptable in procedures under national law and only
where the party accepts such means of communication.

3.           If service in accordance
with paragraph 1 is not possible, service may be effected by any of the methods
provided for in Articles 13 or 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006. If
communication in accordance with paragraph 2 is not possible, any other method
of communication acceptable under national law may be used."

(9) 
The following new article is inserted:

"Article 15a

Court fees and methods of payment

1.           The court fee charged for
a European Small Claims Procedure shall not exceed 10% of the value of the
claim, excluding all interest, expenses and disbursements. If Member States
charge a minimum court fee for a European Small Claims Procedure, that fee
shall not exceed EUR 35 at the time when the claim form is received by the
court or tribunal with jurisdiction.

2.           The Member States shall
ensure that the parties can pay the court fees by means of distance payment methods,
including bank transfer and credit or debit card on-line payment system."

(10) 
In Article 17, paragraph 2 is replaced by the
following:

"2. Article 15a and 16 shall apply to any
appeal."

(11) 
Article 18 is replaced by the following:

"Article 18

Minimum standards for review of the
judgment

1.           A defendant who did not
enter an appearance shall be entitled to apply for a review of the judgment
given in the European Small Claims Procedure before the court or tribunal with
jurisdiction of the Member State where the judgment was given, if:

(a) 
the defendant was not served with the claim form
in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his
defence; or

(b) 
the defendant was prevented from contesting the
claim by reason of force majeure or due to extraordinary circumstances
without any fault on his part;

unless the defendant failed to challenge the judgment
when it was possible for him to do so.

2.           The time limit for
applying for a review shall be 30 days. It shall run from the day the defendant
was effectively acquainted with the contents of the judgment and was able to
react, at the latest from the date of the first enforcement measure having the
effect of making property of the defendant non-disposable in whole or in part.
No extension of the time limit may be granted on account of distance.

3.           If the court rejects the
application for a review referred to in paragraph 1 on the basis that none of
the grounds for a review set out in that paragraph apply, the judgment shall
remain in force.

If the court decides that a review is
justified for one of the reasons laid down in paragraph 1, the judgment given
in the European Small Claims Procedure shall be null and void. However, the
creditor shall not lose the benefit of the interruption of prescription or
limitation periods."

(12) 
Article 21 paragraph 2 letter (b) is replaced by
the following:

"(b) a copy of the certificate referred
to in Article 20(2) and, where necessary, the translation of the substance of
the judgment indicated in point 4.3 of the certificate into the official
language of the Member State of enforcement or, if there are several official
languages in that Member State, the official language or one of the official
languages of court or tribunal proceedings of the place where enforcement is
sought in conformity with the law of that Member State, or into another
language that the Member State of enforcement has indicated it can accept. Each
  Member State shall indicate at least one official language or languages of
the institutions of the European Union other than its own which it can accept
for the European Small Claims Procedure. The translation of the substance of
the judgment in point 4.3 of the certificate shall be done by a person
qualified to make translations in one of the Member States."

(13) 
Article 25 is replaced by the following:

"Article 25

Information relating to jurisdiction,
means of communication, appeals, court fees, methods of payment and review

1.           The Member States shall
communicate to the Commission no later than [6 months after the entry into
force of the Regulation]:

(a) 
which courts or tribunals have jurisdiction to
give a judgment in the European Small Claims Procedure;

(b) 
which means of communication are accepted for
the purposes of the European Small Claims Procedure and available to the courts
or tribunals in accordance with Article 4(1);

(c) 
what are the court fees for the European Small
Claims Procedure or how they are calculated, as well as the methods of payment
accepted for the payment of court fees in accordance with Article 15a;

(d) 
which authorities or organisations are competent
for providing practical assistance in accordance with Article 11;

(e) 
whether an appeal is available under their
procedural law in accordance with Article 17, the time limit within which such
an appeal must be lodged and with which court or tribunal the appeal may be
lodged;

(f) 
the procedures for applying for review as
provided for in Article 18;

(g) 
which languages are accepted pursuant to Article
21(2)(b); and

(h) 
which authorities have competence with respect
to enforcement and which authorities have competence for the purposes of the
application of Article 23.

Member States shall apprise the Commission of
any subsequent changes to this information.

2.           The Commission shall make
the information notified in accordance with paragraph 1 publicly available by
any appropriate means, such as through publication on the internet."

(14) 
Article 26 is replaced by the following:

"Article 26
Amendment of the Annexes

1.           The Commission shall be
empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 27 concerning the
amendment of Annexes I, II, III and IV."

(15) 
Article 27 is replaced by the following:

"Article 27
Exercise of the delegation

1.           The
power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the
conditions laid down in this Article.

2.           The
power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 26 shall be conferred on
the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from [date of entry into
force].

3.           The
delegation of power referred to in Article 26 may be revoked at any time by the
European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to
the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect
the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of
the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect
the validity of any delegated acts already in force.

4.           As
soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it
simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.

5.           A
delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 26 shall enter into force only if no
objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council
within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European
Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the
European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they
will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative
of the European Parliament or of the Council."

(16) 
Article 28 shall be replaced by the following:

"Article 28
Review

By [5 years after the date of application],
the Commission shall present to the European Parliament, the Council and the
European Economic and Social Committee a report on the operation of this
Regulation. The report shall be accompanied, if appropriate, by legislative proposals.

To that end and by the same date, Member States
shall provide the Commission with information relating to the number of
applications under the European Small Claims Procedure as well as the number of
requests for enforcement of judgments given in a European Small Claims
Procedure. "

Article 2

Article 17 of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006
is replaced by the following:

"Article 17

Effect of the lodging of a statement of
opposition

1.           If a statement of
opposition is lodged within the time limit laid down in Article 16(2), the
proceedings shall continue before the competent courts of the Member State of origin unless the claimant has explicitly requested that the proceedings be
terminated in that event. The proceedings shall continue in accordance with the
rules of:

(a) 
any applicable simplified procedure, in
particular the procedure laid down in Regulation (EC) No 861/2007; or

(b) 
the ordinary civil procedure.

Where the claimant has pursued his claim
through the European order for payment procedure, nothing under national law
shall prejudice his position in subsequent civil proceedings.

2.           The transfer to civil
proceedings within the meaning of paragraph 1(a) and (b) shall be governed by
the law of the Member State of origin.

3.           The claimant shall be
informed whether the defendant has lodged a statement of opposition and of any
transfer to civil proceedings within the meaning of paragraph 1."

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on
the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal
of the European Union.

It shall apply from [6 months after the
entry into force of the Regulation].

This
Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in the
Member States in accordance with the Treaties.

Done at Brussels,

For the European Parliament                       For
the Council

The President                                                 The
President

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT

1.           FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

1.1.    Title of the proposal/initiative

1.2.    Policy
area(s) concerned in the ABM/ABB structure

1.3.    Nature
of the proposal/initiative

1.4.    Objective(s)

1.5.    Grounds
for the proposal/initiative

1.6.    Duration
and financial impact

1.7.    Management
method(s) envisaged

2.           MANAGEMENT MEASURES

2.1.    Monitoring
and reporting rules

2.2.    Management
and control system

2.3.    Measures
to prevent fraud and irregularities

3.           ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE
PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

3.1.    Heading(s)
of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget line(s) affected

3.2.    Estimated
impact on expenditure

3.2.1. Summary of
estimated impact on expenditure

3.2.2. Estimated impact
on operational appropriations

3.2.3. Estimated impact
on appropriations of an administrative nature

3.2.4. Compatibility
with the current multiannual financial framework

3.2.5. Third-party participation
in financing

3.3.    Estimated impact on revenue

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT

1.           FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

1.1.        Title of the
proposal/initiative

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the
Council amending Council regulation (EC) N° 861/2007 establishing a European
Small Claims Procedure and Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 on a European order for
Payment procedure

1.2.        Policy area(s) concerned
in the ABM/ABB structure[19]

Title 33 - Justice

1.3.        Nature of the proposal/initiative

 ̈ The
proposal/initiative relates to a new action

 ̈ The
proposal/initiative relates to a new action following a pilot
project/preparatory action[20]

Ø The proposal/initiative relates to the
extension of an existing action

 ̈ The
proposal/initiative relates to an action redirected towards a new action

1.4.        Objectives

1.4.1.     The Commission's
multiannual strategic objective(s) targeted by the proposal/initiative

Development of an area of Justice, Justice for Growth

1.4.2.     Specific objective(s) and
ABM/ABB activity(ies) concerned

Specific objective No..

Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Commercial matters

ABM/ABB activity(ies) concerned

33 03

1.4.3.     Expected result(s) and
impact

Specify the
effects which the proposal/initiative should have on the beneficiaries/groups
targeted.

Increased simplification, cost and time reduction of the European
Small Claims Procedure, increased access to justice for claims of a small value

1.4.4.     Indicators of results and
impact

Specify the
indicators for monitoring implementation of the proposal/initiative.

[...]

The indicators to screen efficiency and
effectiveness are as follows:

- increase in the number of ESCP
applications, both of claims under EUR 2 000 and between EUR 2 000 and EUR 10
000 – information from EJN, Eurobarometers, ECC-Net;

- reducing the overall costs and time of
the procedure per case, including translation costs of Form D – Eurobarometers,
ECC-Net;

- improve the transparency of the
information on court fees and methods of payment as well as on practical
assistance – Eurobarometers, ECC-Net;

- reduction of the workload of the courts
per case by using the procedure as opposed to using national ordinary or
simplified procedures – EJN, interviews with judges in several Member States.

1.5.        Grounds for the
proposal/initiative

1.5.1.     Requirement(s) to be met in
the short or long term

Revision of Regulation 861/2007 on a European Small Claims Procedure

1.5.2.     Added value of EU involvement

The need for EU action
has already been established in 2007 when the Regulation 861/2007 was adopted.
The main rationale for the current action consists in further reducing disproportionate
costs of litigation of small claims in cross-border situations within the EU.
This objective cannot be achieved by Member States because it concerns a
procedure established in a EU Regulation. Action at EU level is necessary to further
improve and simplify the European procedure and make it available for more
cases, broadening its scope and raising the threshold, for the benefit of
consumers and SMEs.

1.5.3.     Lessons learned from
similar experiences in the past

[...]

Despite the benefits it could bring in
terms of reducing the costs and time of litigating cross-border claims, the
procedure is still little known and remains under-used several years after the
entry into application of the Regulation. The European Parliament affirmed in a 2011 Resolution[21]
that more needs to be done in terms of legal certainty, language barriers and
transparency of proceedings. It called on the Commission to take steps to ensure that consumers and
businesses are made more aware and make use of existing legislative
instruments, such as the ESCP. Consumer and business stakeholders have also
raised the fact that the Regulation should be further improved to benefit
consumers and businesses, in particular SMEs. Member States have also
identified certain shortcomings in the current Regulation which should be
addressed.

1.5.4.     Coherence and possible
synergy with other relevant instruments

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I recast) aims at harmonising the private
international law rules on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of
judgments in civil and commercial matters. It provides, among others, that
"a judgment given in a Member State shall be recognised in the other
Member States without any special procedure being required". Such special
procedures, which will be abolished as of 10 January 2015 for all civil and
commercial judgments, are known as "exequatur" procedures.

The ESCP Regulation is essentially an
instrument simplifying the procedures for the resolution of disputes of a low
value - lodging an application by means of a standard form, conduct of the
procedure in principle by written means, the hearing of the parties and the
taking of evidence, the representation of the parties, costs and time limits.

The ESCP Regulation also contains rules
abolishing the exequatur procedure for the recognition of judgments given by
this simplified procedure (Article 20) and in this respect it overlaps with the
  Brussels I recast. However, when it comes to the Certificate of enforcement,
the ESCP Regulation represents a simplification when compared to the Brussels I recast – Form D of the ESCP is a simplified version of Annex I of the Brussels I recast.

As of 10 January 2015 (date of entry into
force of the Brussels I recast), the overwhelming majority of the provisions of
the ESCP Regulation which deal with the procedural simplification, as well as
those on enforcement in as much as they represent a simplification by
comparison with Brussels I recast will continue to be a value added of the ESCP.

1.6.        Duration and financial
impact

 ̈ Proposal/initiative of limited
duration

– 
 ̈  Proposal/initiative in effect from [DD/MM]YYYY to [DD/MM]YYYY

– 
 ̈  Financial impact from YYYY to YYYY

Ø Proposal/initiative of unlimited
duration

– 
Implementation with a start-up period from adoption
of regulation

– 
followed by full-scale operation.

1.7.        Management mode(s) envisaged[22]

Ø Centralised direct management by the Commission

 ̈ Centralised indirect management with the delegation of implementation tasks to:

– 
 ̈  executive agencies

– 
 ̈  bodies set up by the Communities[23]

– 
 ̈  national public-sector bodies/bodies with public-service mission

– 
 ̈  persons entrusted with the implementation of specific actions
pursuant to Title V of the Treaty on European Union and identified in the
relevant basic act within the meaning of Article 49 of the Financial Regulation

 ̈ Shared management with the Member States

 ̈ Decentralised management with third countries

 ̈ Joint management with international organisations (to be specified)

If more than one
management mode is indicated, please provide details in the
"Comments" section.

Comments

2.           MANAGEMENT MEASURES

2.1.        Monitoring and reporting
rules

Specify frequency
and conditions.

A review/report will follow after 5 years. Reports should be
accompanied by proposals for amendments if necessary.

2.2.        Management and control
system

2.2.1.     Risk(s) identified

There are no identified risks.

2.2.2.     Control method(s) envisaged

[...] N/A

2.3.        Measures to prevent fraud
and irregularities

Specify existing
or envisaged prevention and protection measures.

[...]N/A

3.           ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE
PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

3.1.        Heading(s) of the
multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget line(s) affected

· Existing expenditure budget lines

In order of
multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines.

Heading of multiannual financial framework || Budget line || Type of expenditure || Contribution

Number [Description........................................] || Diff./non-diff. ([24]) || from EFTA[25] countries || from candidate countries[26] || from third countries || within the meaning of Article 18(1)(aa) of the Financial Regulation

[3] || [33.03.01 [Justice Programme] || Diff/ || NO || NO || NO || NO

· New budget lines requested

In order of multiannual financial framework
headings and budget lines.

Heading of multiannual financial framework || Budget line || Type of expenditure || Contribution

Number [Heading............................................] || Diff./non-diff. || from EFTA countries || from candidate countries || from third countries || within the meaning of Article 18(1)(aa) of the Financial Regulation

[3] || [XX.YY.YY.YY] || || YES/NO || YES/NO || YES/NO || YES/NO

3.2.        Estimated impact on
expenditure

3.2.1.     Summary of estimated impact
on expenditure

EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

Heading of multiannual financial framework: || Number || [Heading ...3.....................................................................................]

DG: JUST || || || Year 2014[27] || Year 2015 || Year 2016 || Year 2017 || Year 2018 || Year 2019 || Year 2020 || TOTAL

Ÿ Operational appropriations || || || || || || || ||

Number of budget line 33.03 01 || Commitments || (1) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0,150 || 0 || 0 || 150.000

Payments || (2) || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0,150 || 0 || 0 || 150.000

Number of budget line || Commitments || (1a) || || || || || || || ||

Payments || (2a) || || || || || || || ||

Appropriations of an administrative nature financed  from the envelope for specific programmes[28] || || || || || || || ||

Number of budget line || || (3) || || || || || || || ||

TOTAL appropriations for DG JUST || Commitments || =1+1a +3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0,150 || 0 || 0 || 150.000

Payments || =2+2a +3 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0,150 || 0 || 0 || 150.000

Ÿ TOTAL operational appropriations || Commitments || (4) || || || || || || || ||

Payments || (5) || || || || || || || ||

Ÿ TOTAL appropriations of an administrative nature financed from the envelope for specific programmes || (6) || || || || || || || ||

TOTAL appropriations under HEADING 3 of the multiannual financial framework || Commitments || =4+ 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0,150 || 0 || 0 || 150.000

Payments || =5+ 6 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0,150 || 0. || 0 || 150.000

If more than one heading is affected by the proposal /
initiative:

Ÿ TOTAL operational appropriations || Commitments || (4) || || || || || || || ||

Payments || (5) || || || || || || || ||

Ÿ TOTAL appropriations of an administrative nature financed from the envelope for specific programmes || (6) || || || || || || || ||

TOTAL appropriations under HEADINGS 1 to 4 of the multiannual financial framework (Reference amount) || Commitments || =4+ 6 || || || || || || || ||

Payments || =5+ 6 || || || || || || || ||

Heading of multiannual financial framework: || 5 || " Administrative expenditure "

EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

|| || || Year 2014 || Year 2015 || Year 2016 || Year 2017 || Year 2018 || Year 2019 || Year 2020 || TOTAL

DG: JUST ||

Ÿ Human resources || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,182

Ÿ Other administrative expenditure || 0,015 || 0,015 || 0,015 || 0,015 || 0,015 || 0,015 || 0,015 || 0,105

TOTAL DG JUST || Appropriations || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,287

TOTAL appropriations under HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || (Total commitments = Total payments) || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,287

EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

|| || || Year 2014 || Year 2015 || Year 2016 || Year 2017 || Year 2018 || Year 2019 || Year 2020 || TOTAL

TOTAL appropriations under HEADINGS 1 to 5 of the multiannual financial framework || Commitments || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,191 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,437

Payments || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,191 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,437

3.2.2.     Estimated impact on
operational appropriations

– 
 ̈  The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational
appropriations

– 
Ø  The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational
appropriations, as explained below:

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal
places)

Indicate objectives and outputs ò || || || Year 2014 || Year 2015 || Year 2016 || Year 2017 ||  Year 2018 || Year 2019 || Year 2020 || TOTAL

OUTPUTS

Type of output[29] || Average cost of the output || Number of outputs || Cost || Number of outputs || Cost || Number of outputs || Cost || Number of outputs || Cost || Number of outputs || Cost || Number of outputs || Cost || Number of outputs || Cost || Total number of outputs || Total cost

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 1 Monitoring of implementation[30]... || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

- Output || || || || 0 || || 0 || || 0 || || 0 || 1 || 0,150 || || 0 || || 0 || 1 || 0,150

- Output || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

- Output || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Sub-total for specific objective N°1 || || 0 || || 0 || || 0 || || 0 || 1 || 0,150 || || 0 || || 0 || 1 || 0,150

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE No 2... || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

- Output || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

Sub-total for specific objective N°2 || || || || || || || || || || || || || || || ||

TOTAL COST || || 0 || || 0 || || 0 || || 0 || 1 || 0,150 || || 0 || || 0 || 1 || 0,150

3.2.3.     Estimated impact on
appropriations of an administrative nature

3.2.3.1.  Summary

– 
     The proposal/initiative does not require
the use of administrative appropriations

– 
     X the proposal/initiative requires the use
of administrative appropriations, as explained below:

EUR million (to 3
decimal places)

|| Year 2014[31] || Year 2015 || Year 2016 || Year 2017 || Year 2018 || Year 2019 || Year 2020 || TOTAL

HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || || || || || || || ||

Human resources || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,182

Other administrative expenditure || 0,015 || 0,015 || 0,015 || 0,015 || 0,0,15 || 0,015 || 0,015 || 0,105

Subtotal HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,287

Outside HEADING 5[32] of the multiannual financial framework || || || || || || || ||

Human resources || || || || || || || ||

Other expenditure of an administrative nature || || || || || || || ||

Subtotal outside HEADING 5 of the multiannual financial framework || || || || || || || ||

TOTAL || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,041 || 0,287

3.2.3.2.  Estimated requirements of
human resources

– 
Ø  The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human resources

– 
 ̈  The proposal/initiative requires the use of human resources, as
explained below:

Estimate to be expressed in full amounts
(or at most to one decimal place)

|| Year 2014 || Year 2015 || Year 2016 || Year 2017 || Year 2018 || Year 2019 || Year 2020

Ÿ Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary agents)

33 01 01 01 (Headquarters and Commission’s Representation Offices) || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026

XX 01 01 02 (Delegations) || || || || || || ||

XX 01 05 01 (Indirect research) || || || || || || ||

10 01 05 01 (Direct research) || || || || || || ||

Ÿ External personnel (in Full Time Equivalent unit: FTE)[33]

XX 01 02 01 (CA, INT, SNE from the "global envelope") || || || || || || ||

XX 01 02 02 (CA, INT, JED, LA and SNE in the delegations) || || || || || || ||

XX 01 04 yy [34] || - at Headquarters[35] || || || || || || ||

- in delegations || || || || || || ||

XX 01 05 02 (CA, INT, SNE - Indirect research) || || || || || || ||

10 01 05 02 (CA, INT, SNE - Direct research) || || || || || || ||

Other budget lines (specify) || || || || || || ||

TOTAL || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026 || 0,026

XX is the
policy area or budget title concerned.

The human resources required
will be met by staff from the DG who are already assigned to management of the action
and/or have been redeployed within the DG, together if necessary with any
additional allocation which may be granted to the managing DG under the annual
allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary constraints.

Description of
tasks to be carried out:

Officials and temporary agents || The officials involved will monitor the application of the law in the Member States and prepare implementing measures as described in article 26, prepare the committee (article 27) and undertake the revision of the Regulation in year n+5 (article 28).

External personnel || n/a

3.2.4.     Compatibility with the
current multiannual financial framework

– 
Ø  Proposal/initiative is compatible the current multiannual
financial framework.

– 
 ̈  Proposal/initiative will entail reprogramming of the relevant
heading in the multiannual financial framework.

Explain what reprogramming is required,
specifying the budget lines concerned and the corresponding amounts.

– 
 ̈  Proposal/initiative requires application of the flexibility
instrument or revision of the multiannual financial framework[36].

Explain what is required, specifying the
headings and budget lines concerned and the corresponding amounts.

3.2.5.     Third-party contributions

ØThe proposal/initiative does not provide for co-financing by third
parties

– 
The proposal/initiative provides for the
co-financing estimated below:

Appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

|| Year N || Year N+1 || Year N+2 || Year N+3 || Year 2018 || Year 2019 || Year 2020 || Total

Specify the co-financing body || || || || || || || ||

TOTAL appropriations cofinanced || || || || || || || ||

3.3.        Estimated impact on
revenue

– 
Ø  Proposal/initiative has no financial impact on revenue.

– 
 ̈  Proposal/initiative has the following financial impact:

– 
 ̈         on own resources

– 
 ̈         on miscellaneous revenue

EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

Budget revenue line: || Appropriations available for the ongoing budget year || Impact of the proposal/initiative[37]

Year N || Year N+1 || Year N+2 || Year N+3 || Year 2018 || Year 2019 || Year 2020

Article ............. || || || || || || || ||

For miscellaneous
assigned revenue, specify the budget expenditure line(s) affected.

Specify the method
for calculating the impact on revenue.

[1]               The
Treaty on European Union provides that the European Union “shall offer its
citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers,
in which the free movement of persons is ensured”. In order to establish such
an area, the European Union is to develop judicial cooperation in civil matters
having cross-border implications.

[2]               EU
Justice Scoreboard, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-justice/scoreboard/index_en.htm.

[3]               Other
simplifying elements of the Regulation are the specific time limits for
procedural acts for the parties and for the court and the fact that "the loser
pays" principle is limited to reasonable costs.

[4]               EP resolution of 25 October 2011 on alternative
dispute resolution in civil, commercial and family matters, (2011/2117(INI)).

[5]               Commission
Communication to the European Parliament the Council, the Economic and Social
Committee and the Committee of the Regions on a EU Citizenship Report, EU
Citizens: Your Rights, Your Future", COM(2013) 269 final, pp. 15-16.

[6]               COM(2012)
225 final.

[7]               Special
Eurobarometer 395 on European Small Claims Procedure, available at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_395_sum_en.pdf.

[8]               Several
responses were received by the Commission as separate, stand-alone documents.
The results presented here in percentages reflect only those responses encoded
in the on-line consultation. However, all responses were considered in the
Impact Assessment.

[9]               Austria,
Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Finland,
France, Italy, Lithuania, Malta, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Sweden,
Slovenia, Slovakia and the UK.

[10]             There
are three procedural steps which are affected by the obligation to use postal
service: the service of the application on the defendant, the service of the
judgment on the claimant and the service of the judgment on the defendant. It
is not clear from the current text of the Regulation whether the summons to
oral hearings also need to be served. Nevertheless, in practice in many Member
States all communications between the parties and the court are effected by
post.

[11]             See
Case C-119/13 Eco-cosmetics Gmbh & Co.KG v Virginie Laetitia Barbara Dupuy,
Case C-120/13 Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen reg. Gen. m.b.h. v Tetyana Bonchyk and
C-121/13 Rechtsanwaltskanzlei CMS Hasche Sigle, Partnerschaftsgesellschaft v
Xceed Holding Ltd.

[12]             OJ
C , , p. .

[13]             Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure (OJ L
199, 31.7.2007, p. 1).

[14]             OJ
C, , p.

[15]             Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction
and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
matters (OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1).

[16]             Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement
of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1).

[17]             Council
Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts
of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (OJ
L 174, 27.6.2001, p. 1).

[18]             Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ
L 399, 30.12.2006, p. 1).

[19]             ABM:
Activity-Based Management – ABB: Activity-Based Budgeting.

[20]             As
referred to in Article 49(6)(a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation.

[21]             European
Parliament Resolution of 25 October 2011 on alternative dispute resolution in
civil, commercial and family matters (2011/2117(INI)).

[22]             Details
of management modes and references to the Financial Regulation may be found on
the BudgWeb site: http://www.cc.cec/budg/man/budgmanag/budgmanag_en.html

[23]             As
referred to in Article 185 of the Financial Regulation.

[24]             Diff.
= Differentiated appropriations / Non-diff. = Non-Differentiated Appropriations

[25]             EFTA:
European Free Trade Association.

[26]             Candidate
countries and, where applicable, potential candidate countries from the Western
Balkans.

[27]             Year
N is the year in which implementation of the proposal/initiative starts.

[28]             Technical
and/or administrative assistance and expenditure in support of the
implementation of EU programmes and/or actions (former "BA" lines),
indirect research, direct research.

[29]             Outputs
are products and services to be supplied (e.g.: number of student exchanges
financed, number of km of roads built, etc.).

[30]             As
described in Section 1.4.2. "Specific objective(s)..."

[31]             Year
N is the year in which implementation of the proposal/initiative starts.

[32]             Technical
and/or administrative assistance and expenditure in support of the
implementation of EU programmes and/or actions (former "BA" lines),
indirect research, direct research.

[33]             CA=
Contract Agent; INT= agency staff ("Intérimaire"); JED= "Jeune
Expert en Délégation" (Young Experts in Delegations); LA= Local Agent;
SNE= Seconded National Expert;

[34]             Under the ceiling for external personnel from operational appropriations (former "BA"
lines).

[35]             Essentially
for Structural Funds, European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and European
Fisheries Fund (EFF).

[36]             See
points 19 and 24 of the Interinstitutional Agreement.

[37]             As
regards traditional own resources (customs duties, sugar levies), the amounts
indicated must be net amounts, i.e. gross amounts after deduction of 25% for collection
costs.