Nonetheless, since the purpose of the procedure established by Regulation No 1896/2006 is to reconcile the swiftness and efficiency of court proceedings, whilst observing the rights of the defence, the defendant must exercise his rights within the time limits laid down and can subsequently have only limited means at his disposal for contesting the enforcement of a European order for payment. As regards the possibility of reviewing a European order for payment, once the time-limit for submitting a statement of opposition has elapsed, there can be no review, as is clear from the very heading of Article 20 of the regulation, save in exceptional circumstances.

The defendant’s option of lodging a statement of opposition to a European order for payment issued under Regulation No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, as amended by Regulation No 936/2012, is designed to compensate for the fact that the system established by that regulation does not provide for the defendant’s participation in the European order for payment procedure by enabling him to contest the claim after the European order for payment has been issued. The possibility of taking action is facilitated by the fact that, in accordance with Article 16(3) of the regulation, the defendant need not specify the reasons for contesting the claim and can simply contest it.

Article 20(2) of Regulation No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, as amended by Regulation No 936/2012, must be interpreted as precluding a defendant on whom a European order for payment has been served in accordance with that regulation from being entitled to apply for a review of that order by claiming that the court of origin incorrectly held that it had jurisdiction on the basis of allegedly false information provided by the claimant in the application form.

First, the court before which a European order for payment is brought under Regulation No 1896/2006 must examine the application, including the issue of jurisdiction and the description of evidence, on the basis of the information provided in the application form, of which the defendant is to be informed under Article 12(4)(a) of the Regulation. Accordingly, where the defendant wishes to raise objection to the jurisdiction of the court of origin, it is for the defendant to act within the time limit for contesting the claim laid down in Article 16 of Regulation No 1896/2006. It follows that, if the court of origin held that it had jurisdiction on the basis of information provided in the application form for the order for payment without otherwise examining its jurisdiction, it cannot be considered that the European order for payment issued against the defendant has been clearly wrongly issued, having regard to the requirements laid down in Regulation No 1896/2006.

Second, where, once the European order for payment has been served on the defendant, the defendant relies in support of his application for review on the lack of jurisdiction of the court of origin by claiming that both parties to the contract agreed on conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a Member State, since it was not possible for him to be unaware of such a jurisdiction clause, such a defendant could have considered whether the information provided by the claimant in the application form was false with regard to the jurisdiction of the court of origin. The defendant therefore had the opportunity of raising this under the opposition procedure laid down in Article 16 of the regulation.

(see paras 37, 39, 43, 46, 47, 52, operative part)