Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European order for payment procedure
Date: 2004-06-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: civil procedure, civil proceedings, claim, drafting of EU law, injunction

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 25.05.2004 
COM(2004)173 final/3 

2004/0055 (COD) 

ADDENDUM: 
Annexes. 
Concerne les 11 anciennes 
versions linguistiques 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

creating a European order for payment procedure 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

1. 

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

1.1. 

Introduction 

With the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam the European Union has set itself the 
objective  of  progressively  establishing  an  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice,  amongst 
others by adopting measures in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters. Pursuant to 
Article  65  (c)  of  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Community  such  measures  shall 
include the elimination of obstacles to the good functioning of civil proceedings, if necessary 
by  promoting  the  compatibility  of  the  rules  on  civil  procedure  applicable  in  the  Member 
States. 

The  Vienna  Action  Plan  of  the  Council  and  the  Commission,  adopted  by  the  Council  in 
19981,  called  for  the  identification  of  the  rules  on  civil  procedure  which  are  urgent  to 
approximate for the purpose of facilitating access to justice for the citizens of Europe and for 
the  examination  of  the  elaboration  of  additional  measures  to  improve  compatibility  of  civil 
procedure. 

In  the  conclusions  of  the  European  Council  in  Tampere  19992  the  Council  and  the 
Commission were called upon to prepare new legislation on those elements of civil procedure 
which are instrumental to smooth judicial cooperation and to enhanced access to law. Orders 
for money payment were specifically included in a list of issues that warrant such legislative 
initiatives. 

The joint programme of the Commission and the Council of measures for implementation of 
the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters, adopted by 
the  Council  on  30  November  20003,  singled  out  the  abolition  of  exequatur  for  uncontested 
claims as one of the Community’s priorities. The programme, clearly focused on facilitating 
the recognition and enforcement of judgments, also makes reference to the approximation of 
procedural law as an accompanying measure that may, in some areas, be a precondition for 
the desired progress in attempting to gradually dispense with any exequatur procedure. It is 
against that background that the document underscores that in some  areas,  particularly  with 
regard to the recovery of uncontested  claims,  abolition  of exequatur might take the form of 
establishing  a  true  European  enforcement  order,  obtained  following  a  specific,  uniform  or 
harmonised procedure laid down within the Community4. It has to be emphasised, however, 
that  the  abolition  of  exequatur  and  the  harmonisation  of  procedural  law,  although  joined 
together  in  the  above-mentioned  passage  of  the  programme,  are  two  distinct  issues.  The 
former  presupposes  the  delivery  of  a  decision  and  concerns  the  access  to  enforcement  in 
another  Member  State  whereas  the  latter  relates  to  the  access  to  justice  in  order  to  obtain  a 

1  
2 
3 
4 

OJ C 19, 23.1.1999, p.1, point 41 (d). 
Presidency conclusions, point 38. 
OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 1. 
Section II A 2 b of the programme. Although no mention of an order for payment procedure (nor any 
other  specific  procedure)  is  made  in  this  section  the  later  reference  to  the  proposal  for  a  European 
enforcement order for uncontested claims at the first stage of the implementation in section III A proves 
that  harmonisation  along  these  lines  has  been  envisaged  particularly  for  the  recovery  of  uncontested 
claims. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
decision  regardless  of  whether  it  has  to  be  enforced  abroad.  These  matters  are  separate  in 
nature  and  can  be  addressed  independently  and  on  their  own  merits  as  evidenced  by  the 
Tampere conclusions that deal with both issues without forging a link between them. 

The Commission has decided to pursue both objectives – the mutual recognition of decisions 
on  uncontested  claims  on  the  one  hand  and  the  creation  of  a  specific  procedure  for  the 
attainment  of  decisions  on  uncontested  claims  on  the  other  –  in  two  different  legislative 
instruments. This two-tiered strategy does not entail the risk of an overlap or of contradictions 
between both projects since they are clearly demarcated by their strict limitation to the stages 
before (creation of an order for payment procedure) and after (recognition and enforcement) 
the  delivery  of  the  enforceable  decision,  respectively.  Quite  on  the  contrary,  this  approach 
offers a number of significant advantages over a legislative initiative combining both aspects. 
For example, it allows a broader scope of application for the abolition of exequatur, extending 
it to all judgments handed down in the verifiable absence of any dispute over the nature and 
extent of a debt and not only to decisions delivered in one specific procedure. 

In  April  2002,  the  Commission  presented  a  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  creating  a 
European  Enforcement  Order  for  uncontested  claims5  which  provides  for  the  elimination  of 
intermediate  measures  for  all  enforceable  titles  on  uncontested  claims  conditional  upon  the 
compliance  with  a  number  of  minimum  procedural  standards  regarding  the  service  of 
documents. The present proposal represents the second leg of the strategy outlined above. 

1.2. 

The Green Paper on a European order for payment procedure and on measures 
to simplify and speed up small claims litigation 

The adoption of this proposal was preceded by a wide-ranging consultation of both Member 
States  and  all  interested  parties  of  civil  society.  The  Green  Paper  on  a  European  order  for 
payment  procedure  and  on  measures  to  simplify  and  speed  up  small  claims  litigation 
presented  by  the  Commission  on  20  December  20026  gave  an  overview  of  the  currently 
existing models of order for payment procedures under the legislation of the Member States. 
Based on a comparative study of how Member States deal with the relevant procedural issues 
it  formulated  a  multitude  of  questions  concerning  the  desirable  scope  and  features  of  a 
European  instrument.  The  most  fundamental  issues  raised  in  the  Green  Paper  can  be 
summarised as follows: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

5 
6 

Should  a  European  instrument  on  an  order  for  payment  procedure  be  applicable  to 
cross-border cases only or to purely internal litigation as well? 

What  types  of  claims  should  the  European  order  for  payment  be  available  for? 
Should the scope of application be restricted to pecuniary demands and, if so, should 
any further sub-categories of pecuniary claims be excluded? 

Is  there  a  need  for  specific  rules  on  international  jurisdiction  or  even  on  the 
attribution of jurisdiction within the Member States? 

Should  the  European  order  for  payment  procedure  require  the  presentation  of 
documentary  evidence  to  support  the  claim  at  issue  and  involve  a  summary 
examination of the merits of that claim by the court or should a simple description of 

COM (2002) 159 final, OJ C 203 E, 27.8.2002, p.86. 
COM (2002) 746 final. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the claim and the lack of objections be sufficient for the delivery of an enforceable 
decision? 

– 

Should  the  defendant  have  the  opportunity  to  contest  the  claim  and  bring  about  a 
transfer to ordinary proceedings once or twice? 

The Commission received roughly 60 replies from Member States and other interested parties 
representing the interests of businesses, consumers and legal professions. These reactions to 
the Green Paper that were further debated in a public hearing organised by the Commission 
on  26  June  2003  revealed  that  the  creation  of  a  European  order  for  payment  procedure  is 
almost  unanimously  considered  a  step  ahead  in  the  creation  of  an  area  of  freedom,  security 
and justice. 

The  European  Parliament,  in  its  resolution  on  the  Green  Paper7,  warmly  welcomed  the 
Commission’s  initiative.  It  recalled  the  political  objective,  stipulated  by  the  Tampere 
European Council, to lay down common European rules for the rapid and efficient recovery 
of  uncontested  debts  and  underscored  the  immense  significance  of  this  project  for  all 
economic  operators  having  an  interest  in  the  proper  functioning  of  the  internal  market.  The 
Parliament’s  opinion  coincides,  to  a  considerable  extent,  with  the  characteristics  of  this 
proposal, for example concerning the choice of a Regulation as the appropriate instrument and 
the fact that the European order for payment procedure should represent an alternative to the 
procedures existing under the national law of the Member States.  

The  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee,  in  its  opinion  on  the  Green  Paper8, 
emphatically welcomed the Commission’s initiative to launch a consultation on this issue. It 
considered  the  introduction  of  a  rapid,  efficient  and  fair  order  for  payment  procedure  a  key 
component  of  the  fundamental  right  of  access  to  justice  and  encouraged  and  urged  the 
Commission  to  submit  a  legislative  proposal  for  the  establishment  of  a  standard  European 
procedure. 

References to the reactions on the detailed questions in the Green Paper and the way in which 
these  have  been  taken  into  account  in  the  preparation  of  this  proposal  will  be  made  in  the 
following  parts  of  this  explanatory  memorandum,  most  notably  in  the  comments  on  the 
specific Articles. 

2. 

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE 

2.1. 

Overall objective 

2.1.1.  The significance of an efficient mechanism for the recovery of uncontested claims 

It  is  an  established  fact  of  life  that  the  main  purpose  of  a  substantial  percentage  of  court 
proceedings  in  the  Member  States  is  not  to  obtain  an  authoritative  impartial  decision  on 
contentious questions of fact or law. Rather, it is increasingly not the exception but the rule 
that in the verifiable absence of any dispute the creditor has to turn to the judiciary to attain an 
enforceable title allowing him to collect a claim by means of forced execution that the debtor 
is simply unwilling or unable to honour. In 2000 the Commission launched a study on specific 

7 
8 

Not yet published. 
CESE 742/2003, adopted on 18 June 2003. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
procedures  on  small  claims  in  the  Member  States.  The  questionnaire  distributed  to  the 
Member  States  in  that  context  also  contained  some  questions  on  uncontested  claims.  The 
answers of the Member States reveal that where comprehensive statistical data is available the 
percentage of uncontested claims ranges between around 50 % and more than 80 % out of all 
cases dealt with by ordinary lower civil courts9. 

The  swift  recovery  of  outstanding  debts  whose  justification  is  not  called  into  question  is  of 
paramount  importance  for  economic  operators  in  the  European  Union  and  for  the  proper 
functioning  of  the  internal  market.  A  legal  framework  that  does  not  guarantee  a  creditor 
access to the rapid settlement of uncontested claims may afford bad debtors a certain degree 
of  impunity  and  thus  provide  an  incentive  to  withhold  payments  intentionally  to  their  own 
advantage10.  Late  payments  are  a  major  reason  for  insolvency  threatening  the  survival  of 
businesses, particularly small and medium-sized ones, and resulting in numerous job losses. 
The  need  to  engage  in  lengthy,  cumbersome  and  costly  court  proceedings  even  for  the 
collection of uncontested debts inevitably exacerbates those detrimental economic effects. 

This  situation  implies  a  multi-faceted  challenge  for  the  Member  States’  judicial  systems.  It 
has become essential to distinguish the truly contentious cases at the earliest possible stage of 
the  proceedings  from  those  where  no  real  legal  dispute  exists.  Such  a  differentiation  is  a 
necessary,  albeit  not  sufficient  condition  to  make  efficient  use  of  the  limited  resources 
allocated  to  the  courts.  It  enables  them  to  concentrate  on  the  controversial  litigation  and  to 
adjudicate it within a reasonable period of time. This desired result can be achieved, however, 
only if a speedy and efficient procedure for uncontested claims is available and produces the 
relief of the judiciary that is indispensable for the prevention of considerable backlogs. Thus, 
given  the  sheer  number  of  non-contentious  cases  referred  to  above,  the  existence  of  a 
procedural legislation that ensures their efficient adjudication is a determining factor for the 
performance of a judicial system as a whole.  

2.1.2.  Definition of an order for payment procedure 

All the Member States try to tackle the issue of mass recovery of uncontested claims through 
their courts from their national perspectives within the framework of their procedural systems 
and  traditions.  Not  surprisingly,  the  solutions  that  have  been  devised  differ  widely,  both  in 
their  technical  nature  and  in  their  rate  of  success.  In  some  Member  States,  judgments  by 
default, special summary proceedings within the structure of ordinary civil procedure or even 
provisional  measures  that  are  quasi-definitive  as  in  practice  main  proceedings  hardly  ever 
ensue are the principal procedural instruments to cope with uncontested claims. 

In  most  Member  States,  however,  a  specific  payment  order  procedure  has  proven  to  be  a 
particularly  valuable  tool  to  ensure  the  rapid and  cost-effective  collection  of  claims  that  are 
not the subject of a legal controversy. As of today, eleven Member States (Austria, Belgium, 
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden) have such a 

9 

10 

Evelyne  Serverin  (Directeur  de  recherche  au  CNRS  IDHE-ENS  CACHAN),  Des  Procedures  de 
traitement judiciares des demandes de faible importance ou non contestées dans les droits des Etats-
Membres de l’Union Européenne, Cachan 2001, p. 30 
Based  on  the  results  of  a  study  conducted  at  the  Commission’s  request  in  1994  (‘European  Late 
Payment  Survey’  –  Intrum  Justitia),  the  Commission  estimated  the  proportion  of  intentional  payment 
delays throughout the European Union at 35 % in its Communication to the Council and the European 
Parliament ‘Towards greater efficiency in obtaining and enforcing judgments in the European Union’, 
OJ C 33, 31.1.1998, p. 3, para. 38. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
procedure  as  an  integral  part  of  their  civil  procedural  legislation,  the  French  injonction  de 
payer and the German Mahnverfahren being the most famous examples. In fact, recent years 
have seen the introduction of payment orders in two Member States (Spain, Portugal) that had 
not  offered  an  enforceable  title  of  that  nature  to  their  creditors  before.  This  development 
testifies to the growing appreciation of this type of procedure throughout the European Union. 

The payment order procedures available in the Member States vary considerably with regard 
to such crucial aspects as the scope of application, the attribution of competence to issue an 
order or the formal and substantive requirements for obtaining a favourable decision. In spite 
of  these  discrepancies  between  the  existing  models  of  legislation,  all  of  them  share  the 
following  distinctive  features  that  can  serve  as  elements  of  a  definition  of  a  payment  order 
procedure. 

Upon application by the claimant, the court or other competent authority takes a decision on 
the claim at issue ex parte, i.e. without any prior possibility for the defendant to participate. 
This decision is served on the defendant with an instruction to abide by the order or to contest 
the claim within a certain time limit. If the defendant fails to act either way, the payment order 
acquires enforceability. Only if he lodges a statement of opposition the case is transferred to 
ordinary  proceedings.  Hence,  as  opposed  to  normal  procedural  rules  the  burden  to  initiate 
adversarial  proceedings  rests  with  the  addressee  of  the  payment  order.  This  shift  of 
responsibility,  referred  to  in  French  as  ‘inversion  du  contentieux’,  combined  with  the 
protection  of  the  rights  of  the  defence  as  embodied  in  the  opportunity  to  prevent  an 
enforceable  title  from  coming  into  being  constitutes  the  core  characteristic  of  the  payment 
order procedure. 

2.2. 

Scope 

2.2.1.  The need for action at Community level 

It appears to be rather self-evident that the duration and cost of ordinary civil proceedings that 
are  inappropriate  for  claims  where  no  legal  dispute  exists  tend  to  grow  even  more 
disproportionate in cases with cross-border implications. The lack of knowledge of the legal 
systems  of  other  Member  States  and  the  consequential  need  to  consult  a  lawyer,  the  time-
consuming service of court documents on parties in a Member State other than the one where 
the  proceedings  take  place  and  the  expenses  related  to  translation  are  only  the  most 
conspicuous  factors  that  complicate  the  lives  of  creditors  of  cross-border  claims.  These 
problems  are  inherent  in  every  cross-border  litigation  irrespective  of  the  contested  or 
uncontested nature of a claim. Nevertheless, the contrast between a rapid recovery procedure 
available for purely internal lawsuits and the delays and expenses that ensue where parties are 
domiciled in different Member States reaches an intolerable extent if the justification of the 
claim at stake is not even challenged by the defendant. This situation privileges bad debtors in 
cross-border relations and may provide a disincentive for economic operators to extend their 
activities beyond their Member State of origin, thus limiting commercial transactions between 
Member  States.  Even  the  availability  of  an  effective  national  procedure  for  the  recovery  of 
uncontested debts in every Member State - a far cry from the current situation as even in those 
Member  States  that  know  an  order  for  payment  procedure  it  is  often  either  inadmissible  or 
impracticable where the defendant is domiciled abroad - would not necessarily be a decisive 
improvement  since  the  profound  differences  between  such  procedures  and  the  lack  of 
familiarity with them present significant obstacles to the settlement of cross-border cases in 
themselves.  A  uniform  European  order  for  payment  will  go  a  long  way  towards  providing 
easier access to efficient justice. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
2.2.2.  The scope of the proposal 

For the reasons set out above the need for a uniform European procedure for the recovery of 
uncontested  claims  is  most  conspicuous  with  regard  to  cross-border  litigation.  The 
Commission  would,  however,  consider  it  not  only  inappropriate  but  counterproductive  to 
constrain the scope of application of this procedure to cross-border cases only. 

Article 65 of the Treaty establishing the European Community attributes legislative powers to 
the  Community  with  regard  to  judicial  cooperation  in  civil  matters  having  cross-border 
implications  in  so  far  as  necessary  for  the  proper  functioning  of  the  internal  market.  Whilst 
the existence of cross-border implications is a prerequisite for Community competence, this 
does  not  mean  that  the  rules  that  can  be  adopted  pursuant  to  this  basis  could  only  apply  to 
cross-border litigation, i.e. to cases of a concrete cross-border nature. That would be an overly 
narrow interpretation of that provision not necessitated by its wording. The conscious use of 
the more open terminology of matters with cross-border implications in the specific context of 
Article  65  allows  some  flexibility  to  adopt  legislation  that  governs  more  than  cross-border 
litigation particularly where a common tool embracing both cross-border and domestic cases 
plays  an  instrumental  role  for  the  working  of  the  internal  market.  The  latter  requirement  is 
fulfilled  in  the  light  of  the  fundamental  economic  significance  of  an  efficient  procedure  for 
the  recovery  of  undisputed  debts  and  the  repercussions  of  the  vast  differences  between 
national systems for the internal market as further elaborated above (2.1.1) and in this section. 
Under these circumstances, the legislation envisaged is sufficiently characterised by a cross-
border element, and Article 65 permits such legislation not confined to cross-border lawsuits 
in concreto but also open for use in purely internal situations; in this context, it should also be 
taken into account that the instrument will apply on an optional basis. The optional nature of 
the European order for payment procedure and its implications for Member States are set out 
in more detail below (2.2.3). 

Besides,  the  distinction  between  “cross-border”  and  “internal”  scenarios  is  much  more 
difficult than it might appear to be at first sight and would inevitably contain an element of 
arbitrariness.  For  example,  if  two  persons  both  domiciled  in  France  had  a  car  accident  in 
Germany and litigate over damages  before a French court, is this a purely internal situation 
because both parties and the court are situated in the same Member State or does it transcend 
the  domestic  sphere  because  of  the  link  to  another  Member  State  whose  courts  would  have 
had jurisdiction to hear the case if the claimant had preferred to bring action there? Opting for 
the  first  alternative  would  amount  to  predicating  the  cross-border  nature  of  a  case  on  the 
subjective choice of the claimant; depending on his decision on which courts to turn to, one 
and  the  same  situation  would  have  to  be  considered  as  either  having  an  international 
dimension or as being purely internal in spite of the existence of aspects linking it with two 
Member States. Conceivably, every case that possesses connecting factors to more than one 
Member  State  should  be  regarded  as  having  cross-border  implications.  But  first  of  all,  it 
would unavoidably be an intricate exercise to define what constitutes a sufficient connecting 
factor. Should the applicability of the substantive law of a Member State other than the forum 
State be sufficient to establish such a link? Moreover, a European order for payment with its 
explicit objective to speed up and simplify the recovery of uncontested claims does not appear 
to  be  the  most  suitable  procedure  for  the  scrutiny  of  such  complex  matters  as  incidental 
questions relating to the admissibility of an application. 

These  ambiguities,  taken  together  with  the  potential  for  every  judgment  to  take  on  a  cross-
border nature if it needs to be enforced in another Member State, call into question the merits 
of the distinction between “internal” and “cross-border” matters. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Furthermore, in the specific context of a procedure for the recovery of uncontested claims a 
limitation  to  cross-border  situations  would  produce  undesirable  political  and  economic 
results.  Firstly,  the  access  of  economic  operators  to  mechanisms  of  substantially  differing 
performance  levels  entails  a  distortion  of  competition  in  the  internal  market  regardless  of 
whether actors are domiciled in different Member States or in the same Member State. Two 
companies  competing  in  one  Member  State  only  one  of  which  is  domiciled  in  that  same 
Member State are not on an equal footing if only the one domiciled abroad can make use of 
an efficient European order for payment procedure. Similarly, an enterprise with the majority 
of  clients  abroad  might  enjoy  a  significant  advantage,  due  to  the  availability  of  such  a 
procedure,  over  a  competitor  domiciled  in  the  same  Member  State  which  does  most  of  its 
business  domestically.  Besides,  especially  for  those  Member  States  that  currently  do  not 
provide  a  very  efficient  tool  for  the  collection  of  undisputed  debts  it  will  be  politically 
difficult to explain both to creditors and debtors why they have access or are subject to a more 
efficient  mechanism  in  a  cross-border  situation  than  domestically.  The  vast  majority  of  the 
comments on the Green Paper submitted by economic operators or organisations representing 
them  as  well  as  the  opinion  of  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  confirm  the 
demand for a European order for payment procedure that is universally applicable without a 
differentiation between internal and cross-border cases. 

2.2.3. 

Subsidiarity and proportionality 

It  goes  without  saying  that  the  very  objective  of  this  proposal,  the  creation  of  a  uniform 
European  procedure  for  the  swift  attainment  of  an  enforceable  decision  on  a  claim  whose 
justification  is  not  challenged,  cannot  be  sufficiently  accomplished  by  the  Member  States 
themselves  as  they  cannot  guarantee  the  equivalence  of  rules  applicable  throughout  the 
Community. The objective can therefore be only achieved at Community level.  

The  present  proposal  is  fully  consistent  with  the  principle  of  proportionality  in  that  it  is 
strictly  limited  to  what  is  necessary  in  order  to  reach  this  objective.  In  that  context,  it  is 
particularly  essential  to  underscore  the  effects  of  the  combination  of  the  legal  instrument 
chosen (Regulation) with the optional nature of the European order for payment procedure in 
relation to comparable mechanisms under the national procedural law of the Member States. 
Whilst  ensuring  the  uniformity  and  direct  applicability  of  the  procedure,  the  Regulation 
proposed here would only oblige Member States to make the European recovery mechanism 
available  as  an  additional  tool.  It  would  force  them  neither  to  abandon  their  pre-existing 
legislation on orders for payment or any other procedure for the collection of undisputed debts 
nor to modify such legislation to bring it into line with Community law. Hence, this proposal 
for a Regulation which leaves untouched the Member States’ right to continue the application 
of  their  domestic  rules  alongside  the  European  order  for  payment  encroaches  much  less  on 
their  procedural  systems  than  a  Directive  that  would  require  an  adaptation  of  national 
legislation to the standards set in that instrument. This legislative technique, in fact, assures a 
minimum level in the efficiency of the recovery of uncontested claims but it permits Member 
States that have developed an even better-functioning domestic system to retain it. Ultimately, 
it will be left to the creditors to judge which procedure they consider as being either superior 
in  performance  or  more  convenient  in  terms  of  accessibility,  the  latter  criterion  being 
particularly relevant for those operating in several Member States and being spared the need 
to make themselves familiar with the procedural law of every one of them by the availability 
of a uniform European order for payment. Finally, it should be borne in mind that an order for 
payment  procedure  is,  by  definition,  particularly  suitable  to  respect  the  principles  of 
subsidiarity and proportionality as this type of procedure is not inextricably interrelated with 
the other rules governing civil procedure but rather a chapter apart. It is only the end of the 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
payment  order  procedure  caused  by  the  defendant’s  opposition  that  triggers  the  transfer  to 
ordinary civil proceedings. Hence, the introduction of a European order for payment does not 
entail  the  need  for  further  approximation  of  national  procedural  legislation  and  thus  keeps 
interference with domestic law to an absolute minimum. 

3. 

COMMENTS ON THE SPECIFIC ARTICLES 

Article 1 –Scope 

The  general  scope  of  application,  limited  to  civil  and  commercial  matters,  as  set  out  in 
paragraph  1  coincides  with  that  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  44/2001  of  22  December 
2000  on  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  civil  and 
commercial matters. 

Paragraph 2 excludes certain types of civil and commercial claims from the scope. Rights in 
property arising out of matrimonial and similar (e.g. registered partnership) relationships were 
excluded  as  very  often  in  these  family  law  cases  courts  are  obliged  to  examine  the  facts  of 
their  own  motion  and  thus  cannot  content  themselves  with  the  lack  of  the  defendant’s 
objections  to  the  claimant’s  allegations.  As  in  Regulation  No  44/2001,  matters  relating  to 
insolvency  and  social  security  do  not  fall  within  the  scope  of  application.  Apart  from  those 
items the Commission has not identified reasons for the elimination of other claims from the 
scope  of  application.  The  mere  jurisdiction  of  specialised  courts  or  tribunals  (e.g.  labour 
tribunals  for  claims  arising  out  of  employment)  instead  of  ordinary  civil  courts  does  not 
constitute a persuasive ground for not admitting an order for payment procedure. Any other 
limitation of the applicability of the procedure related to the nature or the legal basis of the 
claim  does  not  appear  to  be  warranted  by  compelling  reasons;  on  the  contrary,  any  such 
constraint would inevitably bring about complex problems of the demarcation of eligible and 
inadmissible  demands.  Finally,  in  accordance  with  the  vast  majority  of  comments  on  the 
Green Paper this proposal does not introduce a ceiling as to the amount that can be claimed in 
the order for payment procedure since the contested or uncontested nature of a claim does not 
appear to be related to the value of the claim in question in any way that would necessitate the 
restriction  of  the  accessibility  of  the  procedure  to  the  recovery  of  amounts  below  a  certain 
limit.  If,  as  alleged  by  some,  the  likelihood  of  contentious  proceedings  increased  with  the 
rising value of the demand this would not justify a ceiling amount as it is left to the creditor’s 
judgement  whether  he  assesses  the  probability  of  the  absence  of  opposition  as  sufficiently 
high to make it worthwhile to use the order for payment procedure; if that is not the case he 
will directly initiate ordinary proceedings. 

The discrepancy between the list of exclusions from the scope of application of this proposal 
and  the  parallel  provision  of  Regulation  No  44/2001  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  they  are 
governing  different  matters  that  call  for  a  substantially  different  approach  and  a  different 
perspective. This draft instrument is focused on the procedural rules and requirements for the 
attainment  of  an  enforceable  decision  and  addresses  none  of  the  questions  dealt  with  in 
Regulation No 44/2001. It is not concerned with the international jurisdiction for the order for 
payment procedure as Regulation No 44/2001 strikes such a fair balance between the interests 
of  plaintiffs  and  defendants  that  no  justification  could  be  identified  to  departing  from  those 
rules  and  setting  up  a  special  regime  of  jurisdiction  for  the  European  order  for  payment. 
Questions  of  recognition  and  enforcement  in  a  Member  State  other  than  that  whose  courts 
delivered the order for payment are exclusively left to Regulation No 44/2001 and, as from its 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
entry  into  force,  to  the  future  Regulation  creating  a  European  Enforcement  Order  for 
uncontested  claims.  Therefore,  it  is  self-evident  that  the  considerations  underlying  the 
removal  of  some  types  of  claims  or  procedures  some  of  which  cannot  even  conceivably 
encompass  money  debts  from  the  scope  of  application  of  Regulation  No  44/2001  are 
irrelevant or even nonsensical in the context of this proposal. 

Article 2 – European order for payment procedure 

Paragraph  1  confines  the  applicability  of  the  European  order  for  payment  procedure  to  the 
recovery of liquidated and payable pecuniary claims. It is thus not available for money claims 
that cannot be specified in terms of a concrete amount (as in the case of immaterial damages, 
for  example)  and  for  demands  that  concern  obligations  to  act  or  to  refrain  from  a  certain 
action such as the delivery or restitution of property or eviction. Theoretically, the principle 
underlying the identification of uncontested claims could be extended to other types of claims 
than those implying  the payment of  money and  indeed the systems of some Member States 
cover certain non-pecuniary demands. Nevertheless, it is common grounds and confirmed by 
the  feedback  to  the  Green  Paper  that  those  other  claims  which  would  make  up  a  minuscule 
percentage of the cases dealt with in this procedure at any rate are much less amenable to a 
standardised handling. Just to give one example, the mere formulation of the demand in such 
a way as to fulfil the requirements for the precision of an enforceable title will often present 
an  insurmountable  obstacle  at  least  for  legal  laymen  and  would  entail  the  rejection  of  a 
significant  share  of  applications  just  for  that  reason  or  create  a  disproportionate  amount  of 
work for the courts. 

Paragraph 2 specifies the optional nature of the European order for payment procedure. It is 
fully at the creditor’s discretion if he prefers to pursue a claim that falls within the scope of 
this proposal by applying for a European order for payment or by making use of a summary 
or ordinary procedure available under the law of the forum Member State. 

Article 3 – Application for a European order for payment 

This provision lists the elements that the application for a European order for payment must 
contain relating to the identification of parties to the proceedings and to the description of the 
claim and its justification. Most of the items indicated in the Article are self-explanatory. 

It  needs  to  be  underscored  that  this  proposal  refrains  from  making  the  presentation  of 
documentary evidence a prerequisite for the granting of a European order for payment. In the 
light of the analysis of the replies to the Green Paper on this crucial distinction between the 
two existing models of order for payment procedures (referred to as the “evidence” and the 
“no evidence” schools in the Green Paper) the Commission came to the conclusion that such a 
requirement would imply a substantial risk to the uniform application of the Regulation as to 
what types of documents are considered satisfactory proof of the claim. Moreover and more 
importantly, it has to be taken into consideration that the sole purpose of the written evidence 
accompanying the application consists in serving as the basis of the summary examination of 
the merits of the claim that is prescribed under the law of the Member States that follow the 
“evidence”  model.  This  proposal  does  not  foresee  a  systematic  and  comprehensive  or 
summary examination of the justification of the demand.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
Rather, the Commission has attempted to identify a solution that combines the advantages of 
a “no evidence” order for payment as concerns the simplicity and efficiency of the procedure 
with  an  adequate  protection  of  the  defendant’s  rights.  One  element  of  the  latter  objective  is 
the requirement for the applicant, pursuant to paragraph 2 (e), not to actually present but to 
describe some evidence he could rely on in ordinary proceedings if the claim were contested. 
This prerequisite, which enables the applicant to refer to all admissible means of proof instead 
of just documents but does not oblige him to supply an exhaustive list of evidence, primarily 
constitutes a formal condition for the granting of the European order for payment that is easy 
to check. 

The claimant has to provide the court with a description of the cause of action in accordance 
with paragraph 2 (d). This statement can and should be brief and concise, yet it must explain 
the  legal  relationship  between  the  parties,  the  justification  of  the  concrete  claim  and  its 
amount and the link between the claim and the evidence offered. 

Paragraph 3 permits, as an alternative to a hand-written signature, an electronic signature if, in 
accordance with Article 2 (2) of Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  of  13  December  1999  on  a  Community  framework  for  electronic  signatures,  it  is 
uniquely linked to the signatory and is capable of identifying him, if it is created using means 
that the signatory can maintain under his sole control and if it is linked to the data to which it 
relates in such a manner that any subsequent change of the data is detectable. This provision, 
reproduced  in  other  parts  of  the  proposal,  reflects  the  general  intention  to  permit  the  use  of 
automatic data processing and electronic communication in the procedure under the condition 
of the adequate protection of the parties’ rights.  

Article 4 – Requirements for the delivery of a European order for payment 

This Article is intended to comprise, in its paragraph 1, a complete and exhaustive list of the 
requirements for the issuance of a European order for payment whose fulfilment the court has 
to examine when seised of an application. The scrutiny has to cover but cannot go beyond 

– 

– 

The scope of application of the procedure as defined in Articles 1 and 2; and 

The formal requirements for the application as set out in Article 3. 

Apart from these issues that have to be examined ex officio it is the defendant’s responsibility 
to  judge,  based  on  the  information  provided  in  the  application  that  allows  him  to  clearly 
identify the claim made against him and to consider its merits, if he wants to contest it or to 
acquiesce  in  it.  In  the  latter  case,  there  is  no  further  valid  reason  to  deny  the  claimant  a 
favourable decision. 

Paragraph  2  affords  the  court  a  certain  flexibility,  without  implying  any  obligation,  to  refer 
the  application  back  to  the  claimant  to  allow  him  to  remedy  shortcomings  of  his  request 
where  he  has  not  complied  with  all  the  formal  requirements  set  out  in  Article  3  and  the 
mistake  appears  to  be  easily  rectifiable,  e.g.  where  he  has  simply  not  filled  in  a  mandatory 
field of the application form. It is by no means the intention of this provision to hamper the 
rapid and efficient administration of the procedure. At any rate, in the event of a rejection the 
claimant  retains  the  right  to  pursue  the  claim  in  ordinary  proceedings  in  accordance  with 
Article 5. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
Article 5 – Rejection of the application 

It  is  the  principal  purpose  of  paragraph  1  to  clarify,  in  the  interest  of  maintaining  the 
simplicity and uniformity of the procedure and in order to avoid the potential split-up of the 
procedure into two separate components, that as far as the compliance with the requirements 
of Article 4 is concerned the court can only either grant the order for payment in full or refuse 
it  altogether.  Thus,  where  the  application  only  partly  meets  these  conditions  it  has  to  be 
rejected as a whole. To avoid such a rejection where it does not appear to be appropriate the 
court can make use of the option offered by Article 4 (2). 

In  line  with  the  comments  on  the  Green  Paper  and  the  existing  national  order  for  payment 
procedures,  paragraph  3  spells  out  that  the  rejection  of  an  application  does  not  acquire  the 
effect  of  res  iudicata.  This  procedure  only  represents  an  optional  tool  for  the  creditor  who 
presumes that the claim at issue will remain uncontested. If that presumption turns out to be 
wrong and the defendant objects the transfer to contentious proceedings is automatic. It must, 
however,  also  be  possible  to  further  pursue  a  claim  in  an  ordinary  civil  procedure  if  the 
application is dismissed under paragraph 1 for reasons that are generally not at all linked to 
the justification of the claim but to formal or procedural circumstances such as the scope of 
application  of  this  procedure.  It  is  the  logical  corollary  of  this  opportunity  to  continue  the 
pursuit of the claim that there is no need for the availability of an appeal against the rejection 
of an application that would render the procedure unnecessarily cumbersome. 

Article 6 – European payment notification 

This  proposal  represents  a  “two-step”  order  for  payment  procedure  in  that  the  document 
issued by the court in the event of a favourable decision on the application is not yet the order 
for payment itself whose enforceability is only conditional upon the expiry of the time limit 
for lodging a statement of defence but a payment notification that informs the defendant about 
the  claim  as  well  as  about  his  procedural  rights  and  obligations  including  the  prospective 
delivery of an enforceable order for payment should he fail to contest. It has to be borne in 
mind,  however,  that  in  the  Member  States  that  apply  a  “one-step”  model  a  second 
involvement of the court is generally inevitable to  verify  that no objection  was  made to the 
claim and to append an enforcement clause (formule exécutoire). Where, as in this proposal, 
the  second  step  does  not  imply  any  examination  of  the  claim  but  the  order  for  payment  is 
issued  automatically  if  no  statement  of  defence  was  lodged  the  differences  in  terms  of  the 
efficiency  of  the  procedure  are  marginal  at  the  most.  The  main  advantage  resides  in  the 
existence of a separate decision that is subject to an appeal which is ordinarily not available in 
Member States that have opted for a “one-step” procedure but is considered necessary by the 
Commission  in  the  context  of  a  European  order  for  payment  as  further  explained  in  the 
comments on Article 11. 

The European payment notification is, in its content, identical with the application form but 
supplemented  by  the  information  on  the  significance  of  this  document  as  prescribed  in 
paragraphs  3  and  4  in  a  prominent  place  and  in  terms  that  are  easily  comprehensible  for 
recipients  not  familiar  with  legal  matters.  The  necessary  practical  arrangements  should  be 
made  to  automatically  copy  the  information  contained  in  the  application  to  the  payment 
notification  and  eventually  to  the  order  for  payment.  The  additional  information  for  the 
defendant should be an integral part of the notification itself and not just attached to it in order 
to avoid the occurrence of any potential mistake that could give rise to procedural difficulties. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
The proposal does not contain any specific rules on the service of the payment notification on 
the  defendant  which  is  thus  governed  by  national  law  and,  where  applicable,  by  Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1348/2000  of  29  May  2000  on  the  service  in  the  Member  States  of 
judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil and commercial matters. Paragraph 2 sets out the 
condition, however,  that  those  methods of service which do not provide proof of receipt by 
the  debtor  personally  are  not  admissible  for  the  purposes  of  this  proposal  if  the  debtor’s 
address is not known. 

The  period  of  three  weeks  for  contesting  the  claim  takes  account  of  what  is  considered 
necessary to determine if one wants to defend the case under the law of the Member States. 
Given the simplicity of lodging a statement of defence pursuant to Article 7, this span of time 
should be sufficient in cross-border as well as in purely internal situations. 

Paragraph 5 is intended to ensure that no creditor is deterred from making use of the order for 
payment  procedure,  although  principally  deemed  appropriate,  by  the  concern  that  the  claim 
gets  barred  by  the  statute  of  limitations  if  he  does  not  interrupt  the  running  of  time  by 
bringing  ordinary  civil  action.  It  confers  on  the  payment  notification  the  status  of  a  writ  of 
summons in ordinary civil proceedings in that particular respect. 

Article 7 – Statement of defence 

In  accordance  with  the  philosophy  of  the  European  order  for  payment  procedure  that  is 
focused on the identification of undisputed claims and the delivery of enforceable decisions 
on  them  whilst  refraining  from  an  examination  of  the  justification  of  the  claim,  this  Article 
keeps the requirements for an admissible statement of defence to the indispensable minimum. 
The defendant only has to unequivocally communicate to the court within the time limit and 
in  the  written  or  under  certain  conditions  in  the  electronic  form,  in  whatever  terms,  that  he 
wants to object to the claim in full or in part. No further explanation needs to be given; the 
presentation  of  the  factual  and  legal  arguments  as  well  as  of  evidence  can  be  left  to  the 
ensuing ordinary proceedings. The defendant may use the standard response form supplied to 
him together with the payment notification but is not obliged to do so. 

Article 8 – Effects of a statement of defence 

This provision sets out that an admissible statement of defence automatically brings the order 
of  payment  procedure  to  and  end  and  entails  the  transfer  of  the  matter  to  ordinary  civil 
proceedings  without  any  specific  request  to  that  end  being  necessary.  It  is  based  on  the 
assumption that, as a rule, creditors who apply for an order for payment choose the procedure 
because they expect the claim to remain uncontested but are willing to continue to pursue the 
claim in ordinary proceedings if necessary. Paragraph 1 does foresee, however, the possibility 
for the claimant to indicate in the application that he wants litigation to be discontinued if the 
defendant  enters  a  statement  of  defence.  Such  a  request  could  be  made  whenever  from  the 
applicant’s perspective the value of the claim in question is too low to justify the effort and 
the costs of contentious ordinary proceedings. 

Paragraph 2 is intended to clarify that the technicalities of how exactly the transfer to ordinary 
proceedings is effected are governed by the law of the forum Member State. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
Article 9 – European order for payment 

If the defendant has admitted the claim or failed to contest it in full or in part by the expiration 
of the time limit the order for payment is delivered by the court of its own motion, i.e. without 
the need for a separate request by the claimant.  

This provision is parallel in structure to Article 6 dealing with the payment notification as far 
as  the  rules  on  service  and  information  of  the  defendant,  albeit  this  time  with  regard  to  a 
statement of opposition instead of a statement of defence, are concerned. 

Article 10 – Enforceability of the European order for payment 

This  Article  stipulates  that  the  European  order  for  payment,  once  delivered,  is  enforceable 
without the provision of a security in spite of the remaining opportunity for the defendant to 
lodge a statement of opposition and possibly have it set aside. The fact that the defendant has 
chosen  not  to  protest  against  the  demand  in  full  knowledge  of  the  consequences  of  such 
conduct  provides  sufficient  reason  for  the  prima  facie  assessment  that  the  claim  is  and  will 
remain uncontested and thus for unrestricted enforceability. 

Paragraph  2  reflects  that  this  proposal  intends  neither  to  interfere  with  the  enforcement 
legislation  of  the  Member  States  nor  to  introduce  a  separate  fully  developed  set  of  rules 
specifically  for  the  order  for  payment  procedure.  The  details  of  the  formal  prerequisites  for 
enforceability as well as of the conditions for a stay or limitation of enforcement are left to 
national  law.  This  includes,  for  example,  the  impact  of  the  lodging  of  a  statement  of 
opposition on enforceability.  

Article 11 – Opposition to the European order for payment 

The requirements for lodging a statement of opposition to the order for payment coincide with 
those for a statement of defence. Therefore, reference can be made to the comments on Article 
7. 

The Commission is convinced that in the specific context of this proposal the defendant has to 
be  given  a  second  opportunity  to  contest  the  claim  and  bring  about  the  transfer  to  ordinary 
proceedings  even  though in  spite  of having been instructed on his rights and obligations by 
the court in the payment notification he failed to declare his intention to defend the case. An 
irreversible  final  decision  would  appear  to  represent  an  overly  harsh  sanction,  especially  in 
comparison with judgments by default that are handed down in a similar situation, i.e. after 
the  defendant  has  been  summoned  to  a  hearing  and  informed  about  the  consequence  of  not 
appearing in court to defend the case and that are generally still subject to appeal or another 
legal remedy. This reasoning is further reinforced by the fact that, as opposed to the systems 
of most Member States that know a “one-step” order for payment procedure and do not admit 
a further appeal the European order for  payment  does not  presuppose any general summary 
examination of the well-founded nature of the claim. This simplification of the procedure in 
the interest of its efficiency and thus of the claimant warrants a counterbalance in the form of 
the right to bring a remedy. 

Paragraph 4 contains an additional safeguard for the defendant that the Commission considers 
vital  in  the  light  of  the  absence  of  any  specific  rules  on  the  service  of  documents  in  this 
proposal.  In  the  negotiations  of  the  Regulation  creating  a  European  Enforcement  Order  for 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
uncontested claims it was deemed indispensable to provide the defendant with an opportunity 
to challenge a judgment irrespective of the general time limits for an appeal where  

–  a method of service without proof of receipt by him personally was used and the document 
in question did not reach him in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence; or 

–  he  was  prevented  from  defending  the  case  by  reason  of  force  majeure  or  due  to 

extraordinary circumstances. 

The  pertaining  rule  of  the  above-mentioned  Regulation  has  been  transferred  and  adapted  to 
the context of this proposal.  

Article 12 – Effects of the lodging of a statement of opposition 

As  far  as  the  transfer  to  ordinary  proceedings  is  concerned  this  Article  reproduces  the 
provisions on the effects of the statement of defence in Article 8. It does not have an impact 
on the transfer to ordinary proceedings if the defendant chooses to contest the claim sooner or 
later in the course of the procedure. The difference in status between the payment notification 
and the order for payment consists in the enforceability of the latter document. The questions 
of enforceability are governed by Article 10. 

Paragraph 3 clarifies that a statement of defence that reaches the court belatedly after it has 
already delivered the order for payment but before the expiration of the time limit for entering 
a statement of opposition is to be treated as a statement of opposition since it clearly reveals 
the intention to defend the case. 

Article 13 – Legal representation 

In  the  light  of  the  objective  of  this  proposal  to  provide  creditors  with  a  simple  and  cost-
effective  mechanism  for  the  recovery  of  uncontested  claims  it  would  be  a  contradiction  in 
terms  to  make  the  use  of  this  procedure  conditional  upon  the  representation  by  a  lawyer. 
Firstly,  the  requirements  for  applying  for  an  order  for  payment  and,  even  more  so,  for 
contesting the claim are sufficiently straightforward not to necessitate the expertise of a legal 
professional.  Secondly,  legal  representation  will  inevitably  drive  up  the  costs  of  the 
procedure.  Whilst  seeking  professional  legal  counsel  remains,  of  course,  possible  for  those 
who deem it useful it should not be turned into an obligation. As stated in paragraph 2 for the 
purpose of clarification this provision only covers the order for payment procedure itself but 
not the ordinary civil procedure that ensues if a statement of defence or opposition is lodged. 

Article 14 – Costs 

Creditors  could  be  dissuaded  from  using  this  procedure  if,  in  the  case  of  the  defendant’s 
opposition, they had to face the risk of court fees higher than those arising when immediately 
opting for ordinary civil proceedings. By the same token, it would not seem to be justified to 
impose higher court fees on the defendant for the sole reason that the plaintiff chose to try, 
albeit without success, to obtain a decision through a simplified procedure first. 

This  Article  establishes  the  principle  of  the  neutrality  of  a  preceding  order  for  payment 
procedure in terms of the total amount of court fees for ordinary civil proceedings but leaves 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
it to the Member States how compliance with this principle is to be ensured. One imaginable 
solution could be the  absorption  of the fees for the order  for payment  procedure, if any,  by 
those for the ensuing ordinary procedure. 

Article 15 – Relationship with national procedural law 

In several Articles of this proposal reference is made to national law for specific aspects of the 
procedure. In order to avoid any potential misunderstanding this provision clearly sets out that 
all  procedural  issues  that  are  not  dealt  with  in  the  proposal  and  where  the  applicability  of 
national  law  is  not  explicitly  stipulated  either  are  governed  by  the  domestic  law  of  the 
Member State in which the order for payment proceedings take place.  

Article 16 – Information on the courts that have jurisdiction 

This  provision  aims  at  facilitating  the  access  to  information  on  the  courts  to  which  citizens 
have  to  address  an  application  for  a  European  order  for  payment.  Member  States  should 
indicate  in  their  communication  to  the  Commission  which  categories  of  courts  have 
jurisdiction for this procedure, e.g. the lower or higher first instance courts in those Member 
States  where  such  a  distinction  exists.  In  some  Member  States  it  might  be  necessary  to  list 
more  than  one  category  of  courts,  amongst  others  if  specialised  tribunals  are  in  charge  of 
certain  claims  (e.g.  labour  tribunals  for  claims  arising  out  of  employment  contracts).  This 
would also be an opportunity to indicate if the general rules on territorial jurisdiction apply to 
this  procedure  (without  having  to  explain  these  rules  in  detail)  or  if  a  special  rule  has  been 
stipulated  such  as  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  court  for  the  defendant’s  domicile  or  the 
centralisation of jurisdiction in one court or a limited number of courts. 

The Commission will make this information available in the most appropriate form including 
its  publication  on  the  internet,  possibly  in  the  framework  of  the  ongoing  project  of  the 
creation  of  a  European  Judicial  Atlas  in  civil  matters,  a  database  intended  to  provide  user-
friendly access in all official languages of the European Union. 

Articles 17 and 18 – Implementing rules and committee 

Article 18 refers to the Advisory Committee provided for by Regulation No 44/2001 that will 
assist  the  Commission  in  the  implementation  as  necessary  under  Article  17,  namely  the 
updating  of  the  standard  forms  in  the  Annexes  or  the  making  of  technical  amendments 
thereto.  The  Committee  will  be  convened  only  if  and  when  the  need  for  such  amendments 
arises. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
2004/0055 (COD) 

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

creating a European order for payment procedure 

THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 
61 (c) thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission11, 

Having regard to the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee12, 

Acting in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the Treaty13, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

The Community has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of 
freedom, security and  justice,  in which  the free movement of persons is ensured. To 
this  end,  the  Community  is  to  adopt,  among  others,  measures  in  the  field  of  judicial 
cooperation in civil matters that are necessary for the proper functioning of the internal 
market. 

The  European  Council  meeting  in  Tampere  on  15  and  16  October  1999  invited  the 
Council and the Commission to prepare new legislation on issues that are instrumental 
to  smooth  judicial  cooperation  and  to  enhanced  access  to  law  and  specifically  made 
reference, in that context, to orders for money payment. 

On  30  November  2000,  the  Council  adopted  a  joint  programme  of  the  Commission 
and the Council of measures for implementation of the principle of mutual recognition 
of  decisions  in  civil  and  commercial  matters14.  The  programme  envisages  the 
possibility of a specific, uniform or harmonised procedure to obtain a judicial decision 
laid  down  within  the  Community  in  specific  areas  including  the  one  of  uncontested 
claims. 

(4) 

The Commission adopted a Green Paper on a European order for payment procedure 
and  on  measures  to  simplify  and  speed  up  small  claims  litigation  on  20  December 
2002. The Green Paper launched a consultation on the possible objectives and features 

11 
12 
13 
14 

OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C , , p. . 
OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 1. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
of  a  uniform  or  harmonised  European  procedure  for  the  recovery  of  uncontested 
claims. 

(5) 

The swift and efficient recovery of outstanding debts over which no legal controversy 
exists is of paramount importance for the economic operators in the European Union 
as late  payments  constitute a  major reason  for insolvency threatening the survival of 
businesses,  particularly  small  and  medium-sized  ones,  and  result  in  numerous  job 
losses. 

(6)  Whilst  all  Member  States  try  to  tackle  the  issue  of  mass  recovery  of  uncontested 
claims,  the  majority  of  them  by  devising  a  simplified  order  for  payment  procedure, 
both  the  content  of  national  legislation  and  the  performance  of  the  domestic 
procedures  vary  substantially.  Furthermore,  the  currently  existing  procedures  are 
frequently either inadmissible or impracticable in cross-border situations. 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

The  resulting  impediments  to  access  to  efficient  justice,  particularly  in  cross-border 
cases,  and  the  distortion  of  competition  within  the  internal  market  due  to  the 
disequilibrium  with  regard  to  the  functioning  of  the  procedural  means  afforded  to 
creditors in different Member States entail the need for Community legislation which 
guarantees  a  level  playing  field  for  creditors  and  debtors  throughout  the  European 
Union. 

The  European  order  for  payment  procedure  should  not  replace  or  harmonise  the 
existing  mechanisms  for  the  recovery  of  uncontested  debts  under  national  law  but 
constitute  an  additional  option  for  the  creditor  who  remains  free  to  resort  to  a 
procedure provided by domestic law. 

The  European  order  for  payment  should  be  available  for  all  civil  pecuniary  claims, 
contractual and non-contractual, with the exception of rights in property arising out of 
a matrimonial or similar relationship where even in default of objections courts often 
cannot  rely  on  the  claimant’s  allegations  but  have  to  examine  the  facts  of  their  own 
motion.  The  procedure  should  not  be  restricted  to  claims  below  a  certain  ceiling 
amount. It should not apply, however, to claims that have not yet fallen due at the time 
of the application and in particular to future periodic payments. 

(10)  The procedure should be based, to the largest extent possible, on the use of standard 
forms in the communication between the court and the parties in order to facilitate its 
administration and enable the use of automatic data processing. 

(11) 

In the application for a European order for payment, the claimant should be obliged to 
provide  information  that  is  sufficient  to  clearly  identify  the  demand  and  its 
justification to put the defendant in the position of making a well-informed choice of 
opposing the claim or leaving it uncontested. In that context, it should be mandatory 
for the claimant to cite some evidence he could rely on to prove the correctness of his 
allegations without having to actually submit documentary evidence to the court. 

(12)  The  court  should  deliver  a  European  payment  notification  after  an  examination  of 
compliance with the formal requirements set out in this Regulation. It should refrain 
from an assessment of the merits of the claim at stake. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
(13)  The  European  payment  notification  should  apprise  the  defendant  of  his  options  to 
either pay his outstanding debt to the claimant or submit a statement of defence if he 
wants  to  contest  the  claim  within  a  time  limit  of  three  weeks.  In  addition  to  the  full 
information on the claim as supplied by the claimant the defendant should be advised 
of  the  legal  significance  of  the  notification  and  in  particular  of  the  consequences  of 
leaving the claim uncontested. 

(14)  A statement of defence filed within the time limit should terminate the European order 
for payment procedure and should lead to an automatic transfer of the case to ordinary 
civil  proceedings  unless  the  claimant  has  explicitly  requested  to  discontinue  the 
proceedings in that event. 

(15)  The European order for payment to be issued in the absence of a statement of defence 
should  be  immediately  enforceable  against  the  defendant.  It  should  be  subject  to 
opposition  which  should  entail  essentially  the  same  consequences  as  a  statement  of 
defence. In default of the lodging of a statement of opposition the order for payment 
should  have  the  same  status  as  a  final  judgment  handed  down  in  ordinary  civil 
proceedings. 

(16)  This  Regulation  does  not  affect  the  application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of 
judgments  in  civil  and  commercial  matters15  or  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1348/2000  of  29  May  2000  on  the  service  in  the  Member  States  of  judicial  and 
extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters16. 

(17)  Since  the  objectives  of  this  Regulation,  namely  to  establish  a  uniform  rapid  and 
efficient  mechanism  for  the  recovery  of  uncontested  money  claims  throughout  the 
European  Union,  cannot  be  sufficiently  achieved  by  the  Member  States  and  can 
therefore, by reason of the scale and the impact of the Regulation, be better achieved 
at  Community  level,  the  Community  may  adopt  measures  in  accordance  with  the 
principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the EC Treaty. In accordance with 
the principle of proportionality as set out in that same Article, this Regulation does not 
go  beyond  what  is  necessary  in  order  to  achieve  those  objectives;  in  particular,  it 
restricts  the  interference  with  national  procedural  law  to  a  minimum  as  it  does  not 
supplant domestic simplified procedures but adds an additional option. 

(18)  This Regulation respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised 
in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as general 
principles of Community law. Specifically, it seeks to ensure full respect for the right 
to a fair trial as recognised in Article 47 of the Charter. 

(19)  The measures necessary for the implementation of this Regulation should be adopted 
in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the 
procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission17. 

(20)  The United Kingdom and Ireland, in accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol 
on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland annexed to the Treaty on European 

15 
16 
17 

OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1. 
OJ L 160, 30.6.2000, p. 37. 
OJ L 184, 17.7.1999, p. 23. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Union and the Treaty  establishing  the  European Community, are not participating in 
the  adoption  of  this  Regulation  and  are  therefore  not  bound  by  it  nor  subject  to  its 
application.]/[The  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland,  in  accordance  with  Article  3  of  the 
Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland annexed to the Treaty on 
European  Union  and  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Community,  have  given 
notice of their wish to take part in the adoption and application of this Regulation.] 

(21)  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  establishing  the 
European  Community,  is  not  participating  in  the  adoption  of  this  Regulation,  and  is 
therefore not bound by it nor subject to its application. 

HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

Article 1 

Scope 

1. 

This Regulation shall apply in civil and commercial matters, whatever the nature of 
the  court  or  tribunal.  It  shall  not  extend,  in  particular,  to  revenue,  customs  or 
administrative matters. 

2. 

The European order for payment procedure shall not be applicable to : 

(a) 

rights in property arising out of a matrimonial or similar relationship; 

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

3. 

4. 

1. 

2. 

(c) 

social security. 

For the purposes of this Regulation, the expression ‘court’ shall include the ‘Swedish 
enforcement service’ (kronofogdemyndighet). 

In  this  Regulation,  the  term  ‘Member  State’  shall  mean  Member  States  with  the 
exception of Denmark. [United Kingdom, Ireland] 

Article 2 

European order for payment procedure 

The European order for payment procedure is hereby established for the collection of 
uncontested pecuniary claims for a specific amount that have fallen due at the time 
when the application for a European order for payment is submitted. 

Nothing  shall  prevent  a  creditor  from  pursuing  a  claim  within  the  meaning  of 
paragraph 1 making use of another procedure available under the law of a Member 
State, be it an ordinary or a summary procedure. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
Article 3 

Application for a European order for payment 

An  application  for  a  European  order  for  payment  shall  be  made  using  the  standard 
form in Annex 1. 

The application shall state: 

(a) 

the names and addresses of the parties and the court to which the application is 
made, 

(b) 

the amount of the claim; 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

if interest on the claim is demanded, the interest rate and the time period that 
interest  is  demanded  for  unless  a  statutory  interest  is  added  to  the  principal 
without  demand  under  the  law  of  the  Member  State  to  whose  courts  the 
application is made; 

the cause of action, including a brief description of the circumstances invoked 
as the basis of the claim and, where applicable, of the demanded interest; 

the brief description of at least one means of evidence that could be adduced in 
ordinary civil proceedings to support the claim 

The application shall be signed by the claimant or his representative manually or in 
the form of an advanced electronic signature within the meaning of Article 2 (2) of 
Directive  1999/93/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13 
December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures. 

Article 4 

Requirements for the delivery of a European order for payment 

The  court  seised  of  an  application  shall  examine  if  the  requirements  as  set  out  in 
Articles 1, 2 and 3 are met. 

Where the court considers a rejection of the application due to a failure to fulfil the 
requirements  of  Article  3  it  may  give  the  claimant  the  opportunity  to  complete  or 
rectify the application. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

Article 5 

Rejection of the application 

1. 

The  court  shall  reject  the  application  in  whole  if  the  requirements  laid  down  in 
Article 4 are not fulfilled for the claim at issue or parts thereof. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

No  appeal  shall  lie  against  the  rejection  of  an  application  for  a  European  order  for 
payment. 

The  rejection  shall  not  prevent  the  claimant  from  initiating  ordinary  court 
proceedings with regard to the same claim. 

Article 6 

European payment notification 

If  the  requirements  laid  down  in  Article  4  are  fulfilled  the  court  shall  issue  a 
European payment notification using the standard form in Annex 2. 

The  European  payment  notification  shall  be  served  on  the  defendant.  A  method  of 
service without proof of receipt by the defendant personally is not admissible if the 
defendant’s address is not known with certainty. 

3. 

In the notification the defendant shall be advised of his options to  

(a) 

pay the claimed amount including the claimed interest and the claimed costs to 
the claimant and submit a statement informing about the payment; or 

(b) 

submit a statement of defence to the claim or parts thereof  

which has to reach the court within three weeks starting from the date of service of 
the European payment notification on him in accordance with the law of the Member 
State in which service is effected. 

4. 

In the notification the defendant shall be informed that 

(a) 

(b) 

the  court  has  not  examined  the  justification  of  the  claim  before  issuing  the 
notification 

the court will deliver an enforceable decision unless it has received a statement 
of defence or a statement informing the court about the payment of the claim 
from the defendant within the time limit specified in paragraph 3. 

For  the  purpose  of  the  interruption  of  the  statute  of  limitations,  the  European 
payment notification shall be considered equivalent to a writ of summons in ordinary 
civil proceedings. 

Article 7 

Statement of defence 

The  defendant  may  submit  a  statement  of  defence  either  by  making  use  of  the 
standard response form attached to Annex 2 which shall be supplied to him together 
with the notification or otherwise. 

5. 

1. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
2. 

3. 

1. 

2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

The defendant shall clearly indicate in the statement if he contests the claim at issue 
in whole or in part. He does not have to specify the reasons for contesting the claim. 

The  statement  of  defence  shall  be  signed  by  the  defendant  or  his  representative 
manually  or  in  the form of an advanced  electronic signature within the meaning of 
Article 2 (2) of Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures. 

Article 8 

Effects of a statement of defence 

If a statement of defence is lodged within the time limit laid down in Article 6 (3) the 
proceedings shall  continue in accordance  with the rules of ordinary civil procedure 
unless  the  claimant  has  explicitly  requested,  in  the  application,  to  terminate  the 
proceedings in that event. 

The  transfer  to  ordinary  proceedings  within  the  meaning  of  paragraph  1  shall  be 
governed  by  the  law  of  the  Member  State  in  which  the  European  payment 
notification was issued. 

Article 9 

European order for payment 

In the absence of a statement of defence or a statement informing about the payment 
lodged  within  the  time  limit  laid  down  in  Article  6  (3)  the  court  shall  deliver  a 
European order for payment of its own motion using the standard form in Annex 3. 

The  European  order  for  payment  shall  be  served  on  the  defendant.  A  method  of 
service without proof of receipt by the defendant personally is not admissible if the 
defendant’s address is not known with certainty. 

In the European order for payment the defendant shall be informed that he can lodge 
a statement of opposition to the European order for payment which has to reach the 
court that has issued the order within three weeks starting from the date of service of 
the European order for payment on him in accordance with the law of the Member 
State in which service is effected. 

Article 10 

Enforceability of the European order for payment 

1. 

The  European  order  for  payment  shall  be  enforceable  without  the  condition  of  the 
provision of a security. 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
2. 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Without  prejudice  to  paragraph  1,  the  conditions  of  enforceability  and  its  stay  or 
limitation, in particular in the event of a statement of opposition pursuant to Article 
11, shall be governed by the law of the Member State in which the order was issued. 

Article 11 

Opposition to the European order for payment 

The  defendant  may  lodge  a  statement  of  opposition  to  the  European  order  for 
payment  by  making  use  of  the  standard  form  attached  to  Annex  3  which  shall  be 
supplied to him together with the European order for payment or otherwise. 

The defendant shall clearly indicate in the statement of opposition if he contests the 
claim at issue in whole or in part and, in the latter case, which parts of the claim he 
objects to. He does not have to specify the reasons for contesting the claim. 

The  statement  of  opposition  shall  be  signed  by  the  defendant  or  his  representative 
manually or in the form of  an advanced electronic signature within the meaning of 
Article 2 (2) of Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures. 

After expiry of the time limit specified in Article 9 (3) the debtor is entitled, under 
the  conditions  established  by  the  law  of  the  Member  State  in  which  the  order  for 
payment has been issued and communicated to the Commission pursuant to Article – 
(19 A) of Regulation ----/--/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of ----
---  creating  a  European  Enforcement  Order  for  uncontested  claims,  to  apply  for  a 
review of the order for payment where 

 the order for payment was served by a method without proof of receipt 

(i) 
by him personally; and  

service was not effected in sufficient time or in such a way as to enable 

(ii) 
him to arrange for his defence without any fault on his part, 

a) 

or 

the  debtor  was  prevented  from  objecting  to  the  claim  by  reason  of  force 

b) 
majeure, or due to extraordinary circumstances without any fault on his part, 

provided in either case that he acts promptly. 

Article 12 

Effects of the lodging of a statement of opposition 

1. 

If a statement of opposition is entered within the time limit laid down in Article 9 (3) 
the  proceedings  shall  continue  in  accordance  with  the  rules  of  ordinary  civil 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
2. 

3. 

procedure  unless  the  claimant  has  explicitly  requested,  in  the  application,  to 
terminate the proceedings in that event. 

The  transfer  to  ordinary  proceedings  within  the  meaning  of  paragraph  1  shall  be 
governed by the law of the Member State in which the European order for payment 
was issued. 

A statement of defence lodged after the expiry of the time limit laid down in Article 
6  (3)  but  within  the  time  limit  specified  in  Article  9  (3)  shall  produce  the  same 
effects as entering a statement of opposition. 

Article 13 

Legal representation 

1. 

Representation by a lawyer or another legal professional shall not be mandatory  

(a) 

for the claimant in respect of the application for a European order for payment 

(b) 

for the defendant in respect of the statement of defence or of the statement of 
opposition to a European order for payment. 

2. 

The requirement of legal representation in the ordinary civil proceedings following a 
statement of defence or a statement of opposition to a European order for payment 
shall  be  governed  by  the  law  of  the  Member  State  in  which  the  proceedings  take 
place. 

Article 14 

Costs 

The combined court fees of a European order for payment procedure and of the ordinary civil 
proceedings that ensue in the event of a statement of defence or a statement of opposition to a 
European order for payment shall not exceed the costs of ordinary civil proceedings without a 
preceding European order for payment procedure. 

Article 15 

Relationship with national procedural law 

All procedural issues not specifically dealt with in this Regulation shall be governed by the 
law of the Member State in which the European order for payment proceedings take place. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
Article 16 

Information on the courts that have jurisdiction 

1. 

2. 

By  1  July  2005  each  Member  State  shall  communicate  to  the  Commission  which 
courts have jurisdiction to issue a European order for payment. Member States shall 
apprise the Commission of any subsequent changes to this information. 

The Commission shall publish and update, when necessary, the information provided 
by the Member States in accordance with paragraph 1. 

Article 17 

Implementing rules 

The standard forms set out in the Annexes shall be updated or amended in accordance with 
the advisory procedure referred to in Article 18. 

Article 18 

Committee 

1. 

2. 

The  Commission  shall  be  assisted  by  the  Committee  provided  for  by  Article  75  of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001. 

Where reference is made to this Article, Articles 3 and 7 of Decision 1999/468/EC 
shall apply, having regard to the provisions of Article 8 thereof. 

Article 19 

Entry into force 

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 January 2006. 

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States in 
accordance with the Treaty establishing the European Community. 

Done at Brussels,  

For the European Parliament 
The President 

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 1 

APPLICATION FOR A EUROPEAN ORDER FOR PAYMENT 

1. Court 

1.1 Name: 

1.2 Address: 

2. Claimant 

2.1 Name: 

2.2 Address: 

3. Claimant’s representative 

3.1 Name: 

3.2 Address: 

4. Defendant 

4.1 Name: 

4.2 Address: 

5. Claim 

5.1 Amount of principal (not including interest and costs): 

5.2 Currency: 

□ 

EUR 

□ 

□ 

Swedish Kroner 

[British pounds] 

6. Interest 

6.1 Interest rate (claimed on the principal until payment is made) 

6.1.1 

% 

6.1.2 

% above the base rate of the ECB  

6.1.3 

Statutory interest rate 

6.2 Interest to be collected as from: 

7. Costs (amounts in same currency as under 5.2) 

7.1 Costs related to this procedure 

7.1.1 Application fee: 

7.1.2 Claimant’s representative’s fee: 

□ 

□ 

□ 

27 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7.1.3 Other (explain): 

7.2 Pre-litigation costs (explain): 

7.3 Total costs claimed: 

8. The claim relates to 

8.1 Sales contract  

□ 

8.6 Contract of service – other 

8.2 Rental agreement - immovable  □ 

8.7 Loan/guarantee 

8.3 Rental agreement – movable  □ 

8.8 Damages – traffic accident 

8.4 Insurance contract 

□ 

8.9 Damages – other 

8.5 Contract of service – electricity, 

      gas, water, telephone 

□ 

8.10 Other 

9. Brief description of the basis of the principal claim: 

10. Brief description of the basis of the interest rate claimed: 

10.1 Statutory interest rate  

10.2 Interest rate agreed upon by the parties   

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

10.3 Interest rate of a loan taken out by the claimant at least in the amount of the principal claim  □ 

10.4 Other (explain): 

11. Brief description of the reasons for international jurisdiction if the defendant is not domiciled in the Member 
State whose courts are seised: 

12. Evidence 

Acronyms:  

DE: documentary evidence  

TE: testimonial evidence 

EX: expert evidence 

IN: inspection of an object or site  OT: other 

Type of evidence  

Description of the evidence offered 

12.1 

12.2 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12.3 

13.  

If  the  defendant  enters  a  statement  of  defence  or  a  statement  of  opposition  the  proceedings  shall  be 
discontinued 

□ 

(REMINDER:  UNLESS  THE  ABOVE  BOX  IS  TICKED  A  TRANSFER  TO 
ORDINARY CIVIL PROCEEDINGS WILL AUTOMATICALLY TAKE PLACE IN 
THE  EVENT  OF  A  STATEMENT  OF  DEFENCE  OR  A  STATEMENT  OF 
OPPOSITION) 

14. Signature of the claimant/his representative 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 ANNEX 2 

EUROPEAN PAYMENT NOTIFICATION 

Reference:  

1. 

Issuing Court: 

Address: 

Tel./fax/e-mail: 

2. 

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT:  

By virtue of this notification the claimant demands from you the payment of the amount 
set out below. You have the options to  

– 

– 

either  pay  the  full  amount  set  out  below  including  interest  and  costs  to  the 
claimant and submit a statement informing about the payment to the court  

or,  if  you  intend  to  contest  the  claim,  to  lodge  a  statement  of  defence  with  the 
issuing court  

within three weeks as from the service of the notification on you. 

To comply with the time limit the statement of defence or the statement informing about 
the payment has to reach the court before its expiration. 

You  may  make  use  of  the  standard  response  form  annexed  to  this  notification  but  are 
not obliged to do so.  

The  issuing  court  has  not  examined  the  justification  of  the  claim  before  granting  this 
notification. 

Nevertheless,  if  neither  a  statement  informing  about  a  payment  nor  a  statement  of 
defence is lodged until the expiry of the time limit a European order for payment that 
can  be  enforced  against  you  will  be  issued  without  further  scrutiny  or  notice.  A 
statement  of  defence  or  a  statement  informing  about  payment  are  the  only  means  to 
prevent the delivery of an order for payment. 

3. Claimant 

3.1 Name: 

3.2 Address: 

4. Claimant’s representative 

4.1 Name: 

4.2 Address: 

5. Defendant 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
 
5.1 Name: 

5.2 Address: 

6. Claim 

6.1 Amount of principal (not including interest and costs): 

6.2 Currency: 

□ 

EUR 

□ 

□ 

Swedish Kroner 

[British pounds] 

7. Interest 

7.1 Interest rate (claimed on the principal until payment is made) 

7.1.1 

7.1.2 

7.1.3 

% 

% above the base rate of the ECB 

Statutory interest rate 

7.2 Interest to be collected as from: 

8. Costs (amounts in same currency as under 6.2) 

□ 

□ 

□ 

8.1 Costs related to this procedure 

8.1.1 Application fee: 

8.1.2. Claimant’s representative’s fee: 

8.1.3 Other (explain): 

8.2 Pre-litigation costs (explain): 

8.3 Total costs claimed: 

9. The claim relates to 

9.1 Sales contract  

□ 

9.6 Contract of service – other 

9.2 Rental agreement - immovable  □ 

9.7 Loan/guarantee 

9.3 Rental agreement – movable  □ 

9.8 Damages – traffic accident 

9.4 Insurance contract 

□ 

9.9 Damages – other 

9.5 Contract of service – electricity, 

      gas, water, telephone 

□ 

9.10 Other 

10. Brief description of the basis of the principal claim: 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11. Brief description of the basis of the interest rate claimed: 

11.1 Statutory interest rate  

11.2 Interest rate agreed upon by the parties   

□ 

□ 

11.3 Interest rate of a loan taken out by the claimant at least in the amount of the principal claim  □ 

11.4 Other (explain): 

12. Brief description of the reasons for international jurisdiction if the defendant is not domiciled in the Member 
State whose courts are seised: 

13. Evidence  

Acronyms:  

DE: documentary evidence 

TE: testimonial evidence 

EX: expert evidence 

IN: inspection of an object or site  OT: other 

Type of evidence  

Description of the evidence offered 

13.1 

13.2 

13.3 

Done at   

Date 

Signature and/or stamp 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RESPONSE FORM – EUROPEAN PAYMENT NOTIFICATION 

Reference: 

The claim as set out in the European payment notification is justified; I have made the 
payment in the meantime 

□ 

I hereby lodge a statement of defence relating to the claim in its entirety 

I hereby lodge a statement of defence in respect of the following parts of 

3.1 

the principal claim: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

3.2 

the interest: 

3.3 

the costs: 

4. Signature of the defendant/ his representative: 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 3 

EUROPEAN ORDER FOR PAYMENT 

Reference:  

1. 

Issuing Court: 

Address: 

Tel./fax/e-mail: 

2. 

IMPORTANT NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT: 

By  virtue  of  this  decision  the  court  orders  you  to  pay  the  full  amount  set  out  below 
including interest and costs to the claimant. The claimant is entitled to the enforcement 
of this obligation without further notice. 

You can submit a statement informing the court about the payment having been effected 
in the meantime or challenge the order for payment by lodging a statement of opposition 
with the issuing court within three weeks as from the service of the order on you. 

To  comply  with  the  time  limit  the  statement  of  opposition  or  the  statement  informing 
about the payment has to reach the court before its expiration. 

You may make use of the standard response form annexed to this order for payment but 
are not obliged to do so.  

If no statement informing about a payment or statement of opposition is lodged until the 
expiry of the time limit the European order for payment will acquire the authority of a 
final decision and can no longer be challenged. 

3. Claimant 

3.1 Name: 

3.2 Address: 

4. Claimant’s representative 

4.1 Name: 

4.2 Address: 

5. Defendant 

5.1 Name: 

5.2 Address: 

6. Claim 

6.1 Amount of principal (not including interest and costs): 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
6.2 Currency: 

□ 

EUR 

□ 

□ 

Swedish Kroner 

[British pounds] 

7. Interest 

7.1 Interest rate (claimed on the principal until payment is made) 

7.1.1 

7.1.2 

7.1.3 

% 

% above the base rate of the ECB 

Statutory interest rate 

7.2 Interest to be collected as from: 

8. Costs (amounts in same currency as under 6.2) 

□ 

□ 

□ 

8.1 Costs related to this procedure 

8.1.1 Application fee: 

8.1.2. Claimant’s representative’s fee: 

8.1.3 Other (explain): 

8.2 Pre-litigation costs (explain): 

8.3 Total costs claimed: 

9. The claim relates to 

9.1 Sales contract  

□ 

9.6 Contract of service – other 

9.2 Rental agreement - immovable  □ 

9.7 Loan/guarantee 

9.3 Rental agreement – movable  □ 

9.8 Damages – traffic accident 

9.4 Insurance contract 

□ 

9.9 Damages – other 

9.5 Contract of service – electricity, 

      gas, water, telephone 

□ 

9.10 Other 

10. Brief description of the basis of the principal claim: 

11. Brief description of the basis of the interest rate claimed: 

11.1 Statutory interest rate  

11.2 Interest rate agreed upon by the parties   

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

□ 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11.3 Interest rate of a loan taken out by the claimant at least in the amount of the principal claim  □ 

11.4 Other (explain): 

12.  Brief  description  of  the  international  jurisdiction  of  the  defendant  is  not  domiciled  in  the  Member  State 
whose courts are seised: 

13. Evidence  

Acronyms:  

DE: documentary evidence 

TE: testimonial evidence 

EX: expert evidence 

IN: inspection of an object or site  OT: other 

Type of evidence  

Description of the evidence offered 

13.1 

13.2 

13.3 

Done at   

Date 

Signature and/or stamp 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RESPONSE FORM – EUROPEAN ORDER FOR PAYMENT 

Reference: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

The claim as set out in the European order for payment is justified; I have made the 
payment in the meantime 

□ 

I hereby lodge a statement of opposition relating to the claim in its entirety  

□ 

I hereby lodge a statement of opposition in respect of the following parts of 

3.1 

the principal claim: 

3.2 

the interest: 

3.3 

the costs: 

4. Signature of the defendant/ his representative: 

□ 

□ 

□ 

EN 

37 

   EN