Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of Council Regulation (EC) 1348/2000 on the service in the Member States of Judicial and Extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters {SEC(2004)1145}
Date: 2004-10-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU act, application of EU law, civil law, commercial law, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 1.10.2004 
COM(2004) 603 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE 

on the application of Council Regulation (EC) 1348/2000 on the service in the Member 
States of Judicial and Extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters 

{SEC(2004)1145} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
1. 

BACKGROUND 

This Report from the Commission has been prepared in accordance with Article 24 of Council 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1348/2000  on  the  service  in  the  Member  States  of  judicial  and 
extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters1. 

Since the entry into  force of Regulation (EC) 1348/2000 on 31 May 2001, the Commission 
has sought to receive as much information as possible about the application of the Regulation.  

The  Commission  has  therefore  gathered  information  and  discussed  the  application  of  the 
Regulation on various occasions. Furthermore, the Commission has requested a Study on the 
application of the Regulation which has been prepared by a contractor.  

This  Report  on  the  application  of  the  Regulation  is  consequently  based  on  the  information 
provided to the Commission and on the Study, covering 14 Member States. 

1.1.  Meeting of the European Judicial Network in Civil Matters (December 2002)  

In December 2002, one session in the context of  the  first  meeting  of the European Judicial 
Network in Civil and Commercial Matters was devoted to a discussion of the first experiences 
with  the  application  of  the  Regulation.  On  that  occasion,  different  types  of  problems  were 
identified which could be summarised as follows: 

–  Practical  problems  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Regulation  was  introduced  only  recently  (for 
example, standards forms were not used or the provisions concerning the use of languages 
were misunderstood);  

–  Failure of national administrations to always act within the deadlines provided for by the 

Regulation;  

–  High costs and lack of transparency concerning composition of these costs. 

1.2. 

Public Hearing (July 2003)  

In July 2003 the Commission organised a public hearing on the application of the Regulation. 
It was attended by about 70 participants most of whom represented Member States, acceding 
States  and  interested  parties  (in  particular  associations  of  professions  involved  in  the 
application of the Regulation such as bailiffs and lawyers). 

The public hearing provided a forum for an exchange of views for authorities and professions 
involved  in  the  application  of  the  Regulation  (such  as  persons  effecting  the  service  of 
documents,  administrations  of  Member  States  responsible  for  the  application  of  the 
Regulation,  associations  of  attorneys  and  judges,  etc.),  and  provided  the  Commission  with 
very valuable information concerning the application of the Regulation.  

The issues which received most attention in the discussion were the amount of time required 
for  transmission  and  service  of  documents,  the  effectiveness  of  transmitting  and  receiving 
agencies  and  central  bodies,  and  the  issue  of  costs  of  service.  Several  Member  States 

1 

OJ L 160, 30.6.00, p. 37. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
expressed their concerns about the fact that forms were either not used correctly, or not used 
at all.  

1.3. 

Study on the Application of Regulation (EC) 1348/2000 

As stated above, the Commission has requested a Study on the application of the Regulation 
which  has  been  prepared  by  a  contractor  in  order  to  prepare  this  Report.  The  Study  is 
available at the following internet address:  

http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/doc_centre/civil/studies/doc/study_ec1348_2000_en.pdf 

The main objective of the Study was to obtain an empirical analysis of the application of the 
Regulation,  in  particular  concerning  the  question  of  whether  through  the  application  of  the 
Regulation  the  transmission  of  documents  between  Member  States  has  been  improved  and 
expedited. 

The Study consists of two parts, a survey and a collection of statistical data: 

•  The survey which was carried out by the contractor from December 2003 to February 2004 
is based on 528 answers to a questionnaire concerning the application of several articles of 
the  Regulation.  The  questionnaire  was  answered  by  administrations  of  Member  States 
involved  in  the  application  of  the  Regulation,  judges,  attorneys  and  persons  from 
professions responsible for the service of documents such as the bailiffs from all Member 
States in which the Regulation applies. 

•  The statistical data was collected by the contractor from the Central Authorities of Member 
States and interested bodies such as the Union Internationale de Hussiers de Justice. The 
data  concerns  the  time  required  for  the  transmission  and  service  of  documents  and  the 
number of documents served between Member States in one year (2002). 

The Study concludes that the Regulation has made the transmission and service of documents 
faster  and,  by  improving  judicial  cooperation  between  Member  States,  has  contributed 
significantly  to  establishing  a  European  Judicial  Area.  However,  currently  professionals 
involved in the application of the Regulation are still in an adaptation phase and there is still a 
lack  of  knowledge  about  the  Regulation.  The  Study  emphasises  the  need  for  training  of 
professionals involved in the application of the Regulation. It expresses the expectation that 
the  European  Judicial  Atlas  in  Civil  Matters2,  a  user-friendly  data  base  containing 
information relevant for judicial cooperation in civil matters, will facilitate the application of 
the Regulation. The Study covers the application of several specific articles of the Regulation. 

1.4.  Meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Service of Documents (April 2004) 

In order to discuss the results of the Study as well as possible adaptations of the Regulation, 
and  in  order  to  gather  further  information  from  Member  States  on  the  functioning  of  the 
Regulation, in April 2004 the Commission convened a meeting of the Advisory committee on 
the  service  in  the  Member  States  of  judicial  and  extrajudicial  documents  in  civil  or 
commercial matters provided for by Article 18 of the Regulation. 

2 

See http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/judicialatlascivil/html/index.htm 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2. 

APPLICATION OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE REGULATION  

This section focuses on the application of several provisions of the Regulation, and suggests 
possible solutions to problems that have occurred in their application. 

2.1. 

Speed of transmission and service (Articles 2, 4 and 7) 

The Study indicates that the application of the Regulation has made the transmission and the 
service of documents faster (see Annex I and Chapter 7.33 of the Study). The introduction of 
direct  contacts  between  local  bodies,  the  possibility  of  postal  service  and  direct  service  and 
the introduction of standard forms (which have reduced language problems) are considered as 
the  main  reasons  for  the  speeding  up  of  transmission  and  service.  The  amount  of  time 
required for transmission and service has generally been reduced to 1 to 3 months (in some 
cases, however, up to 6 months are still required). 

The  Study  indicates  also  that  the  introduction  of  direct  contacts  between  local  bodies  has 
caused  certain  problems  (see  Annex  II).  In  particular,  in  the  period  of  adaptation  which 
currently  is  still  ongoing,  many  persons  involved  in  the  application  of  the  Regulation, 
particularly  local  bodies,  still  do  not  have  sufficient  knowledge  about  the  Regulation.  The 
Study suggests therefore that training on the Regulation should be increased. 

The  effectiveness  of  local  bodies  was  discussed  at  the  meeting  of  the  advisory  committee. 
Some  delegations  stated  that  the  choice  between  a  centralised  and  a  decentralised  system 
should  remain  up  to  Member  States.  Some  delegations  stressed  that  problems  with  the 
application of the Regulation (such as with respect to filling in the forms or costs) as well as 
insufficient knowledge about the Regulation caused additional time delays, and stressed that 
there  was  a  need  for  more  training  on  the  Regulation.  In  order  to  reduce  time  delays,  one 
delegation proposed to introduce an additional form to be used in cases where the times limits 
provided for in the Regulation are not kept.  

On  the  basis  of  the  information  provided  by  the  Study  and  by  Member  States,  the 
Commission considers that in general delays have been reduced, but that on the other hand in 
some cases this has not occurred yet. While there is no need to adapt the respective provisions 
of  the  Regulation,  further  efforts  should  be  made  –  where  necessary  –  to  further  reduce 
delays. 

2.2. 

Application of Article 8 (Refusal to accept a document) 

The  Study  indicates  that  the  possibility  to  serve  documents  in  a  language  other  than  the 
official language(s) of the Member State addressed is used in practice (see Annex III).  

The Study indicates furthermore that the application of Article 8 is not entirely satisfactory, in 
particular  since  the  addressee  is  not  always  informed  of  his  right  to  refuse  to  accept  the 
document (see Annex IV).  

The Study has pointed to an issue which deserves discussion, in view of divergent approaches 
in the Member States4, and in view of the fact that there is a case pending before the European 

3 

4 

Chapter  7.3  of  the  Study  contains  statistical  data  concerning  the  time  required  for  transmission  and 
service of documents between several Member States. 
Austria and Germany have introduced time limits for the refusal to accept a document in their national 
legislations. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Court  of  Justice  with  respect  to  the  legal  consequences  of  refusal  to  accept  a  document5.  It 
concerns the question of whether rules should be introduced in the Regulation with respect to 
a  time  limit  for  refusal  to  accept  a  document  and  with  respect  to  the  legal  consequences  of 
refusal  to  accept  a  document.  At  the  committee  meeting,  delegations  expressed  different 
opinions,  some  arguing  in  favour  of  the  introduction  of  such  rules,  some  stating  that  this 
should  be  left  to  national  law,  and  others  stating  that  this  question  deserved  some  more 
reflection. 

The  Commission  is  interested  in  receiving  any  comments  on  this  issue,  in  particular  in 
proposals to bring more clarity to the current wording of the Regulation. 

2.3. 

Application of Article 9 (Date of service) 

An issue that has received attention in the context of the application of the Regulation is the 
“double-date” rule provided for in Article 96. 

In  this  respect,  the  Study  indicates  that  the  application  of  the  Regulation  is  not  entirely 
satisfactory because the provision is considered complicated and in certain cases it is not easy 
to determine the date of service (see Annex V).  

At  the  meeting  of  the  advisory  committee,  Member  States  expressed  different  opinions 
concerning the need for this provision. As a result of significant differences in their national 
legislations  on  the  date  of  service7,  some  Member  States  consider  Article  9  superfluous, 
whereas other stated that it is a provision of crucial importance. 

Considering this and the fact that in practice problematic cases seem to be rather limited in 
numbers, a modification of this provision seems neither realistic nor an immediate necessity. 

2.4. 

Application of Article 11 (Costs of service) 

The issue of costs was already brought to the attention of the Commission soon after the entry 
into  force  of  the  Regulation,  and  has  been  the  subject  of  extensive  discussions  on  several 
occasions. 

In this regard, the Study indicates that the application of this provision is not satisfactory (see 
Annex  VI),  mainly  due  to  the  fact  that  in  certain  Member  States  the  costs  charged  for  the 
service of documents are very high (above € 150) and not fully transparent (since the amounts 
are not known to the applicant beforehand). 

The  systems  Member  States  have  in  place  with  respect  to  the  service  of  documents  differ 
significantly.  In  many  Member  States  the  service  of  documents  is  performed  by  the  courts 
which in practice often have the documents effectively served by post. In these cases there are 
no or very low fees for the service of documents. On the other hand, there are some Member 

5 
6 

7 

Case C-443/03 (Götz Leffler v. de vennootschap naar Duitse recht Berlin Chemie AG). 
Paragraph 1 provides that the date of service of a document pursuant to Article 7 shall be the date on 
which it is served in accordance with the law of the Member State addressed. Paragraph 2 provides that 
where a document shall be served within a particular period in the context of proceedings to be brought 
or pending in the Member State of origin, the date to be taken into account with respect to the applicant 
shall be that fixed by the law of that Member State. 
See the detailed overview in Chapter 4.6.3 of the Study in this respect. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
States  in  which  a  liberal  profession  such  as  the  huissiers  de  justice  is  authorized  to  serve 
documents. These professions charge fees for serving documents.8  

In the view of the Commission, the Regulation is intended to function with different systems 
of  serving  documents,  and  it  should  neither  encourage  nor  discourage  the  one  or  the  other 
system.  

On the other hand, on the basis of the information provided by the Study and by comments 
from delegations, it cannot be denied that the Regulation has caused problems with respect to 
some Member States because costs are not fully transparent and in some cases are deemed to 
be very high.  

The issue was again subject of discussions at the meeting of the advisory committee where the 
deletion  of  paragraph  2  a)9,  the  introduction  of  a  common  European  fee  or  a  fixed  fee  or  a 
maximum fee were suggested and discussed as possible solutions.  

It was agreed that the transparency of costs was of high importance, and that information from 
Member States concerning the calculation of costs should be made available in the framework 
of the Judicial Network.10 

As regards a possible modification of the Regulation, the Commission - as a possible middle-
of-the-road  solution  -  would  like  to  invite  reflections  on  whether  the  Regulation  should  be 
adapted  so  that  Member  States  which  charge  fees  would  have  to  introduce  a  fixed  and 
transparent fee.  

The Commission will give further consideration to all arguments expressed on this issue. 

2.5. 

Application of Article 14 (Service by post) 

The Study confirms that documents are frequently served directly by post (see Annex VII). 

The Study indicates furthermore that the application of Article 14 is not entirely satisfactory 
(see  Annex  VIII).  Problems  are  mainly  related  to  the  acknowledgment  of  receipt.  An 
important  problem  in  this  context  is  that  the  information  on  acknowledgment  of  receipt 
(which is determined by the Universal Postal Union) concerning the service of the document 
and the addressee is less detailed than in the standard form provided for in Article 10 of the 
Regulation. 

With respect to Article 14, the Commission considers that in a possible future revision of the 
Regulation it should be clarified that the language rules of Article 8 also apply for service by 
post (which is not clear from the current wording of the Regulation). 

Furthermore, the introduction of uniform rules concerning the conditions (e.g. registered letter 
with  acknowledgement  of  receipt,  accompanied  by  a  uniform  form  informing  the  addressee 
about his right to refuse to accept the document) should be considered in order to facilitate the 

8 
9 

10 

An overview is given in Chapters 4.1.3 and 4.1.4 of the Study. 
This would mean that the applicant would not have to pay for the costs of the employment of a judicial 
officer or of a person competent under the law of the Member State addressed. 
The Commission has meanwhile asked Member States to provide that information in the framework of 
the network. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
application  of  the  Regulation.  Currently,  the  identification  of  the  conditions  applicable  in  a 
specific Member State11 is not user-friendly.  

2.6. 

Application of Article 15 (Direct service) 

The Study does not give a clear answer to the question whether persons interested in a judicial 
proceeding  frequently  provide  service  of  documents  directly  through  the  judicial  officers, 
officials or other competent persons of the Member State addressed (see Annex IX). 

The  advisory  committee  discussed  the  question  whether  the  deletion  of  paragraph  212 
(possibly under additional conditions in the current paragraph 1) could be considered in order 
to  facilitate  the  application  of  the  Regulation  by  introducing  a  uniform  rule.  Delegations 
expressed  different  views  in  this  respect.  Whereas  some  delegations  argued  in  favour  of 
deleting paragraph 2, others stated that this was not acceptable to them. 

The  Commission  considers  that  it  should  be  explored  further  whether  paragraph  2  could  be 
deleted, possibly by introducing new conditions in (the current) paragraph 1. 

2.7. 

Application of Article 19 (Defendant not entering an appearance)  

One Member State has proposed deleting paragraph 213 since – also taking into account the 
facts that under the Regulation there is the principle of direct contacts between the authorities 
and the possibility of using modern communication technology - the conditions provided for 
in  that  paragraph  with  respect  to  the  service  of  documents  do  not  correspond  with  those 
contained in Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims.14  

The Commission is particularly interested in any comments on this issue. 

2.8. 

Application  of  Articles  17  (Implementing  rules)  and  23  (Communication  and 
Publication) 

The Commission considers that the requirement for the adoption of the manual of receiving 
agencies and the glossary by a Commission Decision (Article 17) should be deleted as well as 
the requirement of the publication of the information communicated by Member States in the 
Official Journal (Article 23). Instead, a rule equivalent to Article 19 (1) of Council Regulation 
(EC)  1206/2001  on  the  taking  of  evidence  should  be  introduced  since  Articles  17  and  23 
unnecessarily complicate making available the information communicated by Member States. 
The information communicated by Member States is now available in the European Judicial 
Atlas in Civil Matters where it is updated continuously15. The Commission also considers that 
it is important that in the Atlas a record of changes and of time periods during which different 
declarations have been successively in force is kept. 

11 
12 
13 

14 
15 

An overview is given in Chapter 4.8.2 of the Study. 
This would mean that Member States could not oppose any more the direct service of documents. 
This would mean that judges could not give a judgment any more if no certificate of service or delivery 
has been received. 
OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 15. 
See http://europa.eu.int/comm/justice_home/judicialatlascivil/html/docservinformation_en.htm 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
2.9. 

Application of Annexes (Forms) 

The Study indicates that the application of the forms is not entirely satisfactory, in particular 
because forms are either not used at all or not always filled in correctly or completely or are 
filled in by hand and cannot be read (see Annex X). The Study also expresses the expectation 
that  the  introduction  of  the  European  Judicial  Atlas  in  Civil  Matters  should  contribute  to 
improving this aspect of the application of the Regulation. 

At  the  meeting  of  the  advisory  committee,  one  delegation  stated  that  there  are  already  too 
many  forms  and  that  certain  forms  are  superfluous,  whereas  another  delegation  considered 
that an additional form should be introduced which could be used in cases where the deadlines 
provided for in the Regulation are not kept. 

3. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Based on the information provided by Member States and other interested parties on various 
occasions and by the Study, the Commission draws the following conclusions concerning the 
application of Regulation 1348/2000 since its entry into force in 2001: 

•  The application of the Regulation has generally improved and expedited the transmission 
and the service of documents between Member States. The main reasons for the speeding 
up of transmission and service are the introduction of direct contacts between local bodies, 
the possibility of postal service and direct service and the introduction of standard forms. 

•  Nevertheless, the application of the Regulation is not entirely satisfactory: 

–  In the period  of  adaptation which is still  ongoing,  many  persons  involved  in  the 
application of the Regulation, in particular local bodies, still do not have sufficient 
knowledge  about  the  Regulation.  Consequently,  there  is  a  clear  need  for  more 
training about the Regulation. 

–  Furthermore, the application of certain provisions of the Regulation, in particular 
of Article 11, is not fully satisfactory. Adaptations of these provisions should be 
considered  in  order  to  further  improve  and  facilitate  the  application  of  the 
Regulation. This concerns especially Articles 8, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 23. 

The Commission welcomes all reactions to this Report. Suggestions with respect to two issues 
are of particular interest for the Commission: 

•  Suggestions for possible solutions to the problems with the application of the Regulation 

addressed in this Report. 

•  Suggestions how more training on the Regulation could be provided to persons involved in 

the application of the Regulation. 

Taking into account the reactions to this Report, the Commission will consider presenting a 
legislative proposal in 2005. 

EN 

8 

   EN