Opinion of the Commission pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European order for payment procedure amending the proposal of the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty
Date: 2006-12-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: civil procedure, claim, drafting of EU law, injunction

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 6.12.2006 
COM(2006) 797 final 

2004/0055 (COD) 

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION 

pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, 
on the European Parliament's amendments 
to the Council's common position regarding the  
proposal for a  

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  

creating a European order for payment procedure 

AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION 
pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
2004/0055 (COD) 

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION 

pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, 
on the European Parliament's amendments 
to the Council's common position regarding the  
proposal for a  

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL  

creating a European order for payment procedure 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Article 251(2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty provides that the Commission is 
to  deliver  an  opinion  on  the  amendments  proposed  by  the  European  Parliament  at  second 
reading.  The  Commission  sets  out  its  opinion  below  on  the  2  amendments  proposed  by 
Parliament.  

2. 

BACKGROUND 

On  19  March  2004  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  creating  a  European  order  for  payment  procedure1.  The 
proposal  was  transmitted  to  Parliament  and  the  Council  on  19  March  2004.  On 
9 February 2005,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  issued  its  Opinion  on  the 
proposal2.  The  European  Parliament  referred  the  proposal  to  its  Legal  Affairs  Committee 
(responsible  for  the  report)  and  its  Committee  on  Public  Liberties  and  Citizens’  Rights  (for 
opinion).  The  Committee  on  Public  Liberties  and  Citizens’  Rights  adopted  its  opinion  on 
13 June  2005.  The  Legal  Affairs  Committee  approved  its  report  on  14  July  2005.  At  the 
plenary  session  on  13  December  2005,  the  European Parliament  adopted  its  opinion  in  first 
reading. Council adopted its common position on 30 June 2006. The Commission adopted its 
communication  on  the  common  position  of  the  Council  on  4  July  2006.3  The  European 
Parliament adopted its opinion in second reading on 25 October 2006.4 This opinion aims at 
making two amendments to the draft Regulation. 

3. 

PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSAL 

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 

1 
2 
3 
4 

COM(2004) 173 final, 19.3.2004 and COM(2004)173 final/3 of 25.5.2004. 
CESE/2005/133, OJ C 221, 8.9.2005, p. 77. 
COM(2006) 374 final of 7 July 2006. 
P6_TA(2006)0440. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
of  impunity  and  thus  provide  an  incentive  to  withhold  payments  intentionally  to  their  own 
advantage.  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. 

The objective of the proposal is to establish a uniform rapid and efficient mechanism for the 
recovery of uncontested money claims throughout the European Union. 

4. 

OPINION  OF  THE  COMMISSION  ON  THE  AMENDMENTS  BY  THE  EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 

4.1. 

Amendments accepted by the Commission 

•  The Commission accepts the amendment of the European Parliament in Standard Form A 
aiming at moving the warning on languages from the guidelines to the Standard Form to 
the top of this form. 

•  The Commission also accepts the amendment in of the European Parliament of Article 31 
concerning  the  exercise  of  implementing  powers  and  provides  that  the  new  regulatory 
procedure  with  scrutiny,  as  created  by  Council  Decision  2006/512  of  22  July  2006, 
amending Decision 1999/468, shall apply. 

5. 

CONCLUSION 

Pursuant to Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission amends its proposal as set out 
above. 

EN 

3 

   EN