Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Green Paper on improving the efficiency of the enforcement of judgments in the European Union: the attachment of bank accounts COM(2006) 618 final
Date: 2007-09-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: European judicial area, bank, bank deposit, claim, jurisdiction, seizure of goods

C 10/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.1.2008

III

(Preparatory Acts)

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE

438th PLENARY SESSION HELD ON 26 AND 27 SEPTEMBER 2007

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Green Paper on improving the
judgments in the European Union: the attachment of bank
efficiency of the enforcement of

accounts’

COM(2006) 618 final

(2008/C 10/02)

On 24 October 2006 the European Commission decided to consult the European Economic and Social
Committee, under Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned
proposal.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 July 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Pegado
Liz.

At its 438th plenary session, held on 26 and 27 September 2007 (meeting of 26 September), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 131 votes to 1 with 6 abstentions.

1. Summary

1.1 With this Green Paper and as a follow-up to a range of initiatives aimed at establishing a European
judicial area, the Commission is launching a consultation on the possibility of creating a Community legisla-
tive instrument to make the enforcement of monetary claims more efficient, by ensuring that sums of
money in a debtor's bank accounts in any Member State are frozen at the outset of proceedings.

1.2
On the basis of this Green Paper, which cannot be considered without also reading and analysing the
Working Document appended to it (1) and the commissioned Study on which it is based, it appears that the
Commission envisages proposing an optional regulation that defines the legal system for a European attach-
ment order in the form of a preventive seizure of bank accounts, regardless of the nature of the debt or the
status of the parties involved. However, there is some conceptual inconsistency in the definition of the objec-
tive and subjective scope of the measure, and the translations of the Commission document into some
languages are particularly unreliable.

1.3
There has been no study of the impact of such a measure, and the comparative law studies on which
it is based only consider 15 of the 27 EU Member States. In such circumstances the Committee, whilst
sharing the Commission's concerns, does not consider that the need for such a measure is sufficiently
proven in terms of subsidiarity and proportionality: an equivalent result could perhaps be satisfactorily
achieved simply by altering two provisions of the Brussels I Regulation.

(1) SEC(2006) 1341.

15.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/3

1.4
Nor does the Committee find any logical justification for limiting the scope of an initiative of this
nature to the preventive seizure of sums of money deposited in bank accounts. The Committee suggests that
its scope should be extended to cover a debtor's other moveable assets and, with any necessary changes,
attachment after an enforcement order has been granted. The Committee also considers it crucial to ensure
that this measure is accompanied by an initiative on the transparency of bank accounts, on the obligations
to provide information and on the requisite confidentiality and data protection rules.

1.5
The Committee agrees with the Commission that, should the introduction of such a measure be
deemed absolutely necessary, the appropriate instrument would be an optional regulation for freezing a
debtor's bank accounts in Member States other than the one in which the creditor lives or where his busi-
ness is based.

1.6
On this basis, and in order fully to comply with the Commission's request for an opinion, the
Committee puts forward a detailed set of technical and legal recommendations for defining what it considers
to be the most appropriate system for the initiative, specifically as regards court jurisdiction, the conditions
under which the order can be granted, the limits on the amounts that can be seized, exemptions, guarantees
for the protection of the debtor and of third-party holders of joint accounts in which they share equal liabi-
lity or accounts in which liability is proportional, appeals and deadlines, the system of legal costs, obliga-
tions and responsibilities of the banks where the accounts in question are held, and the rules of national or
international private law that might also apply.

2. Gist of the Green Paper

2.1 With this Green Paper, the Commission is launching a consultation among interested parties on how
to improve the enforcement of monetary claims. It proposes the creation of a European system for the
attachment of bank accounts as a possible solution.

2.2
The Commission starts by identifying existing enforcement problems in civil procedures in the
‘European judicial area’ resulting from the fragmentation of national rules in this area, and acknowledges
that Regulation (EC) 44/2001 (Brussels I) (2) ‘does not ensure that a protective remedy such as a banking seizure
obtained ex parte is recognised and enforced in a Member State other than the one where it was issued’.

2.3
In the Commission's opinion, this shortcoming could potentially distort competition between busi-
nesses, depending on the effectiveness of the judicial systems of the countries in which these businesses
operate. It could thus form an obstacle to the smooth operation of the internal market, which requires
uniform efficiency and speed in the recovery of monetary claims.

2.4
The Commission thus puts forward the proposal to create a ‘European order for the attachment of
bank accounts which would allow a creditor to secure a sum of money due to or claimed by him by
preventing the removal or transfer of funds held to the credit of his debtor in one or several bank accounts
within the territory of the European Union’ and offers a detailed analysis of a possible legal framework for
this, the parameters of which it sets in the form of 23 questions.

3. Context of the initiative

3.1
This initiative rightly fits into a broader set of measures that the Commission has adopted with the
laudable aim of creating a European judicial area that provides legal support for the completion of the

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judg-
ments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I), in OJ L 12 of 16.1.2001. The EESC opinion on this matter was drawn
up by Mr Malosse (CES 233/2000 of 1 March 2000, in OJ C 117 of 26.4.2000).

C 10/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.1.2008

internal market (3), in particular following the transformation of the Brussels Convention into a Community
Regulation (4) and the Regulation creating a European Enforcement Order (5).

3.2
There is some truth in the Commission's practical comments on the problems in enforcing judg-
ments in the different countries of Europe and on the differences in the regulations governing these judg-
ments resulting from a lack of EU-level harmonisation of the enforcement process, with the consequences
that it has correctly highlighted (6). It must also be said that these consequences will only have worsened
with the recent accession of 12 new Member States. In this Green Paper, however, the Commission omits
the crucial scrutiny of its initiative in relation to the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

This is not to say that the same result, or a result having a similar effect, could not have been
3.3
obtained simply by amending one or two provisions in the Brussels I Regulation (notably Articles 31 and
47), extending its scope while retaining the existing system. This would have had clear benefits in terms of
simplification (7).

(3) Amongst others, these include the:

— Commission communication entitled ‘Action plan on consumer access to justice and the settlement of consumer

disputes in the internal market’, 14 February 1996 (COM(96) 13 final).

— Commission communication entitled ‘Towards greater efficiency in obtaining and enforcing judgments in the

European Union’ (COM(97) 609 final in OJ C 33 of 31.1.1998).

— Green Paper on access of consumers to justice and the settlement of consumer disputes in the single market

(COM(93) 576 final).

— Green Paper on alternative dispute resolution in civil and commercial law (COM(2002) 196 final of 19.4.2002).
— Commission Recommendation of 12 May 1995 on payment periods in commercial transactions and the relevant

Commission communication in OJ L 127 of 10.6.1995 and OJ C 144 of 10.6.1995 respectively.

— Directive 98/27/EC of 19 May 1998 on injunctions for the protection of consumers' interests in OJ L 166 of

11.6.1998.

— Directive 2000/35/EC of 29 June 2000 on combating late payment in commercial transactions, in OJ L 200 of

8.8.2000.

— Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement
of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I), in OJ L 12 of 16.1.2001. The rapporteur for the EESC
opinion on this subject was Mr Malosse (CES 233/2000, 1 March 2000, in OJ C 117 of 26.4.2000).

— Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of 21 April 2004, creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims,
in OJ L 143 of 30.4.2004. The rapporteur for the EESC opinion on this subject was Mr Ravoet (CESE 1348/2002,
11 December 2002, in OJ C 85 of 8.4.2003).

— Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States
in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, in OJ L 174, 27.6.2001. The rapporteur for the EESC
opinion on this subject was Mr Hernández Bataller (CESE 228/2001, 28 February 2001,
in OJ C 139 of
11.5.2001).

— Programme of measures for implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and

commercial matters (OJ C 12 of 15.1.2001).

— Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings (OJ L 160 of 30.6.2000). The
rapporteur for the EESC opinion on this subject was Mr Ravoet (CESE 79/2001, 26 January 2001, in OJ C 75 of
15.3.2000).

— Council Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of
judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for joint children, idem. The rapporteur
for the EESC opinion on this subject was Mr Braghin (CES 940/1999 of 20 October 1999, in OJ C 368 of
20.12.1999).

— Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extra-
judicial documents in civil or commercial matters; idem. The rapporteur for the EESC opinion on this subject was
Mr Hernández Bataller (CES 947/1999 of 21 October 1999, in OJ C 368 of 20.12.1999).

— Council Decision of 28 May 2001 establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters,
(OJ L 174 of 27.6.2001). The rapporteur for the EESC opinion on this subject was Mr Retureau (CESE 227/2001
of 28 February 2001, OJ C 139 of 11.5.2001).

— Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of 12 December 2006 (OJ L 399 of 30.12.2006) creating a European order for
payment procedure. The rapporteur for the EESC opinion on the draft regulation (COM(2004) 173 final of
19.3.2004) was Mr Pegado Liz (CESE 133/2005 of 22.2.2005, in OJ C 221 of 8.9.2005).

— Proposal for a Regulation establishing a European Small Claims Procedure (COM(2005) 87 final of 15.3.2005).

The rapporteur for the EESC opinion on this subject was Mr Pegado Liz (CESE 243/2006 of 14.2.2006)

(4) Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22.12.2000. The rapporteur for the EESC opinion was Mr Malosse (OJ C 117 of

6.4.2000).

(5) Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of 21.4.2004, based on proposal COM(2002) 159 final, 27.8.2002. EESC Opinion

CESE 1348/2002 of 11 December 2002, rapporteur: Mr Ravoet (OJ C 85 of 8.4.2003).

(6) Specifically in its Communication entitled Towards greater efficiency in obtaining and enforcing judgments in the

European Union (OJ C 33 of 31.1.1998)

(7) These two articles are extremely broad, which means that the interpretation to adopt should be that derived from case law,
specifically the Denilauer case (Judgment C-125/79 of 21.5.1980, p. 1553) on Article 31. Issues concerning time-limits,
exequatur mechanisms, the conditions for proceeding with a case (the need to prove ‘fumus bonus iuris’ and ‘periculum in
mora’), the means/guarantees of defence and the amounts that can be seized/exemptions could be subject to the two Arti-
cles referred to above, extending the measure's scope and thus meeting the aims of the Commission proposal.

15.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/5

3.4
The Commission has not yet carried out a preliminary
impact assessment, which should take account not only of the
15 Member States whose situation was analysed in the study on
which this Green Paper was based (8), but of all of the current
Member States. It must be accompanied by a proper assessment
of measures aimed at ensuring greater transparency regarding
debtors' assets and the essential access to information on their
bank accounts (with due respect for the protection of banking
secrecy), because only by considering all these factors can a
correct assessment be made of the initiative in terms of (a) the
need for its existence, (b) its scope and (c) the rationale for it.

4.2.3
From an analysis of the proposed conditions (the need
to prove ‘fumus boni iuris’ and ‘periculum in mora’) and purpose
(freezing or blocking sums deposited in bank accounts until the
final judgment and enforcement in civil proceedings to recover
monetary assets — obviously those of a civil or commercial
nature and not those resulting from criminal proceedings),
it
seems fair to conclude that this is a protective order in the
form of a preventive seizure.

4.3 Scope of the measure (11)

4. General comments

4.3.1
protective measure to ‘bank accounts’.

The Committee also questions limiting the scope of the

The Committee has divided its comments into two cate-

4.1
gories:

a) General comments on substantive issues concerning the

nature and scope of the provision, and

b) Specific comments on procedural issues.

4.2 Preliminary issue: terms and concepts

4.2.1
As the Green Paper is likely to be followed by a legal
instrument (probably in the form of a Community regulation),
the terms used to identify the concepts that will define the
nature of
the ensuing procedural order must be extremely
rigorous and technically and legally precise in every Community
language.

The current situation is that in at least five language
4.2.2
versions (9), the terms used by the Commission to identify the
type of measure it is contemplating are ambiguous and not
necessarily equivalent. This could lead to technical or legal
confusion as regards the legal nature of
the provision. The
Commission should therefore act swiftly to ensure the accuracy
of the translations, in order to avoid uncertainty arising solely
from the use of incorrect terminology (10).

(8) For a fuller understanding of

the content of

the Green Paper,
account should be taken not only of the Commission Working Paper
(SEC(2006) 1341) of 24.10.2006 but also of Study No JAI/A3/
2002/02, in its updated version of 18.2.2004, by Prof. Dr. Burkhard
Hess, Director of the Institute of Comparative and Private Interna-
tional Law at the University of Heidelberg, which can be found at:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/civil/studies/doc_civil_-
studies_en.htm.

(9) Those with which the rapporteur is most familiar. Unfortunately he is

not proficient in the other 15.

(10) The English term ‘attachment’, even in its technical/legal sense, is
ambiguous, since it could refer to what in Portuguese is called either
‘penhora’ or ‘arresto’. Even in English, given the legal nature of the
measure, it would have been better to use the term ‘arrestment’ or
‘freezing order’, in order to make a distinction between this and the
concept of ‘garnishment’. Furthermore, only the Italian translation —
‘sequestro conservativo’ — correctly expresses the preventive and
restraining nature of the measure; the French term ‘saisie’, with the
additional explanation that it could be ‘granted by a court in summary
proceedings’, fulfils the requirement; the Spanish term ‘embargo’
appears inadequate to express the purpose of the measure. In any
event, in Portuguese, the use of the word ‘penhora’ is entirely
wrong and should be replaced with ‘arresto’.

4.3.2
An attachment of monetary assets, which of necessity
must be universal, should apply to all of the debtor's assets up
to the amount ordered to be seized. A protective remedy such
as the one proposed could target other assets of the debtor for
possible seizure,
including debt securities, shares, debenture
bonds and other entitlements and claims on third parties and
not only money deposited in certain bank accounts or accounts
in other types of financial
institution. There is no reason to
assume that it would be excessively complicated to broaden the
measure's scope to cover, at the very least, moveable property
that does not need to be registered and also a debtor's claims to
money (including shares, debenture bonds, rental and other
income, monies owed by third parties, etc.), i.e. moveable prop-
erty directly linked to a bank account.

4.3.3
Furthermore, there does not appear to be any justifica-
tion for limiting the scope of the Community instrument to the
preventive seizure of bank accounts:
it could usefully be
extended, with any necessary changes, to cover attachment of
these assets after an enforcement order has been granted, given
that the same type of difficulty regarding the seizure and disap-
pearance of goods (which form the justification for the measure)
could also occur then.

4.3.4
The Commission should thus properly assess and
justify the value and cost of a measure that only covers the
preventive seizure of money held in a debtor's bank accounts.

4.4 Timing of the request for an attachment order

In accordance with the best legal practice,

4.4.1
The question of the timing of the application for a
protective order is automatically resolved by its very nature, as
set out above.
it
should be possible to apply for a protective order at any point
in the legal process to which it relates, and more specifically
prior to the start of the principal action, as a preparatory and
preventive procedure, as this is where it is of most practical use.

(11) In the Committee's view, this should be confined to civil and commer-

cial debt.

C 10/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.1.2008

4.4.2
Account must clearly be taken of the obvious specific
characteristics of the regime, depending on whether the protec-
tive remedy is effected before the main action is raised or a deci-
sion upholding the claim is obtained, before or during an enfor-
cement proceeding, or whether or not an appeal has been
launched in higher courts against the order granted in first
instance or, lastly, when the enforceable right does not take the
form of an order (a letter, promissory note, cheque or other
enforceable document).

4.5 Jurisdiction of the court

4.5.1
To a certain extent, the question of the court's jurisdic-
tion to consider and grant the protective order is also resolved
by the above. The court that has jurisdiction is obviously the
one that is responsible for dealing with the main case, from the
time when the action/enforcement has already been effected.

The court of the State in which the bank accounts are
4.5.2
the order is
held should also have jurisdiction, however,
In this
requested before the action/enforcement
case, however,
it must be ensured that, as soon as the main
action/enforcement is proposed, responsibility for the protective
order that has been granted passes to the court that has jurisdic-
tion in the main case. Even if it comes under another national
jurisdiction, the latter court should accept this without requiring
a process of recognition (12).

if
is initiated.

4.6 Conditions for granting the order

There is an inherent need to ensure that the condi-
4.6.1
tions which the Commission quite rightly identifies in point 3.2
of the Green Paper — ‘fumus boni iuris’ and ‘periculum in mora’ —
are met. Nevertheless, if a court order or other type of enforce-
able right has already been granted, only proof of ‘periculum in
mora’, in other words, of the urgent need for a seizure order,
will be required.

4.6.2
A further condition for granting the order could be
proof that the creditor has made reasonable efforts to recover
the debt with the debtor's agreement and without seeking
redress through the courts.

The absence of a requirement for a prior hearing of
4.6.3
the debtor is essential if the order is to be effective. However,
this could go hand in hand with the provision of a guarantee,
to be set by the judge, at a level sufficient to cover any loss or
damage if the measure is set aside in the main proceedings or at
appeal (if this does not have suspensory effect), provided that
the measure is decreed before a definitive order exists or is
obtained.

that of
incurred up to the time the enforcement order is applied for.

(whether contractual or

the default

interest

legal)

In the context of precautionary proceedings, which are
4.7.2
inevitably provisional, and given the seriousness of
freezing
sums held in bank accounts, the Committee does not consider
it legitimate to include any other sums, specifically to cover
future interest payments, lawyers' fees, bank charges, legal costs,
etc.

4.7.3
The Committee is aware that implementing this type of
system could give rise to additional costs for banks. It does not
consider it legitimate, however, to include these costs in the
sums to be frozen in any bank accounts held by the alleged
legislation to lay down
debtor.
arrangements for bank charges and for recovering these from
creditors who use this procedure. These charges should be
added to the settlement of court costs, which will be determined
at the end of the process.

It should be left to national

4.7.4
The Community instrument should also set the para-
meters for delimiting exemptions from execution, to enable the
debtor (if the debtor is a private individual and not a business)
to meet his and his family's basic needs, which could be jeopar-
dised by the enforcement order.

4.7.5
After the protective order is granted, the bank should
inform the court of any limitations on compliance with the
seizure order, depending on the nature of the debtor's account
(current account, savings account, mortgage account, etc.), the
nature of the income or earnings paid into it (wages, profes-
sional
fees, salaries, pensions and annuities, social security
payments, etc.) and the nature of the expenditure associated
with the account
(mortgage, car repayment, rent, consumer
credit, feeding the family, etc.), in accordance with the law of
the country in which the bank account is held and insofar as
the bank is in possession of such information.

4.8 Third-party accounts

4.8.1
By the same token, there appears to be no justification
for broadening the scope of the protective order to cover bank
accounts held in the name of third parties. In cases where it is
the
not possible accurately to identify what proportion of
money in the account belongs to the debtor,
it should be
assumed that each holder has an equal share.

4.7 Amount to be secured and exemptions

4.7.1
to be secured by the order must not
exceed the sum that has been allegedly due and not repaid, plus

The amount

(12) Cf. Court of Justice ruling in Van Uden Maritime B.V. of 17.11.1998
— Case C-391/95 (European Court Reports 1998, page I-07091).

4.8.2
It is also unacceptable that several accounts should be
attached to cover the same amount, although admittedly there is
no easy solution when accounts are held in different countries:
each court that has jurisdiction could be asked to grant the
order, unaware that the same order has been requested else-
where. The problem would continue until all proceedings are
managed centrally by the court that has jurisdiction to hear the
main case.

15.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/7

4.8.3
It therefore seems advisable, in conjunction with this
initiative, to lay down clear obligations to provide informa-
tion on the party applying for the attachment and on the banks
subject to the protective order, as well as the duty for the banks
and courts in the different Member States to cooperate, whilst
fully respecting the rules on confidentiality, data protection and
banking secrecy, as is rightly stated in the study underpinning
the Green Paper.

4.8.4
It could be laid down, for example, that sums seized
are reduced ex-post and within a specified short period of time,
as soon as the information is obtained from the different banks,
if more than one is involved.

4.9 Guarantees for the debtor's protection

It is crucial that protection of the debtor is guaranteed,
4.9.1
providing him/her with the means to contest the enforce-
ment order within a reasonable timeframe — which the
Committee suggests be at least 20 calendar days — in order to
demonstrate:

a) the non-existence, either total or partial, of the debt;

b) the absence of ‘periculum in mora’;

c) that the amount seized is incorrect;

d) that the vital needs of the debtor or those of his/her family
(in the case of a private individual) are jeopardised by the
measure.

4.9.2
To this end, provision should be made for the debtor
to be notified by the court that has jurisdiction as soon as it is
ascertained that sufficient funds are present in the account to
freeze the amount allegedly owed. The bank in question should
give the same information to the debtor as soon as the account
is frozen, in line with the conditions set by the court.

The Community instrument should also set out the
4.9.3
means of protection and the grounds or reasons for a chal-
lenge/appeal, harmonising these at the Community level,
in
order to ensure that situations are treated equally in any compe-
tent jurisdiction and that means of protection are identical. An
the
important question will be to determine the nature of
appeal (whether or not it is suspensory) and the court that has
jurisdiction to hear it, when the court granting the order and
the court hearing the main action come under different national
jurisdictions.

4.9.4
It is also important that a time-limit for raising the
main claim or an application for exequatur is set, starting from
the day on which the creditor is informed of the enforcement of
the order. The Committee thinks that a deadline of 60 calendar
days would be reasonable, irrespective of the judgment granting
a protective order.

4.10 The Community instrument and its nature

In its Green Paper, the Commission is unclear as to
4.10.1
what legal instrument it intends to use to implement its initia-
tive. In view of the desired aims and as a means of ensuring
that procedures are identical in the different Member States, the
EESC considers that the instrument should take the form of a
regulation, as already applies to other similar instruments in
the context of the European judicial area.

A different but closely related issue concerns its
4.10.2
If the measure is deemed necessary, the Commission
scope.
could — as it has for other, identical instruments — make the
procedure applicable only to cross-border cases and make it
optional
(the ‘28th regime’), allowing creditors to choose
between a harmonised Community instrument and the existing
option of using the applicable provisions of private international
law.

4.11 Costs

The EESC suggests that the rules governing costs follow those
already set out in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004,
with any changes that are needed (13).

5. Specific comments

5.1 With regard to issues of
form alone, the Committee
agrees that the exequatur procedure should be abolished for a
judgment granting a protective order, whatever court has juris-
diction.

5.2
The Committee also considers that the rules on the court
notifying the bank and the alleged debtor should not entail
unnecessary formalities, provided that they ensure the authenti-
city of the instrument and the identity of the debtor. The rules
already set out in Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 seem appro-
priate here (14). The identification of the accounts to be frozen
should also be as complete as possible, so as to avoid a generic
seizure order.

5.3
The Committee also considers that the order issued by
the court should be enforced by the bank under the terms set
by the court, whilst safeguarding any legitimate operations
already under way, such as prior commitments guaranteed by
letters, promissory notes or cheques, and obligations to prefer-
ential creditors such as the State, the social security authorities
or employees. In any event, the bank should be answerable for
the account's balance on the date of receipt of the seizure order
and should ensure that the account is frozen automatically as
soon as the order arrives, even via electronic means, if outside
of working hours. The bank should face liability for any negli-
gence in the disappearance of sums moved thereafter.

(13) Article 7 states that: ‘Where a judgment includes an enforceable deci-
sion on the amount of costs related to the court proceedings, including
the interest rates, it shall be certified as a European Enforcement Order
also with regard to the costs unless the debtor has specifically objected
to his obligation to bear such costs in the course of the court proceed-
ings, in accordance with the law of the Member State of origin’.

(14) Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29.5.2000,

in OJ L 160 of

30.6.2000.

C 10/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.1.2008

5.4
The Committee agrees that banks should be required to
immediately inform the court, by electronic or other means of
communication, of how they have complied with the order.

has jurisdiction over this,
general rules on dispute settlement.

in accordance with the applicable

Community law should not lay down rules for ranking
same bank account. The

5.5
creditors
Committee favours the application of national legislation.

competing over

the

The Committee considers that the practical enforcement
5.6
of the order should be governed by the law of the country that

Brussels, 26 September 2007.

Lastly,

the Committee would particularly draw the
5.7
Commission's attention to the need to make provision for a
mechanism for the translation of documents relating to the
operation of
the
mechanism established under Article 21(2)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 1896/2006 of 12 December 2006.

the proposed system, along the lines of

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Simplification of the regulatory
environment for the machinery sector’

(2008/C 10/03)

On 8 January 2007, European Commission vice-presidents Margot Wallström and Günter Verheugen
requested the European Economic and Social Committee to draw up an exploratory opinion on the Simplifi-
cation of the regulatory environment for the machinery sector.

The Section for the Single Market, Production and Consumption, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 18 July 2007. The rapporteur was Mr Iozia.

At its 438th plenary session, held on 26 and 27 September 2007 (meeting of 26 September), the European
Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 138 votes to 2, with 3 abstentions.

1. Conclusions and recommendations

nesses. Better legislation, at least where this sector is concerned,
does not mean no legislation, but providing a clear, stable
framework whose rules are easy to implement and where
administrative costs are kept to a minimum.

euro

1.1
The European machinery industry is a key, cutting-edge
industry for the European economy. In 2006, several hundred
billion
over
130 000 companies which export a third of their production.
The machinery and electromechanical
industry employs over
four million workers within the EU, with high added value and
levels of knowledge.

turnover were

generated

by

of

The machinery and electromechanical

industry can
1.2
contribute more than other industries to the achievement of the
Lisbon goals by developing lifelong training, exchanging exper-
tise and best practices and maintaining its ability to be competi-
tive and penetrate world markets at the highest possible level.

the Commission's

The EESC supports

1.3
to
strengthen the competitiveness of the sector and improve the
reference legal framework with better and more effective regu-
lation,
the sector, which
includes tens of thousands of small and medium-sized busi-

taking into account

the nature of

initiatives

The EESC welcomes

1.4
the Commission's decision to
entrust to it this sensitive task of identifying, with the greatest
possible consensus, areas of existing Community legislation
which require simplification, in the wake of the activities which
have stimulated legislative bodies to develop better, simpler
legislation.

1.5
The EESC notes that various legislative initiatives are
under way concerning the sector: the different interests involved
— economic, social, environmental — need to be reconciled.
The creation of the internal market must not jeopardise other,
very important considerations such as health and safety in the
workplace and consumer and environmental protection, in the
context of the Lisbon goals. The EESC believes that a strategy
integrating and coordinating the different initiatives is needed.