Green Paper - Effective enforcement of judgments in the European Union: the transparency of debtors’ assets
Date: 2008-03-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, New Community Instrument, claim, cross-border cooperation, exchange of information, financial cooperation, financial institution, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 6.3.2008 
COM(2008) 128 final 

GREEN PAPER 

EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: 
THE TRANSPARENCY OF DEBTORS’ ASSETS 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
GREEN PAPER 

EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: 
THE TRANSPARENCY OF DEBTORS’ ASSETS 

The purpose of this Green Paper is to launch a broad consultation among interested parties on 
how to improve the transparency of debtors’ assets in the European Union. The Green Paper 
describes the problems of the current situation and possible solutions.  

The Commission invites interested parties to submit comments by 30 September 2008 to the 
following address: 

European Commission 
Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security 
Unit C1 – Civil Justice 
B - 1049 Brussels 
Fax: +32-2/299 64 57 
E-mail: JLS-coop-jud-civil@ec.europa.eu 

The contributions received will be published on the internet, together with the identity of the 
contributor,  unless  such  publication  is  likely  to  harm  his  or  her  legitimate  interests.  In  that 
case the contribution may be published in anonymous form. Otherwise, the contribution will 
not  be  published,  and  its  content  will  not  be  taken  into  account.  Contributions  will  be 
published  on  the  Commission’s  website  (either  on  the  main  web  portal  “Your  voice  in 
Europe”, which is the Commission’s single access point for consultation, or on the DG JLS 
consultation page linked to it).  

The Commission may hold a public hearing on the subject matter of the Green Paper. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
I. Introduction: Shortcomings of the current situation 

There  is  a  risk  that  problems  of  cross-border  debt  recovery  may  be  an  obstacle  to  the  free 
circulation  of  payment  orders  within  the  European  Union  and  may  impede  the  proper 
functioning of the Internal Market. Late payment and non-payment jeopardise the interests of 
businesses  and  consumers  alike.  This  is  particularly  the  case  when  the  creditor  and  the 
enforcement authorities have no information about the debtor’s whereabouts or his assets.  

The  Commission  already  noted  the  difficulties  of  cross-border  debt  recovery  in  its  1998 
Communication  “Towards  greater  efficiency  in  obtaining  and  enforcing  judgments  in  the 
European  Union”.1  Two  years  later,  the  Programme  on  Mutual  Recognition  stated  that  “it 
would  in  fact  be  much  easier  to  enforce  judgments  within  the  European  Union  if  it  were 
possible  to  obtain  accurate  information  on  the  debtor’s  financial  position.  Measures  could 
therefore  be  taken  to  enable  precise  identification  of  a  debtor’s  assets  in  the  territory  of  the 
Member  States.”2  The  Study  on  making  more  efficient  the  enforcement  of  judicial  decisions 
within the European Union3, which was prepared for the Commission in 2004, analysed the 
situation in 15 Member States and proposed several measures to improve the enforcement of 
judicial decisions in the European Union. In the context of the European Judicial Network in 
civil and commercial matters, the Commission asked the 12 Member States which have joined 
the  European  Union  since  then  to  provide  information  about  the  legal  situation  in  their 
countries. The answers have been incorporated into this Green Paper. Lastly, on 24 October 
2006,  the  European  Commission  adopted  a  Green  Paper  on  improving  the  efficiency  of  the 
enforcement of judgments in the European Union: the attachment of bank accounts.4 Whereas 
that  Green  Paper  focused  on  one  specific  measure  to  improve  the  enforcement  of  monetary 
claims, namely the attachment of bank accounts, which allows 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 more bank accounts within the territory of the European Union, 
this  Green  Paper  aims  more  generally  at  improving  the  transparency  of  the  debtor’s  assets 
which is provided through registers and by the debtor’s declaration. 

The search for the debtor’s address and/or for information about his financial situation is often 
the  starting  point  of  enforcement proceedings.  At  present,  transparency  of  debtors’  assets  is 
generally  achieved  at  national  level  through  different  sources  of  information,  in  particular 
through  registers  and  the  debtor’s  declaration.  While  the  basic  structures  of  the  national 
systems  appear  similar,  there  are  considerable  differences  in  the  conditions  of  access,  the 
procedures for obtaining information, the content and the overall efficiency of the systems.5  

From a comparative perspective, there are two different kinds of techniques providing access 
to information.6 

- The first is a system of declaration of the entire patrimony by the debtor.7 In some Member 
States,8 there is a similar system under which the debtor is also obliged to disclose his assets, 
but only to the extent necessary for the satisfaction of the claim.  

1 
2 

3 

4 
5 
6 

Commission Communication to the Council and the European Parliament, OJ C 33, 31.1.1998, p. 3. 
Programme of measures for implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil 
and commercial matters, OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 1. 
Study No. JAI/A3/2002/02. The final report is available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/civil/studies/doc_civil_studies_en.htm. 
COM(2006) 618 final 
Study No. JAI/A3/2002/02, p. 47. 
Please note, however, that most of the Member States combine features from both systems, even if a 
national system overall can be classified as falling under one of the two systems. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
-  Other  Member  States,  especially  those  where  the  debtor  is  not  required  to  disclose  his 
patrimony,  allow  access  to  search  systems  which  provide  specific  information.9  In  these 
jurisdictions,  the  required  information  is  mainly  obtained  from  registers.  This  system  is 
applied very differently in terms of access to registers and other sources of information and by 
means of powers of inquiry and of examination.  

The cross-border recovery of debts is hampered by the differences between the national legal 
systems  and  by  insufficient  knowledge  on  the  part  of  creditors  about  the  information 
structures in other Member States. However, the similarity of the underlying structures of the 
legal  systems  of  the  Member  States  could  provide  a  basis  for  approximation.10  As  an 
objective, possible measures at European level could improve the transparency of the debtors’ 
assets and the right of creditors to obtain information whilst respecting the principles of the 
protection  of  the  debtor’s  privacy,  which  counterbalance  the  creditor’s  right  to  efficient 
recovery and which are prescribed by the Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC.11 

This Green Paper focuses on improvements of public enforcement of judgments. This means 
that  neither  questions  of  (material)  limits  to  enforcement  nor  the  roles  of  private  or  semi-
private organisations in the enforcement process are discussed. 

Question 1:  

Do  you  consider  that  there  is  a  need  for  measures  at  Community  level  to  increase  the 
transparency of debtors’ assets ? 

Do you consider that the interface between enforcement of judgments and debtor protection 
or the role of non-public organisations in the enforcement of judgments need explicit attention 
in this context ? If so, which elements do you consider important ? 

7 
8 
9 

10 
11 

E.g. in Germany, Greece and England. 
Spain and Portugal. 
E.g.  in  Scotland  there  are  far-reaching  online  accessible  registers,  but  the  judicial  system  does  not 
provide for a debtor’s or third party debtor’s declaration. 
Study No. JAI/A3/2002/02, p. 48. 
Directive  95/46/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  24  October  1995  on  the 
protection of  individuals  with  regard  to  the  processing of  personal  data and on  the free  movement  of 
such  data,  OJ  L  281,  23.11.1995,  p.  31.  The  objective  of  Directive  95/46/EC  is  to  ensure  the 
fundamental right of protection of the personal data of individuals but also to ensure the free flow of 
these data within the European Union. According to the Directive, any processing of personal data must 
be fair and lawful. Personal data must be collected for specified, explicit and legitimate purposes and 
not further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes (purpose limitation principle). The data 
must  be  adequate,  relevant  and  not  excessive  in  relation  to  the  purposes  for  which  they  are  collected 
(principle  of  proportionality).  Information  obtained  shall  not  be  transferred  to  unauthorised  third 
persons. Data processing is permitted either if the data subject has given his consent or if one or more 
further  conditions  are  met,  among  which  if  the  processing  is  necessary  for  compliance  with  legal 
obligation of the controller or if the processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in 
the  public  interest  or  in  the  exercise  of  official  authority  vested  in  the  controller.  The  processing  of 
sensitive data is possible when it is necessary for the establishment, exercise or defence of legal claims. 
Furthermore,  the  transparency  requirements  of  the  Directive  provide  for  the  obligation  to  inform  the 
data subject on the sort of processing of his personal data, including the identity of the controller, the 
purposes of processing and the possible recipients of the data. According to the above rules, the purpose 
of the processing, the type of the necessary personal information and the recipients of the data must be 
precisely defined and the data subject duly informed. If these conditions are met, there is no obstacle for 
the providing for an efficient transparency of a debtor’s assets. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
II. Possible solutions 

Information  about  a  debtor’s  assets  can  be  obtained  from  various  sources,  in  particular 
through  registers  and  through  the  debtor  himself.  Instead  of  focusing  on  a  single  European 
measure, therefore, it is suggested that a bundle of measures be considered which could help 
to  ensure  that  the  creditor  obtains  reliable  information  on  his  debtor’s  assets  within  a 
reasonable period of time. The possible measures considered in this Green Paper are:  

•  Drawing up a manual of national enforcement laws and practices 

•  Increasing the information available in and improving access to registers 

•  Exchange of information between enforcement authorities 

•  Measures relating to the debtor’s declaration. 

1. Drawing up of a Manual of National Enforcement Laws and Practices 

At  present,  there  is  a  very  little  information  about  different  enforcement  systems  in  the  27 
Member  States.12  As  a  practical  step,  a  manual  on  the  enforcement  systems  of  the  Member 
States could be drawn up. Such a manual could contain all the sources of information about a 
person’s assets which can be accessed in each Member State, the contact addresses of persons 
who can obtain  access to  that information if access is limited, the  costs  of access  and other 
relevant details. This manual could be made available on the website of the European Judicial 
Network in civil and commercial matters.13 

Question 2: In what ways do you consider that a manual containing all information about the 
enforcement systems of the Member States would be helpful? 

2. Increasing the information available in registers and improving access to them 

a) Commercial registers 

The  main  sources  of  information  are  public  records,  and  the  most  important  of  these  are 
commercial registers.  

Commercial registers were partially harmonised by the First Council Directive on Company 
Law (“Publicity Directive”)14 of 1968 and the Eleventh Council Directive on Company Law 
(“Branch  Directive”)  of  1989.15  Article  2(1)  of  the  Publicity  Directive  provides  for  the 

12 

13 
14 

15 

Some basic information about the national enforcement systems and the competent authority to contact 
with an enforcement request is already available on the site of the European Judicial Network in civil 
and commercial matters: 
http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/enforce_judgement/enforce_judgement_gen_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/ 
First  Council  Directive  68/151/EEC  of  9  March  1968  on  co-ordination  of  safeguards  which,  for  the 
protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within 
the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards 
equivalent throughout the Community, OJ L 65, 14.3.1968, p.8. 
Eleventh  Council  Directive  89/666/EEC of 21 December 1989  concerning disclosure requirements  in 
respect  of  branches  opened  in  a  Member  State  by  certain  types  of  company  governed  by  the  law  of 
another State, OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 36. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
compulsory disclosure of certain documents and particulars by companies.16 Article 2(1) a) of 
the  Branch  Directive  provides  that  the  address  of  the  branch  must  be  disclosed.  At  present, 
business  registers  in  the  Member  States  provide  detailed  information  on  individual  firms 
(legal  status,  date  of  establishment,  company capital,  text  code,  sector  of  activity,  corporate 
bodies and their powers of representation, and sometimes even the number of employees).17 
This information is often recorded electronically in central registers and is accessible online.18 

The two directives thus aim to provide transparency in business relations in the broad sense, 
including enforcement proceedings. They do not, however, provide for the full harmonisation 
of  commercial  registers.  They  apply  only  to  certain  commercial  corporations  and  not  to 
individuals  and  business  partnerships.19  Furthermore,  Member  States  are  free  to  establish 
local or central commercial or company registers: Whereas in the United Kingdom there are 
three central registers covering all information about business dealings, in Germany there are 
more  than  400  registers,  run  by  the  local  courts.  Besides,  information  contained  in 
commercial registers is not always equally reliable: in some Member States20 the information 
is not verified before being entered in the register.21 In some Member States, information in 
the commercial register may be outdated, because a company’s failure to report changes of its 
status is not always linked to sufficient sanctions.22  
Furthermore,  the  Publicity  Directive  does  not  deal  with  electronic  data  processing  or  with 
online  access  to  commercial  registers.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  the  Council,  at  its 
meeting of 12 and 13 June 2007, concluded that “work should be carried on in the area of E-
Justice  with  a  view  to  creating  at  European  level  a  technical  platform  giving  access,  in  the 
sphere  of  justice,  to  existing  or  future  electronic  systems”.  The  priorities  for  future  work 
include creating the “conditions for networking of insolvency registers and of commercial and 
business registers”. 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 
21 

22 

Those documents and particulars are: 
(a) The instrument of constitution, and the statutes if they are contained in a separate instrument; 
(b) Any amendments to the instruments mentioned in (a), including any extension of the duration of the 
company; 
(c) After every amendment of the instrument of constitution or of the statutes, the complete text of the 
instrument or statutes as amended to date; 
(d)  The  appointment,  termination  of  office  and  particulars  of  the  persons  who  either  as  a  body 
constituted pursuant to law or as members of any such body: 
(i) are authorised to represent the company in dealings with third parties and in legal proceedings;   
(ii) take part in the administration, supervision or control of the company. 
It must appear from the disclosure whether the persons authorised to represent the company may do so 
alone or must act jointly 
(e) At least once a year, the amount of the capital subscribed, where the instrument of constitution or the 
statutes  mention  an  authorised  capital,  unless  any  increase  in  the  capital  subscribed  necessitates  an 
amendment of the statutes;  
(f) The balance sheet and the profit and loss account for each financial year. The document containing 
the balance sheet shall give particulars of the persons who are required by law to certify it. 
In Italy, this information is recorded in a central register, which is operated by the Italian Chambers of 
Commerce and accessible online at www.infocamere.it. 
Please note that private services for online access to commercial registers or to commercial databases 
with  business  information  such  as  the  European  Business  Register  (www.ebr.org)  also  rely  on  the 
official register information. 
Comparative surveys show, however, that information about individual businessmen is registered and 
available in all Member States. 
Examples: Ireland, Netherlands, Finland, United Kingdom. 
In  other  Member  States,  the  information  is  examined  and  verified  by  the  registrars  before  being 
recorded. 
Example: ECJ, C-191/95, Commission v. Germany, [1998] ECR I 5449. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Question  3:  Should  information  available  in  and  access  to  commercial  registers  be 
increased? If so, how and to what extent? 

b) Population registers 

A creditor seeking the address of a non-professional debtor may face even more problems. In 
most Member States23 the addresses of all inhabitants are recorded in the population register. 
However, these registers are organised in very different ways. In some Member States24 they 
are maintained by local authorities, so a creditor seeking the address of a debtor would have to 
search all local records across the country - which is an impossible task. Central registers are 
often not available to the creditor.25 Consequently, creditors seeking the address of a debtor 
who  is  a  consumer  or  a  private  individual  face  serious  problems.  Moreover,  not  all 
jurisdictions allow enforcement authorities access to registers. The creation of such registers 
in  Member  States  where  they  do  not  already  exist  may  not  be  in  keeping  with  their  legal 
traditions.  Private  services  for  cross-border  register  enquiries  are  at  an  early  stage  of 
development.  Any  possible  measure  would  also  have  to  respect  the  rules  of  data  protection 
and the protection of the debtor’s privacy. 

Question 4: Should access to existing population registers be improved ? If so, how ? 

c) Social security and tax registers  

Social  security  and  tax  registers  often  contain  information  about  the  debtor,  such  as  his 
address,  details  of  his  employer  or  his  bank  accounts;  access  to  such  information  can 
significantly  facilitate  the  enforcement  of  a  monetary  claim.  The  legal  systems  of  those 
Member  States  without  a  debtor’s  declaration  empower  enforcement  bodies  to  search  state-
maintained records for information regarding the debtor’s assets.26 However, direct access by 
enforcement bodies to non-public registers is not restricted to jurisdictions that do not provide 
a  debtor’s  declaration.  On  the  contrary,  modern  enforcement  laws  allow  qualified  bodies 
access to non-public files. In Austria27 and in Spain, the courts may request information about 
the  debtor’s  employment  from  social  insurance  registers.  In  Portugal,  bailiffs  must  first 
request the authorisation of the enforcement courts, but open access is available. In Spain and 
Sweden,  the  enforcement  bodies  may  also  directly  request  information  from  tax  records.  In 
Slovenia,  tax  authorities  may  disclose  data  on  a  particular  taxable  person  to  other  state 
authorities, authorities of self-governing local communities and holders of public authority for 
the exercise of their powers stipulated by law. In Estonia, as of 2008, a bailiff will be able to 

23 
24 
25 
26 

27 

Exceptions are the United Kingdom and Ireland. 
Examples: Germany, Italy. 
Exception: In Austria the Central Population Register is available online: www.business.telekom.at. 
Exceptions are Italy and Scotland. In the Netherlands and in Belgium, bailiffs can get information about 
the  debtor’s  address  and  employment  from  social  security  records.  In  Luxembourg,  a  creditor  may 
request the juge de paix to contact the social security register in order to find out the debtor’s address 
and employment. In France, the legal situation is  more complicated as the huissiers de justice do not 
have  direct  access  to  administrative  assistance,  but  must  request  the  help  of  the  Procureur  de  la 
République. Additionally, the huissiers are prohibited from using the information obtained for purposes 
other than the enforcement of the title held by the creditor. 
Austrian  law  gives  preference  even  to  information  from  social  registers.  A  debtor’s  declaration  may 
only be requested if the social insurance register could not provide any data of the debtor’s employment 
or income. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
obtain  information  from  the  Health  Insurance  Fund  Register,  the Social  Security  Board 
Register  and  the  Securities Register.  In  these  jurisdictions,  the  efficiency  of  enforcement 
proceedings  has  been  considerably  improved.  Additionally,  private  and  public  debts  are  (at 
least  to  some  extent)  treated  equally.  The  Swedish  system,  where  enforcement  authorities 
have access to social security and tax registers, may provide the creditor with a better means 
of information than the debtor’s declaration, since it does not require the cooperation of the 
debtor, it enhances the chances of speedily obtaining accurate information and it could be an 
efficient  means  for  a  creditor  to  obtain  information  about  his  debtor  that  he  cannot  obtain 
otherwise.  

However, access to  registers  might  conflict with the rules on data protection and social and 
fiscal  secrecy.  In  particular,  information  from  social  security  and  tax  registers  may  be 
sensitive.  Therefore,  access  to  these  data  should  take  into  consideration  the  specific  legal 
conditions  for  the  processing  of  sensitive  data  that  may  differ  from  one  Member  State  to 
another.  

Question 5: Should access to social security and tax registers by enforcement authorities be 
increased ? If so, how and to what extent ? 

3. The exchange of information between enforcement authorities 

a) Current situation 

At  present,  enforcement  bodies  are  not  able  to  access  directly  the  (non-public)  registers  of 
other Member States which are open to the enforcement bodies of that state. If access to these 
registers  by  enforcement  bodies  exists  at  all,  it  is  strictly  limited  to  national  enforcement 
bodies.  There  are  currently  no  international  instruments  dealing  with  the  exchange  of 
information between national enforcement bodies.28 

However,  the  lack  of  co-operation  between  enforcement  agents  and  bodies  in  civil  matters 
stands  in  contrast  to  the  close  cooperation  of  tax  authorities  in  the  European  Union.  A 
directive  dealing  with  the  recovery  of  claims  resulting  from  the  Agricultural  Guarantee 
Funds29  provides  for  a  system  of  a  direct  exchange  of  information  between  national 
authorities. The scope of application of this Directive has been extended to claims relating to 
certain  taxes.30  Article  4  of  the  Directive  provides  that  “at  the  request  of  the  applicant 
authority, the requested authority shall provide any information which would be useful to the 
applicant  authority  in  the  recovery  of  its  claim.”  Requests  are  now  being  transmitted 

28 

29 

30 

However, the Nordic Countries are planning to adopt an “Agreement on the Exchange of Information in 
Recovery  Matters”.  This  Convention  would  be  the  first  instrument  providing  for  direct  cooperation 
between enforcement bodies. This is, however, an exception, and for the most part the improved access 
to registers which has recently been granted to enforcement bodies in some jurisdictions remains strictly 
territorial. 
Council  Directive  76/308/EEC  of  15  March  1976  on  mutual  assistance  for  the  recovery  of  claims 
resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance 
and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties, OJ L73, 19.6.1976, p. 18. 
Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001 amending Directive 76/308/EEC on mutual assistance 
for  the  recovery  of  claims  resulting  from  operations  forming  part  of  the  system  of  financing  the 
European  Agricultural  Guidance  and  Guarantee  Fund,  and  of  agricultural  levies  and  customs  duties 
and in respect of value added tax and certain excise duties, OJ L 175, 28.6.2001, p.17. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
electronically.31  The  requested  authority  is  not  obliged  to  supply  information  which  would 
disclose any commercial, industrial or professional secrets or if the disclosure would be liable 
to prejudice the security or be contrary to the public policy of the state.32 

b) Possible solutions 

Consequently  -  in  the  absence  of  Europe-wide  registers  -  one  option  could  be  to  enhance 
cooperation  between  national  enforcement  authorities  and  introduce  the  direct  exchange  of 
information between them. Enforcement bodies in one Member State would be able to request 
the  assistance  of  the  competent  bodies  in  other  Member  States.  In  this  regard,  the  existing 
Community instrument on the mutual assistance of tax authorities could serve as a model.  

The  extent  to  which  the  Internal  Market  Information  system  (IMI)  could  be  used  for  the 
exchange  of  information  between  national  enforcement  authorities  could  also  be  examined. 
IMI  has  been  developed  as  an  electronic  tool  for  information  exchange  between  Member 
States  administrations  working  in  all  official  languages,  and  it  can  potentially  support  any 
piece of Community legislation. 

Following  this  approach,  a  future  Community  instrument  could  provide  a  list  of  national 
enforcement  authorities  entitled  to  request  information  from  registers  in  another  Member 
State and could set time limits within which a request for information should be implemented. 
There could be standardized question and answer forms in all Community languages, and data 
could be exchanged electronically as far as possible.  

If  this  option  is  pursued,  it  will  be  necessary  to  consider  how  to  deal  with  the  considerable 
differences  in  the  information  available  to  enforcement  bodies.  In  some  Member  States33 
enforcement  authorities  are  not  state-run  and  do  not  have  access  to  public  registers  in  their 
own  Member  States.  Consequently,  they  could  not  provide  appropriate  information  to 
enforcement authorities of other Member States.  

Data protection rules are to be taken into consideration during mutual assistance procedures.  

Question  6:  Should  the  exchange  of  information  between  enforcement  authorities  be 
improved ? If so, how ? 

4. The Debtor’s Declaration 

a) Current situation 

31 

32 

33 

Commission  Directive  2002/94/EC  of  9  December  2002  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  implementing 
certain  provisions  of  Council  Directive  76/308/EEC  on  mutual  assistance  for  the  recovery  of  claims 
relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, O J L 337, of 13.12.2002, p. 41. 
In this context, please note that also Art. 44 of the Commission Proposal for a Council Regulation on 
jurisdiction,  applicable  law,  recognition  and  enforcement  of  decisions  and  cooperation  in  matters 
relating  to  maintenance  obligations  (COM  (2005)  649  final)  provides  for  a  system  of  cooperation 
between national central authorities which “shall give access to the information which can facilitate the 
recovery  of  maintenance  claims”.  This  information  is  provided  in  order  to  achieve,  inter  alia,  the 
objectives to “locate the debtor” and to “evaluate the debtor’s assets”: 
E.g. France and the United Kingdom. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Many of the national systems34 empower enforcement bodies to question the debtor directly 
about  his  assets.  In  some  Member  States,  the  debtor’s  declaration  is  made  in  the  form  of 
testimony before the enforcement court. The debtor is required to attend an oral hearing where 
he is questioned by the judge (or a judicial clerk).35 The creditor can ask further questions.36 
Cross-examination  of  the  debtor  may  also  take  place,  and  the  debtor  must  present 
documentary  evidence  of  his  assets.37  However,  in  other  Member  States  the  debtor’s 
declaration  is  made  by  filling  out  mandatory  forms.38  In  these  Member  States,  the  debtor’s 

34 

35 

36 
37 
38 

EN 

Denmark,  Germany,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Greece,  Spain,  Austria,  Portugal,  Finland,  Sweden,  United 
Kingdom (England and Wales). 
Belgium, France, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherlands and Scotland do not provide for a debtor’s declaration. 
However,  in  France  there  is  a  limited  obligation  of  the  debtor  to  disclose  a  bank  account,  in  the 
Netherlands, the enforcement organ can request the debtor disclose his earnings, in Belgium, the debtor 
must reveal his assts when applying for a protective order. The introduction of a debtor’s declaration is 
discussed in Italy.  
In  Latvia,  there  is  no  debtor’s  declaration  as  such.  However,  according  to  the  Civil  Procedure  Law 
(Articles  552  and  557),  at  the  stage  of  the  enforcement  of  a  decision  or  a  judgement  of  a  court  the 
debtor  has  to  provide  information  to  the  sworn  bailiff  about  his  financial  situation.  For  providing 
intentionally wrong information to the bailiff about his/her financial circumstances the debtor may be 
subject to administrative or criminal liability. 
In Romania, there is no obligation of the debtor to make a statement on its assets/income before a writ 
of enforcement is obtained. According to the Code of Civil Procedure, the bailiff has the duty to insist 
by  all  the  means  permitted  by  law,  for  the  achievement  in  full  and  with  celerity  of  the  obligation 
provided  in  the  writ  of  enforcement.  The  bailiff  may  request  the  debtor  to  make  a  written  statement 
regarding its income and assets, and the place where such are located (art. 373 of the Civil Procedure 
Code). 
In Cyprus, the debtor seeks the court’s assistance in order to be declared bankrupt. At the first stage the 
debtor applies to the court for a receiving order and is subsequently declared bankrupt by the court. 
In Denmark, Ireland, England, Austria and Spain. 
In Bulgaria, at present the Code of Civil Procedure of 1952 does not contain any rules about a debtor´s 
declaration.  According  to  Art.  448  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  which  will  come  into  force  on  1 
March 2008, the debtor will be obliged to appear before the district court and to declare all his property 
and income, if the established debtor´s property is not sufficient. For obtaining a debtor`s declaration 
the  bailiff  must  file  a  request  before  the  regional  court  which  shall  consider  the  request  at  an  open 
hearing. For incorrect information or the refusal to appear before the court or to disclose his property, 
the debtor bears responsibility under Art. 290a of the Penal Code and can be punished by imprisonment 
of up to three years. 
In the Czech Republic, there is a declaration of assets (§260a – 260h of the Code of Civil Procedure). 
There is no specific form, and the declaration can be also made orally before the court. The refusal of 
the debtor to disclose his assets or wrong declarations are sanctioned by a term of imprisonment of up 
to one year or by a pecuniary penalty (§256 d of the Criminal Code). 
In Slovenia, the debtor is obliged, upon an application by the creditor or at the discretion of the court, if 
the  creditor  proves  presumptively  that  the  proposed  execution  measures  will  not  suffice  for  the 
satisfaction  of  his  claim,  to  submit  at  any  time  during  the  execution  procedure  an  inventory  of  his 
property together with a proof of ownership and other real rights in respect of this property, and to state 
the evidence which supports his claims. The court shall order the debtor to submit the inventory of his 
property by decree. If the debtor fails to produce the inventory by the deadline given by the court, the 
court  shall  hold  a  hearing  at  which  the  debtor  shall  be  questioned  concerning  the  facts  regarding  the 
inventory of his property. The court shall instruct the debtor on the consequences of perjury. A debtor 
who  has  been  duly  summoned  but  fails  to  appear  at  the  hearing,  or  who,  at  the  hearing  or  in  the 
inventory of his property, does not state accurate and true data shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 
EUR  4173  in  the  case  of  natural  persons,  and  EUR  41730  in  the  case  of  legal  persons  and  sole 
proprietors. 
This is the case in most of the Member States. 
In Ireland and England. 
Germany, Spain, Austria, Sweden. 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
declaration  is  not  considered  as  evidence,  but  rather  as  fact  gathering  by  the  enforcement 
bodies. 

There  are  two  different  models  of  the  declaration:  the  first  model  obliges  the  debtor  to 
disclose  all  his  assets,  while  the  second  limits  this  obligation  to  assets  sufficient  for  the 
recovery of the creditor’s claim.  

The  prerequisites  for  obtaining  a  debtor’s  declaration  are  similar.  In  all  Member  States  the 
declaration  is  requested  by  the  creditor.  Normally,  the  declaration  is  only  taken  after  an 
unsuccessful  seizure  attempt  or  if  such  an  attempt  is  likely  to  be  unsuccessful.  Modern 
enforcement systems require the declaration to be made at the beginning of the proceedings in 
order to enable the enforcement bodies to obtain the necessary information at an early stage.39 
In these systems, an unsuccessful attempt at seizure is not a precondition. 

The  main  problem  with  the  debtor’s  declaration lies in the fact that the  declaration  must  be 
given personally. If the debtor refuses to disclose his assets, enforcement bodies (with police 
support) may exercise physical coercion and arrest him.40 In Portugal, a reluctant debtor may 
incur penalties; in many other Member States, imprisonment (of up to one or even two years) 
may  be  imposed  on  the  debtor.41  Making  an  incorrect  or  false  declaration  is  considered  a 
criminal offence.42 Therefore, in some Member States, the declaration is sworn under oath as 
an affidavit.43 

In some Member States there is no debtor’s declaration.44 This can be explained by the fact 
that the debtor’s declaration is similar to a kind of “personal enforcement” (i.e. enforcement 
against the person of the debtor), which might be punished by imprisonment. An additional 
reason can be found in the legal nature of the declaration, which can be regarded as a taking 
of evidence, especially if the declaration is given in an oral hearing of the enforcement court. 
As  enforcement  bodies  are  clearly  separate  from  the  court  system  in  most  of  the  Romanic 
Member  States,  such  taking  of  evidence  may  be  considered  as  incompatible  with  the 
structures  of  enforcement.  However,  in  other  Member  States  the  declaration  may  also  be 
taken by the bailiff or other enforcement bodies. Besides, the obligation of a debtor to disclose 
his assets is widely recognised in insolvency and similar proceedings.45 

b) Possible options 

If measures at Community level with respect to the debtor’s declaration were to be considered 
useful  and  necessary  in  order  to  improve  the  transparency  of  debtor’s  assets,  a  range  of 
options exist: 

39 
40 
41 
42 

43 

44 
45 

E.g. in Spain and Portugal. 
In Ireland and England, the failure to comply with a court order is considered as contempt of court. 
Denmark, Germany, Ireland, England, Greece, Spain, Austria, Portugal, Sweden. 
In  Estonia,  a  court  may  impose  compulsory  attendance or  detention  on  a  debtor,  who  -  without  good 
reason - fails to submit the list of assets to the bailiff or fails to perform the obligation to take an oath. A 
debtor may be sentenced to detention for up to thirty days. One year after taking an oath, a debtor is 
required to take an oath once again only if the bailiff has reason to believe that the debtor has acquired 
assets after taking the oath. 
E.g. in Estonia, a court can - at the request of a bailiff or of a claimant - require a debtor to swear in 
court that the information submitted to the bailiff concerning his assets is correct. 
See above, footnotes 33 and 34. 
This is the case in Belgium for consumers’ insolvency. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
One  possibility  would  be  a  Community  instrument  setting  out  the  obligation  of  Member 
States  to  introduce  a  procedure  for  the  taking  of  a  debtor’s  declaration,  but  leaving  them 
discretion as to the conditions under which such a declaration would have be made. A model 
of  such  a  provision  has  been  drawn  up  by  the  Storme  Group  on  the  Approximation  of 
European Civil Procedures.46  

However,  an  instrument  providing  only  for  such  “minimum  harmonisation”  would  have 
several disadvantages: the differences in  the national legal systems would continue to exist; 
disclosure  on  the  basis  of  a  single,  common  form  would  not  be  possible,  and  considerable 
differences would remain with respect to the imposition of penalties for non-performance of 
the obligation.  

The introduction of a system to obtain the debtor’s declaration should take into consideration 
the principle of proportionality: the declaration should avoid information that is not necessary 
for the purpose for which it is required. A solution that obliges the debtor to disclose all his 
assets in advance is less conducive to privacy- than a solution where the debtor is required to 
declare only the necessary information when specific conditions are met.  

c) The Introduction of a European Assets Declaration 

Another option to be considered, therefore, is the introduction of a uniform “European Assets 
Declaration” which would oblige debtors to disclose all assets in the European Judicial area. 
The  transparency  of  the  debtor’s  assets  should  not  be  limited  by  the  territoriality  of  the 
enforcement proceedings in the Member States, since within the European Judicial Area - in 
which the free movement of judgments is guaranteed - all assets of a debtor are in principle 
subject to enforcement..47 

The  declaration  could  be  given  on  a  standard  form  available  in  all  Community  languages. 
Minimum  (or  even  uniform)  standards  could  be  set  for  the  conditions  and  content  of  the 
declaration  and  the  related  sanctions.  As  a  result,  creditors  would  have  equal  access  to 
information about assets within the European Judicial Area, while debtors within the internal 
market  would  receive  equal  protection.  In  addition,  “information  shopping”  within  the 
European Judicial Area would be reduced. 

As the possible instrument should not interfere in the organisation of enforcement bodies in 
the Member States, each Member State could indicate a competent body or public authority 
for  taking  the  declaration.  Disclosure  would  be  made  to  the  creditor  or  to  the  competent 

46 

47 

See article 12.4 of the proposal from the group of experts in the Storme report (ed.) Rapprochement du 
Droit Judiciaire de l`Union européenne, p. 210-211. 
“For the protection of a judgment creditor who establishes his inability to find sufficient assets in the 
hands  of  the  judgment  debtor  for  the  satisfaction  of  the  judgment,  the  law  of  Member  States  shall 
provide:  
1. that the debtor shall disclose in their entirety the nature and location of his assets. Such disclosure 
shall be made to the creditor or the proper authority as provided by law;  
2. that the proper authority may require third parties to disclose any information relating to the assets of 
the debtor which is in their possession. “Third parties” includes any institution which holds an account 
in the name of the debtor.   
3. sanctions whereby these obligations may be enforced.” 
Please  note  that  it  is  already  the  case  that  territoriality  does  not  apply  to  the  debtor’s  declaration 
according  to  the  practice  in  some  Member  States  (especially  in  Austria,  Germany  and  England).  The 
obligation of the debtor to deliver an affidavit is not limited to his domestic assets, but the debtor must 
disclose his entire assets, including those abroad. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
authority,  as  provided  by  the  laws  of  the  Member  States  (e.g.  to  the huissier  de  justice,  the 
enforcement agency or in the enforcement court).  

The debtor should have the opportunity to avoid the obligation of making the declaration by 
offering  payment,  or  by  identifying  assets  that  are  sufficient  for  the  enforcement.  It  would 
also  seem  advisable  to  allow  the  debtor  to  avoid  the  obligation  to  make  a  declaration  by 
offering  a  payment  by  instalments,  which  are  secured  by  a  bank  guarantee  or  a  similar 
security. 

The debtor could make the declaration by filling out a form. Wherever possible, this should be 
done  by  ticking  boxes  (to  indicate  whether  or  not  a  specific  type  of  an  asset  exists).  The 
possibility of completing the form online in the European Judicial Atlas in Civil Matters could 
also be offered.48 

Finally,  the  instrument  could  provide  for  sanctions  to  be  applied  in  the  case  of  non-
performance. One option for consideration would be to provide for fines and for the arrest of 
the debtor. Incorrect statements by the debtor could be sanctioned by criminal law. In order to 
avoid  undue  coercion  of  the  debtor,  the  instrument  could  prohibit  the  publication  of  the 
debtor’s declaration in an open register (“debtors’ list”). 

Question 7: Do you consider that a European Assets Declaration should be introduced ?  

Question 8: If so, under what conditions should it be possible to obtain it ? Should there be 
sanctions for incorrect statements contained in the declaration ? If so, which ? 

Question  9:  What  degree  of  harmonization  do  you  consider  appropriate  for  the  European 
Assets Declaration ? What should be the precise content of the European Assets Declaration? 

5. Other measures 

Apart from the possible measures to increase the transparency of debtors’ assets discussed in 
this Green Paper, there may be other measures that could be considered. 

Question 10: Which other measures at EU level do you propose to increase the transparency 
of debtors’ assets ? 

48 

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/judicialatlascivil/html/fillinginformation_en.htm 

EN 

13 

   EN