REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council creating a European Order for Payment Procedure
Date: 2015-10-13
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: civil procedure, civil proceedings, claim, debt, electronic government, financial solvency, form, injunction, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 13.10.2015  
COM(2015) 495 final 

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

on the application of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council creating a European Order for Payment Procedure 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Objective and main features of the procedure  

1.1. 
Regulation  (EC)  No  1896/2006  of  12  December  20061  created  the  first  genuine  European 
civil  procedure,  the  European  order  for  payment  procedure.  It  has  been  applied  since 
December 2008 in all Member States except Denmark. It is an optional procedure that can be 
used in cross-border cases as an alternative to domestic payment orders. This report has been 
drawn  up  in  accordance  with  Article  32  of  the  Regulation  which  provides  that  the 
Commission  shall  present  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  a  detailed  report  reviewing  the  operation  of  the  European 
order for payment procedure. 

The  swift  and  efficient  recovery  of  uncontested  outstanding  debts  is  of  vital  importance  for 
economic operators in the European Union. Late payments are a key cause of insolvencies, in 
particular of small and medium-sized enterprises, and result in numerous job losses. This has 
led  a  number  of  Member  States  to  introduce  a  simplified  order  for  payment  procedure.  A 
payment order procedure aims at providing a speedy and cost-effective judicial relief against a 
debtor to pay a sum of money, on the assumption that the claim will not be contested by the 
debtor. However, domestic procedures are often inadmissible or impracticable in cross-border 
cases and their level of performance varies substantially. 

It  was  for  these  reasons  that  the  European  order  for  payment  procedure  was  introduced.  It 
allows creditors to recover uncontested civil and commercial claims according to a uniform 
procedure  available  in  27  Member  States.  It  is  a  written  procedure  which  does  not  require 
presence before the court nor the assistance of a lawyer. The claimant only has to submit his 
application.  No  documentary  evidence  is  needed  to  support  the  application  and  no  further 
actions  of  the  claimant  are  required  in  the  course  of  the  procedure.  The  European  order  for 
payment is issued by courts or other judicial authorities. It can freely circulate in all Member 
States  without  any  intermediate  proceedings  for  recognition  and  enforcement  (exequatur) 
being  required  in  the  Member  State  of  enforcement.  This  means  that  a  European  order  for 
payment can be enforced in other Member States like any local payment order issued there, 
i.e. without the need of a declaration of enforceability. 

This streamlined and efficient procedure is designed only for uncontested claims. Therefore, 
in order to safeguard the effective right of the defense, the defendant can lodge a statement of 
opposition within 30 days of the order being issued. The defendant must only indicate that he 
contests  the  claim,  without  having  to  specify  reasons  for  it,  and  does  not  need  to  be 
represented by a lawyer. In that case, the European order for payment procedure is terminated. 
The claim may, however, continue to be pursued in accordance with the rules of ordinary civil 
procedure which will enable the defendant´s arguments to be fully considered.   

The  Regulation  provides  for  standard  forms  as  part  of  the  simplified  procedure  foreseen, 
which are available online on the European e-Justice Portal in all languages.2 The forms were 
updated by Commission Regulation (EU) No 936/2012 of 4 October 2012.3 Information about 

1 OJ L 399, 30.12.2006, p. 1. 

2 https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_european_payment_order_forms-156-en.do 

3 OJ L 283, 16.10.2012, p.1. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                            
which  courts  have  jurisdiction  to  issue  a  European  order  for  payment  is  available  on  the 
European  Judicial  Atlas  in  civil  and  commercial  matters.4  The  European  Judicial  Network 
published a practice guide on the Regulation in 2010.5 

1.2.  Methodology and gathering of information 

This report is based on information gathered from different sources.  

A Eurobarometer survey was conducted in June 2010 among 26 690 citizens in EU27. 

The European Commission co-financed a project "Simplification of debt collection in the EU" 
managed  by  the  University  of  Maribor,  Slovenia  and  involving  14  Member  States  (Austria, 
Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Cyprus,  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Spain,  Finland,  France,  Italy,  the 
Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal,  Sweden).  The  project  resulted  in  two  expert  reports  on 
Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 and 14 national reports.6 

In order to obtain information on the operation of the procedure, the Commission launched a 
survey in April 2013 by sending a questionnaire to Member States. The statistical data on the 
use of the procedure was further updated and completed in June 2014. 
At  the  45th  meeting  of  contact  points  of  the  European  Judicial  Network  in  Civil  and 
Commercial Matters of 29-30 May 2013, the operation of European procedures, including the 
European order for payment procedure, was discussed at technical level on the basis of two 
Commission working documents. 

Finally, three preliminary rulings of the European Court of Justice on the interpretation of the 
Regulation have been taken into account in preparing this report.7 

2. 

GENERAL ASSESSMENT OF THE REGULATION  

Overall, the objective of the Regulation to simplify, speed up and reduce the costs of litigation 
in  cases  concerning  uncontested  claims  and  to  permit  the  free  circulation  of  European 
payment orders in the EU without exequatur was broadly achieved, though in most Member 
States the procedure was only applied in a relatively small number of cases. 

From the studies and consultation carried out, it appears that there have been no major legal or 
practical problems in the use of the procedure or in the fact that exequatur is abolished for the 
recognition and enforcement of the judgments resulting from the procedure. 

2.1. 

Statistical data 

According to the available information, between 12,000 and 13,000 applications for European 
orders  for  payment  are  received  by  the  courts  of  Member  States  per  year.8  The  highest 

4 http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/judicialatlascivil/html/epo_information_en.htm 

5 http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/document/index_en.htm 

6 See http://www.acj.si/en/pres-simpf. 

7 Cases C-215/11, C-324/12 and Joined Cases C-119/13 and C-120/13. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
numbers of applications (more than 4,000 annually) are in Austria and Germany where also 
most European orders for payment are issued. Between 300 and 700 applications are received 
annually  in  Belgium,  the  Czech  Republic,  France,  Hungary,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal  and 
Finland.  In  the  other  Member  States,  the  procedure  has  been  taken  up  to  a  more  limited 
extent.  More  detailed  information  on  the  actual  use  of  the  European  order  for  payment 
procedure per Member State can be found in the Annex.  

Awareness of the existence and operation of the procedure 

2.2. 
A 2010 Eurobarometer9 showed that awareness and use of the European procedures including 
the European order for payment procedure among citizens is relatively low: Only 6 % of those 
asked had heard about the European order for payment procedure. This may be explained by 
the  fact  that  the  procedure  is  mainly  used  by  companies  and  lawyers  and  by  the  fact  that 
relatively few citizens are involved in cross-border litigation.  

When  citizens  are  aware  of  the  procedure,  the  European  order  for  payment  procedure  is 
generally regarded as a useful procedure for the enforcement of cross-border civil monetary 
claims that are likely to be uncontested by the defendant. 

The  Commission  has  implemented  a  project  to  support  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises 
that operate across borders by facilitating cross-border debt recovery in order to improve the 
use,  understanding  and  awareness  of  the  available  legal  instruments,  including  the 
Regulation.10  

3. 

3.1. 

SPECIFIC POINTS OF ASSESSMENT 

Geographical Scope: "Cross-border cases" 

The Regulation applies to cross-border disputes where at least one of the parties is domiciled 
or habitually resident in a Member State other than the Member State of the court or tribunal 
seised. This limitation to "cross-border" cases corresponds to the scope of application of other 
instruments  in  this  area  such  as  the  European  Small  Claims  procedure.11  Users  of  the 
procedure may be unaware or may not understand this limitation of scope. They may have the 
expectation that more of their cases would be covered by the Regulation. This is confirmed by 
some companies artificially creating a cross-border scenario as envisaged in the Regulation in 
order  to  benefit  from  its  advantages,  for  example  by  assigning  their  claim  to  a  foreign 
company. This exemplifies the perceived effectiveness of this procedure.  

8 See the Annex (Statistical data on the use of the European order for payment procedure) for details and data 
sources. 

9 http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_351_en.pdf 

10 http://ec.europa.eu/growth/smes/support/cross-border-enforcement/index_en.htm 

11 Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a 
European Small Claims Procedure, OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, p. 1. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                          
3.2. 

Jurisdiction 

Five Member States have concentrated jurisdiction to handle European orders for payment in 
a single specific court/authority.12 In the other Member States, district and regional courts (or 
notaries for instance in Hungary) are competent for issuing European orders for payment. 

Specialisation  may  have  certain  advantages  such  as  ensuring  specialised  knowledge  of  the 
procedure  and  language  skills.  On  the  other  hand,  even  if  the  European  order  for  payment 
procedure  is  a  written  procedure,  citizens,  especially  consumers,  may  still  prefer  to  lodge 
claims  with  their  local  court  having  jurisdiction.  Whether  the  advantages  of  specialisation 
outweigh the disadvantages may also depend on the geographical size of the Member State. 
Overall, the data on the use of the procedure in the Annex as to whether a centralised system 
leads to a more frequent use of the procedure are inconclusive. Nevertheless, in the light of 
the written and non-adversarial nature of the procedure, where no debate on the substance of 
the  claim  takes  place,  and  which  is  thus  particularly  suited  for  electronic  processing  (see 
below  under  3.5.),  the  European  order  for  payment  procedure  does  appear  better  suited  for 
centralised court handling than other procedures which require a debate on the substance and 
consideration  of  evidence  and  therefore  may  call  for  closer  proximity  of  the  court  to  the 
litigants.  

3.3. 

Application for a European order for payment 

3.3.1.  Principal and interest 

The claim must be for a specific amount that has fallen due at the time when the application 
for a European order for payment is submitted. The amount of the claim includes the principal 
and,  where  applicable,  interest,  contractual  penalties  and  costs.  If  interest  on  the  claim  is 
demanded,  the  application  must  state  the  interest  rate  and  the  period  of  time  for  which  that 
interest is demanded. In Case C-215/11,13 the Court of Justice clarified that in an application a 
claimant should be able to demand interest accrued up to the date of payment of the principal. 
In such a case, the national court is free to determine how the order form E is to be completed, 
provided that the defendant is informed of the calculation of the interest. 
Commission Regulation (EU) No 936/2012 of 4 October 201214 which amended the Annexes 
to the European order for payment Regulation, ensures that the defendant is advised, in form 
E, in the table "important information for the defendant", that interest may be payable, under 
national law, to the date of enforcement of the order, in which case this will increase the total 
amount  payable.  Nevertheless,  Form  E  does  not  seem  sufficiently  developed  to  include  an 
appropriate  description  of  the  interest  to  be  recovered.  A  further  amendment  of  the  forms 
should therefore be considered.  

12 Commercial court in Zagreb, Amtsgericht of Berlin-Wedding, Oporto District Court, Helsinki District Court, 
Swedish Enforcement Administration. 

13 Iwona Szyrocka, Judgment of the Court of 13 December 2012. 

14 OJ L 283, 16.10.2012, p. 1. 

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
3.3.2.  Language of the application 

In  most  Member  States,  applications  must  be  submitted  in  the  official  language(s).  Some 
Member States accept, however, also foreign languages: the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus 
and Sweden accept English; France accepts English, German, Italian and Spanish. 

Translation requirements have a negative impact on costs and delays of the procedure even if  
the European order for payment procedure is a procedure where the parties are not required to 
provide and debate on evidence. The application form can be automatically translated in the 
official language of the Member State where the court is sitting. As it contains tick-boxes, in 
most cases a translation is not necessary. In order to achieve the objective of a truly European 
procedure, all Member States should accept European payment order applications in at least 
one other language than their official national language(s).  

3.3.3.  Electronic Submission of the Application 
Many  Member  States  allow  the  electronic  submission  of  the  application15  or  envisage 
developing electronic processing in the future in all courts having jurisdiction to deal with the 
European order for payment procedure.16 

Following  a  Commission  study  on  the  feasibility  of  electronic  application  for  European 
payment orders, a pilot project on this issue is being co-funded by the European Commission. 
Nine  Member  States  are  participating  in  the  e-CODEX  pilot  for  the  European  order  for 
payment procedure.17 The participants are active either as a sending side, a receiving side or 
both. A sending side allows users to send claims (i.e., Form A) for European payment orders 
to  a  receiving  side.  A  receiving  side  accepts  claims  and  delivers  them  electronically  to  the 
court designated in the submitted Form A. The court in question can later send back electronic 
replies  (e.g.,  Form  B,  Form  E,  etc.)  via  the  same  channel.  At  this  stage  not  all  piloting 
Member States have an operational system: some of them are still in the testing phase with 
plans to go live in 2015 or 2016. The "sending" Member States generally allow the electronic 
submission  of  claims  only  for  key  customers  of  justice,  e.g.  lawyers,  banks,  insurance 
companies  and  social  security  institutions,  and  not  necessarily  for  the  general  public. 
Examples  of  such  national  filing  systems  accessible  to  key  customers  already  exist  in 
Germany and Austria. In the near future, the European e-Justice Portal will offer, as a sending 
side,  the  possibility  for  the  general  public  to  also  submit  claims  electronically.  Submission 
will be possible only to "receiving" Member States who successfully completed the necessary 
integration tests with the European e-Justice Portal and are operating an e-CODEX system. 

3.3.4.  Examination of the application 
Three  Member  States18  reported  a  high  proportion  of  applications  that  are  returned  by  the 
courts for completion or rectification. Frequently reported causes of return are inaccurate or 

15 Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, France, Lithuania, Austria, Slovenia, Slovak Republic, Finland, Sweden, 
UK, Cyprus. 

16 Ireland, Italy, Malta, Portugal. 

17 Austria, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, France, Poland and the Netherlands. 

18 Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. 

6 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
incomplete  information  on  the  parties  (for  example  the  claimant's  address  or  signature  is 
missing), incomplete applications for interest and unpaid court fees. 

The dynamic forms available in the European e-Justice Portal already assist users in correctly 
filling  in  applications.  Currently,  the  Portal  also  allows  users,  via  the  European  Judicial 
ATLAS website, to determine the competent court. As of the second half of 2015, following 
the launch of the European Court Database, the process of determining the competent court to 
which  the  claim  should  be  sent  will  be  improved  even  further.  It  could  be  explored  how 
further explanation on how to fill in the forms could be given on the European e-Justice Portal 
and how the electronic forms could include more details about the interest claimed. Finally, 
even if there is no legal obligation on Member States to offer assistance in filling in the forms 
similar  to  that  foreseen  in  Regulation  (EC)  No  861/2007  establishing  a  European  Small 
Claims  procedure,  Member  States  could  extend  the  assistance  offered  to  citizens  in  the 
European  Small  Claims  procedure  to  assistance  under  the  European  order  for  Payment 
Procedure to the benefit of citizens as well as of an efficient administration of justice in terms 
of time and costs.  

The  Regulation  explicitly  provides  that  the  examination  of  an  application  for  a  European 
order for payment may take the form of an automated procedure. This is the case in Austria 
and  Germany.  The  European  order  for  payment  procedure  –  being  a  written  procedure 
without  examination  of  evidence  or  hearings  -  seems  particularly  suited  for  full  electronic 
processing.  It  could  yield  positive  effects  concerning  the  amount  of  time  required  for  the 
conduct of the procedure (see also below under 3.4.). Since a statement of objections can be 
easily lodged againts the payment order issued in an automated procedure and the procedure 
ensures effective service of documents, the defendant’s rights are duly safeguarded. 

3.4. 

Issuing a European order for payment 

It  appears  from  the  available  information  that  the  obligation  for  courts  to  issue  European 
orders  for  payment  within  30  days  of  the  application  is  generally  respected  only  in  some 
Member States. From those Member States that have provided relevant data, courts issue the 
order  in  time  in  Malta  (1  week),  Belgium  and  Ireland  (2  weeks),  Germany  (2-3  weeks), 
Bulgaria and Lithuania (30 days). Courts take their decision within 1-2 months in Greece and 
Luxembourg, within 2 months in France and Finland, up to 4 months in Austria, the Czech 
Republic,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Poland,  the  Netherlands,  Portugal,  Sweden,  Slovenia,  up  to  6 
months in Hungary, 8 months in Spain and up to 9 months in Slovakia.  

Lengthy proceedings can hardly be justified in the light of the fact that the procedure does not 
require  any  examination  of  evidence  or  hearing  of  parties.  A  reduction  of  this  length  is 
absolutely  necessary  as  the  quick  recovery  of  uncontested  claims  has  a  high  impact  on  the 
cash  flow  of  companies,  in  particular  SMEs.  In  addition,  a  systematic  non-respect  of  the 
deadlines  provided  for  in  the  Regulation  may  be  considered  as  an  infringement  of  the 
Regulation.  Further  work  developing  electronic  processing  of  the  procedure  may  help  to 
address the problem. The Commission services will continue to closely monitor this area for 
improvements. 

3.5. 

Service of European payment orders and of other documents  

No  major  problem  concerning  the  service  of  documents  has  been  reported  in  the  specific 
context of the European order for payment procedure. The only complaints received concern 
the costs of cross-border service. According to the Commission´s report of December 2013 on 

7 

 
 
 
the application of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007,19 European rules have helped speed up the 
service  of  documents  between  EU  countries,  despite  an  ever  increasing  caseload.  Delivery 
times for judicial documents have decreased in Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Greece 
and Portugal. There are various means of service in Member States. For the purposes of the 
European order for payment procedure, Member States are encouraged to use cheap methods 
of service such as postal service with notification of receipt.  

Although  electronic  service  of  documents  is  foreseen  as  a  possible  method  of  service  in 
Articles 13 and 14 of the Regulation, it is not yet a reality in the judicial landscape of the EU. 
The  underlying  reasons  may  be  both  of  a  legal  and  a  technical  nature.  Articles  13  and  14 
make service by electronic means subject to the national law of the State in which the service 
is to be effected. Therefore, the existence of national laws on electronic service of documents 
would be a precondition for such service. Furthermore, under Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 
on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents20 which applies to 
electronic  service  effected  under  the  European  order  for  payment  Regulation,21  direct 
electronic service of a document by a court on a party in another Member State is not possible 
even  theoretically.  Finally,  technical  reasons  and  incompatibilities  of  national  systems  of 
electronic service may further hinder the development of cross-border electronic service.  

3.6. 

Costs 

It  follows  from  the  Regulation  that  court  fees  are  fixed  in  accordance  with  national  law. 
However, in the event of a statement of opposition of the defendant to a European order for 
payment,  the  Regulation  requires  that  the  combined  court  fees  for  the  European  payment 
orders  and  ordinary  proceedings  may  not  exceed  those  for  ordinary  proceedings  only.  The 
data available on court fees for the European order for payment procedure show that such fees 
are  similar  to  the  fees  for  litigating  under  similar  national  procedures  and  vary  largely 
depending  on  the  Member  State  where  the  claim  is  filed.  Also,  calculation  methods  of  fees 
differ between Member States (fixed fees or fees calculated as a proportion of the value of the 
claim or a combination of these two). In practice, citizens have occasionally complained about 
the rate of fees in some Member States.  

However, the major problem with court fees as reported to the Commission was the lack of 
transparency  of  such  fees  for  potential  applicants.  In  order  to  address  this  problem,  the 
European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters has published that information 
on the European e-Justice Portal.22 

3.7. 

Opposing a European order for payment  

It  appears  that  defendants  oppose  the  European  order  for  payment  only  to  a  limited  extent, 
although  the  rate  of  opposition  differs  between  Member  States.  For  instance,  opposition  is 

19 Report on the application of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial 
and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, COM(2013) 858 final. 

20 OJ L 324, 10.12.2007, p. 79. 

21 See Article 27. 

22 https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_court_fees_epo-305-en.do 

8 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
marginal in Austria (4%), while it amounts to around 16% in France and Germany, and above 
50% in Greece.  

In  general,  no  problems  have  been  reported  on  the  opposition  to  the  European  payment 
orders.  Pursuant  to  Article  17(2),  the  effect  of  the  opposition  is  the  transfer  of  the  case  to 
ordinary  proceedings.  As  European  payment  orders  may  concern  small  claims  within  the 
meaning of the European Small Claims Regulation, the Commission has proposed to make it 
possible, after opposition in a European order for payment procedure, to transfer the case also 
to the European Small Claims procedure, to the extent that this procedure may apply.23 

3.8. 

Review 

The exceptional remedy in Article 20 aims at redressing the situation where the defendant was 
not  aware  of  the  proceedings  in  the  Member  State  of  origin  and  was  not  able  to  properly 
defend himself. This may happen if for example the address to which the application was sent 
is  not  correct.  While  the  Regulation  prescribes  the  conditions  for  opening  the  right  for  a 
review,  the  procedure  itself  is  governed  by  national  law.  The  information  on  the  different 
review procedures in Member States is published in the European Judicial Atlas. 
In  Case  C-324/12,24  the  Court  of  Justice  ruled  that  a  failure  to  observe  the  time-limit  for 
lodging  a  statement  of  opposition  to  a  European  order  for  payment,  by  reason  of  the 
negligence  of  the  defendant’s  representative,  does  not  justify  a  review  of  that  order  for 
payment  pursuant  to  Article  20,  since  such  a  failure  to  observe  the  time-limit  does  not 
constitute extraordinary or exceptional circumstances within the meaning of that Article. 

National  procedures  implementing  the  review  are  very  different  from  one  Member  State  to 
another and sometimes also different from one European instrument (European enforcement 
order,  European  order  for  payment,  Small  Claims,  maintenance  Regulations)  to  another. 
Furthermore, implementation of the review procedure under the instruments mentioned above 
has given rise to questions and uncertainties.   
Joined  Cases  C‑119/13  and  C‑120/1325  concerned  a  situation  where  European  payment 
orders  were  not  or  not  effectively  served  on  the  defendants  because  they  had  moved  their 
domicile. The Court ruled that Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 must be interpreted as meaning 
that the procedures laid down in Articles 16 to 20 of the Regulation are not applicable where 
it appears that a European order for payment has not been served in a manner consistent with 
the  minimum  standards  laid  down  in  Articles  13  to  15  of  the  Regulation.  If  such  an 
irregularity  is  exposed  only  after  a  European  order  for  payment  has  been  declared 
enforceable, the defendant must have the opportunity to raise that irregularity under national 
law, which, if it is duly established, will invalidate the declaration of enforceability. 

The result of the ruling of the Court in Cases C‑119/13 and C‑120/13 is that a fundamental 
element  of  the  protection  of  the  rights  of  the  defence  in  the  uniform  European  order  for 

23  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  861/2007  establishing  a  European  Small  Claims 
Procedure  and  Regulation  (EC)  No 1896/2006  creating  a  European  order  for  payment  procedure,  COM(2013) 
794 final. 

24 Novontech-Zala, Order of the Court of 21 March 2013. 

25 Eco cosmetics (C‑119/13) and Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen (C‑120/13), Judgment of the Court of 4 September 
2014. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                            
payment procedure, i.e. the right of a defaulting defendant to request a re-opening of the case 
in  case  of  deficient  service  of  orders,  is  considered  not  regulated  by  the  Regulation,  but 
depends on national law. 

In  order  to  ensure  that  the  defendant  can  raise  such  irregularities  under  Union  law,  the 
conditions  for  the  review  under  Article  20  should  be  clarified  in  the  future  by  taking 
inspiration  from  the  more  recent  provisions  in  the  Maintenance  Regulation  and  the  Small 
Claims revision proposal. This would also enhance the consistency of the instruments on civil 
law procedure at EU level.  

3.9. 

Enforcement 

No specific problems have been reported concerning the enforcement of European orders for 
payment. One obstacle which has been reported is the lack of transparency of debtors' assets 
for  enforcement  purposes  in  a  cross-border  context.  This  issue  has,  however,  a  horizontal 
character  and  concerns  all  cross-border  enforcement  in  the  EU,  not  specifically  the 
enforcement of European payment orders. 

3.10.  The Case Law of the European Court of Justice on Unfair Contract Terms and 

Payment Order Procedures 

The Court of Justice of the European Union has been called, in the context of the application 
of Directive 93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts, to examine the application of 
national order for payment procedures and their enforcement in the light of the principles of 
equivalence and effectiveness of EU law. Questions have been raised on whether the Court´s 
rulings have an impact on the use of payment order procedures in consumer disputes. Indeed, 
the  very  nature  of  payment  order  procedures  is  based  on  the  concept  that  the  substantive 
justification  of  a  claim  is  –  in  contrast  to  ordinary  court  procedures  –  in  principle  not 
examined. 

The Court held that in the absence of harmonisation of the national mechanisms for recovery 
of  uncontested  claims,  the  rules  implementing  national  order  for  payment  procedures  are  a 
matter  for  the  national  legal  order,  in  accordance  with  the  principle  of  the  procedural 
autonomy of the Member States, on condition, however, that they are no less favourable than 
those  governing  similar  domestic  actions  (principle  of  equivalence)  and  do  not  make  it  in 
practice impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred on consumers by 
European Union law (principle of effectiveness).26 

The Court ruled specifically in Case C-618/10 referring to Case C-473/0027 that the principle 
of effectiveness precludes national legislation which does not allow the responsible court in 
the  case  where  a  consumer  has  not  lodged  an  objection,  to  assess  of  its  own  motion,  even 
though  it  already  has  the  legal  and  factual  elements  necessary  for  that  task  available  to  it, 
whether  a  term  relating  to  interest  on  late  payments  contained  in  a  contract  concluded 
between a seller and a consumer is unfair.  

26 Banco Español, (C-618/10), Judgment of the Court of 14 June 2012. 

27 Cofidis, C-473/00, paragraph 35. 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
According the Court’s case‑law the specific characteristics of court proceedings which take 
place under national law between sellers or suppliers and consumers cannot constitute a factor 
which  is  liable  to  affect  the  legal  protection  from  which  consumers  must  benefit  under  the 
provisions of Directive 93/13/EEC.28 However, the Court has also underlined in the context of 
the review of arbitration awards having the effect of res judicata that the need to comply with 
the  principle  of  effectiveness  cannot  be  stretched  so  far  as  to  mean  that  a  national  court  is 
required to make up fully for the total inertia on the part of the consumer concerned.29 

Other  judgments  of  the  Court  on the  principle  of  effectiveness30  concern  the  payment  order 
procedure after an opposition is lodged, once the claim is continued in ordinary or other civil 
procedures. In C-618/10, Banco Español, the Court distinguishes the specific situation before 
an  opposition  in  a  payment  order  procedure  clearly  from  the  other  situations.  This  case 
concerned the definition of the national court’s responsibilities pursuant to the provisions of 
Directive 93/13/EEC, in the context of an order for payment procedure, before the consumer 
has lodged an objection. The Court stresses that every case in which the question arises as to 
whether  a  national  procedural  provision  makes  the  application  of  European  Union  law 
impossible or excessively difficult must be analysed by reference to the role of that provision 
in the procedure, its progress and its special features, viewed as a whole, before the various 
national bodies.  

Article  8  of  the  Regulation  requires  the  court  to  examine  whether  the  claim  appears  to  be 
founded  on  the  basis  of  the  information  available  to  it.  Courts  have  the  possibility,  if  they 
prima  facie  have  doubts  as  to  the  justification  of  the  claim  or  part  of  it  (e.g.  interest),  to 
propose in accordance with Article 10 of the Regulation only a partial order to the claimant.31 
In addition, a full appreciation of the substance of the claim is ensured after opposition to the 
European order for payment, once the claim is pursued in ordinary court proceedings. It can 
therefore  be  concluded  that  the  features  of  the  European  order  for  payment  procedure  duly 
ensure compliance with the case law of the European Court of Justice. 

4. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The European order for payment procedure was introduced to simplify, speed up and reduce 
the costs of the recovery of outstanding debts, and to provide creditors, in particular SMEs, 
with  a  swift  and  efficient  judicial  tool,  a  policy  objective  as  valid  today  as  it  was  when  the 
Regulation was adopted.  

28 Banco Español, paragraph 46 

29 Asturcom Telecomunicaciones, Judgment of the Court of 6 October 2009, paragraph 47. 

30  See  C‑168/05  Mostaza  Claro;  C‑40/08  Asturcom  Telecomunicaciones;  C‑243/08  Pannon  GSM,  C‑137/08 
VB Pénzügyi Lízing, C‑453/10 Pereničová and Perenič. 

31  Please  note  that  also  national  payment  order  proceedings  allow  such  prima  facie  verifications.  It  is  not 
uncommon,  for  instance,  under  the  French  injonction  de  payer,  that  the  court  of  its  own  motion  reduces 
excessive claims of interest. Also, the German Mahnverfahren, which is to a great degree automated, is designed 
in such a way as to detect anomalies in the claim which may be addressed ex officio, either by proposing only a 
partial order to the claimant (thus reducing ex officio the amount requested) or by refusing the order. 

11 

 
 
 
                                                            
Based  on  the  above  evaluation  of  the  functioning  of  the  procedure,  it  appears  that  the 
Regulation  generally  functions  in  a  sound  and  satisfactory  manner.  The  application  of  the 
Regulation  has  generally  improved,  simplified  and  accelerated  the  handling  of  uncontested 
pecuniary  claims  in  cross-border  disputes.  In  the  light  of  this,  it  is  therefore  considered  not 
appropriate at this time to change the fundamental parameters of the European procedure. 

However,  the  European  procedure  is  not  sufficiently  known  among  businesses,  citizens, 
practitioners,  and  courts.  Further  awareness-raising  is  necessary,  both  at  European  and  at 
Member  State  level.  Efficient  and  active  promotion  of  the  Regulation  should  take  place, 
providing  the  general  public  and  professionals  with  information  on  the  European  order  for 
payment procedure.  

In  addition,  the  operation  of  the  Regulation  may  be  improved  through  non-legislative  and 
implementation  measures.  The  Commission  will  use  the  cooperation  mechanism  of  the 
European  Judicial  Network  in  Civil  and  Commercial  Matters  in  a  proactive  manner  to 
improve the implementation and promote the take-up of this useful instrument. The operation 
of  the  procedure  could  further  be  improved  by  ensuring  its  electronic  processing  and  by 
Member States giving further consideration to the suitability of centralisation of the handling 
of cases under the procedure. 

12 

 
 
 
Statistical data on the use of the European order for payment procedure  

Annex 

The data cover the years 2012 – 2013. Except indicated otherwise in the table, the data relate 
to the year 2012. 

Num-
ber of 
appli-
cations  

Pay-
ment 
orders 
for 
enforce
-ment 

Applica-
tions 
returned 
for 
comple-
tion/ 
rectifi-
cation 

Number 
of opposi-
tions 

Modifi-
cation of 
the 
applica-
tion 

Number 
of  pay-
ment 
orders 
issued  

Length of 
procee-
dings 

319 

109 

358 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech 
Republic 

(2013) 

Germany 

4,130 

Estonia 

6 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Cyprus 

(2013) 

189 

168 

63 

335 

11 

• 

54 

• 

• 

2 

11 

• 

• 

• 

4 

Lithuania 

9 

23 

a few 

a few 

14 

• 

1 

• 

85% 

5% 

3 

65 

• 

• 

118 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

• 

• 

0 

• 

59 

• 

4 

• 

633 

1 

51 

>50% 

261 

1-2 weeks 

82 

210 

30 days 

2 weeks 
to 6 
months 

90% 

2-3 weeks 

2 

134 

149 

1 week to 
5 months 

2 weeks 

1-2 
months 

• 

72*** 

8 months 

+/- 16% 

305 

2 months 

2 

5 

31 

9 

2 weeks – 
5 months 

7  

30 days 

127 

1-2 
months 

Luxembourg 

218 

173 

102 

(2013) 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Hungary 

(2013) 

442 

144 

• 

• 

24 

489*** 

0-3 
months 
(350 
cases); 

3-6 
months 
(139 
cases) 

Malta 

1 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

372 (in 
2011) 

4,367 
(2012) 

2,119 
(2013) 

1,800 
since 
2008 

0 

• 

0 

• 

80% 

10% 

0 

80 

4*** 

1 week 

194 

5 months 

• 

  237 (2012)

2 (2012) 

175 (2012) 

129 (2013)

1 (2013) 

212 (2013) 

0 

263 

50 

194 

4,092 
(2012) 

2,074 
(2013) 

1,016 

1,5 - 4 
months 

(2013) 

4.5 
months 

Portugal 

485 
(2012)  

97 
(2012) 

10 
(2012)   

• 

• 

• 

(2012) 

 5 months 

296 
(2013)  

166 
(2013)  

25 
(2013)  

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

(2013) 

Sweden 

(2013) 

12 

86 

35 

8 

1 

14 

91 

27 

83 

5 

4 

• 

1 

16 

23 

7 

54  

5 months 

1-9 
months 

62 

142 days  

(85 days 
for 
applica-
tions 
declared 
non-
admiss-
able etc.) 

Finland 

(2013) 

633 

• 

less than 
10 

less than 
10 

52 

about 400 

2 months 

14 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UK 

(2013) 

208 

108 

No data 
from 
England 
and Wales 
or 
Scotland 

No data 
from 
England 
and Wales 
or 
Scotland 

No data 
from 
England 
and Wales 
or 
Scotland 

5 
(Northern 
Ireland) 

1 
(Northern 
Ireland) 

5 
(Northern 
Ireland) 

No data 
from 
England 
and Wales 

1 
(Scotland) 

23 
(Northern 
Ireland) 

No data 
from any 
UK 
jurisdic-
tion 

Croatia* 

Italy** 

Latvia 

Romania 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•  No data provided 

* Please note that Croatia joined the EU only on 1 July 2013. 

** There are no separate statistics for European Payment Orders; they are statistically treated 
together with national payment orders. 

*** Including applications from previous years. 

15