COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION of Regulation (EC) 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims
Date: 2026-01-29
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: application of EU law, approximation of laws, claim, commercial law, cross-border cooperation, debt, enforcement of ruling, judicial cooperation, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, judicial proceedings

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 29.1.2026  SWD(2026) 26 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE EVALUATION   of Regulation (EC) 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order   for uncontested claims    {SWD(2026) 25 final}  
 
 
Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

Regulation  (EC)  805/2004  creating  a  European  Enforcement  Order  for  uncontested 
claims1  (“EEO  Regulation”)  was  established  to  simplify  and  reduce  costs  of  the  cross-
border  enforcement  of  uncontested  claims  by  abolishing  the  exequatur  procedure,  a 
separate  court  decision  allowing  enforcement  of  foreign  judgments.  The  exequatur 
procedure was replaced by a certificate issued in the Member State of origin, confirming 
that  the  rights  of  the  parties  were  observed.  The  EEO  Regulation  paved  a  way  to  the 
general  abolition  of  the  exequatur,  that  happened  with  the  adoption  of  the  Brussels  Ia 
Regulation.  However,  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  retained  more  grounds  for  refusal  of 
enforcement than the EEO Regulation. 

The evaluation assesses the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added 
value of the EEO Regulation, in today’s legal, economic, and social contexts, especially 
with the parallel existence of the Brussels Ia Regulation. 

Main findings of the evaluation  

Removing  exequatur  reduced  costs  of  cross-border  enforcement  of  uncontested  claims 
by  70%,  from  about  EUR  2,128  under  the  Brussels  I  Regulation  to  EUR  610  with  an 
EEO  certificate,  mainly  due  to  lower  lawyer  fees,  but  also  court  fees  and  translation 
costs.  With  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation,  costs  between  the  EEO  and  Brussels  Ia 
enforcement levelled, yet the EEO prevents more grounds for refusal, possibly reducing 
enforcement opposition and subsequent costs. Total savings from 2006 to 2020 amounted 
to around EUR 107 million. 

The EEO certification reduced time for enabling enforcement by 28 days compared to 
the Brussels I Regulation. Enforcement under the Brussels Ia would take similar time to 
the EEO, unless a request for refusal is made, which would prolong it to the level under 
the Brussels I Regulation.  

The  savings  of  time  and  money  under  the  EEO  Regulation  were  achieved  with  full 
respect  of  the  procedural  rights  of  the  parties,  proven  by  stakeholder  feedback. 
However, debtor awareness of the minimum procedural standards is not sufficient, which 
may result in  lack of reaction when they are not respected.  

Annually, around 4,368 EEO certificates are issued across the Member States i.e. 168 per 
Member State.  

The  main  practical  issue  is  correct  service  of  documents,  but  the  EEO  Regulation 
provides for an appropriate remedy in this respect.  

Efficiency of the EEO suffers from insufficient awareness  and knowledge, inconsistent 
interpretation, and ambiguity of translation requirements in the Member States. 

1   OJ L 143 30.4.2004, p. 15 

 
 
 
 
The EEO Regulation  is  coherent  with relevant  EU legislation, sharing  concepts  from 
the Brussels I and influencing similar regulations like European Order for Payment and 
European Small Claims Procedure.  

Though  its  added  value  diminished  with  the  Brussels  Ia,  the  number  of  issued  EEO 
certificates  remains  stable,  which  illustrates  relevance  and  sustainability  of  the  EEO 
Regulation. 

Conclusions 

The  EEO  Regulation  achieved  its  objectives  by  reducing  costs  and  time  for  the 
enforcement  of  cross-border  uncontested  claims  and  by  replacing  exequatur  with 
simple  certification  while  upholding  parties’  rights.  Although  the  Brussels  Ia  generally 
abolished  the  exequatur,  the  EEO  still  offers  potential  benefits,  mainly  limited  grounds 
for  refusal,  which  presumably  results  in  lower  number  of  requests  for  refusal.  No 
immediate  revision  or  repeal  is  needed,  but  non-legislative  measures  to  increase 
awareness and improve application would be useful. 

2