COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 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) 25 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  EVALUATION  of         Regulation (EC) 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims {SWD(2026) 26 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 4 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation ........................................................................................... 4 

Short description of methodology and data sources .............................................................. 4 

Limitations and robustness of findings ................................................................................... 5 

2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? ......................... 7 

2.1 

Description of the intervention and its objectives .......................................................... 7 

2.2 Overview of the provisions of the EEO Regulation .......................................................... 9 

2.3   Points of comparison ......................................................................................................... 12 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? ......... 13 

Current state of play .................................................................................................................. 13 

Brussels Ia Regulation – general abolition of exequatur ........................................................... 14 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) ......................................................... 15 

4.1.  TO WHAT EXTENT WAS THE INTERVENTION SUCCESSFUL AND WHY?............ 15 

Coherence ................................................................................................................................. 27 

4.2.  HOW DID THE EU INTERVENTION MAKE A DIFFERENCE? .................................... 29 

4.3.  IS THE INTERVENTION STILL RELEVANT? ................................................................. 31 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? ................................... 32 

5.1.  CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................... 32 

5.2.  LESSONS LEARNED .......................................................................................................... 36 

ANNEXES ..................................................................................................................................... 37 

ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................ 37 

Lead DG, Decide reference and, if relevant, Work Programme reference ............................... 37 

Organisation and timing ............................................................................................................ 37 

Exceptions to the Better Regulation Guidelines ........................................................................ 37 

In conducting the evaluation, no exceptions from the usual procedural requirements described 
in the Better Regulation Guidelines were required. .................................................................. 37 

Evidence used, sources and its quality ...................................................................................... 37 

Use of external expertise ........................................................................................................... 38 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED .................................... 39 

ANNEX  III.  EVALUATION  MATRIX  AND  DETAILS  ON  ANSWERS  TO  THE 

EVALUATION QUESTIONS .............................................................................................. 41 

Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................. 41 

 
 
 
 
Achievement of the general and specific objectives .............................................................. 42 

Efficiency .................................................................................................................................. 48 

Coherence ................................................................................................................................. 55 

EU added value ........................................................................................................................ 59 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............................... 67 

Relevance ............................................................................................................................... 67 

Coherence .............................................................................................................................. 76 

Effectiveness .......................................................................................................................... 80 

Efficiency ............................................................................................................................... 87 

EU added value ...................................................................................................................... 96 

ANNEX  VI:      RULINGS  OF  THE  COURT  OF  JUSTICE  OF  THE  EUROPEAN 

UNION CONCERNING THE EEO REGULATION .................................................... 103 

 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Exequatur 

Brussels Convention 

Brussels I Regulation 

Brussels Ia Regulation 

EEO Regulation 

The decision (usually by a court) declaring that a 
foreign judgment can be enforced in the state where the 
decision is made.  This decision follows a procedure 
verifying whether the conditions set out by the national 
law or international agreements in the state of 
enforcement are met. 
Where exequatur is abolished, a foreign judgment can 
be enforced without the need for a declaration of 
enforceability. 

Brussels Convention of 1968 on Jurisdiction and the 
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial 
Matters (Consolidated version OJ C 27, 26.1.1998, p. 
1-27). This convention set out for the first time 
common conditions and procedure for obtaining 
exequatur in the Member States of the European 
Communities. 

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 
2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and 
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial 
matters (OJ L 12, 16.1.2001). It further developed and 
streamlined common exequatur rules in the European 
Union 

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on 
jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of 
judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 351, 
20.12.2012, p. 1–32. It generally abolished the 
requirement of exequatur concerning judgments 
originating from other Member States of the European 
Union, however it allows challenging of the 
enforcement of such judgment. 

Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating 
a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims 
(OJ L 143 30.4.2004, p. 15). It abolished exequatur for 
the enforcement titles within its scope.   

EEO certificate 

Document issued in accordance with the Article 6.1 of 
the EEO Regulation 

 
 
 
ESCP Regulation 

ESCP 

EOP Regulation 

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

European Small Claims Procedure – court procedure 
conducted on the basis of the ESCP Regulation  

Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 
creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ L 
399, 30.12.2006, p. 1–32) 

CJEU 

Court of Justice of the European Union 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Purpose and scope of the evaluation 

This  Staff  Working  Document  presents  the  result  of  the  evaluation  of  Regulation  (EC)  805/2004 
creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims1 (‘EEO Regulation’). In line with the 
Better  Regulation  guidelines,  the  main  purpose  of  the  evaluation  is  to  assess  the  effectiveness, 
efficiency (including the potential for simplification and burden reduction), relevance, coherence and 
EU added value of the EEO Regulation, and to analyse whether it remains fit for purpose in today’s 
legal, economic and social situation.  

The evaluation is particularly relevant as a considerable change took place in the legal regime of the 
cross-border  enforcement  of  claims  in  the  European  Union  with  the  entry  into  application  of  the 
Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in 
civil and commercial matters (Brussels Ia Regulation)2.  

The EEO Regulation was the first EU legal instrument that envisaged recognition and enforcement 
of  judgments  (and  other  enforcement  titles)  in  another  Member  State  without  intermediary 
proceedings of granting enforceability, called exequatur. The Brussels Ia Regulation, which entered 
into application on 10 January 2015, generally abolished exequatur for all enforcement titles in civil 
and  commercial  matters,  albeit  on  different  conditions  than  the  EEO  Regulation,  in  particular 
allowing for  the refusal  of enforcement on more grounds  than the latter.  After  10 years of parallel 
functioning of these two paths of cross-border enforcement of titles concerning uncontested claims, it 
is appropriate to assess how the EEO Regulation performs.  

The evaluation covers the period from 21 October 2005 - the date of the entry into application of the 
EEO Regulation - until present. Geographically, it covers all Members States of the European Union, 
except Denmark, which does not participate in judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters3 
and where the EEO Regulation is thus not applicable.4 

Short description of methodology and data sources 

The evaluation drew on the following data sources:  

Quantitative information from Member States 

1   OJ L 143 30.4.2004, p. 15 

2   Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction 
and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1–32 

3   Protocol  (No  22)  on  the  position  of  Denmark  to  the  Treaty  on  the  functioning  of  the  European  Union,  OJ  C  202, 

7.6.2016, p. 298–302 

4   Denmark applies the Brussels Ia Regulation on the basis of the  Agreement between the European Community and 
the Kingdom of Denmark on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial 
matters, OJ L 299, 16.11.2005, p. 62–70  

4 

 
 
 
Member  States  were  asked  to  provide  quantitative  information  on  the  EEO  certificates  issued  and 
received for enforcement per year, as well as on other aspects of the application of the EEO. Fifteen 
Member  States  responded  to  this  request,  however  the  data  received  were  quite  incomplete.  These 
data cover a period not longer than until the end of 2019. It has to be noted that the EEO Regulation 
does  not  impose  any  obligation  on  the  Member  States  to  collect  data  and  transmit  it  to  the 
Commission.  

Study supporting the evaluation 

An independent external study to support the evaluation of the Regulation was awarded to Deloitte in 
April 2020 with the main objective to provide evidence, undertake further consultation and analyses 
responding  to  the  evaluation  questions.  The  study  is  published  at  Evaluation  of  Regulation  (EC) 
805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims - Publications Office of the 
EU.) 

Stakeholder consultation 

A  Public  Consultation  was  held  on  the  Commission’s  ‘Have  Your  Say’  portal  between  7  August 
2020 and 20 November 2020. The consultation was promoted through the European e-Justice Portal 
and  targeted  e-mails  to  key  stakeholders.  Only  17  replies  were  received  and  not  all  respondents 
answered  all  questions.  The  respondents’  group  included  judges,  lawyers,  notaries,  bailiffs,  debt 
collectors, academics and citizens (further referred to as “respondents”).  

In the context of the study, 81 interviews were carried out at national level and 3 at EU level. The 
interviewees  where  legal  professionals  (judges,  lawyers,  notaries,  bailiffs)  and  academics  (“further 
referred to as “interviewees”.  Finally, a validation workshop with 8 experts with distinct knowledge 
on the EEO Regulation was organised at the end of the preparation of the study. 

Review of the relevant cases of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) 

Eight preliminary questions concerning the EEO Regulation were addressed to the CJEU during the 
period covered by the evaluation. In addition, some other cases concerning other legal instruments 
are also relevant for the EEO.  

Limitations and robustness of findings 

The following limitations were encountered during the evaluation process: 

Limited  availability  of  quantitative  data  on  cross-border  enforcement  in  civil  and  commercial 
matters  - in  particular  with regard to  the number of cross-border enforcement actions initiated, the 
number  of  refusals  of  enforcement,  the  magnitude  of  cross-border  claims  enforced  as  well  as  the 
percentage of businesses and citizens involved in cross-border enforcement of claims on the basis of 
the different legal instruments under consideration.  

Limited and/or fragmented availability of quantitative data on the use of the EEO Regulation - 
in  particular  with  regard  to  the  number  of  EEO  certificates  issued  per  year,  the  number  of 

5 

 
 
enforcement procedures initiated on the basis of the EEO certificates per year, the number of refused 
requests for the issuance of the EEO certificates per year, the number of requests for rectification or 
withdrawal of the EEO certificates per year and the number of applications for review in exceptional 
cases (Article 19 of the EEO Regulation) per year.  

Moderate participation rate in interviews - At EU level, 12 organisations were contacted, but only 
1 accepted an interview. At national level a total of 470 stakeholders were contacted out of which 81 
agreed to have an interview. 

Low participation rate in the Public Consultation - Only 17 replies were received.  

In order to mitigate the data limitations encountered, the evaluation relied upon quantitative data of 
former  reports  (e.g.  Impact  Assessment  for  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation5),  as  well  as  on  key 
assumptions and estimates provided by the study. These  assumptions  and estimates were validated 
through a workshop with key experts6.   

5   Commission Staff Working Paper, Impact Assessment, Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Regulation of 
the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in 
civil and commercial matters (Recast), 2010. 

6   For details on methodology see Annex H and Annex E to the Final Report of the study supporting the  evaluation 
published at Evaluation of Regulation (EC) 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims 
- Publications Office of the EU 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
2.  WHAT WAS THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE INTERVENTION? 

2.1   Description of the intervention and its objectives 

European  economic  integration,  and  in  particular  the  gradual  integration  of  the  single  market  and 
development of the four fundamental freedoms upon which the European Union is built resulted in a 
constant  increase  of  cross-border  disputes  in  civil  and  commercial  matters.  Cross-border  judicial 
cooperation  including  cross-border  enforcement  therefore  became  an  indispensable  complement  to 
the internal market.  

A  first  step  to  provide  common  European  frameworks  for  cross-border  enforcement  in  civil  and 
commercial matters was made with the conclusion of the ‘Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and 
the  Enforcement  of  Judgments  in  Civil  and  Commercial  Matters’7  (Brussels  Convention)  in  1968. 
The  Brussels  Convention  established  requirements  for  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
judgments8  and  a  common  procedure  for  granting  them  enforceability  in  the  territory  of  Member 
States other than the one from which they originated – the so-called exequatur procedure.  

The  Treaty  of  Amsterdam  in  19999  opened  further  possibilities  for  the  development  of  judicial 
cooperation in civil and commercial matters, notably through including it in the “first pillar” of EU 
competence. Subsequently, the Tampere European Council10 laid the foundations11 for the European 
Area  of  Justice  by  endorsing  mutual  recognition  as  the  cornerstone  of  European  judicial 
cooperation12. 

Against  this  background,  the  Brussels  I  Regulation13  was  adopted  in  2001,  replacing  the  Brussels 
Convention as the legal foundation of cross-border enforcement in civil and commercial matters. The 
Brussels  I  Regulation  brought  numerous  developments  and  improvements,  but  in  general  it 
maintained the exequatur procedure, albeit in a streamlined fashion, which already at that time was 
perceived  as  unnecessary  burden  in  some  categories  of  civil  and  commercial  cases.  Indeed,  a 

7   1968  Brussels  Convention  on  jurisdiction  and  the  enforcement  of  judgment  in  civil  and  commercial  matters 

(Consolidated version OJ C 27, 26.1.1998, p. 1-27). 

8   The Brussels convention contains also provisions related to other matters, notably rules on jurisdiction in civil and 

criminal matters, which are not pertinent to this evaluation 

9   The Treaty of Amsterdam was signed on the 2nd of October 1997 and came into force on the 1st of May 1999. Its 

main changes were focused on the Treaty on European Union, created by the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. 

10   The European Council held a special meeting on 15 and 16 October 1999 in Tampere on the creation of an area of 

freedom, security and justice in the European Union. See Presidency Conclusions. 

11   Despite  already  being  adopted  by  the  Treaty  of  Amsterdam  the  Council  is  regarded  as  having  formally  launched 
justice activities in recognition of cross border decisions. See: Carla Crifò, Cross-border Enforcement of Debts in the 
European  Union,  Default  Judgments,  Summary  Judgments  and  Orders  for  Payment  (KluwerLAw  International 
2009). 

12   Presidency Conclusions Tampere European Council 15 and 16 October 1999. 

13   Council Regulation (EU) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and the enforcement 

of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1–23) 

7 

 
 
Programme  of  measures14,  adopted  in  2001  to  implement  the  principle  of  mutual  recognition 
prioritised  the  abolition  of  exequatur  for  uncontested  claims.  The  Council  remarked  that  the 
exequatur procedure can “delay the enforcement of judgments concerning uncontested claims” and 
that “rapid recovery of outstanding payments is an absolute necessity for business and is a constant 
concern for the economic sectors whose interest lies in the proper operation of the internal market”.  

The  application  of  both  the  Brussels  Convention  and  the  Brussels  I  Regulation  demonstrated  that 
obtaining  the  exequatur  could  be  a  long  and  costly  process,  while  refusals  of  exequatur  were  very 
rare. In these circumstances, the EEO Regulation was envisaged as a pilot project for the abolition of 
exequatur, under certain conditions, across the board. 

At the moment of the adoption of the EEO Regulation, the following steps were to be followed when 
a creditor wanted to enforce a claim confirmed by a judgment in another Member State:  

-  The  creditor  had  to  apply  for  the  declaration  of  enforceability  of  a  foreign  judgment  to  the 

competent court of the Member State in which the enforcement was sought.  

-  The judgment was to be declared enforceable upon the completion of certain formalities and 

without any review of possible refusal grounds. 

-  The  debtor  could  contest  this  and  appeal  against  the  decision  invoking  the  refusal  grounds 

provided for in the Regulation.  

A  similar  procedure  applied  to  authentic  instruments  and  court  settlements  where  less  grounds  for 
refusal of exequatur were available than in the case of judgments.  

This procedure generated additional costs, time and required more efforts from the creditors. These 
factors were discouraging creditors from pursuing the enforcement of their cross-border claims, and 
generally  made  them  reluctant  to  undertake  cross-border  activities  in  the  EU,  thus  indirectly 
undermining the functioning of the internal market.  

The  EEO  Regulation  paved  the  way  towards  the  general  abolition  of  exequatur  in  civil  and 
commercial  matters,  which  indeed  took  place  eventually  through  the  adoption  of  the  Brussels  Ia 
Regulation. 

The  EEO  Regulation  was  conceived  to  eliminate  unnecessary  burdens  connected  with  the  cross-
border  enforcement  of  uncontested  claims,  as  well  as  to  reduce  the  costs  and  length  of  such 
enforcement,  by  abolishing  the  exequatur  procedure.  This  procedure  was  replaced  by  the 
examination of the enforcement title in the Member State from which it originated, against  a set of 
requirements, which, if met, would confirm that the enforcement title resulted from a fair procedure 
in which the rights of the parties were duly observed.  

The table below illustrates the intervention logic of the EEO Regulation.  

14   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. 1-9 

8 

 
 
 
2.2 Overview of the provisions of the EEO Regulation 

The  EEO  Regulation  establishes  a  legal  mechanism  that  allows  for  the  enforcement  of  judgments, 
authentic instruments and court settlements, delivered, drawn-up or concluded in one Member State, 
in another Member State of the EU. This legal mechanism has an optional character, meaning that all 
the enforcement titles that are within the scope of the EEO Regulation also fall within the scope of 
the  Brussels  I  Regulation  and  its  successor,  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation15.  It  is  for  the  creditor  to 
decide which one of the two to use in a specific case.  

The Regulation applies in civil and commercial matters. The following matters are excluded from its 
material scope, as per Article 2 of the Regulation: 

-  Revenue, customs or administrative matters; 
-  Matters  regarding  the  liability  of  a  State  for  acts  and  omissions  in  the  exercise  of  State 

authority (acta iure imperii)16; 
the status or legal capacity of natural persons; 

- 
-  Bankruptcy and related procedures; 
-  Social security; 
-  Arbitration; 
-  Rights in property arising out of matrimonial relationships, wills and successions. 

15   Compare Art. 2.1 and 2 of the EEO Regulation with Art. 1.1 and 2 of the Brussels I Regulation and Art. 1.1 and 2 of 

the Brussels Ia Regulation. 

16   This exclusion is characteristic to all EU legal instruments concerning judicial cooperation in civil and commercial 
matters. In the judgment of 28 April 2009 in case C-420/07 the CJEU noted that “although certain actions between a 
public authority and a person governed by private law may come within the concept, it is otherwise where the public 
authority is acting in the exercise of its public powers (...) The exercise of public powers by one of the parties to the 
case,  because  it  exercises  powers  falling  outside  the  scope  of  the  ordinary  legal  rules  applicable  to  relationships 
between private individuals, excludes such a case from civil and commercial matters”. 

9 

 
 
 
 
The EEO Regulation applies to uncontested claims “for payment of a specific sum of money that has 
fallen  due  or  for  which  the  due  date  is  indicated  in  the  judgment”.  For  the  purposes  of  the  EEO 
Regulation, the claim is uncontested if:   

- 
- 
- 

the debtor has expressly agreed to it,  
the debtor has never objected to it in the course of court proceedings, or  
the debtor did  not  appear at  court proceedings after initially objecting to the claim  if under 
national law of the court seized, this amounts to tacit admission of the claim. 

The agreement of the debtor may take the form of an admission of the claim, a conclusion of a court 
settlement, a settlement approved by a court, or may be included in an authentic instrument.  

An  enforcement  title  that  falls  within  the  scope  of  the  EEO  Regulation  and  meets  the  applicable 
requirements  set  forth  therein  can  be  certified  in  the  Member  State  of  origin  as  a  European 
Enforcement  Order  upon  the  request  of  the  creditor  and  enforced  in  other  Member  States  without 
obtaining a declaration of enforceability.  

Different conditions and requirements apply to each of the types of enforcement titles covered by the 
Regulation for the purpose of the EEO certification.  

For court settlements, no specific requirements are set out – it is enough that the claim is within the 
scope of the Regulation, as defined in Article 2. 

For  authentic  instruments,  the  claim  must  fall  within  the  scope  of  the  Regulation  as  defined  in 
Article  2,  and  it  must  be  laid  down  in  an  authentic  instrument  as  defined  in  Article  4(3)  of  the 
Regulation.  Article  4  of  the  EEO  Regulation  defines  an  “authentic  instrument’  as  a  document  that 
has been formally drawn up or registered as an authentic instrument, the authenticity of which relates 
to  the  signature  and  the  content  of  the  instrument  and  has  been  established  by  a  public  authority 
empowered for that purpose in the Member State of origin. In addition, an arrangement relating to 
maintenance  obligations  concluded  with  administrative  authorities  or  authenticated  by  them  also 
constitutes an authentic instrument. 

For judgments, as broadly defined in Article 4(1) of the Regulation, the claim must fall within the 
scope  of  the  Regulation  as  defined  in  Article  2,  must  concern  an  uncontested  claim  within  the 
meaning of Article 3 of the Regulation, be enforceable in the Member State of origin and must not 
conflict with the rules on jurisdiction as laid down in sections 3 and 6 of Chapter II of the Brussels I 
Regulation.17  If the case concerns consumer contract, and the debtor is a consumer, the judgment has 
to be delivered in the Member State of the debtor’s domicile or place of permanent residence.   

In addition, the judgment that is to be certified as an EEO, has to result from proceedings, in which a 
number of procedural guarantees, provided for in Chapter III of the Regulation, have been observed:  

- 

the document instituting proceedings (or equivalent document) must have been served by one 
of methods described in Article 13 or 14 of the Regulation; 

17   As from the entry into force of the Brussels Ia Regulation, on the basis of its Article 80 reference is made to sections 
3  and  6  of  Chapter  II  of  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation,  These  sections  deal  respectively  with  jurisdiction  in  matters 
relating to insurance and exclusive jurisdiction.  

10 

 
 
- 

- 

- 

the  document  instituting  proceedings  must  have  sufficiently  provided  the  debtor  with  due 
information about the claim against him, as specified in Article 16 (personal details of parties, 
amount of the claim, whether or not interest is incurred and for what period etc.);  
the document instituting the proceedings must have sufficiently provided the debtor with due 
information about the procedural steps necessary to contest the claim, as specified in Article 
17 (deadline for contesting the claim, consequences of failing to object, etc.);  
the debtor, under the law of the Member State of origin, must be entitled to apply for a review 
of the judgment if  

o 

o 

the service was effected by one of the methods provided for in Article 14 (i.e. without 
proof of receipt by the debtor him- or herself) but not in sufficient time to enable him 
to arrange for his defence, without any fault on his part; or 
the debtor was prevented from objecting to the claim by reason of force majeure, or 
due to extraordinary circumstances without any fault on his part (Article 19).  

Should the above minimum standards not  have been met during the course of the proceedings, the 
judgment  may  still  be  certified  as  a  EEO  if  subsequently  it  has  been  served  upon  the  debtor,  with 
detailed information on the possibility to challenge it, but the debtor failed to do so (Article 18).   

Once  the  competent  authority  finds  that  all  the applicable  requirements  are  met,  it  issues  the  EEO 
certificate using the appropriate form annexed to the Regulation. The issuance of the EEO certificate 
cannot be appealed, however it is possible to request its rectification, if due to a material error there 
is a discrepancy between the certificate and the judgment, or its withdrawal, if it was clearly wrongly 
granted with regard to the requirements laid down in the Regulation (Article 10). Both rectification 
and withdrawal can only be sought in the Member State of origin. 

The  enforcement  of  the  court  settlement,  authentic  instrument  or  judgment  certified  as  a  EEO  is 
governed by the law of the Member State where the enforcement is sought, without prejudice to the 
provisions  of  Chapter  IV  of  the  Regulation.  This  means  that  national  law  provisions  contradicting 
these  specific  provisions  of  the  Regulation  cannot  be  applied  and  that  national  law  should  be 
interpreted in a way that gives full effect to the provisions of the Regulation. 

The  creditor  seeking  enforcement  shall  produce  a  copy  of  the  enforcement  title  and  of  the  EEO 
certificate.  Both  of  them  must  satisfy  the  conditions  required  to  establish  their  authenticity.  In 
addition,  the  creditor  may  be  required  to  submit  a  translation  into  the  official  language  of  the 
Member State of enforcement or another language that this Member State accepts for this purpose. 
Translations have to  be  certified by a person entitled to  do so under the  law of  any Member State 
(Articles 20, 24.3 and 25.3).  

The  enforcement  of  a  court  settlement  or  an  authentic  instrument  cannot  be  refused  under  any 
circumstances. A refusal of enforcement is possible only in relation to a judgment, upon request by 
the debtor, if it is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment provided that:   

- 
- 

the earlier judgment involved the same cause of action and was between the same parties; and  
it  was  given  in  the  Member  State  of  enforcement  or  fulfils  the  conditions  necessary  for  its 
recognition in the Member State of enforcement; and  

11 

 
- 

the  irreconcilability  was  not  and  could  not  have  been  raised  as  an  objection  in  the  court 
proceedings in the Member State of origin. 

If  the  debtor  has  challenged  the  judgment  certified  as  an  EEO  or  applied  for  rectification  or 
withdrawal of the EEO certificate in the Member State of origin, such debtor may also apply in the 
Member  State  of  enforcement  for  limiting  it  to  protective  measures  or  making  it  conditional  on 
provision of a security by the creditor, or for a suspension of the enforcement. 

It  has  to  be  underlined  that  the  Member  States  are  not  obliged  by  the  Regulation  to  introduce  any 
amendments  to  their civil  procedural  laws, in  particular to  adjust  these laws to  meet the minimum 
standards or to match the definitions provided for by the Regulation. However, they have to ensure, 
that  the  individual  requests  for  certification  of  enforcement  titles  are  dealt  with  and  assessed  in 
accordance  with  the  criteria  set  out  in  the  Regulation,  and  that  where  the  requirements  are  met  an 
EEO certificate is issued.  

Creditors  are  not  obliged  to  use  the  EEO  for  cross-border  enforcement,  even  if  the  certificate  has 
been issued. They may always use the general rules of the Brussels I or Brussels Ia Regulation. 

2.3   Points of comparison  

The  EEO  Regulation  aimed  at  decreasing  the  costs  of  cross-border  enforcement  of  uncontested 
claims, as well as at shortening the time needed for such enforcement. Therefore, the major points of 
comparison  are  the  costs  of  cross-border  enforcement  as  well  as  its  length.  Average  costs  of 
obtaining the exequatur as well as the average length of obtaining the exequatur before the entry into 
application of the EEO  Regulation will be compared to  the  costs and length  of  obtaining  the EEO 
certificate  for  enforcement  in  another  Member  State  following  the  application  of  the  EEO 
Regulation.  It  has  to  be  noted  that  the  EEO  Regulation  is  not  dealing  with  the  actual  enforcement 
proceedings, which  are  left to  the law of the Member States. Therefore, the length of cross-border 
enforcement based on the EEO Regulation, for the purpose of this evaluation is the period between 
the  issuance  of  an  enforcement  title,  e.g.  a  judgment,  in  one  Member  State  and  the  moment  from 
which the concrete enforcement procedure in another Member State can begin, e.g. by lodging the 
required documents  with  the competent  enforcement  authority (e.g. a bailiff). The proposal  for the 
EEO Regulation did not set itself any particular benchmarks that should be achieved in the fields of 
costs and length.  

Another  important  point  of  comparison  concerns  the  level  of  protection  of  procedural  rights  and 
guarantees of the debtor. The EEO Regulation makes the abolition of exequatur conditional upon the 
observance of these rights. In this regard, the procedural rights and guarantees afforded to the debtors 
of uncontested claims within the general framework of cross-border enforcement, i.e. the Brussels I 
Regulation and then Brussels Ia Regulation, constitute the point of comparison.  

Each of these major points of comparison must be analysed twice due to the significant change of the 
general legal regime of cross-border enforcement caused by the entry into application of the Brussels 
Ia Regulation on 10 January 2015.   

12 

 
 
Before the entry into application of the EEO Regulation a creditor wishing to enforce a judgment on 
an uncontested claim in another Member State had to apply for the declaration of enforceability of a 
foreign judgment to the competent court of the Member State in which the enforcement was sought. 
The debtor could contest the enforceability and appeal against the decision granting it.  

With entry into application of the EEO Regulation on 21 October 2005, the creditors could choose to 
enforce  cross-border  uncontested  claims  according  to  the  procedure  describe  in  detail  in  point  2.2 
above. The debtor can oppose enforceability in the Member State of enforcement only on the basis of 
the one single ground of irreconcilability with an earlier judgment (see part 3 below). 

With entry into application of the Brussels Ia Regulation the creditors continue to have a choice of 
enforcement  either  under  Brussels  Ia  or  under  the  EEO  Regulation.  However,  the  general  legal 
regime  of  cross  border  enforcement  of  judgments,  including  on  uncontested  claims,  became  more 
favourable than the one provided for by the Brussels I Regulation. Whilst obtaining exequatur ceased 
to be necessary, the debtors retain a longer list of grounds (essentially unchanged in comparison to 
Brussels I) to object to enforcement before the courts of the Member State of enforcement (see part 3 
below). 

3.  HOW HAS THE SITUATION EVOLVED OVER THE EVALUATION PERIOD? 

Current state of play 

There  are  two  main  obligations  for  the  Member  States  under  the  Regulation.  The  first  one  is  to 
ensure that the application for the certification of the enforcement title will be assessed in accordance 
with  the  Regulation  and,  if  appropriate,  the  EEO  certificate  is  issued.  The  second  one  is  to  ensure 
that  the  enforcement  titles  certified  as  EEO  in  other  Member  States  are  enforced  in  their 
jurisdictions.    

The Regulation itself does not require the Member States to take any implementing measures or to 
amend  their  laws  to  meet  any  standards  and  requirements  provided  therein18.  However,  it  obliges 
Member  States  to  notify  to  the  Commission  information  on  the  procedures  for  rectification  and 
withdrawal of the EEO, review of a judgment in exceptional circumstances, languages in which the 
EEO  certificate  and  accompanying  documents  should  be  submitted  for  enforcement  and  on  the 
authorities competent for the certification of authentic instruments as the EEO.  

All Member States have submitted such notifications, which are published at the European e-Justice 
Portal. From this fact, and in lack of any evidence to contrary, it may be concluded that all Member 
States are capable of both issuing and enforcing the enforcement titles certified as EEO.  

18   Recital (19) of the EEO Regulation.  

13 

 
 
 
In  order  to  ensure  a  smooth  and  uniform  application  of  the  EEO  Regulation,  19  Member  States19 
adopted  legislation,  which  aim  at  ensuring  the  interface  with  the  national  civil  procedure.  Such 
legislation usually provides for procedures of dealing with the requests made on the basis of the EEO 
Regulation.  A  few  Member  States  amended  their  laws  in  order  to  meet  the  minimum  standards 
required  for  the  EEO  certification.  In  one  Member  State  –  Belgium  –  this  change  was  addressing 
divergent  views  of  courts  as  to  whether  Belgian  law  allowed  for  the  review  of  the  judgment  in 
specific cases in compliance with Article 19. 

To conclude, currently the civil procedural laws of all Member States provide for the possibility to 
issue EEO certificates, if the requirements of the Regulation are met.  

Brussels Ia Regulation – general abolition of exequatur 

The  Brussels  Ia  Regulation,  which  entered  into  application  on  10  January  2015  and  replaced  the 
Brussels  I  Regulation,  generally  abolished  exequatur  for  all  enforcement  titles  in  civil  and 
commercial  matters,  including  those  within  the  scope  of  the  EEO  Regulation.    Nevertheless,  there 
are  differences  between  the  two,  in  particular  with  regard  to  the  grounds  for  refusal  of  the 
enforcement,  which  are  more  numerous  under  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  than  under  the  EEO 
Regulation.  

The EEO Regulation provides for refusal of the enforcement of a judgment solely on the ground of 
its  irreconcilability  with  an  earlier  judgment  provided  that  specific  additional  conditions  are  met, 
these  conditions  being  identical  irrespective  of  where  the  irreconcilable  judgment  was  issued20.  In 
particular,  the  refusal  ground  does  not  exist  where  the  irreconcilability  could  have  been  raised  but 
was not raised in the proceedings in the Member State of origin. 

The Brussels  Ia Regulation also provides for refusal on the ground of irreconcilability; however, it 
differentiates the conditions depending on whether the other judgment was delivered in the Member 
State  of  enforcement  or  in  another  State.  In  the  first  case,  priority  is  given  to  any  irreconcilable 
judgment  issued  in  the  Member  State  of  enforcement  between  the  same  parties  irrespective  of 
whether it was handed down earlier or later21. In the second case, the conditions are  essentially the 
same  as  under  the  EEO  Regulation  in  principle.  However,  for  both  categories  the  refusal  ground 
exists even where irreconcilability could have been raised in the proceedings that led to the judgment 
the  enforcement  of  which  is  sought22.  Therefore,  the  irreconcilability  ground  for  refusal  in  the 
Brussels Ia Regulation is broader than in the EEO Regulation. 

19   Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden.  See  the  national  reports  accompanying  the  study 
supporting evaluation 

20   Article 21 of the EEO Regulation. See also point 2.2, page 11 of this document. 

21   Article 45.1(c) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. 

22   Article 45.1(d) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. 

14 

 
 
 
Other  grounds  for  refusal  exist  under  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation,  but  not  the  EEO  Regulation, 
covering  a  manifest  contradiction  with  the  public  policy  of  the  Member  State  of  enforcement23, 
deficient  service  of  documents  in  the  proceedings  leading  to  judgment24,  and  non-observance  of 
certain rules of jurisdiction protecting weaker parties25.  

However, it has to  be noted, that the observance of the jurisdiction rules  protecting  weaker parties 
and of proper service safeguarding the rights of the defence have to be verified and confirmed in the 
Member State of origin as a prerequisite for the certification of the judgment as the EEO26. 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS (ANALYTICAL PART) 

4.1.  To what extent was the intervention successful and why?  

The general objective set out by the EEO Regulation is to enhance judicial cooperation in civil and 
commercial  matters  and  contribute  to  ensuring  a  genuine  European  Area  of  Justice.  The  EEO 
Regulation was an essential step in this regard. It created a new legal mechanism for recognition and 
enforcement,  a  starting  point  and  pilot  project  for  a  fundamental  change  of  the  approach  to  cross-
border  enforcement  in  the  EU  across  the  board.  Importantly,  this  new  mechanism  was  built  on 
mutual trust between the Member States27, which agreed to drop the control of enforcement titles in 
the Member State of enforcement prior to enforcement. This assessment is confirmed by the 77% of 
interviewees (i.e. 62 out of 81 interviewed) and other stakeholders who acknowledge that the EEO 
Regulation  has  been  a  key  instrument  in  judicial  cooperation  as  it  was  the  first  one  to  abolish  the 
exequatur procedure in civil and commercial proceedings on uncontested claims28.  

The objective of reducing costs 

The  first  specific  objective  of  the  EEO  Regulation  is  the  reduction  of  the  costs  of  cross-border 
enforcement of uncontested claims. While the EEO Regulation does not set out quantified objectives 
with regard to the cost reduction, the results achieved allow to conclude that the EEO Regulation has 
been successful  regarding  this  objective.  Indeed,  by removing the exequatur procedure, the overall 

23   Article 45.1(a) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. 

24   Article 45.1(b) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. 

25   Article 45.1(a) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. 

26   Article 6.1(b) and Article 12 of the EEO Regulation. 

27   Cf. judgment CJEU of 16 February 2023 in case C-393/21, para. 41 

28   Source:  stakeholders  opinions  reflected  at  national  level  interviews  and  EAPIL,  Position  paper  on  the  Public 
Consultation, Question 21: What’s your overall opinion of the EEO?  “Positive.  When it  was enacted in 2004, the 
EEO  Regulation  was  a  major  achievement  that  pioneered  the  abolition  of  exequatur  in  the  following  second-
generation Regulations (EOP, ESCP and EAPO Regulations) as well as in the recast of the Brussels.”, P41 and the 
validation workshop. 

15 

 
 
 
costs  of  cross-border  enforcement  after  the  Regulation  entered  into  force  were  reduced  by  70%  as 
illustrated in more detail in the tables 1 to 3 below.29  

Costs  connected  with  the  cross-border  character  of  the  claim  and  its  enforcement  did  not  totally 
disappear though, nor were they harmonised. Firstly, for issuing an EEO certificate Member States 
may  levy  a  court  fee,  the  calculation  of  which  differs  from  one  Member  States  to  another.  Some 
Member States (e.g. Austria, Belgium, Malta) charge a fixed amount, whereas other Member States 
(e.g.  Croatia,  Cyprus  and  Hungary),  link  this  cost  to  the  value  of  the  claim.  Secondly,  in  many 
instances  a  translation  of  the  EEO  certificate  by  a  qualified  person  is  required,  which  entails 
additional costs. It has to be noted that the EEO certificate is a simple and multilingual document, 
where  the  majority  of  the  content  consists  of  numbers  and  personal  data.  Nonetheless,  often  a  full 
translation  is  required  even  where  the  translation  of  free  text  introduced  by  the  issuer  of  the 
certificate should suffice. However, overall, an overwhelming majority of interviewees (94%) agreed 
that the benefits of the EEO outweigh its costs. 

While costs did not totally disappear, they decreased importantly. As a matter of fact, in 2006, which 
was the first full year of the application of the EEO Regulation, the costs of exequatur proceedings 
under the Brussels  I Regulation  were  about  EUR 2 128 on average. The average cost  of using the 
EEO certificate is estimated to be EUR 610 – which is 70% less per case than for using Brussels I30.  

Those  savings  are  mainly  linked  to  lower  lawyer  fees  (on  average  2  hours  being  needed  for  EEO 
proceedings  instead  of  5  hours  for  exequatur  proceedings),  lower  translation  fees  and  lower  court 
fees. The exact amounts of savings differ from one Member State to another due to the different level 
of applied fees. A detailed calculation is presented in the table31 below:  

Table 1 – Comparison of EU-wide average costs between exequatur proceedings and EEO proceedings in 2006 in 
EUR (estimated) 

Court fee 

  17232 

  5333 

Exequatur (2006) 

EEO (2006) 

29   Source: Study supporting evaluation, point 6.1.1  

30   Ibidem The average costs of enforcement under Brussels I Regulation are based on the data from the study entitled 
Data Collection and Impact Analysis – Certain Aspects of a Possible Revision of Council Regulation No. 44/2001 on 
Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (“Brussels I”). For 
the EEO, court and certification fees were based on the national interviews. Lawyer and other fees were calculated 
using the same unit price as for Brussels I based enforcement, however the number of units was reduced following 
information gathered in the interviews.  

31   All tables in this chapter originate from the study supporting the evaluation, Chapter 6. 

32   European  Commission,  Impact  assessment  on  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast), 
2010, page 53. 

33   Quantitative  estimate  based  on  Centre  for  Strategy  &  Evaluation  Services  (CSES),  Data  Collection  and  Impact 
Analysis  –  Certain  Aspects  of  a  Possible  Revision  of  Council  Regulation  No.  44/2001  on  Jurisdiction  and  the 
Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (“Brussels I”) 2010, Table 3.3, page 
43. 

16 

 
 
 
Certification fee 

Lawyer fee 

Other fees (e.g. translation) 

Total 

Source: Study supporting evaluation 

 - 

 1 10635 

  85037 

 2 128 

  2534 

  44236 

  9038 

  610 

With the entry into application of the Brussels Ia Regulation and the general abolition of exequatur in 
civil  and commercial matters, the situation changed. The  difference of costs between the EEO and 
the new general mechanism of cross-border enforcement was reduced significantly and was brought 
almost to the same level in a baseline scenario where no refusal grounds are invoked by the judgment 
debtor since the  exequatur procedure, which was the reason  for higher costs under Brussels  Ia has 
disappeared under Brussels Ia.  

However, the cost of proceedings under the Brussels Ia Regulation can considerably increase if the 
debtor  applies  for  the  refusal  of  recognition  and  enforcement,  which  is  presumably  more  likely  to 
happen  than  under  the  EEO  regulation,  due  to  a  longer  catalogue  of  grounds  for  refusal.  Such 
requests may require active participation  in  court proceedings in the Member State of enforcement 
and, consequently, incur related costs, in particular of legal advice and representation.   

Table 2 - Comparison of EU-wide average costs between EEO proceedings and Brussels I a proceedings in 2015 
in EUR (estimated) 

Court fee 

EEO (2015) 

Brussels Ia (2015) 

  5339 

  5340 

34 Quantitative estimate based on National Reports. 

35   European  Commission,  Impact  assessment  on  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast), 
2010, page 52. Estimate based on 5 hours of lawyers work and adapted for 2006 based on inflation rates. 

36   Ibid. Estimate based on 2 hours of lawyers work and adapted for 2006 based on inflation rates. 

37   Ibid. Table 2, page 52 Including translation of 10 pages of documents 

38   Ibid. Estimate based on translation of the standard form for EEO certification (3 pages). 

39   Quantitative  estimate  based  on  Centre  for  Strategy  &  Evaluation  Services  (CSES),  Data  Collection  and  Impact 
Analysis  –  Certain  Aspects  of  a  Possible  Revision  of  Council  Regulation  No.  44/2001  on  Jurisdiction  and  the 
Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (“Brussels I”). 2010, Table 3.3, page 
43. 

40   Assumed to be the same as EEO based on insights from the validation workshop. 

17 

 
 
 
 
Certification fee 

Lawyer fee 

Other fees (e.g. translation) 

Total 

Source: Study supporting evaluation 

  2541 

  52043 

  9045 

  688 

 2542 

  52044 

  9046 

  688 

Table 3 - Comparison of EU-wide average between EEO proceedings and Brussels I a proceedings in 2015 in 
EUR, if grounds for refusal are invoked during the enforcement stage (estimated) 

Court fee 

Certification fee 

Lawyer fee 

Other fees (e.g. translation) 

EEO (2015) 

Brussels I a (2015) 

  5347 

  2549 

  52051 

  9053 

  5348 

2550 

 1 29952 

  9054 

41   Quantitative estimate based on National Reports of the study supporting evaluation. 

42   Estimation  based  on  the  information  from  12  Member  States  –  the  fees  for  EEO  certification  and  for  issuing  the 

certificate under Brussels I Regulation are usually the same 

43  Quantitative  estimate  based  on  Centre  for  Strategy  &  Evaluation  Services  (CSES),  Data  Collection  and  Impact 
Analysis  –  Certain  Aspects  of  a  Possible  Revision  of  Council  Regulation  No.  44/2001  on  Jurisdiction  and  the 
Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (“Brussels I”). 2010, Table 3.3, page 
43 Estimate based on 2 hours of lawyers work and adapted for 2006 based on inflation rates. 

44 Ibid. Assumed to be the same as EEO based on insights form the validation workshop. 

45 Ibid. Estimate based on translation of the standard form for EEO certification (3 pages). 

46 Ibid. Assumed to be the same as EEO based on validation workshop. 

47 Ibid.  

48 Assumed to be the same as EEO based on insights from the validation workshop 

49 Quantitative estimate based on National Reports. 

50  Estimation  based  on  the  information  from  12  Member  States  –  the  fees  for  EEO  certification  and  for  issuing  the 

certificate under Brussels I Regulation are usually the same 

51 Ibid. Estimate based on 2 hours of lawyers work and adapted for 2006 based on inflation rates. 

52 Assumed to be the same average hourly lawyer fee as EEO based on insights from the validation workshop, assumed 

based on 5 hours of lawyers work for this scenario with refusal grounds invoked in enforcement stage. 

53 Ibid. Estimate based on 2 hours of lawyers work and adapted for 2006 based on inflation rates. 

54 Ibid. Assumed to be the same as EEO based on validation workshop. 

18 

 
 
 
 
Total 

  688 

 1 467 

Source: Study supporting evaluation 

Based  on  the  above  comparison  of  costs,  it  was  possible  to  estimate  the  total  difference  in  costs 
savings  in  a  hypothetical  situation  in  which  the  EEO  had  not  been  adopted  and  cross-border 
enforcement  of  uncontested  claims  would  be  dealt  with  either  under  the  Brussels  I  Regulation 
(between 2006 and 2015) or the Brussels Ia Regulation (from 2015 till 2020). For the latter scenario, 
it is  assumed that in  25% of cases grounds  for  refusal  are invoked,55  leading  to  higher costs.56 The 
result of this estimation, shown in  Table 4 below, leads to the conclusion that the EEO Regulation 
led to savings even after the entry into application of the Brussels Ia Regulation even though these 
savings are much lower than in comparison with the Brussels I Regulation. This conclusion is echoed 
by stakeholders: 95% of interviewees (n-78)  agree that the impact of the Regulation could not have 
been achieved by other means. 

Table 4 below presents savings in possible relevant scenarios: First is “baseline scenario” where no 
savings appear, and cross-border enforcement is based on Brussels I Regulation. Then, there are two 
scenarios presenting savings that occurred, or could have occurred with application of either EEO or 
Brussels Ia Regulation. The values in the table has been calculated by multiplying average costs of 
enforcement by a presumed number of cases per year.57   

55   Since the grounds for refusal are almost completely eliminated in the EEO to scenarios that should in principle do 

not occur, the assumption that those grounds are not invoked was taken. 

56   Assumption  based  on  European  Commission,  Impact  assessment  on  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  civil  and 
commercial matters (Recast), 2010, in which 25% of cases are estimated to be more complex in nature. The same 
assumption  is  applied  to  estimate  what  portion  of  cases  might  be  prone  to  have  refusal  grounds  invoked  under 
Brussels Ia during enforcement stage 

57   For detailed calculation please consult Annex I to the study supporting evaluation (p.160) 

19 

 
 
Table 4 - Estimations of overall EU-wide savings throughout the EU in EUR on proceedings per scenario per 
year58 

 Source: Study supporting evaluation 

Overall,  it  is  estimated  that  from  2006  to  2020,  the  cost  reduction  created  by  the  abolition  of 
exequatur proceedings under the EEO Regulation amounts to a total of around EUR 107 million.  

The  most  important  cost  of  using  the  EEO  for  cross-border  enforcement  are  lawyers’  fees  and  the 
costs  of  translation.  However,  this  is  not  a  specific  feature  of  the  EEO  Regulation  but  an  inherent 
feature  of  cross-border  enforcement  actions  and  independent  of  the  legal  basis  used  for  such 
enforcement. The actual scale of the costs depends on the particular circumstances, predominantly on 
whether the creditor decides (or is obliged) to use lawyers’ services or not. It has to be noted that the 
information provided in the European e-Justice Portal could be considered sufficient in principle by 
some creditors to carry out the enforcement or some of the necessary actions on their own. The costs 
of  translation  will  mainly  depend  on  the  languages  used  in  the  Member  State  from  which  the 
judgment or other enforcement title originates and in the Member State where enforcement is sought. 
Only  9  Member  States  declared  acceptance  of  the  EEO  certificate  in  more  than  their  official 
languages. Apart from the translation of the EEO certificate, in practice further translation costs for 
communication with enforcement authorities or the preparation of procedural documents required by 
the law of the Member State of enforcement may occur. Again, these costs are not EEO specific and 
will  arise  in  any  other  cross-border  enforcement  action.    Depending  on  the  national  law  of  the 
Member State of enforcement, the creditor may recover some or all costs of enforcement from the 
debtor. In the opinion of the stakeholders, the costs of obtaining the EEO certificate are reasonable59 
and in any case lower or equal to obtaining comparable national certificate.60 

58   Source: Study supporting evaluation, point 6.1.1, page 41. 

59   Sources: Interviews, EAPIL Position Paper on the EEO Public Consultation (2020), Question 12 (n=12), “Is the cost 

of obtaining the EEO certificate reasonable?”, 92% agree that the cost is reasonable. 

60   EAPIL, Position Paper on the EEO Public Consultation, (2020). 

20 

 
  
 
The objective of reducing the length of proceedings 

The  second  objective  of  the  EEO  Regulation  was  the  reduction  of  the  time  needed  for  the  cross-
border enforcement of uncontested claims.  

A  simple  exequatur  procedure  (without  appeal)  had  an  average  duration  of  45  days61.  The  EEO 
Regulation replaced the exequatur by the certification as an EEO in the Member State of origin. The 
time  needed  for  the  certification  of  the  enforcement  title  as  a  EEO  (i.e.  the  time  between  the 
submission of the request for the certification and delivery of the certificate) is 17 days on average.62 
Therefore,  the  EEO  Regulation,  compared  to  enforcement  based  on  the  Brussels  I  Regulation, 
reduced  the  time  needed  to  enable  cross-border  enforcement  by  28  days.  On  that  basis,  it  can  be 
concluded that the Regulation has reached its objective.  

It has to be noted that the reported length of the EEO certification procedure varies between Member 
States. In simple cases, in some Member States the procedure can take only a few days (e.g. Cyprus, 
Germany, Sweden, etc.), whereas in some others it will take at least two  weeks and can go up to a 
couple of months (e.g. Estonia, Italy, Lithuania, Poland).63  

When it comes to enforcement based on the Brussels Ia Regulation, in the case where the debtor does 
not object against recognition and enforcement, the time needed will be approximately the same as 
for  the  EEO,  since  the  procedural  steps  in  both  cases  will  be  the  same.  This  will  definitely  take 
longer  if  the  debtor  applies  for  a  refusal  of  recognition  and  enforcement.  In  the  absence  of 
quantitative data, the time extension in such cases, it can be assumed to be comparable to the time 
needed  for  dealing with  applications for the  refusal  of enforcement  under Brussels  I, since in  both 
cases very similar circumstances have to be considered by the court.  

A comparable period of time can be assumed to be necessary also in a case of a request for refusal of 
enforcement under Article 21 of the EEO Regulation since the time required for court proceedings to 
determine  whether  there  is  a  refusal  ground  should  not  differ  irrespective  of  the  EU  instrument 
applicable. However, again due to considerably more restricted number of grounds justifying such a 
refusal compared to Article 45(1) of Brussels Ia Regulation, the likelihood of such requests under the 
EEO Regulation can be assumed to be lower than under the Brussels Ia Regulation.  

61   Source:  Impact  assessment  on  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on 

jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast) 

62   Source: Public Consultation, national reports. This average is based on the middle value of the average found in the 
Public  Consultation  (31  days)  and  from  national  reports  (48.5  days).  Public  Consultation,  Summary  of  average 
length (n=18 MS): It is estimated that the average value is 31 days, with a lower value average is 17 days, and the 
upper value average is 45 days. It is further assumed that while some respondents replies include the entire process 
of a legal proceeding, start to end, others only estimate the length of time it takes from the moment one requests the 
EEO certificate until one receives it. Therefore, the lower and upper averages are of particular interest. The estimates 
are  calculated  on  the  basis  of  a  mix  of  quantitative  and  qualitative  responses.  Estimations  have  been  made  by 
applying a factor two where answers were given as "more than" or "less than." "Weeks" are counted as maximum 
three weeks, "months" are calculated as maximum six months 

63   Source: interviews. Only few Member States provided data in this subject.  

21 

 
 
Therefore,  overall,  the  EEO  Regulation  maintains  some  tangible  time  benefits  for  the  creditor, 
although  they  are  less  considerable  than  before  the  entry  into  application  of  the  Brussels  Ia 
Regulation.  

The objective of protecting the procedural rights of the parties 

Reduction  of  time  and  costs  of  the  cross-border  enforcement  of  uncontested  claims  was  to  be 
achieved  with  full  respect  of  the  procedural  rights  of  the  parties  –  in  particular  of  the  debtor.  The 
exequatur procedure gave debtors the opportunity to oppose enforcement, if their rights in the course 
of  proceedings  leading  to  the  judgment  were  not  observed.  The  disappearance  of  exequatur  was 
compensated  by  the  EEO  Regulation  setting  minimum  standards  for  procedural  rights  of  the 
defendant and making their observance a condition for certification as an EEO64.  

The  proper  understanding  of  these  rights  is  a  key  factor  of  the  correct  application  of  the  EEO 
Regulation.  The  CJEU  has  issued  several  judgments  interpreting  the  provisions  of  the  EEO 
Regulation concerning these minimum standards, in particular concerning the service of documents, 
the provision of information to the debtor and minimum standards for review in special cases. In the 
first  case,  the  CJEU  ruled  that  where  the  address  of  a  defendant  is  not  known,  an  EEO  certificate 
cannot  be  issued  by  the  court  of  the  Member  State  of  origin.65  With  regard  to  the  provision  of 
information,  the  CJEU  considered  it  mandatory  to  specify  both  the  name  and  address  of  the  court 
where  the  debtor  could  challenge  a  default  judgment.66  Regarding  the  review  in  special  cases,  the 
CJEU  ruled,  that  the  certification  as  the  EEO  is  possible  only  if  national  law  allows  for  the  full 
review in both situations mentioned in Article 19 of the EEO Regulation and it allows the periods for 
challenging  a  judgment  on  an  uncontested  claim  to  be  extended,  not  only  in  the  event  of  force 
majeure,  but  also  where  other  extraordinary  circumstances  beyond  the  debtor’s  control  prevented 
him from contesting the claim in question.67  Finally, the CJEU ruled that in case the debtor’s address 
cannot  be  obtained,  an  EEO  cannot  be  certified  when  neither  the  debtor  nor  guardian  attend  the 
hearing.68  

One  of  the  possible  ways  of  evaluating  if  the  mechanism  for  the  protection  of  procedural  rights 
works well in practice would be the analysis of the number of successful requests for review under 
Article  19  and  for  withdrawal  under  Article  10  of  the  EEO  Regulation.  However,  no  such  data  is 
collected by Member States or otherwise available. Therefore, it is necessary to refer to the opinion 
of the stakeholders in this regard. 

64   The application of these standards in the course of civil proceedings is not based on the Regulation itself, but on the 
national  procedural  law.  The provisions  of  the  Regulation serve  as  a  quasi-template,  which  has  to  be  used  by  the 
judge deciding on the EEO certification.  

65   Case C-292/10, G v Cornelius de Visser, ECLI:EU:C:2012:142. 

66   Case C-289/17, Collect Inkasso OÜ and Others v Rain Aint and Others, ECLI:EU:C:2018:133. 

67   Case C-300/14. Imtech Marine NV v Radio Hellenic SA,  ECLI:EU:C:2015:825 

68   Case C-518/18, RD v SC, ECLI:EU:C:2019:546. 

22 

 
 
The majority of stakeholders interviewed in  the  course of the study  and  participating  in the public 
consultation confirm that the procedural rights of the parties have been respected. Some interviewees 
indicated that a lack of clear integration of the EEO Regulation with national law might be a source 
of  uncertainty  regarding  observance  of  the  minimum  standards,  but  no  concrete  examples  were 
provided.  The  lack  of  awareness  of  the  Regulation  can  lead  to  situations  where  non-respect  of 
minimum standards is not opposed by the debtor or his legal representatives or existing grounds for 
refusal are not raised.69 Also it has been argued that the lack of a public policy exception within the 
EEO Regulation, in some cases, provides less protection for the debtor70. Some stakeholders pointed 
out  a divergence of the  methods for the  service  of documents  acceptable in  the Member States, in 
particular  those  not  producing  an  acknowledgement  of  receipt  by  the  defendant,  as  a  source  of 
potential infringements of the minimum standards. Indeed, a majority of the complaints on the wrong 
application  of  the  EEO  Regulation  addressed  to  the  Commission  concerns  situations,  where  the 
defendants were not aware of the civil proceedings against them and learned about them only at the 
stage of the enforcement of the judgment certified as EEO. Nevertheless, this does not seem to be a 
widespread  phenomenon,  and  it  is  not  really  specific  to  the  EEO  Regulation,  but  may  concern  all 
civil proceedings, in particular cross-border ones.   

The process of certification of a judgment as EEO is the crucial element for ensuring that procedural 
rights  have been observed  in  the proceedings.  In  the Imtech Marine71  case, the CJEU held that the 
certification is a judicial act that has to be carried out by a judge.  

Overall, it can be concluded that the EEO Regulation maintains the level of protection of procedural 
rights  of  debtors  afforded  under  both  the  Brussels  I  and  Brussels  Ia  Regulations  in  view  of  the 
incorporation of the control of the observance of those rights into the process of certification as EEO.   

Administrative burden 

The  administrative  burden  on  citizens  and  businesses  but  also  on  courts  was  reduced  by  the 
elimination  of  one  step  in  the  process  of  cross-border  enforcement  –  the  exequatur  proceedings, 
which  were  replaced  by  the  far  simpler  issuance  of  a  certificate.7273  The  EEO  certificate  is 
considerably shorter than the Brussels I or Brussels Ia certificate74 and the certification is carried out 

69   19% of interviewees. 

70   See  Jonathan  Fitchen,  2020,  “The  Artist,  the  Actor  and  the  EEO  Regulation;  or,  how  the  English  Courts  and  the 
Spanish Constitutional Court prevented a cross-border injustice threatened via the EEO Regulation in the litigation 
concerning Gerardo Moreno de la Hija and Christopher Frank Carandini Lee,” University of Aberdeen.  

71   Case C-300/14 Imtech Marine Belgium NV v Radio Hellenic SA 

72   The scale of this reduction corresponds to savings as presented in Table 4 above. 

73   Source: Stakeholders’ opinions reflected in national level interviews and Public Consultation. 

74   In  English,  the  EEO  certificate  is  2,5  page  long  while  the  Brussels  Ia  certificate  is  4  pages  long.  The  same 

proportions apply in all other languages.  

23 

 
 
ex  parte,  without  court  hearing75.  In  addition,  the  EEO  certification  process  takes  place  in  the 
jurisdiction in  which the enforcement title has been delivered, by  a  judge who is  familiar with  the 
civil  procedure  applied  there,  which  makes  the  verification  of  the  existence  of  the  requirements 
easier. The courts of the Member State of enforcement may be seized of requests for the refusal of 
the enforcement, however due to the very limited grounds for refusal provided by Article 21 of the 
EEO  Regulation,  such  situations  are  likely  to  be  extremely  rare.  In  addition,  according  to  Article 
10(4),  the  decision  on  issuing  the  EEO  certificate  cannot  be  appealed.  Therefore,  it  should  be 
concluded that the EEO Regulation decreased the administrative burden of cross-border enforcement 
of claims for the courts, compared to the Brussels I Regulation.  

The  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  diminished  the  difference  in  the  administrative  burden  between  the 
general system of cross-border enforcement and the enforcement based on the EEO Regulation,  by 
removing  the  requirement  of  the  declaration  of  enforceability.  Therefore,  currently,  the  burden 
reduction value of the EEO Regulation in relative terms is less than it was at the time of its adoption. 
However, the longer catalogue of grounds for refusal provided by the Brussels Ia Regulation makes 
it more likely that the enforcement may be objected to by the debtor.  

It  has  to  be  noted  that  the  procedural  “workflow”  of  the  EEO  Regulation  is  relatively  simple  and 
minimalistic, but its smooth operation requires a good understanding of the Regulation, in particular 
for  dealing  with  the  certification  request.  It  seems  that  a  further  reduction  of  burden  of  the  cross-
border  enforcement  of  claims  within  the  scope  of  the  EEO  Regulation  is  possible  mainly  through 
raising the awareness and expertise concerning this instrument of the persons involved.  

The Practical Operation of the EEO Regulation 

The quantitative data collected from the Member States, though fragmented, allows the estimate that 
currently,  on  average,  4368  EEO  certificates  are  issued  per  year,  which  means  an  average  of  168 
EEO certificates per year, per Member State. The numbers vary greatly between Member States, and 
the  differences  are  not  directly  related  to  the  size  of  Member  States,  their  legal  culture  or 
geographical location.  

Table 5 – Estimated number EEO certificates issued by MS that provided quantitative data76 

75   Under  Art.  41  of  the  Brussels  I  Regulation  the  judgment  debtor  could  also  not  make  any  submissions  on  the 
application for exequatur at this stage but the decision had to be served on him with the possibility to appeal on the 
basis of refusal grounds. 

76   Study supporting evaluation, point 5.3, page 34. 

24 

 
 
Number of certificates issued (n of countries=15), total: 2474, 
estimate yearly average: 168 per MS 

613

586

523

360

61

5

1,75

26

50

20

31

2

188

110

10

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

The  evaluation  did  not  detect  any  systemic  abuses  of  the  EEO  Regulation  in  the  sense  of  its 
application to the claims that are not within its scope. One case was brought to the attention of the 
Commission,  where  the  court  in  one  Member  State  certified  as  EEO  a  judgment  recognising  a 
divorce  judgment  and  alimony  settlement  delivered  in  a  third  country.  While  this  case  may  be  an 
incorrect application of the EEO Regulation, it represents an isolated exception77.  

The  most  common  problem  in  the  practical  operation  of  the  EEO  Regulation  was  related  to  the 
service  of  documents.  As  an  illustration,  in  one  instance  a  judgment  was  certified  as  EEO  but  the 
defendant learned about the judgment only at the stage of enforcement. Even though the court files 
contained evidence of service sufficient for a certification, the debtor had not received the document 
instituting the proceedings. For example: the debtor was on holiday and the summons were served in 
accordance with Article 14(1) (a) of the European Order for Payment Regulation78 upon his daughter 
temporarily staying at his home, who, however, eventually did not hand it to him. This led to non-
appearance and  a lack of defence.79 However, specifically for  such  situations a special  remedy  has 
been provided for in Article 19 of the EEO Regulation and could be applied. The issue of documents 
served sometimes not really reaching the addressee is of a general nature and beyond the scope of the 
Regulation.  The  EEO-specific  question  is  whether  the  Regulation’s  safeguards  for  such  situations 
have turned out to be sufficient and effective and this question can be answered in the affirmative.  

Factors that have influenced the effectiveness and efficiency  

77   Case 2016 2 M, High Court of Ireland, not published.  

78   Regulation  (EC)  No  1896/2006  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  December  2006  creating  a 

European order for payment procedure, OJ L 399 30.12.2006, p. 1 

79   This situation was described in the correspondence of a citizen to the Commission.  

25 

 
 
 
 
 
The  effectiveness  of  the  EEO  Regulation  is  likely  to  have  been  influenced  to  some  extent  by 
insufficient awareness and knowledge of the instrument.  

In  spite  of  20  years  of  availability  and  numerous  activities  to  promote  the  EEO  Regulation  and 
facilitate  its  use,  the  level  of  awareness  and  knowledge  of  the  EEO  Regulation  is  not  satisfactory. 
This was reflected by 74% of interviewees (n-60) across all Member States, who have indicated that 
there  is  no  sufficient  awareness  on  the  EEO  Regulation  within  their  country.  This  situation  very 
likely  influenced  the  number  of  cross-border  enforcements  carried  out  on  the  basis  of  the  EEO 
Regulation, limiting its overall benefits.  

Moreover, in some jurisdictions - though in very low number of cases - potential users of the EEO 
had  a  perception  of  legal  uncertainty  and  preferred  to  resort  to  the  better-known  Brussels  I  or  Ia 
Regulation, rather than using a new instrument that is not well known, including to the courts. This 
was specifically mentioned by interviewees from Spain, Italy and Greece.  

In spite of absence of data allowing for calculation, it can be reasonably assumed that potential users 
of the of the EEO Regulation may have to dedicate additional time and resources to find information 
and overcome administrative obstacles in applying the EEO Regulation, which, in turn, can lead to 
additional  costs  incurred  due  to  lengthier  procedures,  the  need  for  additional  specialised  legal 
assistance and potential discouragement from pursuing uncontested claims across borders.  

Stakeholders  mentioned  issues  with  inconsistent  interpretation  of  the  Regulation  in  the  Member 
States and ambiguity around translation requirements as factors reducing the efficiency of the EEO 
Regulation.  They  also  called  for  application  of  digital  solutions.80  The  latter,  however,  seems  to 
reflect rather the general need for digitalisation of justice, than any specific issues related to the EEO.  

A  hindrance  to  effectiveness  may  further  reside  in  the  differences  as  to  language  requirements 
between  Member  States  at  the  enforcement  stage.  Article  9(2)  of  the  EEO  Regulation  requires 
issuing of the certificate in the language of the judgment, however in the enforcement proceedings, 
the judgment  creditor may be  –  and usually is  - required to  produce its translation  into a language 
that  is  accepted  for  this  purpose  by  the  Member  State  of  enforcement.  The  information  on  which 
language  is  accepted  by  each  Member  State  is  easily  accessible  through  the  e-Justice  Portal. 
Nevertheless,  only  very  few  Member  States  decided  to  accept  EEO  certificates  in  other  languages 
than  their  own  official  languages  (mostly  English)  with  the  noticeable  exception  of  France,  which 
accepts EEO certificates in four other languages than French. Taking into account the construction of 
the  EEO  certificate,  which  does  not  require  the  introduction  of  descriptive  parts  of  the  text,  this 
reluctance of the Member States may be seen as surprising.   

The  EEO  Regulation  does  not  provide  for  the  monitoring  of  the  application  of  the  Regulation  and 
systematic  reporting  as  well  as  data  collection  by  national  judicial  systems.  The  lack  of  quantified 
information limits the ability to monitor the overall use and cost-effectiveness of the EEO Regulation 
at  the  EU  level,  and  to  identify  problems  and  solutions  that  are  relevant  for  the  efficiency  of  the 
EEO.  

80   Source: interviews 

26 

 
 
Coherence 

The procedure for obtaining the EEO certification is rather straightforward, and the requirements are 
precise. However, the Regulation connects in several instances to the national laws of the Member 
States,  in  particular  thorough  Articles  3(1)(b)  and  (c)  and  4(3),  which  determine  which  claim  is 
“uncontested”  and  what  is  an  “authentic  instrument”  within  the  meaning  of  the  Regulation  by 
reference to national law. Therefore, on these particular points, the Regulation allows for differences 
in its application depending on the Member States involved. Such a solution was necessary to avoid 
the harmonisation of laws of the Member States, which could have been an obstacle in reaching the 
objective  of  abolition  of  exequatur.  However,  this  may  cause  some  uncertainties  in  interpretation, 
which was raised in a number of responses to the public consultation.81  

In  some  Member  States  the  national  definition  of  an  uncontested  claim  can  be  stricter  than  in  the 
others. In spite of the fact, that the definition of the uncontested claim in the EEO Regulation is an 
autonomous concept of the EU law82,  lawyers may have practical issues when wanting to ensure that 
a given claim falls under this category.83 In some countries, e.g. in France, if a debtor does not show 
up in the court, the claim is deemed to be uncontested, whereas in other countries, e.g. in Italy, not 
entering an appearance does not automatically amount to admission of the claim.84 Such differences 
regarding the specific elements of the application of the definition of uncontested claims are within 
the limits of the definition of uncontested claim provided by the EEO Regulation   

Overall, whilst the internal coherence of the Regulation is largely ensured by the uniform rules of a 
Regulation the existing references to national law result in certain limits to that coherence.  

The EEO Regulation correlates with several EU legal instruments that concern cross-border civil and 
commercial matters, and notably with the: 

-  Brussels I Regulation/Brussels Ia Regulation 

-  European Account Preservation Order Regulation (EAPO)85 

-  European Small Claims Procedure Regulation (ESCP Regulation)86 

81   Source: PC 

82   See CJEU Judgment of 16 June 2016 in case C-511/14 point 35 and next 

83   Source: stakeholders opinions reflected in national level interviews 

84   Jan von Hein and Thalia Kruger, Informed choices in cross-border enforcement, November 2020, p 65. 

85   Regulation  (EC)  No  655/2014  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  15  May  2014  establishing  a 
European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt and recovery in civil and commercial 
matters,  

86   Council Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure,  

27 

 
 
 
 
-  European Order Payment Regulation (EOP Regulation)87 

-  Service of Documents Regulation88 

The EEO Regulation in fact emanated from the Brussels I Regulation and uses to a very large extent 
the same legal construction, albeit adapting it to the abolition of exequatur. For example, a number of 
requirements for the certification of the enforcement title as EEO reflects the grounds for refusal of 
recognition and enforcement under the Brussels I Regulation.  

The  EOP  Regulation  and  ESCP  Regulation  adopted  the  EEO  Regulation  model  with  regard  to  the 
requirements for certification as well as to the conditions for cross-border enforcement. Nevertheless, 
some concepts used in those instruments developed in a way departing from the text of the EEO. As 
an  example,  Article  18  of  the  ESCP  Regulation,  dealing  with  the  review  of  the  judgment  in 
exceptional cases initially reflected Article 19 of the EEO Regulation (which originated from Article 
34(2) of the Brussels  I Regulation). However, it has later been revised89 in order to address certain 
deficiencies  that  had  been  identified.90  While  the  specificity  of  each  legal  instrument  concerning 
cross-border  enforcement  of  claims  may  justify  several  differences  between  their  provisions 
concerning the same or similar situations, it seems that the coherence between them is a horizontal 
issue that cannot be addressed properly in relation to one instrument only. Such differences in detail 
are common features across instruments in the area of civil judicial cooperation. 

There  seem  to  be  no  issues  with  the  coherence  between  the  EEO  Regulation  and  the  EAPO 
Regulation  which  applies  to  an  earlier  stage  of  the  process  and  aims  at  ensuring  the  practical 
availability of assets against which enforcement, including on the basis of an EEO certificate, could 
be directed. 

The  EEO  regulation  is  coherent  with  the  Service  of  Documents  Regulation,  which  provides  the 
general legal framework for cross-border service of documents in civil and commercial matters and, 
as  such,  also  applies  to  proceedings  that  lead  to  the  issue  of  the  EEO  certificate  where  documents 
have  to  be  served  across  borders  in  such  proceedings.  The  lack  of  effectiveness  of  service  of 
documents  is  mentioned  by  the  majority  of  the  interviewees  consulted  (61%)  as  an  issue.  This 
problem however has a horizontal character, since it concerns all cross-border civil proceedings and 

87   Council Regulation (EC) NO 1896/2006 of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure,  

88   Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service 
in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), 
and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, 

89      Regulation  (EU)  2015/2421  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  December  2015  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 

90   For example, Article 18(2) of the revised ESCP Regulation sets 30 days deadline for applying for the review instead 

of the requirement of acting “promptly”. 

28 

 
 
is not specific to the EEO. How service of documents is effected, is governed by national law so that 
lack of effectiveness of these methods is unrelated to the EEO91.  

Therefore, this view of stakeholders could be read rather as a call for the harmonisation of the service 
of documents in the EU (for which there may not be a sufficient legal basis), or as a complaint about 
certain deficient practices, that are not connected with the EEO Regulation.  

Overall, the assessment indicates that the EEO Regulation is thus coherent with other EU legislation.  

Integration with legal systems 

Article  288  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  states  that  EU 
regulations are directly applicable and do not require any action by Member States for them to have 
legal effects. The EEO Regulation has to operate in the context of civil proceedings regulated by the 
national procedural laws, thus it has to be integrated with these laws. Provided the effectiveness of 
the Regulation  is  safeguarded  and, more generally,  EU law is  complied  with,  Member States have 
freedom  in  choosing  the  way  in  which  such  integration  could  be  achieved.  There  are  two  main 
approaches  taken  by  the  Member  States  in  this  regard.  The  first  one  consists  in  not  taking  any 
legislative  or  regulatory  action  and  allowing  the  judiciary  to  find  a  way  of  integration  of  the  EEO 
regulation  into  national  civil  procedures.  Only  six  Member  States  decided  to  take  this  approach, 
namely Belgium Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy and Malta. The other Member States have enacted 
laws, which are clarifying the interplay between their civil procedural laws and the EEO Regulation. 
This  has  been  done  either  by  means  of  amendments  to  the  civil  procedural  codes  (e.g.  in  Austria, 
Bulgaria,  Croatia)  or,  more  rarely,  by  means  of  a  separate  legal  act  (e.g.  Finland,  Lithuania,  The 
Netherlands). There is no evidence that would allow to state if one approach is more effective than 
the other.  

4.2.  How did the EU intervention make a difference? 

The  EEO  Regulation  was  the  first  to  abolish  the  exequatur  procedure  for  uncontested  pecuniary 
claims  and  as  a  pilot  project  it  paved  the  way  for  the  general  abolition  of  exequatur  for  all  claims 
(including  those  that  were  contested),  therefore  simplifying  and  accelerating  cross-border 
enforcement of claims in the EU. It has been an essential step in creating mutual trust between the 
judicial systems of Member States, which links back to the EEO’s general objective of enhancing the 
judicial  cooperation  in  civil  and  commercial  matters  to  contribute  to  ensuring  a  genuine  European 
Area of Justice.  

The  EEO’s  added  value  has  been  demonstrated  through  the  achievement  of  the  specific  objectives 
related  to  the  reduction  of  costs  and  duration  of  cross-border  enforcement  of  uncontested  claims, 
which resulted in concrete quantifiable savings (see chapter 4.1). 

91   The EEO Regulation only lists the methods of service that are admissible for certification as an  EEO but does not 

harmonize service law.  

29 

 
 
 
This view is overwhelmingly shared by the interviewees with 95% (n – 78)of them who stated that 
the  effects  of  the  Regulation  could  not  have  been  achieved  by  other  means.92  Even  the  narrow 
minority (5% n - 3) of interviewees who indicated that the same impact  could have been achieved 
through  bilateral  or  international  agreements,  emphasised  that  this  would  have  been  much  more 
burdensome.93 

However, the  entry into  application of the Brussels  Ia Regulation raised  the question  whether  as  a 
consequence the added value of the EEO Regulation has been reduced or  eliminated. A significant 
share of practitioners considers the EEO and Brussels Ia as perfectly interchangeable and some argue 
for a more simplified legal landscape, with just one instrument regulating cross-border enforcement 
of uncontested claims.94 

Yet, it must be noted that the EEO is still actively applied across the Member States95, although not 
evenly by all of them, and remains the preferred option for the enforcement of uncontested claims to 
the extent that there has been no reduction in the number of certificates issued has materialised since 
the entry into application of Brussels Ia. 

In  sum,  while  the  added  value  of  the  EEO  has  certainly  diminished  since  the  entry  into  force  of 
Brussels  Ia  Regulation,  its  specificities  and  its  continued  use  in  practice  confirm  that  some  non-
negligible added value still exists. 

Sustainability 

The  EEO  Regulation  forms  a  stable  element  of  the  body  of  instruments  on  judicial  cooperation  in 
civil and commercial matters in the EU. The approach to cross-border enforcement of claims without 
exequatur has been followed by other legislative instruments and has not been challenged in the EU. 
The outputs of the EEO Regulation can therefore be considered sustainable. 

The EEO Regulation addressed the obstacles and barriers in cross-border enforcement of claims in 
the EU. While it achieved its objectives of reduction of costs and efforts, as well as of administrative 
burdens and the duration of enforcement procedures, it seems that cross-border enforcement is still 
perceived  as  a  challenge  for  citizens  and  businesses.  The  majority  of  stakeholders  interviewed  or 
taking part in the public consultation see the need for further work of the EU  on the facilitation of 
cross-border  enforcement  of  claims.  This  should  in  particular  include  increasing  awareness  of  the 
EEO and the uniform application of the EEO across the Member States.  

92   Source: interviews 

93   Source: interviews 

94   Source: validation workshop for this study and interviews (39% of interviewees mentioned this) 

95   Data drawn from interviews provided an average of 168 EEO certificates issued per Member State each year. See 

Annex F for more information. 

30 

 
 
 
4.3. 

Is the intervention still relevant? 

Continuous progress in building the single market and freedom of movement within the EU resulted 
in an increase of economic and social cross-border relations, which inevitably led to the increase of 
cross-border  claims.  Where  legal  enforcement  action  was  necessary,  the  cross-border  character  of 
claims  caused  additional  burdens,  costs  and  consumed  more  time  compared  to  purely  domestic 
claims. Creditors often abandoned their justified claims and entrepreneurs were reluctant to enter into 
cross-border commercial transactions since - in the case of a dispute - debt recovery would be more 
difficult and costly. All these negative phenomena were particularly visible in situations in which the 
claims were not even contested by the debtors and enforcement should be simple and straightforward 
in principle. The EEO Regulation targeted one of the major sources of the problem – the exequatur 
procedure, albeit with a limited scope, related to uncontested claims. At the moment of its adoption, 
the  EEO  Regulation  was  relevant  to  a  very  large  extent,  since,  by  abolishing  the  exequatur 
procedure, it automatically eliminated its significant costs and shortened the time needed for cross-
border enforcement.  

The EEO Regulation remains relevant today as its underlying justification did not disappear but, on 
the contrary, with the growth of the single market, increased in quantitative terms.  

It is justified to assume that the EEO Regulation will remain relevant in the future too.  A constant 
increase of the volume of cross-border transactions in the single market may be reasonably expected 
and  the  same  is  the  case  of  cross-border  claims,  including  uncontested  ones.  In  addition,  the 
development  of  the  Digital  Single  Market  and  features  like  cross-border  teleworking  and  the 
provision of on-line services may amplify the scale of such increase.  Therefore, the simplified and 
cost-efficient  method  of  the  cross-border  enforcement  of  uncontested  claims  provided  by  the  EEO 
regulation will continue to be relevant.  

The  data  gathered  in  the  course  of  the  evaluation  does  not  allow  establishing  that  the  entry  into 
application  of  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  had  an  impact  on  the  relevance  of  the  EEO  Regulation  as  a 
matter of principle, although the cost reduction resulting from the EEO Regulation dropped by over 
80%  from  that  moment.    Both  instruments  have  similar  objectives  with  regard  to  the  cross-border 
enforcement  of  uncontested  claims,  and  their  use  depends  on  the  choices  of  creditors.  It  has  to  be 
noted that from the creditors’ point of view the enforcement based on the EEO offers more certainty, 
due  to  the  reduced  scope  for  challenges  by  the  debtors,  and  therefore,  it  may  continue  to  be  the 
preferred choice. Nevertheless, the EEO Regulation is no longer unique in abolishing exequatur, so 
that its relevance in achieving the specific operational objective of providing significant advantages 
compared to the Brussels I Regulation96, has diminished in this respect.  

Based  on  the  data  available,  it  is  estimated  that,  as  noted  above,  on  average,  some  4400  EEO 
certificates  are  issued  per  year  in  the  EU.  A  significant  number  of  stakeholders  interviewed  in  the 
course  of  evaluation  (53%)  stated  their  perception  that  the  use  of  the  EEO  has  declined  after  the 
entry  into  application  of  Brussels  Ia  Regulation.  However,  that  perception  is  not  confirmed  by  the 
available data as reflected in the above figure and analysis. Notwithstanding the limitations of data, 

96   See above under point 2.1 

31 

 
 
the  trend  of  the  number  of  certificates  issued  over  the  last  years  does  not  show  that  the  entry  into 
application of Brussels Ia Regulation has impacted the use of EEO.       

There are also instances where the application of the EEO Regulation answers better to the needs of 
the  stakeholders  than  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation.  Firstly,  certain  professional  groups  prefer  the 
solutions provided by the EEO Regulation versus Brussels Ia due to the positive experience gathered 
in  using  the  EEO.  French  notaries  for  example  have  expressed  a  preference  for  the  EEO 
Regulation97. Secondly, the EEO Regulation is in  certain instances better streamlined with  national 
regulatory contexts, which in turn makes it more practical to apply (for example in Estonia).98  

Some of the needs and challenges experienced by citizens, businesses and other stakeholders can be 
expected to evolve in the future. More specifically, the developments of the last two decades such as 
digitalisation,  increased  mobility  and  globalisation  continue  to  create  new  needs  and  suggest  new 
solutions. These trends impact the needs and challenges experienced by stakeholders with regard to 
the cross-border enforcement of uncontested claims99.  

The need to ensure swift recovery of debt across borders and to maintain a functioning Single Market 
will  continue  to  be  essential,  also  in  light  of  expected  future  trends.  The  objectives  of  the  EEO 
Regulation reflect these needs. 

5.  WHAT ARE THE CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED? 

5.1.  Conclusions 

Relevance 

The  EEO  Regulation  was  adopted  to  address  the  need  to  simplify  cross-border  recognition  and 
enforcement  of  certain  judgments,  court  settlements  and  authentic  instruments  in  civil  and 
commercial matters  in  the EU.  In the context of increased mobility  of EU citizens and businesses, 
stakeholders  manifested  a  clear  need  for  lowered  procedural  burdens  with  regard  to  debt  recovery 
across  borders.  The  EEO  has  broadly  met  this  need  by  abolishing  the  exequatur  procedure  for 
uncontested  claims  and  by  decreasing  the  length  of  proceedings  as  well  as  the  cost  of  these 

97   Opinion expressed by the Council of Notaries of the European Union (CNUE) 

98   Opinion  expressed  during  the  validation  workshop  of  this  study.  Estonia  was  taken  as  an  example  as  the  highest 
number of EEO certificates are issued in Estonia. See Annex F. Moreover, the reason why it is used quite regularly 
is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  EEO  can  be  effectively  used  for  national  payments  orders  in  Estonia.  This  is  because, 
according to Estonian law, the minimum standards concerning the service of documents for the EEO are met in the 
national  payment  order  procedure.  The  creditor  can  therefore  be  certain  that  the  EEO  will  meet  the  minimum 
standard  concerning  the  service  of  documents,  as  it  is  similar  to  the  minimum  standards  for  the national  payment 
order. 

99   In  this  context,  the  adoption of  Regulation  (EU)  2023/2844  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13 
December 2023 on the digitalisation of judicial  cooperation and access to justice in cross-border civil, commercial 
and criminal matters, and amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation (OJ L, 2023/2844, 27.12.2023) 
should be mentioned. This regulation provides for digitalisation of the EEO.  

32 

 
 
 
proceedings for stakeholders involved although it suffers from lack of awareness, in particular in part 
of the Member States.  

The need to ensure swift recovery of debt across borders and maintain a functioning Single Market 
will continue to be essential in the future and is likely to be strengthened due to an increase in cross-
border  activity.  In  view  of  these  needs,  a  commonly  recognised,  unified  pathway  to  enforce 
uncontested claims across borders remains relevant. As such, for the reasons set out above (point 4.3) 
the  EEO  remains  relevant  as  an  instrument  to  meet  these  future  needs  even  alongside  the 
enforcement regime available under the Brussels Ia Regulation.  

Coherence 

The EEO Regulation is internally coherent, however its coherence is affected by some references to 
national  law,  in  particular  in  Articles  3(1)(b)  and  (c)  which  determine  whether  the  claim  is 
uncontested  in  the  meaning  of  the  Regulation  and  in  Article  4(3)  defining  what  is  an  authentic 
instrument. These references to national law were however necessary to avoid the harmonisation of 
substantive  and  procedural  laws.  Therefore,  limiting  internal  coherence  was  necessary  for  the 
adoption of the EEO Regulation.  

Generally,  the  external  coherence  of  the  Regulation  is  ensured.  While  there  are  some  differences 
between  provisions  in  the  EEO  Regulation  and  other  EU  civil  procedural  instruments  such  as  the 
EOP or the ESCP100, these are justified by the specificities of each of those in addressing cross-border 
enforcement  of  claims.  In  relation  to  some  differences  between  the  solutions  existing  in  the  EEO 
Regulation and in other EU civil procedural instruments, like EOP or ESCP exist alignments could 
be considered in principle. Nevertheless, this issue has a horizontal character and cannot be solved in 
the  framework  of  one  legal  instrument  only.  Similarly,  the  issue  of  the  divergence  of  methods  of 
service of documents applied by the Member States, that is a subject of concern to some stakeholders 
cannot be addressed exclusively in the framework of the EEO Regulation in the absence of a general 
harmonisation of such methods in the EU. 

Effectiveness 

Overall,  the  EEO  Regulation  has  met,  to  a  considerable  extent,  its  general  objective  of  enhancing 
judicial  cooperation  between  the  Member  States  regarding  civil  and  commercial  matters  and  has 
therefore contributed to ensuring a genuine European Area of Justice. It was the first legal instrument 
abolishing exequatur and therefore paved the way for others following suit, such as the EOP, ESCP 
and eventually the Brussels Ia Regulation. Moreover, the specific objectives related to the reduction 
of costs and duration of cross-border enforcement of uncontested claims have been effectively met.  

100   For example, this is the case with the review of judgment provided for in in Article 19 of the EEO Regulation and 

corresponding provisions of Article 18 of the EOP Regulation and Article 18 of the ESCP Regulation.  

33 

 
 
 
 
The EEO seems to still have certain benefits as compared to the Brussels Ia Regulation, in particular 
due to the shorter list of grounds for refusal, although the difference in effectiveness has diminished 
in comparison with the advantages over the original Brussels I Regulation. 

The factors negatively affecting the effectiveness of the EEO Regulation have either reasons external 
to  the  Regulation  itself  (like  for  example  inefficient  service  of  documents)  or  lie  in  the  lack  of 
sufficient  knowledge  and  expertise  of  the  subjects  involved  in  its  operation,  that  may  result  in 
instances of incorrect application of its provisions. This is of particular concern when it comes to the 
verification of minimum standards under the EEO Regulation in the issuing Member State, since the 
control in the Member State of enforcement is reduced to the minimum.  

Efficiency 

Overall, the EEO Regulation has been cost-efficient. In particular, it has significantly reduced cost 
associated with the enforcement of cross-border claims compared to the situation before its entry into 
force. Specifically, the proceedings for obtaining an EEO are estimated to be about 70% less costly 
than  proceedings  to  obtain  an  exequatur.  Overall,  it  is  estimated  that  between  2006  and  2020,  the 
cost reduction created by the abolition of exequatur proceedings under the EEO Regulation amounts 
cumulatively to over EUR 100 million.  

The  costs  of  cross-border  enforcement  based  on  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  are  estimated  to  be 
relatively similar to the costs of enforcement based on the EEO Regulation. However, the fact that 
more refusal grounds can be invoked under the Brussels Ia Regulation leads to a situation in which 
these  costs  may  increase  by  around  50%  (due  to  the  additional  cost  of  the  refusal  procedure) 
compared to proceedings in which the EEO is used as an instrument101.  

The  EEO  Regulation  has  also  significantly  reduced  the  length  of  proceedings.  Issuing  a  EEO 
certificate  takes  on  average  only  17  days.  In  comparison,  a  simple  exequatur  procedure  had  an 
average duration of 45 days.  This means the procedure should take 28 days less with the application 
on the EEO, as compared to the exequatur. Certainly, that length varies between the Member States.  

The efficiency of the EEO Regulation is negatively affected by the lack of awareness and knowledge 
of the Regulation and its practical application, since that may lead to incorrect requests or decisions 
and  to  unnecessary  costs  or  delays  of  the  enforcement.  Improvements  as  to  awareness  and 
correctness  of  the  application,  as  well  as  overall  better  performance  of  justice  systems  of  the 
Members States could bring even further reductions of costs and time.  

Moreover,  the  lack  of  a  provision  providing  for  a  systematic  monitoring  of  the  practical 
implementation of the Regulation may have reduced its efficiency. Such monitoring contributes to an 
increase of awareness  and allows for  the identification of shortcomings  in the practical  application 
and a subsequent reaction to them.  

101   See  above  p.  14,  table  3  on  the  cost  effects  of  a  request  for  refusal.  As  set  out  above  on  p18  ftn.54a  request  for 

refusal under Brussels Ia is assumed to be made in 25% of all cases. 

34 

 
 
 
EU added value 

The EU added value of  abolishing the exequatur procedure is  widely  recognised. As the EEO was 
the first  Regulation  to  abolish exequatur for uncontested pecuniary claims,  as  a pilot  project  it has 
paved the way for other Regulations, ultimately extending this abolition to the entire broad scope of 
the Brussels Ia Regulation.  

Individual action at Member State level could not have achieved the policy objectives, in particular 
the general objective of enhancing judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters to contribute 
to ensuring a genuine European Area of Justice as well as the operational objective of permitting the 
free circulation throughout the EU concerning uncontested payment claims without any intermediary 
procedures.  

The  entry  into  force  of  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  brought  to  the  fore  diverging  opinions  on  the 
remaining added value of the EEO Regulation. On the one hand, the argument was put forward that 
there is no longer a need for the EEO Regulation since the Brussels Ia Regulation also abolishes the 
exequatur  procedure  for  a  broader  scope  of  claims.  On  the  other  hand,  it  seems  that  in  certain 
instances the EEO Regulation is still the preferred option, either due to a reduced number of grounds 
for  refusal  or  because  it  is  found  to  be  more  convenient  by  some  groups  of  users,  like  notaries  in 
some Member States. There were even suggestions to broaden the scope of the EEO Regulation to 
cover  more  types  of  claims.  Therefore,  it  could  be  concluded,  that  even  though  the  Brussels  Ia 
Regulation  reduced  the  original  added  value  of  the  EEO  Regulation  to  a  certain  extent,  it  still 
continues to have added value. 

Future of the EEO Regulation 

This  evaluation  did  not  prove  a  need  to  take  immediate  legislative  action  concerning  the  EEO 
Regulation  in  the  form  of  a  revision  or  repeal.  Some  deficiencies  identified  in  the  course  of  the 
evaluation  concern  rather  the  practical  application  than  the  legal  solutions  of  the  Regulation  and 
could be addressed by non-legislative measures.  

The following actions could be considered to this end: 

•  Updating and revising the European Judicial Network (EJN) practice guide on the application 

of the EEO Regulation and including explanations on how to fill in the forms correctly; 

•  Prioritising  the  financing  of  projects  related  to  the  EEO  Regulation  in  order  to  increase 

awareness and ensure better application;    

•  Agreement, in the framework of the EJN in civil and commercial matters, on a voluntary data 

collection and systematic periodical reporting on practical issues; 

•  Exploring ways of securing  mandatory  data collection from  the Member States, possibly in 

the context of digitalisation. 

35 

 
 
 
•  Discussion  in  the  EJN  concerning  the  feasibility  of  the  creation  of  a  manual  that  would 
contain information specific for each Member State on national laws and practice relevant to 
the EEO’s operation. 

5.2.  Lessons learned 

The following lessons can be drawn from this evaluation: 

Even after 20 years of availability of the EEO as a means of cross-border enforcement, the awareness 
of this instrument is not generally high among the stakeholders. On the other hand, those who have 
had the opportunity to use it, are satisfied.  

Especially  where,  as  in  the  case  of  the  EEO,  awareness  of  the  general  public  but  also  of  legal 
practitioners  is  an  issue,  the  coordinated  and  collaborative  preparation  for  practical  application  of 
regulations in the area of civil procedure, including awareness-raising, could contribute to a greater 
use of the instruments as well as to their more uniform interpretation and operation. 

One major horizontal difficulty in evaluating the legal instruments in the field of judicial cooperation 
in civil and commercial matters is the lack of quantitative data. While the proportionality of efforts 
and  burdens  in  collecting  such  data  was  a  more  valid  argument  in  the  past,  nowadays,  with  the 
digitalisation  of  justice  in  the  Member  States  and  in  particular  the  digitalisation  of  court  registers, 
such collection should become much easier in the future. 

36 

 
 
 
 
ANNEXES 

ANNEX I:   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead DG, Decide reference and, if relevant, Work Programme reference 

Lead DG: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers of the European Commission (DG JUST)  

Decide: PLAN/2019/6007 

Organisation and timing 

In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines, an interservice steering group within the Commission 
oversaw the evaluation. The steering group meetings were chaired by DG JUST and was composed 
of the representatives of the Secretariat General (SG), the Legal Service (LS) and the Directorate-
General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW). The steering group 
first meeting was convened on 12 November 2019. Subsequently the members of the group were 
consulted and discussed reports was regularly consulted over the course of the evaluation, typically 
in conjunction with the submission of specific draft reports by the contractor responsible for carrying 
out the external study. These consultations took place in regular meetings, by email or on the 
telephone.  

Exceptions to the Better Regulation Guidelines  

In conducting the evaluation, no exceptions from the usual procedural requirements described in the 
Better Regulation Guidelines were required.  

Evidence used, sources and its quality  

Following evidence was used in the evaluation: 

Quantitative data obtained by means of specific questionnaire from the Member States; 

Replies to the Open Public Consultation; 

Targeted interviews with the stakeholders, conducted on the basis of specific questionnaire by the 
contractor; 

Review and analyses of the relevant legislation of the Member States (by the contractor); 

Review of the relevant legal academic publications (by the contractor); 

Review of the relevant judgments of the court of Justice of the European Union. 

37 

 
 
 
Use of external expertise 

External expertise was used in the framework of the study supporting evaluation, carried out by 
Deloitte.  

External expertise was used in the following forms:  

Desk research and literature review; 

Interviews with legal professionals; 

Validation workshop with participation of prominent experts and academics. 

38 

 
 
 
ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED 

Methodology of the evaluation 

The evaluation aimed to analyse the application of the EEO Regulation States using specific criteria 
set  out  in  the  Commission’s  Better  Regulation  Guidelines  (relevance,  coherence,  effectiveness, 
efficiency and EU added value).  

The  external  evaluation  study  was  carried  out  by  Deloitte,  following  a  call  for  services  under  a 
framework contract. The evaluation questions concerning all criteria were formulated by the services 
of the Commission and forwarded to the contractor.  In the inception phase the methodology of the 
study was discussed with the contractors and the members of the Interservice Steering Group (ISG) 
established for the evaluation.  

The evaluation study entailed extensive desk research involving a review of all relevant studies and 
literature. It covered an extensive range of EU and Member State sources, such as legal and policy 
documents, studies and academic papers, statistical data, position papers, publications from relevant 
stakeholders.  The  evaluation  study  established  the  baseline  for  intervention  on  the  basis  of  the 
context in which the EEO Regulation was drafted and adopted. Then analysed the developments in 
the area, and its influence on the operation of the EEO Regulation, in particular the general abolition 
of exequatur with entry into application of Brussels Ia Regulation.  

A  wide  range  of  stakeholders  were  consulted  as  part  of  the  evaluation  study.  The  consultation 
process  consisted  of  targeted  consultations  of  key  EU,  international  and  national  stakeholders,  as 
well as a public consultation launched by the Commission. The targeted consultations at the national 
level  included  structured  interviews  with  different  legal  practitioners  involved  in  the  practical 
application of the EEO Regulation. A more detailed description of the consultations and is contained 
in  the  Synopsis  Report  in  Annex  V.  The  results  of  the  consultation  were  critically  analysed  at  the 
stage of the preparation of the evaluation report by the services of the Commission, since some, even 
recurrent  statements  were  rather  based  on  the  perception  than  on  the  experience  and  sometimes 
where  contradicting  credible  quantitative  data,  e.g.  with  regard  to  the  use  of  the  EEO  Regulation 
after  the  entry  into  application  of  Brussels  Ia  Regulation.  These  analyses  were  reflected  in  the 
evaluation report.  

Some quantitative data were acquired from the Member States, which, in combination with data from 
other sources, like earlier studies related to the field of cross-border enforcement of claims, referred 
to both in the study and in the evaluation report, allowed for calculation of the approximation values 
concerning economic benefits and time saving achieved due to the EEU Regulation.  

The  detailed  methodology  and  quantification  methodology  used  in  the  study  is  presented  in  the 
Annexes  G  and  H  to  the  study,  published  at  Evaluation  of  Regulation  (EC)  805/2004  creating  a 
European  Enforcement  Order  for  uncontested  claims  -  Publications  Office  of  the  EU  The 
Commission services found it credible and convincing. However, one calculation has been corrected 
in the evaluation report, since the study omitted one type of costs of cross-border enforcement under 
Brussels Ia Regulation 

39 

 
 
The  results  of  the  study  have  been  discussed  in  the  validation  workshop  in  which  a  dozen  of  top 
experts participated.   

The evaluation is  thus  based on a  combination of extensive desk research and field  research, legal 
analysis  including  relevant  case  law,  quantitative  data  and  a  range  of  stakeholder  feedback  from 
consultations carried out by the external contractor and by the Commission. This made it possible to 
triangulate the findings of the evaluation. 

Following limitations were encountered during the evaluation process: 

Limited  availability  of  quantitative  data  on  cross-border  enforcement  in  civil  and  commercial 
matters  - in  particular  with regard to  the number of cross-border enforcement actions initiated, the 
number  of  refusals  of  enforcement,  the  magnitude  of  cross-border  claims  enforced  as  well  as  the 
percentage of businesses and citizens involved in cross-border enforcement of claims on the basis of 
the different legal instruments under consideration.  

Limited and/or fragmented availability of quantitative data on the use of the EEO Regulation - 
in  particular  with  regard  to  the  number  of  EEO  certificates  issued  per  year,  the  number  of 
enforcement procedures initiated on the basis of the EEO certificates per year, the number of refused 
requests for the issuance of the EEO certificates per year, the number of requests for rectification or 
withdrawal of the EEO certificates per year and the number of applications for review in exceptional 
cases (Article 19 of the EEO Regulation) per year.  

Moderate participation rate in interviews - At EU level, 12 organisations were contacted, but only 
1 accepted an interview. At national level a total of 470 stakeholders were contacted out of which 81 
agreed to have an interview. 

Low participation rate in the Open Public Consultation - Only 17 replies were received.  

In order to mitigate the data limitations encountered, the evaluation relied upon quantitative data of 
former  reports  (e.g.  Impact  Assessment  for  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation102),  as  well  as  on  key 
assumptions and estimates provided by the study. These assumptions and estimates were validated 
through a workshop with key experts.   

102 Commission Staff Working Paper, Impact Assessment, Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Regulation of 
the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in 
civil and commercial matters (Recast), 2010. 

40 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND DETAILS ON ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

(Evaluation  matrix  is  contained  in  Annex  C  to  the  study  supporting  evaluation,  published  at 
Evaluation  of  Regulation  (EC)  805/2004  creating  a  European  Enforcement  Order  for  uncontested 
claims - Publications Office of the EU) 

Detailed answers to the evaluation questions by criterion 

Effectiveness 

1. Has  the EEO  Regulation achieved its objectives: permission of free circulation throughout 
the  EU  of  judgments,  court  settlements  and  authentic  instruments  on  uncontested  claims 
without  any  intermediary  procedures,  acceleration  and  simplification of  enforcement  of  such 
judgments,  settlement  and  instruments  and  offer  of  significant  advantages  as  compared  to 
enforcement procedures of Brussels I Regulation? What were the main issues hampering the 
achievement of those objectives? 

The  table  below  summarises  the  main  findings  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  EEO  Regulation  in 
meeting its general, specific and operational objectives. 

Table 1 - Summary of the assessment of effectiveness by objective 

Level 

Objective 

Overall Assessment 

General 

Specific 

Enhance judicial cooperation in civil and 
commercial matters to contribute to 
ensuring a genuine European Area of 
Justice  

The EEO Regulation has had an important contribution to ensuring a genuine 
European Area of Justice as it was the first Regulation to abolish the exequatur 
procedure in civil and commercial proceedings on uncontested claims.103 

To reduce costs and administration in 
cross-border litigation cases concerning 
uncontested claims 

The EEO Regulation has contributed to reducing the overall costs and 
administrative burden in cross-border litigation cases concerning uncontested 
claims. Difficulties such as divergences in national implementation, translation 
and interpretation remain.104   

To reduce the duration of enforcing a 
decision concerning uncontested claims 

By abolishing the exequatur procedure, the EEO has overall reduced the 
duration of enforcing a decision concerning uncontested claims in the Member 

103 Source: stakeholder opinion reflected in national level interviews and EAPIL Position paper on the OPC, Question 21: What’s your overall opinion 
of the EEO? “Positive. When it was enacted in 2004, the EEO Regulation was a major achievement that pioneered the abolition of exequatur in 
the following second-generation Regulations (EOP, ESCP and EAPO Regulations) as well as in the recast of the Brussels.”, p41. 

104 Source: stakeholder opinion reflected in national level interviews and summary of question 9 of the OPC (n=12): The respondents list the following 
difficulties in launching an enforcement action based on the EEO certificate: Smaller courts/enforcement institutions are sometimes not aware of 
how to handle the request and procedures will vary from country to country (4), communication problems and the additional cost of translation in 
some MS  (2), interpretation of  certain  articles  (6,13,14, 18 are  specifically  mentioned)  and  the  scope of  the term  "uncontested"  (2),  and other 
practical difficulties such as non-acceptance of electronic forms in certain instances (2) and that EEO in certain instances requires a copy of the 
judgment (which is not always available). 

41 

 
 
 
 
 
Level 

Objective 

Overall Assessment 

in another Member State 

Operational 

Permission of free circulation throughout 
the EU of judgments on uncontested 
payment claims without any intermediary 
procedures 

States. The analysis shows that the EEO certificate speeds up the cross-border 
enforcement of uncontested claims.105 The EEO Regulation has facilitated 
cross-border enforcement to a large extent by abolishing the need for the 
declaration of enforceability, as the length of the proceeding has been reduced 
by 28 days when compared to the exequatur proceedings. However, some 
stakeholders still mentioned that the problem of navigating the enforcement 
systems in Member States remains as they have different approaches. Even 
with the EEO, there is still the additional cost of consulting a local lawyer to 
give advice on the best mode of enforcement of the judgment.106 

Overall, the Regulation has permitted the free circulation of enforceable titles 
concerning uncontested payment claims throughout the EU by abolishing the 
exequatur procedure.107 However, there are some issues (i.e. lack of clarity on 
who is the competent authority) linked to the uneven implementation of the 
Regulation across Member States that have limited the Regulation in meeting 
its objective. 

Provision of significant advantages 
compared to enforcement procedures of 
Brussels I Regulation and Brussels I a 
Regulation 

Compared to the Brussels I Regulation, the EEO has provided a significant 
advantage by abolishing the exequatur procedure. When compared to the 
Brussels I a Regulation, which also generally abolishes the exequatur 
procedure for judgments in civil and commercial matters, including these 
within the scope of the EEO Regulation, the unique advantage of the EEO has 
diminished.108  

Respect of the procedural rights of the 
parties throughout the application of the 
EEO Regulation 

The procedural rights of the parties have been respected to a large extent by 
Member States applying the EEO Regulation.109  

Achievement of the general and specific objectives 

The general objective set out by the EEO Regulation is enhancing judicial cooperation in civil and 
commercial  matters  to  contribute  to  ensuring  a  genuine  European  Area  of  Justice.  The  EEO 
Regulation was an essential step in this regard. It created new legal mechanism for the recognition 
and  enforcement  mechanism,  which  then  became  a  starting  point  for  fundamental  change  of  the 
approach to the cross-border enforcement in the EU. Importantly, this new mechanism was built on 
mutual trust between the Member States, which agreed to trust the control of the enforcement titles 

105 Source: stakeholder opinions reflected in national level interviews and summary of question 15 of the OPC: 7/11 respondents (filtering those who 
replied “Don’t know”) reply that the EEO certificate somewhat or significantly speed up the cross-border enforcement of uncontested claims. 

106 Source: stakeholder opinion reflected in national level interviews and findings on the length of EEO proceedings.  

107 Source: stakeholders opinions reflected in national level interviews and the national reports where only a few challenges (3-5), but sometimes none 

(e.g. Finland, Greece, Hungary, Romania and Sweden)  per Member State was identified 

108 Source: stakeholder opinion reflected in national level interview (45) and summary of question 14, OPC: Amongst the respondents who stated it is 
rather useful or very useful (5), the explanations given are that the EEO has slightly lost its significance due to the lack of legal remedies available 
to  the debtor  and that there  is too  little  standardisation  in  application,  but that  it  is useful  because  one avoids duplication  of procedures  across 
borders and that the procedure is useful in theory.  

109  Source:  stakeholder  opinion  reflected  in  national  level  interview  and  EAPIL  position  paper,  Question  11.  OPC:  9/13  respondents  say  that  the 

procedural guarantees are somewhat to fully applied in practice, p23-24. 

42 

 
 
 
 
in the place of their origin. This is confirmed by the 77% of interviewees and other stakeholders who 
acknowledge that the EEO Regulation has been an essential step in judicial cooperation as it was the 
first  one  to  abolish  the  exequatur  procedure  in  civil  and  commercial  proceedings  on  uncontested 
claims. Another 23% of interviewees state that it is seen as an important first step in creating mutual 
trust  between  Member  States  by  abolishing  the  exequatur  proceeding,  which  in  turn  is  required  to 
enable a genuine European Area of Justice.110 Despite the general positive view from stakeholders, 
some challenges have limited its effect111. These challenges related to the lack of awareness of the 
Regulation or the references to the national law which affect its coherent application across Member 
States.  

Specific objectives of the EEO Regulation, which are the reduction of costs, administrative burden 
and  time  of  cross-border  enforcement  of  uncontested  claims,  they  have  been  largely  achieved.  By 
removing  the  exequatur  procedure,  the  overall  costs  of  cross-border  enforcement  were  reduced  by 
70%112, and the average duration of the process of submitting a judgment to enforcement authorities 
in  another  Member  State  was  shortened  from  45  days  to  17  days.    Administrative  burden  was 
reduced  by  elimination  of  one  step  in  the  process  of  in  cross-border  enforcement  –  exequatur 
proceedings, which were replaced by the issuance of the certificate, which is far simpler.113   

Proposal  for  the  EEO  Regulation  and  other  preparatory  documents  did  not  set  out  quantifiable 
objectives with regard to the time and cost reduction, nevertheless the results achived allow to speak 
about overall full success of the EEO Regulation in achieving those objectives.  

With regard to the costs, it should be noted that costs connected with the cross-border character of 
the claim and its enforcement did not totally disappeared with the adoption of the EEO Regulation, 
nor did they have been harmonised.  Firstly for issuing a EEO certificate Member States may levy a 
court  fee,  which  calculation  differs  from  one  MS  to  another.  Some  Member  States  (e.g.  Austria, 
Belgium,  Malta)  charge  a  fixed  amount,  whereas  others  Member  States  (e.g.  Croatia,  Cyprus  and 
Hungary), link this cost to the value of the claim. Secondly, in many instances translation of the EEO 
certificate is required which entails additional costs of translation by a qualified person. It has to be 
noted, that the EEO certificate is a simple and multilingual document, where majority of the content 
are numbers and personal data. Despite of this, often a full translation is required also in situations, 
where  the  translation  of  a  free  text  introduced  by  the  issuer  of  the  certificate  should  suffice.  
Nevertheless an overwhelming majority of interviewees (94%) agreed that the benefits of the EEO 
outweigh its costs. 

110  Source:  stakeholders  opinions  reflected  at  national  level  interviews  and  EAPIL,  Position  paper  on  the  OPC,  Question  21:  What’s  your  overall 
opinion  of  the  EEO?  “Positive.  When  it  was  enacted  in  2004,  the  EEO  Regulation  was  a  major  achievement  that  pioneered  the  abolition  of 
exequatur in the following second-generation Regulations (EOP, ESCP and EAPO Regulations) as well as in the recast of the Brussels.”, P41 and 
the validation workshop. 

111 As indicated by 21% of interviewees. 

112 See also section on efficiency.  

113 Source: stakeholders opinions reflected in national level interviews and OPC. 

43 

 
 
Stakeholders  agree  that  the  EEO  Regulation  facilitated  cross-border  enforcement  to  a  large  extent 
especially  when  compared  to  the  Brussels  I  Regulation.  This  opinion  was  expressed  by  64%  of 
respondents to the OPC and 81% of interviewees questioned in the course of the study. 

A  minority  of  interviewees  (19%)  pointed  that  the  EEO  has  facilitated  cross-border  enforcement 
partially,  but  the  beneficial  effects  are  limited  by  some  problems  related  to  the  navigation  of 
enforcement systems, since there is no harmonised EU approach.114 However it should be noted, that 
this is  not  an issue unique to  the EEO Regulation, but  appears in  all cross-border  enforcement, no 
matter on which basis it is carried out.  

The EEO Regulation is widely perceived as a  simplification of cross-border litigation compared to 
the Brussels I Regulation; 61% of interviewees agreed with this statement. The others did not share 
this view, pointing out that the reasons of this were either not sufficient use of the EEO Regulation 
(16%) or the lack of a genuine European enforcement procedure (23%).115   

Permission of free circulation 

By abolishing the exequatur procedure, the EEO Regulation has met its objective and enabled free 
circulation of enforceable titles concerning uncontested payment claims throughout the EU without 
any  intermediary  procedures.  This  positive  finding  is  confirmed  also  by  a  large  majority  of 
interviewees  (78%)116.    The  national  reports  prepared  for  the  study  supporting  the  evaluation  have 
either  identified  that  there  is  no  case  law  related  to  challenging  the  EEO  certificate  or  a  judgment 
certified  as  an  EEO  (i.e.  Finland,  Greece,  Hungary,  Romania  and  Sweden)  or  have  identified  a 
relatively  small  amount  of  such  cases  (i.e.  between  3  to  5).  However,  it  must  be  noted  that  the 
practical  application  of  the  EEO  Regulation  is  not  always  unproblematic  as  integration  of  the 
Regulation  is  not  always  in  place  in  the  national  legal  systems  and  thus  may  limit  the  practical 
effects of the EEO Regulation.  

2. Has the application of the EEO Regulation decreased the burden of the cross-border 
enforcement for the Member States (courts and enforcement authorities)? How has that 
situation evolved since the entry into application of the Brussels I a Regulation? Is there 
potential for this burden to be reduced? 

At the moment of the adoption of the EEO Regulation, Brussels I Regulation was the only way to 
enforce uncontested claim in another Member State. On the part of the court of the issuing Member 
State,  it  required  only  issuing  of  the  short  certificate.  The  main  burden  was  on  the  courts  of  the 
Member  State  in  which  the  enforcement  was  sought,  notably  conducting  the  court  proceedings, 
which  could  include  the  appeal.  Under  the  EEO  Regulation  situation  reversed.  The  court  of  the 

114 Source: stakeholders opinions reflected in national level interviews. 

115 Source: stakeholders opinions reflected in national level interviews. 

116 Source: stakeholder opinions reflected in national level interviews. 

44 

 
 
 
 
issuing examines if the judgment meets the requirements and if so, issues the EEO certificate. It is 
also  this court, which  would  have to  consider  challenges against the certificate or the judgment,  if 
brought by the debtor. The courts of the Member State of enforcement may be seized on the requests 
for refusal of the enforcement, however due to a very limited grounds for refusal provided by Article 
21  of  the  EEO  Regulation,  such  situation  could  be  extremely  rare.  The  EEU  Regulation  largely 
moved burdens of cross border enforcement from the Member State of enforcement to the Member 
State of origin. However, it also reduced this burden as such. Firstly, the certification is carried out 
ex parte, without court hearing. Secondly, the court or judge seised on the request for the issuing of 
the EEO certificate analyses proceedings conducted in their own Member State in the procedure that 
is  familiar  to  them.  Such  analyses  requires  less  time  and  effort  than  the  exequatur  procedure.  In 
addition,  according  to  Article  10.4,  decision  on  the  issuing  of  the  EEO  certificate  could  not  be 
appealed against. Therefore it should be concluded, that the EEO Regulation decreased the burden of 
cross-border  enforcement  of  claims  for  the  courts.  The  majority  of  stakeholders  inteviewed  in  the 
course of the evaluation (70%) confirmed this conclusion.  

From the point of view of the enforcement authorities, the burden however remained the same. 

Brussels Ia Regulation to some extent has similar effect in distributing the burden between the court 
of the Member States involved as the EEO Regulation. Nevertheless, it maintains broader catalogue 
of grounds for refusal of the recognition and enforcement which could be raised before the courts of 
the Member State of enforcement, what may lead to the bigger number of requests for  refusal than 
under  the  EEO  Regulation.  However  it  is  clear  that  overall  the  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  reduced 
burden of cross border enforcement comparing to that under Brussels I Regulation, so currently the 
burden reduction value of the EEO Regulation is lesser than it was at the time of its adoption.  

The  procedural  “workflow”  of  the  EEO  Regulation  is  relatively  simple  and  minimalistic,  but  it 
smooth  operation  requires  good  understanding  of  the  regulation,  in  particular  for  dealing  with  the 
certification  request.  Appropriate  knowledge  of  creditors  and  their  representatives  on  the 
requirements for effective launch of enforcement in other Member States is important, since it may 
reduce inaccurate actions  or lack of necessary actions. It  seems  that further reduction of burden of 
the cross-border enforcement of claims within the scope of the EEO Regulation is possible mainly 
through raising awareness and expertise of the persons involved.   

3. Were the procedural rights of the parties respected throughout application of the EEO 
Regulation? 

The EEO Regulation is setting a minimum standard for procedural rights of the defendant that have 
to  be  observed  in  order  to  certify  a  judgment  as  the  EEO.  However  practical  application  of  these 
standards in a course of civil  proceedings is not based on the Regulation itself, but on the national 
procedural law. Provisions of the Regulation serve as a quasi-template, which has to be used by the 
judge deciding on the EEO certification.  

The proper understanding of these rights is a key factor of correct application of the EEO Regulation. 
CJEU  issued  three  judgments  in  which  it  provided  interpretation  of  the  provisions  of  the  EEO 

45 

 
 
 
Regulation  concerning  minimum  standards,  in  particular  the  service  of  documents,  provision  of 
information to the debtor and minimum standards for review in special cases.  In the first  case the 
CJEU ruled that when the address of a defendant was not know, an EEO certificate cannot be issued 
by the court of the Member State of origin.117 With regard to the provision of information, the CJEU 
ruled the need to specify both the name and address of the court where the debtor could challenge a 
default judgment.118 Finally, the CJEU ruled that in case the debtor’s address cannot be obtained, an 
EEO cannot be certified in the case if neither the debtor nor guardian attend the hearing.119  

The  majority  of  stakeholders  interviewed  in  the  course  of  the  study  and  participating  to  the  OPC 
confirm that the procedural rights of the parties have been respected.120 Some interviewees indicated 
two  issues  that  might  lead  to  potential  difficulties:  uncertainty  of  application  of  the  regulation  in 
countries  where  there  is  a  lack  of  clear  integration  of  the  EEO  Regulation  with  national  law  (e.g. 
Belgium, Italy), divergence of the service of documents methods acceptable in the Member States, in 
particular those not producing an acknowledgement of receipt by the defendant. Indeed, majority of 
complaints  on  wrong  application  of  the  EEO  Regulation  addressed  to  the  Commission  concerns 
situations, where the defendants were not  aware of the civil proceedings against them, and learned 
about them only at the stage of the enforcement of the judgment certified as the EEO. Nevertheless 
this  does  not  seem  to  be  a  wide-spread  phenomenon  and  it  is  not  really  specific  to  the  EEO 
Regulation, but immanent to all civil proceedings, in particular cross-border.   

In the context of observance of minimum standards the importance of the process of certification of 
the  judgment  as  the  EEO  has  to  be  underlined.  Large  part  of  this  process  concerns  verification  of 
observance  of  the  minimum  standards  in  the  proceedings  that  led  to  the  judgment.  CJEU  in  the 
Imtech Marine121 case found, that the process of the certification is a judicial act that has to be carried 
out  by the judge. The court differentiated this  from  the technical  issuance of the  certificate, which 
does not need to be carried by the judge.  

Concluding,  the  minimum  procedural  standards,  guaranteeing  rights  to  fair  trail  are  generally 
observed  in  the  practical  application  of  the  EEO  Regulation,  however  some  instances  of  wrong 
application appeared too.   

4. How effectively was the EEO Regulation integrated with the legal systems of the Member 
States and operated by their courts and other competent authorities? 

Integration with legal systems 

Article  288  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European  Union  (TFEU)  states  that  EU 
regulations are directly applicable, so no action on the part of Member States is required for them to 

117 Case C-292/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:142. 

118 Case C-289/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:133. 

119 Case C-518/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:546. 

120 Source: stakeholders opinions reflected in national level interviews (41) and OPC (13 out of 17). 

121 Case C-300/14 - Imtech Marine Belgium 

46 

 
 
 
have legal effects. The EEO Regulation has to operate in the context of civil proceedings regulated 
by the national procedural laws, thus has to be integrated with these laws. The Member States have 
freedom in choosing the way in which such integration could be achieved. There are two principal 
approaches taken by the Member states in this regard: first is to not take any legislative or regulatory 
action and allow the judiciary to find a way of integration of the EEO regulation into national civil 
procedures. Only six Member States decided to take this approach, notably Belgium Cyprus, Greece, 
Hungary, Italy and Malta. Majority of 20 Member States has enacted the laws which are clarifying 
interplay between their civil procedural laws and the EEO Regulation. This has been done either by 
means  of  amendments  to  the  civil  procedural  codes  (e.g.  in  Austria,  Bulgaria,  Croatia)  or,  more 
rarely,  by  means  of  separate  legal  acts  (e.g.  Finland,  Lithuania,  The  Netherlands).  There  is  no 
evidence that would allow to state if one approach is more effective than other.  

Practical operation 

The quantitative data collected from the Member States, though fragmented, allow to  estimate that 
currently, on average, 4368 EEO certificates are issued per year, what statistically would mean 168 
of  the  EEO  certificates  per  year  per  Member  State.  The  numbers  vary  greatly  between  Member 
States, and the differences cannot be explained by the size of the Member State, its legal culture or 
geographical location.  

Number of certificates issued (n of countries=15), total: 2474, 
estimate yearly average: 168 per MS 

613

586

523

360

61

5

1,75

26

50

20

31

2

10

188

110

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

The data concerning reduction of costs and time of the cross-border enforcement with the use of the 
EEO Regulation confirm, that overall the authorities of the Member State involved in its practical 
application have no major problems with operating it. Majority of stakeholders (81%) expressed the 
view that it has overall facilitated cross-border enforcement, what signifies, that it has been well 
operated in practice.122 

Nevertheless, the apparent disparity in numbers of certificates issued may be caused also by different 
integration  of  the  EEO  Regulation  at  Member  State  level  and  effectiveness  of  its  operation  by  the 

122 Source: stakeholders opinions reflected in interviews and OPC. 

47 

 
 
 
 
Member States. The stakeholders asked about the practical application of the EEO, commonly stated 
that it entirely depends on how well the Regulation is embedded in national procedural law and the 
judicial system in the country.123 This may weaken the case for applying the EEO, as uncertainty on 
how and in what ways the Regulation is integrated into national legislation may discourage creditors 
from using it.  

The issues influencing  the practical  operation of the EEO Regulation  most often mentioned by the 
stakeholders are: 

-  material divergences in what is assumed to be an uncontested claim in the particular Member 
State, caused by using by the EEO Regulation of the reference to the national law instead of 
harmonised autonomous definition; 

-  difference in methods of service of documents available in different Member States - lack of 

harmonisation of the methods of service of documents;    

-  overall lack of awareness and/or knowledge on the application of the EEO Regulation. 

Efficiency 

1. What are the benefits and the costs of the EEO? To what extent has its application been cost-
effective? 

2. Has the application of the EEO Regulation reduced or increased the burden of cross border 
enforcement  for  the  parties  in  comparison  to  the  Brussels  I  and  Brussels  I  (recast) 
mechanisms?  Has  it  reduced  or  increased  costs,  time  and  effort  required  from  the  parties? 
How  has  that  situation  evolved  since  the  entry  into  application  of  the  Brussels  I  Regulation 
(recast)?  

3. Could the results, delivered through EEO, have been achieved with other policy instruments 
or  mechanisms,  at  European  and/or  national  level?  Could  other  means  have  provided  better 
cost-effectiveness? 

4.  To  what  extent  the  distribution  of  costs  and  benefits  between  the  subjects  involved  in  the 
EEO mechanism is proportional and acceptable? 

In  2006,  which  was  the  first  full  year  of  the  Application  of  the  EEO  Regulation,  the  costs  of  the 
exequatur proceedings under Brussels I regulation were about EUR 2 128 on average. The average 
cost of using the EEO certificate instead of, is estimated to EUR 610. Therefore in 2006, on average, 
the EEO regulation  reduced the costs of cross-border enforcement  of uncontested claim  by EUR 1 
517 – or about 70% per case. The savings originate mainly in lower lawyer fees (due to an estimated 
5 hours for the exequatur proceedings and 2 hours for EEO proceedings), as well as lower translation 
fees and lower court fees. Certainly the amounts of savings differ from one Member State to another, 
due  to  the  level  of  lawyers’  fees,  translator  remuneration  and  the  court  fees.  The  latter,  in  some 
Member States depend on the value of the claim, while in the others a fixed amount fee applies. It 

123 Opinion reflected in interviews and the EAPIL Position Paper (2020.) 

48 

 
 
 
has to be noted, that still some group of legal practitioners seemed to be unaware of the costs related 
to the issuance of the EEO certificate, therefor of the advantages of using the EEO regulation.124  

Table 2 – Comparison of EU-wide average costs between exequatur proceedings and EEO proceedings in 2006 in 
EUR (estimated) 

Court fee 

Certification fee 

Lawyer fee 

Other fees (e.g. translation) 

Total 

Exequatur (2006) 

EEO (2006) 

  172125 

 - 

  53126 

  25127 

 1 106128 

  442129 

  850130 

 2 128 

  90131 

  610 

Overall,  it  is  estimated  that  from  2006  to  2020,  the  cost  reduction  created  by  the  abolishment  of 
exequatur proceedings under the EEO Regulation amount cumulatively to around EUR 107 million 
over these 15 years.132  

Stakeholders generally agree that the costs of obtaining the EEO certificate are reasonable,133 and in 
any  case  lower  or  equal  to  obtaining  of  comparable  national  court  certificate.134  While  the  costs 
borne  by  the  creditor  are  generally  considered  to  be  low,  they  predominantly  depend  on  whether 
professional  legal  assistance  is  needed  or  not.  In  fact,  stakeholders  mention  the  lawyers’  fees  as 

124 Source: interviews 

125  European  Commission,  Impact  assessment  on  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  jurisdiction  and  the 

recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast), 2010.  

126  Quantitative  estimate  based  on  Centre  for  Strategy  &  Evaluation  Services  (CSES),  Data  Collection  and  Impact  Analysis  –  Certain  Aspects  of  a 
Possible  Revision  of  Council  Regulation  No.  44/2001  on  Jurisdiction  and  the  Recognition  and  Enforcement  of  Judgments  in  Civil  and 
Commercial Matters (“Brussels I”). 2010. 

127 Quantitative estimate based on National Reports. 

128  European  Commission,  Impact  assessment  on  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  jurisdiction  and  the 
recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  civil  and  commercial  matters  (Recast),  2010.  Estimate  based  on  5  hours  of  lawyers  work  and 
adapted for 2006 based on inflation rates.   

129 Ibid. Estimate based on 2 hours of lawyers work and adapted for 2006 based on inflation rates.  

130 Ibid. 

131 Ibid. Estimate based on translation of the standard form for EEO certification (3 pages). 

132 See Annex I to the study supporting evaluation for detailed estimations. 

133  Sources:  Interviews,  EAPIL  Position  Paper  on  the  EEO  OPC  (2020),  OPC,  Question  12  (n=12),  “Is  the  cost  of  obtaining  the  EEO  certificate 

reasonable?”, 92% agree that the cost is reasonable. 

134 EAPIL, Position Paper on the EEO OPC, (2020). 

49 

 
 
 
 
particularly  significant  part  of  the  overall  costs.  The  second  most  important  costs  are  the  costs  of 
translation.  It  seems  that  there  is  some  uncertainty  among  the  stakeholders  with  regard  to  the 
translation requirements under the EEO Regulation.135 On the other hand it has to be underlined that 
the  information  on  whether  the  translation  of  the  EEO  certificate  is  needed  in  particular  Member 
State or not is publicly available at the European Judicial  Atlas in civil and commercial matters136. 
Stakeholders raised also the issues related to the language of communication with the authorities of 
the Member State of enforcement, however this is the issue imminent to cross-border enforcement as 
such and independent of the legal basis used for such enforcement. It has to be noted, that the costs 
of the enforcement proceedings are governed by the law of the Member State of enforcement, what 
leads not only to the differences in the amounts of fees charged by the enforcement authorities, but 
also to to the differences in the distribution of this costs between the debtor and the creditor.  In some 
countries (e.g. Belgium, Estonia, Luxembourg, Lithuania) only  the costs linked to  the enforcement 
procedure are borne by the debtor in the end. In other Member States, such as Bulgaria, Germany, 
Greece, all legal costs are borne by the debtor in the end if the creditor is successful.137 Again, this 
feature is not specific to the enforcement based on the EEO Regulation.   

Entry  into  application  of  Brussels  Ia  Regulation  and  general  abolition  of  exequatur  in  civil  and 
commercial  matters  significantly  reduced  the  difference  of  costs  between  the  EEO  and  the  new 
common  mechanism  of  the  cross-border  enforcement  introduced  by  the  former  Brussels  Is 
Regulation.  It  appears now that the costs are quite similar. However the cost  of proceedings under 
Brussels I a Regulation can be impacted by the fact that grounds for refusal of enforcement are more 
extended than those provided for under the EEO Regulation. It could be assumed, that the existence 
of bigger catalogue of grounds for refusal may result in more requests for refusal, which may require 
active  participation  in  a  court  proceedings  in  the  Member  State  of  enforcement  and,  consequently, 
incur related costs, in particular of legal advice and representation.   

Table 3 - Comparison of EU-wide average costs between EEO proceedings and Brussels I a proceedings in 2015 
in EUR (estimated) 

EEO (2015) 

Brussels I a (2015) 

  53138 

  25140 

  53139 

 25141 

Court fee 

Certification fee 

135 Ibid.  

136 European Judicial Atlas in civil matters | European e-Justice Portal 

137 Ibid.  

138  Quantitative  estimate  based  on  Centre  for  Strategy  &  Evaluation  Services  (CSES),  Data  Collection  and  Impact  Analysis  –  Certain  Aspects  of  a 
Possible  Revision  of  Council  Regulation  No.  44/2001  on  Jurisdiction  and  the  Recognition  and  Enforcement  of  Judgments  in  Civil  and 
Commercial Matters (“Brussels I”). 2010. 

139 Assumed to be the same as EEO based on insights from the validation workshop.  

140 Quantitative estimate based on National Reports. 

141  Estimation  based  on  the  information  from  12  Member  States  –  the  fees  for  EEO  certification  and  for  issuing  the  certificate  under  Brussels  I 

Regulation are usually the same 

50 

 
 
 
Lawyer fee 

Other fees (e.g. translation) 

Total 

  520142 

  90144 

  688 

  520143 

  90145 

  688 

Table 4 - Comparison of EU-wide average between EEO proceedings and Brussels I a proceedings in 2015 in 
EUR, if grounds for refusal are invoked during the enforcement stage (estimated) 

EEO (2015) 

Brussels I a (2015) 

Court fee 

Certification fee 

Lawyer fee 

Other fees (e.g. translation) 

Total 

  53146 

  25148 

  520150 

  90152 

  688 

  53147 

25149 

 1 299151 

  90153 

 1 467 

Basing on the above comparison of costs, it was possible to estimate the total savings difference in 
costs savings in a hypothetical situation in which the EEO had not been adopted and cross-border 

142 Ibid. Estimate based on 2 hours of lawyers work and adapted for 2006 based on inflation rates.  

143 Ibid. Assumed to be the same as EEO based on insights form the validation workshop.  

144 Ibid. Estimate based on translation of the standard form for EEO certification (3 pages). 

145 Ibid. Assumed to be the same as EEO based on validation workshop.  

146  Quantitative  estimate  based  on  Centre  for  Strategy  &  Evaluation  Services  (CSES),  Data  Collection  and  Impact  Analysis  –  Certain  Aspects  of  a 
Possible  Revision  of  Council  Regulation  No.  44/2001  on  Jurisdiction  and  the  Recognition  and  Enforcement  of  Judgments  in  Civil  and 
Commercial Matters (“Brussels I”). 2010. 

147 Assumed to be the same as EEO based on insights from the validation workshop.  

148 Quantitative estimate based on National Reports. 

149  Estimation  based  on  the  information  from  12  Member  States  –  the  fees  for  EEO  certification  and  for  issuing  the  certificate  under  Brussels  I 

Regulation are usually the same 

150 Ibid. Estimate based on 2 hours of lawyers work and adapted for 2006 based on inflation rates.  

151 Assumed to be the same average hourly lawyer fee as EEO based on insights from the validation workshop, assumed based on 5 hours of lawyers 

work for this scenario with refusal grounds invoked in enforcement stage.  

152 Ibid. Estimate based on 2 hours of lawyers work and adapted for 2006 based on inflation rates.  

153 Ibid. Assumed to be the same as EEO based on validation workshop.  

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
enforcement of uncontested claims would be dealt with either under Brussels I Regulation (between 
2006 and 2015) or Brussels I a Regulation (from 2015 till 2020). For the latter, it is assumed that in 
25% of cases grounds for refusal are invoked, leading to the higher cost.154 The result of this 
estimation, shown in Table 5155 below lead to the conclusion that the EEO Regulation led to the 
savings that would not be achieved without it even with application of Brussels I a Regulation. This 
conclusion is echoed by stakeholders: 95% of interviewees agree that the impact of the Regulation 
could not have been achieved by other means. 

Table 5 - Estimations of overall EU-wide savings throughout the EU in EUR on proceedings per scenario per year 

Overall, the results of the EEO in terms of cost-effectiveness could not have been achieved with other policy 
instruments or mechanisms.  

As  regards  the  time  needed  for  the  certification  of  the  enforcement  title  as  the  EEO,  on 
understanding  that  this  is  the  time  between  submission  of  the  request  for  the  certification  and 
delivery of the certificate, lower value average of the issuing of the EEO certificate is 17 days.156 A 
simple  exequatur  procedure  (without  appeal)  has  an  average  duration  of  45  days157,  therefore 

154 Assumption based on European Commission, Impact assessment on Proposal for a  Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council  on 
jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  civil  and  commercial  matters  (Recast),  2010,  in  which  25%  of  cases  are 
estimated to be more complex in nature. The same assumption is applied to estimate what portion of cases might be prone to have refusal grounds 
invoked under Brussels I a during enforcement stage.  

155 The methodology for quantitative estimations is presented in the Annex to the Final Report of the study. 

156 Source: OPC, national reports. This average is based on the middle value of the average found in the OPC (31 days) and from national reports (48.5 
days). Summary of average length (n=18 MS): It is estimated that the average value is 31 days, with a lower value average is  17 days, and the 
upper value average is 45 days. It is further assumed that while some respondents replies include the entire process of a legal proceeding, start to 
end, others only estimate the length of time it takes from the moment one requests the EEO certificate until one receives it. Therefore, the lower 
and  upper  averages  are  of  particular  interest.  The  estimates  are  calculated  on  the  basis  of  a  mix  of  quantitative  and  qualitative  responses. 
Estimations have been made by applying a factor two where answers were given as "more than" or "less than." "Weeks" are counted as maximum 
three weeks, "months" are calculated as maximum six months.  

157  Source:  Impact  assessment  on  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and 

enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast) 

52 

 
 
 
 
application  of  the  EEO  Regulation  instead  of  the  Brussels  I  Regulation  was  shortening  the  time 
needed for the cross-border enforcement of uncontested claims by 28 days. However, with regard to 
the enforcement based on Brussels I a Regulation, in the case where the recognition and enforcement 
are  not  objected,  the  time  needed  will  be  approximately  the  same  as  for  the  EEO.  This  time  will 
definitely  extend  if  the  debtor  applies  for  a  refusal  of  recognition  and  enforcement.  Due  to  the 
similarity  of  the  exequatur  procedure  and  the  proceedings  for  the  refusal  of  the  enforcement  and 
recognition,  it  could  be  assumed  that  the  time  needed  for  both  would  be  similar.  While  probably 
comparable time will be needed also in a case of the request for refusal of enforcement under Article 
21  of  the  EEO  Regulation,  due  to  much  limited  number  of  grounds  justifying  such  refusal, 
comparing  to  Article  45.1  of  Brussels  I  a  Regulation,  likelihood  of  lodging  the  request  under  the 
EEO  Regulation  is  much  lower  than  under  Brussels  I  a  regulation.  Therefore,  overall  the  EEO 
Regulation maintains some time benefit for the creditor, although it is not that considerable as was 
before the entry into application of Brussels I a Regulation. It has to be noted that the reported length 
of the EEO certification procedure varies between Member States. In simple cases, in some Member 
States  it  can  be  done  in  a  couple  of  days  (e.g.  Cyprus,  Germany,  Sweden,  etc.),  whereas  in  some 
others it will always take at least two weeks, but can go up to a couple of months (e.g. Estonia, Italy, 
Lithuania, Poland).158  

5. What are the factors that have influenced the efficiency of the EEO?  

6. Did a lack of a provision providing for a systematic monitoring of the practical 
implementation of the EEO Regulation influence its operation? 

Although the benefits of the EEO outweigh its cost, important factor impacting the cost-effectiveness 
of the EEO Regulation is the lack of awareness and knowledge of the instrument. In spite of 16 years 
of availability and numerous activities promoting the EEO Regulation and facilitating its using, the 
level of awareness and knowledge of the EEO Regulation are not satisfactory. This was reflected by 
74%  of  interviewees  across  all  Member  States,  who  have  indicated  that  there  is  no  sufficient 
awareness  on  the  EEO  Regulation  within  their  country.  This  situation  very  likely  influenced  the 
number of cross-border enforcements carried on the basis of the EEO Regulation, limiting its overall 
benefits.  

Moreover, it seems that very low number of cases in some jurisdictions resulted in a feeling of legal 
uncertainty  of  potential  users  of  the  EEO,  who  preferred  to  stick  to  the  better  known  Brussels  I 
Regulation,  then  use  the  instrument  that  is  not  well  known,  including  to  the  courts.  This  was 
specifically mentioned by a number of interviewees from Spain, Italy and Greece.  

Potential users of the of the EEO Regulation may have to dedicate additional time and resources to 
find information and overcome any administrative obstacles in applying the EEO Regulation, what, 
in  turn,  can  lead  to  additional  costs  incurred  due  to  lengthier  procedures,  the  need  for  additional 

158 Source: interviews 

53 

 
 
 
specialised  legal  assistance  and  potential  discouragement  from  pursuing  uncontested  claims  across 
borders.  

Stakeholders  mentioned  the  issues  with  non-harmonised  interpretation  of  the  Regulation  in  the 
Member States and ambiguity around translation requirements as the factors reducing efficiency of 
the  EEO  Regulation.  They  also  called  for  application  of  digital  solutions.159  The  latter  however, 
seems to reflect rather the general need for digitalisation of justice, than the specific issues related to 
the EEO.  

The  EEO  Regulation  does  not  provide  for  the  monitoring  of  the  application  of  the  Regulation  and 
systematic  reporting  as  well  as  data  collection.    The  lack  of  quantified  monitoring  by  national 
judicial  systems  limits  the  ability  to  monitor  the  overall  use  and  cost-effectiveness  of  the  EEO 
Regulation  at  the  EU  level,  and  identification  of  problems  and  solutions  that  are  relevant  for  the 
efficiency of the EEO.  

The EEO Regulation is efficient. It provides a cost-efficient alternative to the exequatur procedure, 
and  overall  cost  savings  that  are  higher  than  the  Brussels  I  a.  However,  the  lack  of  monitoring, 
knowledge and awareness around the EEO Regulation at Member State level have a negative impact 
on its cost-efficiency.  

7. Was the EEO abused by applying it in the situations that were not falling within its scope? 
Was it applied correctly with observance of the procedural rights of the parties? 

8. Were there any unforeseen/unintended consequences of the EEO Regulation? If so, what 
were they? 

The  evaluation  did  not  detected  any  systemic  abuses  of  the  EEO  Regulation  in  the  sense  of  its 
application to the claims that are not within its scope. One case was brought to the attention of the 
Commission, where the court in one Member State certified as the EEO its judgment recognising a 
divorce judgment and alimony settlement delivered in the state not being a Member State of the EU. 
While this case may be an incorrect application of the EEO Regulation, it was an isolated exception 
in the EU.  

It seems that the most common problem in practical operation of the EEO Regulation was the service 
of  document.  It  happened  that  the  judgment  was  certified  as  the  EEO,  and  the  defendant  learned 
about  the  judgment  only  at  the  stage  enforcement,  since  even  though  the  court  files  contained 
evidence  of  service  sufficient  for  a  certification,  in  fact  the  debtor  did  not  receive  the  document 
instituting the proceedings. This has been the case where the debtor was away for holidays, and the 
summons were served in accordance with Article 14.1(a) of the EEOP Regulation upon his daughter 
temporarily staying at his home, who, however, eventually did not handed it out to him. This led to 
non-appearance and a lack of defence. It has to be noted, that the EEO Regulation itself anticipated 
such situations, providing in Article 19 for a special remedy in such situations. Further, this issue lies 

159 Source: interviews 

54 

 
 
 
is  beyond  the  scope  of  the  Regulation  and  has  rather  practical,  service  of  documents  related 
dimension.  

Stakeholders have indicated that generally, the procedural rights of parties have been respected 
throughout the application of the EEO Regulation.160 However, some of them pointed that the lack of 
awareness about the Regulation can lead to a situations, where non-respect of minimum standards is 
not opposed by the debtor or his legal representatives or existing grounds for refusal are not raised.161 
Moreover, it has been argued that the lack of a public policy exception within the EEO Regulation, 
in some cases, gives less protection for a debtor.162 

Coherence 

1. To what extent is the EEO Regulation coherent internally? Are the procedures for obtaining 
the EEO and the conditions of issuing the EEO as well as the procedure for its enforcement 
designed in a clear, non-contradictory way that ensures smooth practical implementation?163 

The procedure for obtaining the EEO certification is rather straightforward and the requirements are 
precise.  However  the  Regulation  connects  in  several  instances  to  the  national  laws  of  the  Member 
States,  in  particular  thorough  Article  3.1(b)  and  (c)  and  4.3    which  determine  which  claim  is 
uncontested  in  the  meaning  of  the  Regulation  by  the  reference  to  national  law.  Therefore  the 
Regulation allows for differences in its application depending on the Member States involved. Such 
solution  was  necessary  to  avoid  harmonisation  of  laws  of  the  Member  States,  which  could  be  an 
obstacle  in  reaching  the  objective  of  abolition  of  exequatur.  However  this  may  cause  some 
uncertainties in interpretation, what was raised in a number of responses to the OPC.164  

In some Member States (e.g. Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and 
Slovenia),  the  definition  of  an  uncontested  claim  at  the  national  level  can  be  stricter  or  more 
ambiguous  vis-à-vis  the  national  definition  of  an  uncontested  claim  in  other  Member  States.  In 
others,  the  notion  of  an  uncontested  claim  can  be  vaguely  formulated.  This  may  cause  practical 
issues when wanting to ensure that a given claim falls under this category.165 For example, in some 
countries  (e.g.  France)  if  a  debtor  does  not  show  up  to  the  court,  it  is  considered  that  the  claim  is 

160   70% of interviewees.  

161   19% of interviewees.  

162   See  Jonathan  Fitchen, 2020,  “The  Artist, the  Actor and  the  EEO Regulation; or, how  the  English  Courts  and the  Spanish Constitutional Court 
prevented  a  cross-border  injustice  threatened  via  the  EEO  Regulation  in  the  litigation  concerning  Gerardo  Moreno  de  la  Hija  and  Christopher 
Frank Carandini Lee,” University of Aberdeen.  

163   Kindly note that the second part of this question (Are the procedures for obtaining the EEO and the conditions of issuing the EEO as well as the 
procedure for its enforcement designed in a clear, non-contradictory way that ensures smooth practical implementation?) is also addressed under 
the Chapter of effectiveness. 

164   Source: OPC. 

165.  Source: stakeholders opinions reflected in national level interviews 

55 

 
 
uncontested.166 Whereas in other countries (e.g. Italy), if the debtor fails to attend the proceedings it 
does not amount to admission of the claim.167  

Another  issue  raised  by  stakeholders  concerns  differences  in  language  requirements  between 
Member States. Article 9.2 of the EEO Regulation clearly states that the certificate shall be issued in 
the same language as the judgment, however in the enforcement proceedings, the judgment creditor 
may  be  required  to  produce  its  translation  into  a  language  that  is  accepted  for  this  purpose  by  the 
Member State of enforcement. It has to be noted, that the information on which language is accepted 
by the each Member State is easily accessible through the e-Justice Portal. Nevertheless, only very 
few  Member  states  decided  to  accept  EEO  certificates  in  other  languages  than  their  own  official 
languages (mostly English) with one noticeable exception of France, which accepts EEO certificates 
in  four  other  languages  than  French.  Taking  into  account  the  construction  of  the  EEO  certificate, 
which does not require introduction of descriptive parts of the text, such reluctance of the Member 
States may be surprising.   

2. To what extent is the Regulation coherent with other EU legal instruments relevant for the 
cross border enforcement of claims, in particular with the Brussels I and Brussels I (recast) 
regulations, but also with the instruments on legal cooperation between the courts of the 
Member States, e.g. the regulations on the service of documents and on taking of evidence? 

The    EEO  Regulation  correlates  with  several  EU  legal  instruments  that  concern  cross-border  civil 
and commercial matters, and notably with the: 

•  Brussels I Regulation168 

•  Brussels I a Regulation169 

•  European Account Preservation Order Regulation (EAPO)170 

•  European Small Claims Procedure Regulation (ESCP)171 

•  European Order Payment Regulation (EOP)172 

166  

Ibid.  

167  

Jan von Hein and Thalia Kruger, Informed choices in cross-border enforcement, November 2020, p 65. 

168   Council Regulation (EU) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on  jurisdiction and the recognition and the enforcement of judgments in civil and 

commercial matters, (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32001R0044&from=EN). 

169   Regulation  (EU)  No  1215/2012  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  December  2012  on  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and 
(http://eur-
civil 

commercial 

matters, 

and 

enforcement 
judgments 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:351:0001:0032:en:PDF) 

of 

in 

170 Regulation (EC) No 655/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 May 2014 establishing  a European Account Preservation 
Order  procedure 
in  civil  and  commercial  matters,  (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0655&from=EN). 

to  facilitate  cross-border  debt  and  recovery 

171   Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  861/2007  of  11  July  2007  establishing  a  European  Small  Claims  Procedure,  (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32007R0861&from=EN). ; and Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 of the European parliament and of the Council 
of 16 December 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure 

56 

 
 
 
•  Service Regulation173 

The  table  below  contains  a  summarised  overview  of  the  relations  between  the  EEO  and  these 
regulations. 

Table 6 - EU instruments in the field of judicial cooperation and their relationship to the EEO Regulation 

Title 

In force since 

Content/Objective 

Relationship with EEO Regulation 

Brussels I Regulation 

22.12.2000 

Harmonised rules on international 
jurisdiction in civil and commercial 
matters and of the cross – border 
enforcement of judgments. 

Brussels I a Regulation 

10.1.2015174 

Harmonised rules on jurisdiction, 
simplification and expedition of the 
recognition and enforcement of 
judgments in civil and commercial 
matters. 

European Account 
Preservation Order (EAPO) 

17.07.2014 

Allows creditors to preserve funds 
in debtors’ bank accounts under 
the same conditions in all Member 
States of the EU. 

European Order for 
Payment (EOP) 

31.12.2006 

Expedition of cross-border orders 
for payment. 

The Brussels I Regulation provides a set of 
harmonised rules on civil and commercial 
matters in EU Member States. In comparison to 
the EEO, the Brussels I Regulation has a broader 
scope as it applies to all judgments in civil and 
commercial matters, whereas the EEO can only 
be used for contested claims. However, the 
Brussels I Regulation still requires a declaration 
of enforceability. 

The EEO was the first Regulation to abolish 
exequatur (recognition and enforcement rules as 
set out in Brussels I) for uncontested claims. The 
EEO is optional in nature and coexists with 
Brussels I a. Brussels I a recently completed the 
aim of the EU in mutual recognition of 
judgments by abolishing exequatur in civil and 
commercial matters for a broader scope, i.e. also 
including contested claims.  

The EAPO is complementary to the EEO since 
they can both be applied in the same case.  

The EEO and EOP were proposed as a two-tiered 
strategy175 aimed at facilitating cross-border 
debt collection of uncontested claims.  
The EOP however starts as a European 
procedure, whereas the EEO always starts as a 
national procedure and is thus not a self-
standing civil procedure. Whereas the EOP is a 
self-standing civil procedure which enables 
Member States (e.g. Germany) to have a 
competent court which has the jurisdiction to 
issue an Order for Payment. This creates the 
advantage that these ‘specialised’ courts are 
familiar with the instrument, which ultimately 
results in the proceedings happening faster, 
which in turn makes this instrument attractive 
and cost-effective. However, not all Member 
States have used the opportunity of appointing 
one or a few courts competent for EOP. 

172   Council Regulation (EC) NO 1896/2006 of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32006R1896&from=EN, ; and Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 of the European parliament and of the Council of 
16 December 2015 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, (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015R2421&from=EN). 

173   Regulation  (EC)  No  1393/2007 of  the  European  Parliament and of  the Council of 13  November 2007  on the service in  the Member  States of 
judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, 
(https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32007R1393&from=EN).Error! Reference source not found. 

174  Parallel  application  concerns  only  proceedings  that  were  initiated  after  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Brussels  I  a  Regulation.  Proceedings  initiated 

before that date fall under the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. 

175 Green Paper on a European Order for Payment Procedure And On Measures To Simplify And Speed Up Small Claims Litigation.  

57 

 
 
Title 

In force since 

Content/Objective 

Relationship with EEO Regulation 

European Small Claims 
Procedure (ESCP) 

1.8.2007  

Common procedural rules for 
simplified and accelerated cross-
border litigation on small claims 
and the cross-border recovery of 
uncontested pecuniary claims 
throughout the European Union. 

Service Regulation  

13.11.2007176 

Harmonised rules on the service of 
documents 

The ESCP applies to both contested and 
uncontested claims whereas the EEO only 
applies to uncontested claims. Moreover, the 
EEO only applies to claims for payments, 
whereas the ESCP can also be issued for other 
claims. Moreover, similar to the EOP, the ESCP is 
a self-standing civil procedure, which can also 
lead to the creation of specialised courts for the 
issuing of such certificates. 

This Regulation provides harmonised rules on 
the service of documents and thus relates to 
Articles 13 and 14 of the EEO Regulation (i.e. 
service with or without proof). This Regulation is 
thus complementary to the EEO Regulation. 
However, there are some key issues regarding 
this Regulation highlighted by interviewees on 
which the paragraphs below will elaborate. 

The EEO Regulation in fact emanated from the Brussels I Regulation and uses to a very large extent 
the  legal  constructs  of  the  latter,  albeit  adapting  the  to  the  abolition  of  exequatur.  For  example  a 
number of requirements for the certification of the enforcement title as the EEO reflects the grounds 
for  refusal  of  recognition  and  enforcement  under  Brussels  I  Regulation.  As  regards  the  EOP  and 
ESCP, they adopted EEO model for with regard to the requirements for certification as well as for 
the conditions for the cross-border enforcement. Nevertheless it should be noted, that in the 16 years 
that  passed  from  the  adoption  of  the  EEO  Regulation,  certain  concepts  developed  leading  to 
alterations  in  some  of  the  mentioned  legal  instruments  that  depart  from  the  texts  modelled  on  the 
EEO. The example of such situation is Article 18 of the ESCP Regulation, which initially reflected 
Article 19 of the EEO Regulation (which originated from Article 34.2 of the Brussels I Regulation), 
however  has  been  revised177  in  order  to  address  already  identified  deficiencies  of  the  text,  like  the 
lack of the clarity with regard to the deadline for lodging an application for review. While specificity 
of the particular legal instruments concerning cross-border enforcement of claims may justify several 
differences  between  their  provisions  concerning  the  same  or  similar  situations,  it  seems  that  the 
coherence between them is a horizontal issue that cannot be addressed properly in relation to the one 
chosen instrument only.  

There seems to be no issues with coherence between the EEO Regulation and the EAPO Regulation 
that applies at the earlier stage of the process and aims at ensuring the practical availability of assets 
against which the enforcement, including on the basis of the EEO certificate, could be directed. 

The  EEO  regulation  is  coherent  with  the  Service  Regulation,  which  provides  for  general  legal 
framework for cross-border service of documents in civil and commercial matters and as such could 
be used in  the proceedings that  lead to  the issue of the EEO certificate.  Nevertheless  it should be 

176   The Regulation has been re-casted in November 2020. Source: Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 
November 2020 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents) 
(recast). 

177   Regulation  (EU)  2015/2421  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  December  2015  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 

58 

 
 
 
recalled, that the effective service of documents is mentioned by the   majority of the interviewees 
consulted (61%) as an issue. This problem however has horizontal character and may be connected 
with the fact, that service is effected in accordance with the national law, and the catalogues of the 
service methods available in the Member States may not comprise all the methods that are allowed 
for  the  purpose  of  certification  of  judgment  as  the  EEO,  or  may  contain  other  service  methods, 
application of which would not allow for the EEO certification. Therefore this voice of stakeholders 
could be read rather as a call for harmonisation of service of documents in the EU, or complaint for a 
deficient practices, that are not connected with the EEO Regulation.  

Overall, the assessment indicates that the EEO Regulation is thus coherent with other EU legislation.  

EU added value 

1.  What  is  the  European  added  value  of  the  EEO  Regulation?  Could  the  main  findings 
(results/outputs) presented in the evaluation have been achieved without EU intervention? 

2. What is the additional value resulting from the EEO, compared to what could be achieved 
by Member States at national level? 

The  EEO’s  added  value  has  been  demonstrated  through  the  achievement  of  the  specific  objectives 
related to the reduction of costs and duration of cross-border enforcement of uncontested claims. The 
EEO Regulation  was the first  to  abolish the exequatur procedure for uncontested pecuniary claims 
and  it  paved  the  way  for  general  abolishment  of  exequatur  also  for  defended  claims,  therefore 
simplifying and accelerating cross-border enforcement of claims in the EU. It has been an essential 
step  in  creating  mutual  trust  between  the  judicial  systems  of  various  Member  States,  which  links 
back to  the EEO’s general  objective of  enhancing the judicial cooperation in  civil and commercial 
matters to contribute to ensuring a genuine European Area of Justice. The EEO Regulation has added 
and continues to add value at the EU level. 

Among the consulted stakeholders, 95% said that the impact of the Regulation could not have been 
achieved by other means.178  In particular, being  directly applicable in  all Member States, the EEO 
established a unified pathway to enforce claims, which could not have been practically achieved with 
action only at Member State level. Even the narrow minority (5%) of stakeholders that indicated that 
the same impact could have been achieved through bilateral or international agreements, emphasised 
that this would be much more troublesome.179 

However,  since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  Brussels  I  a  Regulation,  its  added  value  is  somewhat 
disputed by stakeholders. Amongst the stakeholders agreeing that the impact of the Regulation could 
not have been achieved by other means (95% of interviewees), 39% stated that this is only true for 
the past, arguing that the same result can be achieved through the Brussels I a Regulation. In other 

178   Source: interviews 

179   Source: interviews. 

59 

 
 
 
words,  a  significant  share  of  practitioners  consider  the  EEO  and  Brussels  I  a  as  perfectly 
interchangeable and some even argue for a more simplified legal landscape.180 

Yet,  it  must  be  noted  that  the  EEO  is  still  actively  applied  in  practice  across  the  EU  Member 
States.181  Moreover,  as  mentioned,  it  is  even  the  preferred  option  in  certain  geographies  and  to 
certain  groups.182  13%  of  the  majority  group  agreeing  on  the  positive  added  value  of  the  EEO 
Regulation, argue that the claimant should have the choice between  instruments (EEO or Brussels I 
a) and that the EEO can be more effective as it has less grounds for refusal. In other words, there are 
distinguishing features between the EEO and the Brussels I a, pointing towards a unique added value 
of the former. 

In sum, despite the fact that some stakeholders argue that the added value of the EEO has diminished 
since  the  entry  into  force  of  Brussels  I  a,  the  specificities  separating  the  EEO  from  other  legal 
instruments, its role in contributing to a genuine European Area of Justice, and the consensus of its 
positive impact provides testimony to its continued added value. 

3. To what extent are the outcomes of the EEO sustainable? 

4. Do the issues addressed by the EEO Regulation continue to require action at the EU level? 

The  EEO  Regulation  form  a  stable  element  of  the  judicial  cooperation  in  civil  and  commercial 
matters in the EU. It achieved its general objectives and paved the way to further reduction of costs 
and  length  of  cross-border  enforcement  of  judgment  in  civil  and  commercial  matters  through 
abolition of exequatur. This line is continued by other legislative instruments adopted after the EEO 
Regulation  and  this  direction  is  not  challenged  in  the  EU.  Therefore  the  outputs  of  the  EEO 
Regulation are sustainable. 

The EEO Regulation addressed the obstacles and barriers in cross-border enforcement of claims in 
the EO. While it achieved its objectives of reduction of costs and efforts, as well as administrative 
burdens  and  duration  of  the  enforcement  procedures,  it  seems  that  cross-border  enforcement  is  a 
difficulty for citizens and businesses.  

Indeed,  87%  of  OPC  respondents  think  that  the  EU  should  continue  to  work  on  the  facilitation  of 
cross-border enforcement  claims. The stakeholders interviewed in  the course of  evaluation  pointed 
out on the need to increase awareness of the EEO, which still is insufficient (40% of interviewees) 
and  the  need  for  more  uniform  application  of  the  EEO  across  the  Member  States  (38%  of 
interviewees). 

180   Source: validation workshop for this study and interviews (39% of interviewees mentioned this) 

181   Data drawn from interviews provided an average of 168 EEO certificates issued per Member State each year. See Annex F for more information. 

182   The examples of Estonia, and the professional group of notaries have been named as prominent examples in the study supporting evaluation. 

60 

 
 
 
 
5. What would be the most likely consequences of not having a EU-wide EEO Regulation? 

One obvious consequence of not having an EU-wide EEO Regulation would be lack of all benefits it 
brought  in  particular  in  the  terms  of  saving  the  costs,  time  and  efforts  needed  for  cross-border 
enforcement  of  uncontested  claim,  which  could  have  been  more  difficult  without  the  EEO.  This 
specifically  applies  to  the  period  between  the  entry  into  application  of  the  EEO  Regulation  and 
Brussels I a Regulation. 

However  it  is  likely  that  absence  of  the  EEO  Regulation,  bearing  in  mind  its  pioneering  role  in 
abolition  of  exequatur,  would  result  in  slowing  down  the  whole  process  of  removing  this 
unnecessary  component  of  the  cross-border  enforcement  of  claims  within  the  EU.  In  other  words, 
benefits brought be the EOP Regulation, European Small Claims Regulation and eventually Brussels 
Ia Regulation could have been delayed.   

Relevance 

1a. To what extent was the EEO Regulation relevant and does it remain relevant today? Will it 
be still relevant in the future? 

The  EEO  Regulation  was  adopted  with  the  general  objective  of  enhancing  judicial  cooperation  in 
civil matters to contribute to ensuring a genuine European Area of Justice.  The specific objectives of 
the EEO Regulation are reduction of costs and duration of cross-border enforcement of uncontested 
claims. Progress in building of the single market and freedom of movement within the EU resulted in 
an increase of the economic and social cross-border relations which inevitably led to the increase of 
cross-border claims. Where the legal enforcement action was necessary, the cross-border character of 
these  claims,  caused  additional  burdens,  costs  and  consumed  more  time  comparing  to  “domestic 
claims”.  Creditors  often  abandoned  their  justified  claims,  entrepreneurs  were  reluctant  in  entering 
cross-border  commercial  transactions  since  in  the  case  of  a  dispute  debt  recovery  would  be  more 
difficult and costly. All this negative phenomena were even more visible in a situations in which the 
claims were not contested by the debtors. The EEO Regulation targeted one of the major sources of 
the problem  – the exequatur procedure, albeit  in  a limited scope, related to  uncontested claims. At 
the  moment  of  its  adoption,  the  EEO  regulation  was  relevant  to  a  very  large  extent,  since  by 
abolishing of the exequatur procedure automatically eliminated its significant costs and shortened the 
time needed for the cross-border enforcement.  

The  EEO  Regulation  remains  relevant  today  since  its  underlying  reasons  did  not  disappear  but,  to 
contrary, with the growth of the single market increased in a quantitative terms.  

It  is  justified  to  assume,  that  the  EEO  Regulation  will  remain  relevant  in  the  future  too.  Constant 
increase of the volume of cross-border transactions in the single market may be reasonable expected 
and so is the case of cross-border claims, including uncontested ones. In addition, development of the 
Digital  Single  Market  and  features  like  cross-border  teleworking  and  provision  of  on-line  services 
may  amplify  the  scale  of  such  increase.  Therefore  the  simplified  bad  cost-efficient  method  of  the 

61 

 
 
cross-border enforcement of uncontested claims provided be the EEO regulation will continue to be 
adequate measure.  

1b. What impact has the entry into application of the Brussels I (recast) Regulation and the 
resulting abolition of the exequatur procedure for all civil judgments had on the relevance of 
the EEO Regulation for the cross-border enforcement of judgments on uncontested claims? 

2. To what extent have creditors used the EEO? Has this materially changed since the entry 
into application of Regulation 1215/2012? 

Data  gathered  in  the  course  of  evaluation  do  not  allow  to  establish  that  entry  into  application  of 
Brussels I Regulation had the impact on the relevance of the EEO Regulation. Both instruments have 
similar objectives with regard to the cross-border enforcement of uncontested claims, and their use 
depends  on  the  choices  of  creditors.  It  has  to  be  noted,  that  from  the  creditors’  point  of  view  the 
enforcement based on EEO offers more certainty, due to less grounds for challenge by the debtors, 
and  therefore,  it  should  continue  to  be  preferred  choice.  Nevertheless,  the  EEO  Regulation  is  no 
longer  unique  in  abolishing  the  exequatur  so  its  relevance  in  achieving  the  objective  of  providing 
significant advantages compared to the Brussels I Regulation, has diminished.  

Basing  on  limited  available  data  it  was  possible  to  estimate  that  currently,  on  average,  4368  EEO 
certificates are issued per year. The data that illustrate evolution in numbers of the certificates issued 
in  period  of  time  including  entry  into  application  of  Brussels  Ia  Regulation,  do  not  confirm  any 
influence of this event on the usage of the EEO. In spite of this lack of quantitative data and therefore 
objective evidence , the significant number of stakeholders interviewed in the course of evaluation 
(53%)  perceive  that  the  use  of  the  EEO  declined  after  the  entry  into  application  of  Brussels  Ia   
Regulation.     

However,  there  are  instances  where  the  application  of  the  EEO  Regulation  is  more  relevant  to  the 
needs of the stakeholders than the Brussels I a Regulation. Firstly, certain professional groups may 
prefer the solutions provided by the EEO Regulation versus Brussels I a due to habitual use. French 
notaries  for  example  have  expressed  a  preference  for  the  EEO  Regulation183.  Secondly,  the  EEO 
Regulation is in certain instances better streamlined with national regulatory contexts, which in turn 
makes it more practical to apply (for example in Estonia).184  

3. To what extent has the EEO been relevant in view of the EU needs/challenges? Is it still 
relevant in view of current needs and challenges? 

183   Opinion expressed by the Council of Notaries of the European Union (CNUE) 

184   Opinion expressed during the validation workshop of the study supporting evaluation. Estonia was taken as an example as the highest number of 
EEO certificates are issued in Estonia. See Annex F. Moreover, the reason why it is used quite regularly is due to the fact that the EEO can be 
effectively  used  for  national  payments  orders  in  Estonia.  This  is  because,  according  to  Estonian  law,  the  minimum  standards  concerning  the 
service of documents for the EEO are met in the national payment order procedure. The creditor can therefore be certain that  the EEO will meet 
the minimum standard concerning the service of documents, as it is similar to the minimum standards for the national payment order. 

62 

 
 
 
4. To what extent has the EEO been relevant in view of specific needs of stakeholders, in 
particular Member States, citizens and businesses? 

The EEO Regulation targeted the exequatur procedure as one of the obstacles to swift cross-border 
recovery of debts in the EU. Existence of such obstacles deters businesses and citizens to conclude 
cross-border transactions with partners from other Member States and therefore unable them to rip 
the benefits that European single market offers to them.  Stakeholders interviewed in the course of 
the evaluation by large majority (77%) agreed that the key need before the EEO was adopted was to 
accelerate  the  enforcement  of  titles  at  cross-border  level  and  that  the  EEO  has  overall  met  its  key 
challenges (79%) 185. 

In  view  of  current  needs,  a  commonly  recognised,  unified  pathway  to  enforce  uncontested  claims 
across  borders  remains  relevant.  However  40%  of  the  interviewees  for  this  study  have  indicated  a 
need  for  more  awareness  among  practitioners.  38%  of  respondents  have  indicated  that  the  key 
challenges  the  EEO  faces  are  linked  to  issues  with  regard  to  the  integration  of  the  Regulation  at 
Member State level, as well as issues linked to the need for clarification and finally, issues related to 
enforcement abroad.186 Moreover, although procedural rights have been generally respected, certain 
indicators point to the need for strengthening the procedural guarantees.187 The described challenges 
implicate that the operational objectives of the EEO Regulation still reflect today’s needs. This is 
especially  true  with  regard  to  ensuring  that  procedural  rights  are  upheld  and  permitting  the  free 
circulation of payment claims without intermediary procedures. 

Furthermore,  some  of  the  needs  and  challenges  experienced  by  citizens,  businesses  and  other 
stakeholders can be expected to evolve in the future. More specifically, the developments of the 
last two decades such as digitalisation, increased mobility and globalisation continue to evoke new 
trends.  These  trends  impact  the  needs  and  challenges  experienced  by  stakeholders  with  regard  to 
cross-border enforcement of uncontested claims.  

Despite  some  indications  from  stakeholders  pointing  towards  a  decline  in  use  and  the  benefit  of 
providing  advantages  as  compared  to  the  Brussels  I  a  Regulation  is  no  longer  unique  to  the  EEO 
Regulation188,  there  are  grounds  to  state  that  the  EEO  Regulation  is  a  relevant  instrument  to 
address the needs of stakeholders at the time of the adoption of the Regulation, today and in 
the  future.  The  need  to  ensure  swift  recovery  of  debt  across  borders  and  maintain  a  functioning 
Single Market will continue to be essential, also in light of future trends. The objectives of the EEO 
Regulation reflect these needs. 

Our  analysis  shows  that  the  overall  objective  of  the  EEO  Regulation  in  contributing  to  ensuring  a 
genuine  European  Area  of  Justice  is  still  relevant  today,  as  well  as  its  aim  to  further  simplify 
procedures. 

185   Source: interviews  

186   Source: interviews 

187   See Chapter 7 on efficiency for more details 

188   Source: interviews, 53% of the respondents interviewed indicated that the EEO is not or very limitedly used, especially since the Brussels I recast. 

63 

 
 
 
ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS 

Table 1. Overview of costs and benefits identified in the evaluation189 

Citizens/Consumers  

Businesses 

Administrations 

[Other…] _ specify 

Quantitat
ive  

Comment  Quantitati

Comment  Quantita

ve  

tive 

Comment   Quantit
ative 

Comme
nt 

Acquiring knowledge about new procedure for cross-border enforcement of uncontested claims  

NA 

NA 

Citizens 
do not 
bear costs. 

Direct compliance 
costs  
(administrative 
costs)  
Acquiring 
knowledge about 
new procedure for 
cross-border 
enforcement of 
uncontested claims  

One-
off 
(for 
each 
person 
concer
ned) 

Justice 
administr
ation 
need to 
ensure 
that 
judges 
and the 
court 
staff have 
knowledg
e on the 
EEO 
procedure
. It is not 
possible 
to 
quantify 
the costs 
due to a 
lack of 
relevant 
data.   

NA 

Legal 
practitione
rs: 
lawyers, 
notaries, 
bailiffs 
need to get 
acquainted 
with the 
EEO 
process. It 
is not 
possible to 
quantify 
the costs 
due to a 
lack of 
relevant 
data. 
Other 
businesses, 
which are 
not 
providing 
legal 
services, 
do not bear 
the costs.  

64 

 
 
 
                        
 
 
 
NA 

Benefits 
concern 
businesses 
which are 
not 
providing 
legal 
services. 
Benefits 
concern 
creditors.  

Costs 
reduction 
may 
apply to 
the courts 
in 
narrower 
extent, 
however 
data 
allowing 
for 
quantifica
tion are 
not 
available.   

Benefits 
concern 
creditors. 

1) 
Between 
2006 and 
2014, on 
average, at 
least 1518 
€ per 
simple not 
appealed 
cross-
border 
enforceme
nt action 

2) 
Between 
2015 and 
2021 on 
average 
779 € per 
enforceme
nt action 
in which 
grounds 
for refusal 
could be 
invoked 
under 
Brussels Ia 
Regulation 

1) 
Between 
2006 and 
2014, on 
average, 
at least 
1518 € 
per 
simple 
not 
appealed 
cross-
border 
enforcem
ent 
action190 

2) 
Between 
2015 and 
2021 on 
average 
779 € per 
enforcem
ent 
action in 
which 
grounds 
for 
refusal 
could be 
invoked 
under 
Brussels 
Ia 
Regulati
on 

Direct benefits: 
Reduction of costs 
of cross-border 
enforcement of 
uncontested claims  

Recur
rent 

190   Source of data: Annex I to the Study supporting evaluation, page 159 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Direct benefits: 
Reduction of time 
needed for cross-
border enforcement 
of uncontested 
claims 

Recur
rent 

Between 
2006 and 
2014, on 
average, 
28 days 
in 
simple, 
not 
appealed 
cross-
border 
enforcem
ent 
action.191 

From 
2015, in 
simple, 
not 
appealed 
cases, the 
time 
needed for 
cross-
border 
enforceme
nt under 
the EEO 
Regulatio
n and 
Brussels 
Ia 
regulation 
is similar.  

Between 
2006 and 
2014, on 
average, 
28 days in 
simple, not 
appealed 
cross-
border 
enforceme
nt action 

NA 

From 
2015, it is 
assumed 
that in 
simple, not 
appealed 
cases, the 
time 
needed for 
cross-
border 
enforceme
nt under 
the EEO 
Regulation 
and 
Brussels Ia 
regulation 
is similar.  

Time 
reduction 
may 
concern 
courts, 
however 
data 
allowing 
for 
quantifica
tion are 
not 
available. 

Further benefits and reduction of costs could be achieved mainly by improving overall performance 
of  justice  system  and  specifically  correctness  of  the  application  of  the  EEO  Regulation,  General 
solutions,  like  use  of  electronic  service  of  document  and  raising  the  awareness  and  expertise 
concerning this instrument of the persons involved could contribute to further reductions of costs and 
time.  

191 Source of data: Study supporting evaluation, point 6.1.2, page 41 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT  

This annex includes a synopsis of stakeholders consultation per evaluation question. It includes the results 

of  the  Open  Public  Consultation,  interviews  carried  out in  the  framework  of  the  study  and  the  validation 

workshop.  

Relevance 

1. To what extent was the EEO Regulation relevant and remains relevant? Would it be still relevant in 
the future? Which impact has the entry into application of the Brussels I (recast) Regulation and the 
resulting abolition of the exequatur procedure for all civil judgments had on the relevance of the EEO 
Regulation for the cross-border enforcement of judgments on uncontested claims? 

The  Member  State  data  collected  from  interviews  showed  that  on  average  168  EEO  certificates  are 

issued  in  each  country  per  year  (15  countries  represented  in  the  data).  This  calculation  was  made  by 

applying  the  following  assumptions:  (1)  if  a  number  was  given  for  a  range  of  years,  then  the  number 

would be divided by the number of years. (2) If a range was given as an indicator, then the middle value 

was used.  

Number of certificates issued (n of 
countries=15), total: 2474, average: 168 

613

586

523

360

61

5

1,75

50

26

20

31

2

10

188

110

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Moreover,  together  with  the  request  launched  by  the  Commission  to  provide  data  on  the  use  of  the 

Regulation, Member States were asked to provide their opinion on whether  or not the EEO Regulation is 

still  relevant  12  Member  State  officials  provided  a  reply.  As  such,  representatives  from  Spain,  Estonia, 

France, Ireland, Latvia and Malta agreed that the Regulation is indeed still relevant, whilst representatives 

67 

 
 
 
 
Belgium,  Germany,  Portugal  and  Sweden  stated  that  there  was  the  EEO  Regulation  is  not  relevant 

anymore.  Finally,  representatives  from  Italy  and  Latvia  said  the  EEO  Regulation  might  seem  redundant 

these days, it would require further investigation to make such a statement. 

The data collected as part of the interviews indicated that the overall use of the solutions provided by 

the  Regulation  are  difficult  to  assess  as  there  is  a  lack  of  statistics  in  this  regard.  However,  53%  of  the 

respondents  indicated  that  the  EEO  is  not  or  very  limitedly  used,  especially  since  the  Brussels  I  recast. 

32% of the respondents did agree that the solutions provided by the Regulation were used in their country 

and 12% indicated to have no insights on this. Moreover, looking at the frequency of the use of solutions 

provided by the Regulation by interviewees, the majority of respondents (63%) have used it either never 

or once a year. Only a minority of the respondents (22%) uses it more than 1 to 30 times a year, whilst 

15% of the respondents indicated that they do not have a view on this.  

Regarding the overall awareness on the regulation, a majority (74%) of interviewees agrees that there is a 

lack of awareness on the regulation, whereas a minority (26%) of the respondents says there is sufficient 

awareness. Three practitioners specifically indicated that there is confusion about the differences between 

the  solutions  which  can  be  provided  by  the  second-generation  Regulations,  being  the  EOP,  ESCP,  EAOP 

and  the  EEO.  Moreover,  a  couple  of  stakeholders  mentioned  it  could  be  useful  to  have  an overview  that 

indicates the main differences so stakeholders can clearly choose which Regulation they can benefit from 

the  most.    Finally,  five  interviewees  stated  that  the  awareness  of  these  Regulations  is  better  among 

practitioners in international law firms, as they might be more frequently involved in cross-border cases. 

The  OPC  showed  that  slightly  less  than  half  (47%)  of  respondents  had  been  involved  in  a  cross-border 

enforcement  procedure  based  on  an  EEO  certificate.  Moreover,  only  29%  of  respondents  had  been 

involved  in  a  procedure  based  on  Brussels  I  Regulation  and  35%  in  a  procedure  based  on  Brussels  I  a. 

11/17 respondents do find the EEO either very or rather useful, and if one controls for those who replied 

“don’t  know”  8/11  respondents  say  that  the  EEO  speeds  up  the  process  of  enforcement  of  uncontested 

claims across borders either somewhat or significantly. 

During the validation workshop, the following opinions were expressed: 

• 

Participant  1  says  that  the  EEO  regulation  gives  better  protection  for  debtors  than  creditors. 

Participant 2 questions why creditors would opt for an EEO if that is the case.  

• 

Participant 3 adds that there is a need to raise awareness on  fair trial principles in all Member 

States. Once this awareness is reached, the specific instrument applied will not strictly matter. 

• 

Participant 4 adds that related to guarantees for defendants, even when reviews are implemented 

in  national  laws,  it  is  not  always  specifically  addressed.  In  Romania,  defendants  are  not 

specifically informed of the consequence of not reacting (i.e. acknowledging receipt) and what the 

effect  would  be.  Another  challenge  is  the  need  to  verify  specific  information,  even  when  postal 

services use acknowledgement of receipt, it’s not always clear who is an authorized receiver. 

68 

 
 
2. Have you ever been involved in cross-border 
enforcement based on an EEO certificate? (n=17)

Yes
47%

No
53%

2b. In which EU Countries? (n=7)

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

3

2

1

0

Qualitative summary (Questions 2a, 2c, 2d, 2e) (n=8): Eight respondents replied to the question of how 
many times they have been involved in a cross-border enforcement based on an EEO certificate, whereby 
six  replied  more  than  five  and  one  replied  two  (times).  Regarding  what  capacity  the  respondents 
participated in such enforcement procedures, out of eight respondents total, seven were representatives of 
the  creditor.  When  asked  what  the  EEO  entailed,  six  out  of  8  responses  total  replied  that  it  entailed  a 
judgment. 

3. Have you ever been involved in cross-border 
enforcement based on the certificate provided for by 
the former Brussels I Regulation (Regulation (EC) 
44/2001)? (n=17)

29%

71%

No

Yes

69 

 
 
 
 
Summary  of  questions  3a,  3b,  3c,  3e  (n=5):  Out  of  five  respondents,  four  replied  that  they  have  been 
involved in more than five cross-border enforcement processes based on the certificate provided for by the 
former Brussels I Regulation. These enforcement processes were in Belgium, Finland,  France, Germany, 
Greece,  Ireland,  Luxembourg,  Netherlands,  and  Spain  (2).  All  five  respondents  reply  that  the  certificate 
involved a judgment. 

4. Have you ever been involved in cross-border 
enforcement based on the certificate provided by the 
Brussels I bis Regulation (Regulation (EU) 
1215/2012)? (n=17)

Yes
35%

No
65%

Summary  of  questions  4a,  4b,  4c,  4e)  (n=6):  Out  of  six  respondents,  four  replied  that  they  have  been 
involved in more than five cross-border enforcement processes based on the certificate provided for by the 
former  Brussels  I  a  Regulation.  These  enforcement  processes  were  in  Belgium,  Finland,  France  (2), 
Germany  (2),  Greece,  Italy,  Luxembourg  (2),  and  Spain  (4).  Four  respondents  reply  that  the  certificate 
involved a judgment and one respondent reply authentic instrument. 

14. Is the EEO useful for the cross-border 
enforcement of uncontested claims? (n=17)

7

4

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

3

2

1

Very useful

Rather useful

Not very useful

Not useful at all

Don't know

Summary  of  question  14a  Is  the  EEO  useful  for  the  cross-border  enforcement  of  uncontested 
claims? Please explain (n=7): Of those who state that the EEO is "not very useful" (2) it is argued that it 
offers  relief  to  lenders  only  and  that  it  no  longer  applies  to  the  UK  in  the  context  of  Brexit.  Amongst  the 
respondents who stated it is rather useful or very useful (5), the explanations given are that the EEO has 
slightly  lost its significance due to the lack  of  legal remedies  available to the  debtor  and that there is too 
little standardisation in application, but that it is useful because one avoids duplication of procedures across 
borders and that the procedure is useful in theory. 

70 

 
 
 
 
15. Does the EEO certificate speed up the cross-
border enforcement of uncontested claims? (n=16)

Don't know

5

Doesn't speed it up

3

Speeds it up somewhat

6

Speeds it up significantly

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Summary of question 15a  Does the EEO certificate speed up the cross-border enforcement of 
uncontested claims? Please explain(n=5): All respondents but one state that the process is sped up 
somewhat or significantly, mainly due to the fact that there is no possibility to appeal and that it would take 
longer in local courts. This remains relative to the local contexts and experiences of the respondents. 

16. Would your responses to questions 14 and 15 be 
the same without having the possibility of enforcing 
uncontested claims under Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 
(Brussels I bis)? (n=17)

35%

30%

35%

Yes

No

Don't know

2. How was the EEO Regulation implemented into national civil procedures, including enforcement 
procedures? To what extent have creditors used the EEO? Has this materially changed since the entry 
into application of Regulation 1215/2012? 

The  Member  State  data  collected  from  interviews  showed  that  on  average  168  EEO  certificates  are 

issued  in  each  country  per  year  (15  countries  represented  in  the  data).  This  calculation  was  made  by 

applying  the  following  assumptions:  (1)  if  a  number  was  given  for  a  range  of  years,  then  the  number 

would be divided by the number of years. (2) If a range was given as an indicator, the middle value was 

used.  

71 

 
 
 
Number of certificates issued (n of 
countries=15), total: 2474, average: 168 

613

586

523

360

61

5

1,75

50

26

20

31

2

10

188

110

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Results  from  the  interviews  indicates  that there was no  complementary national legislation  added in 

Belgium, Cyprus, Hungary, Italy and Malta. Other Member States added additional provisions to help the 

EEO integrate at the national level. This is confirmed by the results from the national reports. 

The data collected as part of the OPC shows that certain issues in national application of the EEO are 

recurring. In particular, out of 12 respondents, it was stated that smaller courts/enforcement institutions are 

sometimes  not  aware  of  how  to  handle  the  request  and  procedures  will  vary  from  country  to  country  (4), 

communication problems and the additional cost of translation in some MS (2), interpretation of certain articles 

(6,13,14,  18  are  specifically  mentioned)  and  the  scope  of  the  term  "uncontested"  (2),  and  other  practical 

difficulties  such  as  non-acceptance  of  electronic  forms  in  certain  instances  (2)  and  that  EEO  in  certain 

instances requires a copy of the judgment (which is not always available). 

Summary of question 9 (n=12): The respondents list the following difficulties in launching an enforcement 
action based on the EEO certificate: Smaller courts/enforcement institutions are sometimes not aware of 
how to handle the request and procedures will vary from country to country (4), communication problems 
and the additional cost of translation in some MS (2), interpretation of certain articles (6,13,14, 18 are 
specifically mentioned) and the scope of the term "uncontested" (2), and other practical difficulties such as 
non-acceptance of electronic forms in certain instances (2) and that EEO in certain instances requires a 
copy of the judgment (which is not always available). 

72 

 
 
 
Summary of question 10, qualitative replies (n=9): The respondents (6) mostly refer to the argument 
that the EEO grants right to a fair trial, in the sense that it concerns uncontested claims only. One mentions 
the difficulty (at times) to apply the EEO to national procedures. 
Summary of question 10a. How was the document instituting proceeding of the summons served 
upon the debtor or the debtor’s representative? (n=6): The answers were equally spread across 
categories, with two respondents replying personal service with a document signed by the person who 
carried out the service. 
Summary of question 10b How was the information on how to contest the claim provided? (Article 
17 of the EEO Regulation) (n=9): Eight respondents replied "in writing." 
Summary of question 10 c. Was the review of the judgment certified as the EEO requested? (n=9): 
The answer most responded (4) is "yes". 
Summary of question 10 d. Was the suspension of the enforcement of the decision certified as an 
EEO requested? (n=9):  The answer most responded (4) is "no". 

11. In general, are the procedural guarantees 
provided for by the EEO Regulation correctly applied 
in practice? (n=17)

4

4

4

2

4

3

2

1

0

3

Fully applied

Mostly applied

Somewhat applied Not applied at all

No opinion

Summary of question 11a (n=6): Respondents (2) point to the issue of uncertainty in certain countries on 
how to apply the procedural guarantees. 

73 

 
 
  
  
 
 
3. To what extent has the EEO been relevant in view of the EU needs/challenges? Is it still relevant in 
view of current needs and challenges? 

Results  from  the  interviews  have  indicated  that  77%  of  interviewees  agree  that  the  key  challenge 

before the EEO was adopted was to accelerate the enforcement of titles at cross-border level. As such they 

have indicated that there was a need for a simplified cross-border procedure by abolishing the exequatur 

procedure  and  thus  no  longer  having  the  need  to  obtain  a  declaration  of  enforceability.  Another  23% 

indicates  that  the  overall aim  of  Europe  was  to  create  a  space  of  mutual  trust  where  all  Member  States 

have the same access to justice and the EEO was a first project that enabled the possibility of judgments 

traveling freely across MS.  

Moreover, a minority of respondents (21%) consider the EEO was not able to meet these key challenges 

as  the  scope  is  considered  to  be  too  limited.  However,  a  large  majority  of  respondents  (79%)  has 

indicated that the EEO has overall met its key challenges in terms of its objectives and scope. However, 

21%  of  those  respondents  have  indicated  that  although  key  challenges  were  overall  met,  some  issues 

have limited the EEO in fully doing so. As such, they have raised the issue of the lack of awareness, the 

autonomous  interpretation  of  an  EU  Regulation  at  the  Member  State  level  which  can  vary  quite 

significantly  and  the  issue  of  defining  the  subject  matter  (i.e.  what  can  be  defined  as  an  uncontested 

claim). 

Considering  the  key  challenges  moving  forward  for  the  EEO  Regulation,  40%  of  the  respondents  have 

indicated a lack or a need to raise awareness as the main challenge. 22% of respondents have indicated 

that  the  Brussels  I  a  Regulation  will  probably  take  the  EEO’s  place  and  the  regulation  will  therefore 

become  obsolete.  Another  38%  of  respondents  has  indicated  that  the  key  challenges  the  EEO  faces  are 

linked to issues with regard to the integration of the Regulation at Member State level, as well as issues 

linked to the need for clarification and finally, issues related to enforcement abroad. 

Finally,  a  majority  of  respondents  (62%)  has  indicated  that  soft  measures  can  potentially  provide  a 

solution for the EEO to face these challenges. Examples of such solutions are linked to the training of legal 

practitioners, the sharing of best practices, the creation of guidelines and/or a database.  

The other 38% of respondents does not believe that soft measures will provide a sufficient solution to the 

challenges the EEO is facing. As such, three interviewees have specifically mentioned again that the scope 

of  the  EEO  is  too  limited  and  the  frequency  of  its  use  can  only  increase  when  this  scope  would  be 

broadened, by for example, integrating it within another existing Regulation (e.g. Brussels I a Regulation). 

Other interviewees have indicated that the Regulation has become obsolete due to the entry into force of 

the  Brussels  I  a  Regulation  that  is  able  to  tackle  a  larger  scope  of  judgments  (i.e.  contested).  One 

interviewee mentioned that the EEO does not provide enough security to the debtor, as there is an issue 

with  the  notion  of  what  can  be  defined  as  uncontested  claim  in  France.  As  such,  if  the  debtor  is  not 

present during the hearing, then this presents an open door for issuing an EEO. Finally, other issues raised 

that  could  not  be  tackled  by  soft  measures  link  back  to  the  quantity  of  EU  instruments  that  can  lead  to 

confusion, as well as the lack of unified enforcement procedure. 

74 

 
The results of the OPC show divergencies of opinions on whether the EEO helps reduce costs. Notably, 

two  respondents  states  the  EEO  provides  a  lowering  of  legal  costs  and  costs  of  translation.  Two 

respondents  replied  no,  stating  the  argument  that  costs  remain  more  or  less  the  same  in  their  contexts 

and that the claimant will still need a lawyer to enforce the order in court. Most respondents, however, do 

agree that the EEO helped recover debt (64%, n=11). 14/17 respondents are either neutral (5), positive 

(5) or very positive to the EEO.  

6. Did the EEO reduce the costs of cross-border 
enforcement of uncontested claims? (n=17)

No
35%

Don't know
35%

Yes
30%

Summary  of  question  6a  (please  explain)  (n=7):  Two  respondents  replied  that  the  EEO  reduces  costs 
due  to  the  lowering  of  legal  costs  and  costs  of  translation.  Two  respondents  replied  no,  due  to  the 
argument that costs remain more or less the same in their contexts and that the claimant will still need a 
lawyer to enforce the order in court. 

7. Did the EEO help recover the debt? (n=11)

36%

64%

Yes No

Summary of question 7a (please explain) (n=7): One respondent provides the answer that the European 
Enforcement Order has certain advantages which may favor the recovery of the debt, particularly whenever 
the title is certified at the start of an intra-European international legal relationship, as a preventive measure 
in the event of future default by the debtor. 

75 

 
 
 
 
21. What’s your overall opinion of the EEO? (n=17)

5

5

4

2

1

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Very positive

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Very negative

Summary  of  question  21a  What's  your  overall  opinion  of  EEO?  Please  explain.  (n=6):  Three 
respondents replies that the EEOs importance and recognition is rather low, but that there is still a need for 
its application, especially in notarial cases. Another respondent points out its importance, but that it must be 
made better known by lawyers and judges to be effective. 

22. For the future cross-border enforcement of an 
uncontested claim, would you choose the EEO or 
enforcement under the Brussels I bis Regulation?
(n=17)

23%

18%

6%

53%

EEO

Brussels I bis Regulation

Both are suitable

No opinion

4. To what extent has the EEO been relevant in view of specific needs of stakeholders, in particular 
Member States, citizens and businesses? 

The same data from the previous question apply for this question.  

Coherence  

1. To what extent is the EEO Regulation coherent internally? Are the procedures for obtaining the EEO 

and the conditions of issuing the EEO as well as the procedure for its enforcement designed in a clear, 

non-contradictory way that ensures smooth practical implementation? 

The  data  collected  as  part  of  the  interviews  has  indicated  that  a  large  majority  (77%)  specifically 

agrees with the overall requirements set forth by the Regulation and agree that these serve their purpose. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Another 23% of interviewees have mentioned that although the EEO’s scope was appropriate at the time 

of the adoption, it is too narrow as it is only limited to uncontested claims. Within that majority, several 

respondents have also raised the issue of the different approach at the Member States level with regard to 

what  can  be  defined  as  an  uncontested  claim.  This  issue  was  raised  by  fourteen  interviewees  from  nine 

different  Member  States,  being  Belgium,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  France,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Poland  and 

Slovenia.  

According to a majority of stakeholders (75%), the EEO certificate is easy to obtain. 8% of that majority 

specifically mentioned that the EEO certificate is easier to obtain compared to the Brussels I a as the latter 

has more details. For example, section 5.2 of EEO form indicates clear interest rates whilst the Brussels I a 

does not. Moreover, the EEO has an Annex IV – certificate of non-enforceability and Brussels I a does not. 

This  certificate  can  be  very  beneficial  for  the  enforcement  body  in  other  MS  to  know  whether  the 

judgments enforceability is limited. Moreover,  another  16% of respondents have indicated that it can be 

rather  complicated,  time  consuming  or unclear  for  businesses  and  citizens  lacking  a  legal  background  to 

fully  understand  the  EEO  certificate.  Finally,  9%  of  respondents  have  mentioned  a  language  barrier  or 

translation needs as an issue on which there is still ambiguity. 

Additionally,  some  practical  improvements  on  the  certificate  itself  were  shared  by  some  stakeholders. 

First, one interviewee mentioned it could be practical if whenever the certificate refers to a certain article, 

for  example  due  information  about  the  debtor,  it  could  be  useful  to  have  a  side  note  or  pop-up  as  a 

reminder  of  what  is  in  this  article.  Moreover,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  in  Estonia  made  the  suggestion  to 

clarify  5.1  of  the  certificate.  This  now  states  “Principle  amount”,  however  the  general  understanding  in 

Estonia  is  that  the  principal  claim  does  not  include  ancillary  claims  but  in  some  Member  States  it. 

Therefore,  they  would  suggest  a  clearer  choice  of  words,  being  for  example:  “the  total  amount  of  the 

monetary claim that has been awarded to the debtor by a court decision”. 

The results of the OPC show that there is a wide disparity among respondents (n=11) on how difficult it 

is to launch an enforcement action based on the EEO compared to other instruments. 

The reactions from the validation workshop were the following: 

• 

P1 says that on the one hand the EEO Regulation is coherent, but on the other hand there is space 

for improvement. Regarding the  rules  concerning  certification, there  is a need  for  an update. 

However,  as  they  have  been  perceived  as  second  level  rules  after  service  of  documents,  it  is 

necessary to raise awareness. Regarding coordination between EEO and Brussels I a, the question 

is whether a rule coordinating the two regulations could be useful. 

• 

P2 says that you can also apply the EEO in national cases, which is not the case for Brussels I a. 

For  the  service  of  documents,  it  is  important  that  it  is  improved  and  to  respect  the  minimum 

standards.  The  forms  should  be  easy  to  understand,  so  that  debtors  can  defend  themselves.  It 

should be noted that not all debtors can get legal assistance. 

• 

P3  agrees  and  adds  that  something  can  be  done  regarding  service  of  documents  to  overcome 

problems  of  minimum  standards  that  are  not  being  met  at  national  levels.  There  are  many 

simplifications that can be made, especially regarding forms.  

77 

 
8. How difficult is it to launch an enforcement action 
based on the EEO certificate compared to other 
instruments for the cross-border enforcement of 
claims? (n=11)

Very easy
6%

Easy
23%

No opinion
18%

Moderate
18%

Very difficult
12%

Difficult
23%

Summary of question 9 What are the biggest difficulties in launching enforcement action based on 
the EEO certificate?  (n=12): The respondents list the following difficulties in launching an enforcement 
action based on the EEO certificate: Smaller courts/enforcement institutions are sometimes not aware of 
how to handle the request and procedures will vary from country to country (4), communication problems 
and the additional cost of translation in some MS (2), interpretation of certain articles (6,13,14, 18 are 
specifically mentioned) and the scope of the term "uncontested" (2), and other practical difficulties such as 
non-acceptance of electronic forms in certain instances (2) and that EEO in certain instances requires a 
copy of the judgment (which is not always available). 

2.  To  what  extent  is  the Regulation  coherent  with other  EU  legal  instruments  relevant  for  the  cross 

border enforcement of claims, in particular with the Brussels I and Brussels I (recast) regulations, but 

also  with  the  instruments  on  legal  cooperation  between  the  courts  of  the  Member  States,  e.g.  the 

regulations on the service of documents and on taking of evidence? 

Results from the interviews have indicated a majority of respondents spread out across Member States 

(61%)  stating  the  effective  service  of  documents  as  an  issue  across  Member  States.  As  such,  Article  13 

and  14  of  the  EEO  provide  different  methods  on  the  way  to  serve  documents  in  the  different  Member 

States.  However,  which  of  these  methods  that  should  be  used,  is  defined  by  national  law  and  therefore 

there are different approaches to this within the various Member States. Therefore, some Member States 

have a very strict approach (e.g. Belgium – must happen through a judicial officer), whilst others have a 

more  laid  back  approach  (e.g.  Latvia  –  postal  service  with  or  without  receipt).  This  can  result  in  issues 

where the debtor is not provided the necessary information about the claim itself and/or ways to contest 

it. However, they also indicate that this is not an issue which is isolated to the  EEO Regulation, but links 

back to all EU Regulations. A minority of respondents (39%) did not notice any different interpretation of 

the minimum standards set forth by the Regulation (Article 13,14,16 and 17).  

According  to  the  OPC  respondents,  the  procedures  for  obtaining  and  enforcing  EEO  certificates  are 

compatible  with  other  provisions  of  EU  law  on  the  cross-border  enforcement  of  claims  (10/15  agree  or 

strongly agree). Moreover, 9/15 state that the procedures for obtaining and enforcing EEO certificates are 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
compatible with provisions of EU law on the service of documents and taking of evidence in cross-border 

civil and commercial cases 

17. Do you agree with the following statement: ‘The 
procedures for obtaining and enforcing EEO 
certificates are compatible with other provisions of 
EU law on the cross-border enforcement of claims’?
(n=15)

7

3

3

2

0

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor
disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

8

6

4

2

0

Summary of question 17a Please explain which EEO elements are not compatible with which 
provisions of other instruments  (n=4): One respondent points to needed attention to " an issue with 
Reg. 1393/2007, which has a different starting point, and law 1896/2006 as having peculiarities in the issue 
of performance." One points to the need for a review on coherence of the procedure of "almost in 
exceptional cases", the regulation refund (CE) of 861/2007 by regulation n ° 2015/2421 (and notation as of 
Article 18), and points out a  discrepancy in this regard. 

18. Do you agree with the following statement: ‘The 
procedures for obtaining and enforcing EEO 
certificates are compatible with provisions of EU law 
on the service of documents and taking of evidence 
in cross-border civil and commercial cases’? (n=15)

6

3

3

1

2

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

Strongly disagree

Summary  of  question  18a  Please  explain  which  EEO  elements  are  not  compatible  with  which 
provisions of other instruments  (n=3): One respondent who strongly agrees points to the EEO does not 
eliminate the possibility of access to justice, if the European citizen considers it necessary and disputes the 
claim. A respondent who neither agrees nor disagrees points to  the need for the European Enforcement 
Order  to  be  dematerialized  (electronic  communication  and  procedures),  in  compliance  with  minimum 
procedural guarantees. 

79 

 
 
 
 
Effectiveness 

1. Has the EEO Regulation achieved its objectives: permission of free circulation throughout the EU of 

judgments,  court  settlements  and  authentic  instruments  on  uncontested  claims  without  any 

intermediary  procedures,  acceleration  and  simplification  of  enforcement  of  such  judgments, 

settlement  and  instruments  and  offer  of  significant  advantages  as  compared  to  enforcement 

procedures of Brussels I Regulation? What were the main issues hampering the achievement of those 

objectives? 

The  data  collected  throughout  the  interviews  indicates  that  a  large  majority  of  interviewees  (81%) 

specifically agrees that the EEO has facilitated cross-border enforcement, especially when compared to the 

Brussels  I  Regulation.  Looking  at  the  first  operational  objective  related  to  the  permission  of  free 

circulation,  a  large  majority  (78%)  of  interviewees  specifically  agrees  that  by  abolishing  the  exequatur 

procedure,  the  EEO  Regulation  has  met  its  objective  and  enabled  the  permission  of  free  circulation 

throughout the EU concerning uncontested payment claims without any intermediary procedures. 

Moreover, out of the large majority of 81%, 22% has indicated that compared to the Brussels I a, the EEO 

less grounds for refusal, which is considered as an advantage of the EEO compared to the Brussels I and 

Brussels  I  a  Regulations.  Finally,  a  minority  (19%)  of  interviewees  agrees  that  although  the  EEO  has 

facilitated cross-border enforcement partially by abolishing exequatur, there are some problems related to 

the navigation of enforcement systems. However, this is not only linked to the EEO Regulation, but is an 

issue when it comes to all EU Regulation as there is no harmonised approach. 

Moreover,  a  majority  of  interviewees  (61%)  interviewees  agree  that  the  adoption  and  application  of  the 

EEO procedure has simplified cross-border litigation compared to the Brussels I Regulation, as there is no 

more need for a declaration of enforceability. However 16% of respondents has indicates that although in 

theory simplification should have been reached through the adoption of the EEO, they cannot make such a 

statement  as  the  Regulation  was  not  sufficiently  used  in  practice  within  their  Member  State.  This  also 

effects  the  familiarity  with  the  Regulation.  Finally,  23%  of  respondents  said  the  EEO  Regulation  did  not 

simplify litigation as there is a lack of a European enforcement procedure.   

The results of the OPC show that there is a wide disparity among respondents (n=11) on how difficult it 

is  to  launch  an  enforcement  action  based  on  the  EEO  compared  to  other  instruments  (see  Q8  above). 

According to the OPC, the EEO did make the enforcement proceedings shorter compared to Brussels I, and 

the majority of respondents (while controlling for don’t know) say the EEO proceedings and Brussels I bis 

are of the same length (37%) or slightly shorter (27%). Moreover, 64% say that the EEO made the cross-

border enforcement of uncontested claims either somehow easier or much easier. 

During the validation workshop, the following information was presented to the participants: 

Overall,  the  application  of  the  EEO  Regulation  has  been  cost-effective  in  the  sense  that  it’s  benefits 

outweigh  the  costs.  The  EEO  has  reduced  the  costs  and  length  of  proceedings  compared  to  the  cost  for 

exequatur  proceedings.  The  EEO  proceeding  has  an  average  duration  of  40  days.  The  average  cost  for 

obtaining an EEO is around 636 EUR in 2019. Compared to the cost for exequatur proceedings, which on 

80 

 
 
 
average are estimated at 2 200 EUR, a saving in costs is estimated to be generated of 1 564 EUR per case 

on average. 

The following opinions were expressed: 

• 

Participant  1  (P1)  says  that  we  have  already  established  that  the  EEO  is  more  cost  effective. 

However, there is a need to understand whether the cost estimation is realistic. 

• 

P2 says that the sum is a sensible and reliable estimation, compared to the exequatur. But if 

we  are  to  evaluate  the  efficiency  we  must  compare  the  cost  between  the  EEO  and  Brussels  I  a. 

Here, the Brussels I a may on certain occasions be less costly, as the certificate is rendered more 

or less automatic. He adds that if all is done correctly, the cost of the Brussels I a and EEO is 

more or less the same. 

• 

P3 thinks that the estimation is fair. Moreover, she suggests to compare the cost and length of 

proceedings comparing grounds for  refusal and  the issuance of the  certificate. Overall,  costs and 

length  should  be  assessed  taking  into  account  the  procedures  in  the  country  of  origin  and  the 

country of enforcement.  

• 

P4 says that in Romania, the certification request is the same for the EEO and the Brussels 

I a which is an amount of around 4,5 euro. The court fees for the procedure before depends of the 

value of the claim. From this perspective there is no difference between the two 

• 

P5 says that it is important to emphasise what happens after the issuing of the certificate, 

and  what  the  consequences  are.  There  are  more  grounds  for  refusal  in  Brussels  I  bis,  but  in 

Estonia  there  is  no  cost  difference  between  the  two  regulations.  In  the  second  phase,  the 

Brussels  I  a  may  be  more  costly  in  terms  of  the  grounds  of  refusal  for  recognition.  The  EEO  is 

indeed very specific since it only deals with uncontested claims.  

• 

P1 asks whether, if we take the scope in comparing uncontested claims, and claims that would be 

uncontested in the framework of Brussels I a, how likely is it that the grounds of refusal would be 

applied? FV says that there is still an interest of debtors to contest after the judgment to postpone 

payment. 

• 

P4  mentions  that  it  is  related  to  the  effect  of  the  decision  becoming  known  or  felt  by  the 

debtor. What can happen is not only to challenge the act of enforcement, but also relying on the 

grounds  of  Brussels  I  bis.  Often  service  of  documents  is  one  of  the  successful  grounds  for 

challenging, and public policy is the last resort. The grounds do not have to be fulfilled, but they 

may just try and postpone the execution phase as much as possible. 

• 

In sum, the participants agree with the estimations of costs related to the EEO, but say that the 

costs of Brussels I bis should be more or less the same as the EEO. 

Regarding the duration of enforcement: 

• 

P3 reacts to the duration of the EEO procedure, and says that in the Netherlands, When requested 

separately it only takes a couple of days. 

• 

• 

P4 says that in Romania the procedure takes between a few days and a week.  

The participants agree that 40 days is an over statement. 

81 

 
• 

P6  says  that  there  is  a  need  for  clarity  on  what  the  duration  actually  includes.  If  we  are  talking 

about only certification then it is only a few days. If we compare this to Brussels I a, in the case 

where one does not immediately ask for the certification, then the duration would be the same.  

• 

P4  adds  that  you  may  ask  for  a  certification  in  the  procedure  itself,  both  for  EEO  and  Brussels  I 

bis.  However,  once  you  have  the  decision  you  may  still  not  have  the  certification.  It  is  an 

additional step to be made, and you need to go through court.  

5. To what extent does the EEO make the cross-
border enforcement of uncontested claims easier? 
(n=17)

Don't know
24%

More difficult
6%
Didn't make it 
easier
6%

Much easier
29%

Somehow easier
35%

5b. Compared to obtaining the Brussels I certificate 
(before the recast), was this longer or shorter? 
(n=11)

Don't know
27%

Slightly longer
28%

Much shorter
18%

Same length
9%
Slightly shorter
18%

82 

 
 
 
 
5c. Compared to obtaining the Brussels I certificate 
(after the recast), was this longer or shorter? (n=11)

Don't know
27%

Same length
37%

Slightly shorter
27%

Slightly longer
9%

Summary  of question 5d (n=11): When asked how long it took from the submission of the EEO certificate 
and other necessary documents to the first enforcement action (in weeks, months, years)? A logic is applied 
where "months" is interpreted as six months or less. Four respondents said  it took one month or less, three 
respondents  said  six  months  or  less  and  one  respondent  said  more  than  one  year.  The  remaining  three 
know.  
responded 

they 

that 

not 

do 

Summary    of  questions  5e,  5f  (n=11):  For  the  question,  compared  to  enforcement  on  the  basis  of  the 
former  Brussels  I  Regulation  (before  the  recast),  was  this  shorter  or  longer?,  if  controlling  for  those  who 
replied "don't know" most respondents (5/7) replied same length or slightly shorter. The same result can be 
found  when  respondents  were  asked  "compared  to  enforcement  on  the  basis  of  the  former  Brussels  I 
Regulation  (after  the  recast),  was  this  shorter  or  longer?",  where  all  respondents  (6)  other  than  those  who 
responded "don't know" said that it is the same length or slightly shorter. 

15. Does the EEO certificate speed up the cross-
border enforcement of uncontested claims? (n=16)

Don't know

5

Doesn't speed it up

3

Speeds it up somewhat

6

Speeds it up significantly

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Summary of question 15a  Does the EEO certificate speed up the cross-border enforcement of 
uncontested claims? Please explain(n=5): All respondents but one state that the process is sped up 
somewhat or significantly, mainly due to the fact that there is no possibility to appeal and that it would take 
longer in local courts following national proceedings. This remains relative to the local contexts and 
experiences of the respondents. 

2. Has the application of the EEO Regulation  decreased the  burden of  the  cross-border  enforcement 

for the Member States (courts and enforcement authorities)? How has that situation evolved since the 

entry  into  application  of  the  Brussels  I  Regulation  (recast)?  Is  there  potential  for  this  burden  to  be 

reduced? 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
Data collected throughout the interviews indicates that a majority of stakeholders (70%) agrees that 

the EEO procedure has helped to decrease the burden of cross-border enforcement for the Member States, 

especially  when  compared  to  the  Brussels  I  Regulation.  Another  25%  states  that  when  compared  to  the 

new Brussels I a, the latter should be seen as either comparable or even a step further in the decreasing 

of  burden  as  it  can  be  more  broadly  used  as  the  scope  is  wider  (i.e.  contested  claims).  Finally,  a  small 

percentage of stakeholders (5%) indicated that although in theory the idea was to decrease the burden, in 

practice, the EEO Regulation has been used too little to make such a statement. 

Moreover,  interview  results  have  indicated  that  a  vast  majority  (88%)  of  interviewees  agree  that  the 

burden has decreased for the relevant parties using the solutions provided by the EEO Regulation, when 

comparing it to the Brussels I regulation. Nearly half of that majority (43%) specifically indicated that the 

burden is comparable to the burden for the Brussels I a Regulation. A minority of respondents (8%) has 

indicated that the Brussels I a Regulation has even further decreased the burden, as it should be seen as a 

step further than  the EEO, as it applies to a broader scope of  judgments (i.e.  contested claims). Finally, 

4% of respondents mentioned that although in theory it should have, the regulation is applied too little to 

make such a statement. 

The  OPC  provided  data  on  some  main  difficulties  experienced  by  the  respondents.  See  summary  of 

question 9 below. 

Summary  of  question  9  (n=12):  The  respondents  list  the  following  difficulties  in  launching  an  enforcement 

action based on the EEO certificate: Smaller courts/enforcement institutions are sometimes not aware of how 

to handle the request and procedures will vary from country to country (4), communication problems and the 

additional  cost  of  translation  in  some  MS  (2),  interpretation  of  certain  articles  (6,13,14,  18  are  specifically 

mentioned)  and  the  scope  of  the  term  "uncontested"  (2),  and  other  practical  difficulties  such  as  non-

acceptance of electronic forms in certain instances (2) and that EEO in certain instances requires a copy of 

the judgment (which is not always available). 

3.  How  effectively  was  the  EEO  Regulation  integrated  with  the  legal  systems  of  the  Member  States 

and operated by their courts and other competent authorities?  

Results  from  the  interviews  have  indicated  that  there  are  some  issues  with  regard  to  the  effective 

integration of the EEO Regulation at the Member State level. Overall interviewees from Belgium, Estonia, 

Spain, Croatia, Italy, Portugal and Slovenia have indicated issues in this regard.  

In  Belgium,  the  issues  raised  by  respondents  were  linked  to  Article  19  of  the  Regulation  regarding  the 

minimum  standards  for  review  in  exceptional  cases  and  the  different  interpretation  by  judges  in  this 

regard,  as  well  as  the  issue  of  who  is  the  competent  figure  within  the  court  to  sign  the  EEO  certificate, 

which  can  lead  to  a  difference  in  costs.  As  such,  related  to  the  last  issue,  the  cost  of  the  EEO  can  vary 

depending  on  who  signs  the  document,  i.e.  either  both  the  judge  and  the  court  clerk  need  to  sign  the 

document, which results in 35 EUR cost, or the document is only signed by the court clerk in which case it 

can happen for free. This issues were mentioned by half of the Belgian respondents. 

84 

 
 
 
 
Moreover, two out of three interviewees from Estonia have indicated that at the beginning of the adoption 

of  the  EEO,  there  were  some  issues  with  regard  to  the  service  of  documents  approach.  As  such,  the 

creditors would sometimes be unsure if the minimum standards were being met as they were not sure if 

the  documents  were  being  served  upon  the  debtor.  However,  they  have  learned  to  mitigate  this  risk  by 

requesting an alternative solution should the EEO not apply. Additionally, a reform of Estonian law in 2009 

has  brought  about  a  very  effective  payment  order  procedure  which  made  it  possible  that  has  made  it 

possible for assistances to the judge to provide the EEO certificate and having a more specialised approach 

for this. 

Spanish interviewees have indicated that although the Regulation was well integrated at the Member State 

level in the sense that it does not conflict with any other  Spanish procedures, there are some issues with 

regard to the service of documents. As such, under Spanish national law it is required that there is proof 

that the debtor has received the documents. Therefore, many debtors will use this as a way to challenge 

the enforcement of an EEO in Spain. Stakeholders agree that these differing interpretations can distort the 

uniform application of the Regulation across Member States. 

One  Croatian  interviewee  (out  of  three)  provided  an  example  on  how  the  EEO  Regulation  was  not 

effectively  integrated  as  the  Croatian  court  needed  to  go  the  CJEU  for  some clarification  on  two  matters 

regarding the EEO. As such, the first question was related to the amount of the claim and whether or not it 

fell  inside  of  the  scope  of  the  Regulation.  Moreover,  the  court  asked  for  clarification  on  the  competent 

authority,  i.e.  whether  Croatian  notaries  were  allowed  to  issue  a  certificate  in  Croatia.  75%  of  Italian 

interviewees have indicated that the EEO was not effectively integrated within their legal system. As such, 

one  interviewee  indicates  the  lack  of  use  as  a  proof  for  this.  Another  two  interviewees  mentioned  that 

different  courts  have  different  interpretations  with  regard  to  the  EEO  Regulation  and  how  it  should  be 

applied resulting from a lack of provisions when the Regulation was integrated. It was mentioned that the 

government  has  now  taken  a  different  approach  with  regard  to  the  integration  of  the  EAPO  and  making 

sure provisions are added for clarification purposes. 

Slovenian interviewees have indicated that two recent reforms of the Civil Code of Procedure have made it 

easier.  As  such,  the  reform  of  2017  has  ensured  that  the  Civil  Code  fulfils  all  the  requirements  that  a 

default judgment can be certified as an EEO. Moreover, the reform in 2018 has ensured that the creditor 

needs to provide a stricter amount of information about the claim when certifying a domestic payment as 

an EEO, whereas in the past it was sufficient to provide information on which the claim was based.  

Additionally, when respondents were asked about the competent authority in their Member State to issue 

an EEO certificate for an authentic instrument, respondents gave contradictory replies, which indicates an 

overall lack of awareness on the Regulation. Finally, interviewees from other Member States did not raise 

any concerns with regard to the effective integration of the EEO at the Member State level. 

The  OPC  provided  data  on  some  main  difficulties  experienced  by  the  respondents  in  their  national 

contexts. See summary of question 9 below. 

85 

 
Summary of question 9 (n=12): The respondents list the following difficulties in launching an enforcement 

action based on the EEO certificate: Smaller courts/enforcement institutions are sometimes not aware  of 

how to handle the request and procedures will vary from country to country (4), communication problems 

and  the  additional  cost  of  translation  in  some  MS  (2),  interpretation  of  certain  articles  (6,13,14,  18  are 

specifically mentioned) and the scope of the term "uncontested" (2), and other practical difficulties such as 

non-acceptance  of  electronic  forms  in  certain  instances  (2)  and  that  EEO  in  certain  instances  requires  a 

copy of the judgment (which is not always available). 

4. Were the procedural rights of the parties respected throughout application of the EEO Regulation?  

The  data  from  interviews  has  indicated  that  a  large  majority  (70%)  of  respondents  agrees  that  the 

procedural rights have been respected throughout the application of the EEO Regulation. However, a small 

number  of  interviewees  (8%)  has  indicated  that  due  to  a  lack  of  clear  integration  of  the  Regulation  at 

Member  State  level,  you  cannot  be  sure  of  how  judges  will  apply  the  Regulation.  Another  19%  of 

interviewees has indicated that a lack of awareness can potentially lead to the minimum rights not being 

respected  and  it  was  mentioned  by  one  interviewee  that  it  could  potentially  be  interesting  to  set  up  a 

common statute of limitation to enforcing the EEO, as this can vary across countries (e.g. some countries 

will have 5 years, whereas others it might be possible that it is enforceable up to 30 years). Finally, 3% of 

the respondents have given examples of where the procedural guarantees for applying the EEO can even 

be considered stricter than at the national level.  

For  example,  one  interviewee  mentioned  that  the  Dutch  law  has  been  altered  through  the  coming  into 

force of the EEO Regulation, as it now specifies better which steps are needed in order to defend yourself. 

In addition, Article 19 in the EEO that gives the defendant and extra opportunity for unforeseen cases. As 

such,  if  the  documents  have  not  been  served  in  a  way  that  he  could  properly  defend  himself.  This 

opportunity did not  exist in Dutch law. The EEO  thus gave more remedies to the debtor than it was the 

case before. Another  interviewee in Croatia mentioned that EEO is even stricter than the national law in 

the  sense  that  there  is  a  30  day  deadline  for  a  debtor  take  a  position  with  regard  to  the  request  for 

certification of a judgment established by the national law, whereas for national cases the deadline is only 

8 days. 

The  evidence  drawn  from  the  OPC,  shows  that  out  of  13  respondents,  7  say  that  the  procedural 

guarantees are mostly applied or fully applied. 

86 

 
 
 
 
11. In general, are the procedural guarantees 
provided for by the EEO Regulation correctly applied 
in practice? (n=17)

4

4

4

2

4

3

2

1

0

3

Fully applied

Mostly applied

Somewhat applied Not applied at all

No opinion

Summary of question 11a (n=6): Respondents (2) point to the issue of uncertainty in certain countries on 
how to apply the procedural guarantees. 

Efficiency 

1.  What  are  the  benefits  and  the  costs  of  the  EEO?  To  what  extent  has  its  application  been  cost-

effective?  

With  regard  to  data  collected  throughout  the  interviews,  it  was  noticed  that  many  practitioners 

seemed to be unaware of the costs linked to the EEO procedure. Therefore, the team supplemented these 

findings with information provided by the national experts in their national reports. Regarding the length 

and  costs  of  proceedings,  varieties  were  indicated  between  Member  States.  As  such,  stakeholders  from 

Cyprus, Germany and Sweden indicated that obtaining the certificate in an easy case can be a matter of 

days. Whereas in other Member States such as Italy, Poland and Lithuania the procedure was indicated to 

last  around  a  couple  of  weeks  until  months.  This  is  of  course  also  dependable  on  the  workload  of  each 

jurisdiction  and  therefore  is  hard  to  compare.  With  regard  to  the  cost  of  an  EEO,  differences  were  also 

identified  across  Member  States.  For  example,  some  Member  States  (e.g.  Austria,  Belgium,  Malta)  have 

applied a fixed amount for its issuance, whereas in other Member States (e.g. Croatia, Cyprus, Hungary) it 

is linked to the value of the claim.  

An overwhelming majority of interviewees (94%) agreed that the benefits of the EEO outweigh its costs. 

Nearly 9% of those respondents mentioned that this was specifically true for bigger claims, whilst another 

6% of respondents did not agree with the statement that the EEO’s benefits outweigh its cost. The main 

benefits highlighted by practitioners is the fact that its application has been cost-effective. In that sense, 

the  fees  are  minimal  (e.g.  not  always  a  lawyer  required  so  sometimes  no  legal  fees,  translation  is  not 

always required,  not always a state fee etc.) and  through abolishing exequatur, the procedure has been 

simplified, which has overall also impacted the length of the proceedings. One interviewee mentioned that 

there  could  be  discrimination  at  national  level,  because  the  fees  are  quite  high  in  some  proceedings.  As 

such, if the title is issued by a court, fees are higher, as there are no such fees when done by a notary. 

87 

 
 
 
 
Moreover,  this  interviewee  highlighted  that  this  cannot  be  addressed  at  EU  level,  as  the  costs  of 

proceedings are also affected by the tax system of the country. 

Finally, when looking into the costs which are born by the debtor, the reply depends on the national law of 

the  Member  State.  As  such,  in  some  countries  (e.g.  Belgium,  Estonia,  Luxembourg,  Lithuania)  only  the 

costs  linked to  the  enforcement  procedure  are  borne  by  the  debtor  in  the end.  In other  Member  States, 

such as Bulgaria, Germany, Greece etc., all legal costs are borne by the debtor in the end if the creditor is 

successful. 

According  to  the  OPC  respondents,  the  EEO  makes  cross-border  enforcement  of  claims  easier  (35% 

say  somehow  easier  and  29%  say  much  easier).  With  regard  to  the  reduction  of  costs,  there  are  some 

disparities in opinions. However, two respondents replied that the EEO reduces costs due to the lowering of 

legal  costs  and  costs  of  translation.  Two  respondents  replied  the  EEO  does  not  reduce  costs,  due  to  the 

argument  that  costs  remain  more  or  less  the  same  in  their  contexts  and  that  the  claimant  will  still  need  a 

lawyer  to  enforce  the  order  in  court.  A  number  of  difficulties  can  be  seen  as  impacting  legal  certainty  and 

thereby  incurring  additional  costs.  The  respondents  state  that  smaller  courts/enforcement  institutions  are 

sometimes  not  aware  of  how  to  handle  the  request  and  procedures  will  vary  from  country  to  country  (4), 

communication problems and the additional cost of translation in some MS (2), interpretation of certain articles 

(6,13,14,  18  are  specifically  mentioned)  and  the  scope  of  the  term  "uncontested"  (2),  and  other  practical 

difficulties  such  as  non-acceptance  of  electronic  forms  in  certain  instances  (2)  and  that  EEO  in  certain 

instances requires a copy of the judgment (which is not always available). 

5. To what extent does the EEO make the cross-
border enforcement of uncontested claims easier? 
(n=17)

Don't know
24%

More difficult
6%
Didn't make it 
easier
6%

Much easier
29%

Somehow easier
35%

88 

 
 
6. Did the EEO reduce the costs of cross-border 
enforcement of uncontested claims? (n=17)

No
35%

Don't know
35%

Yes
30%

Summary  of  question  6a  (please  explain)  (n=7):  Two  respondents  replied  that  the  EEO  reduces  costs 
due  to  the  lowering  of  legal  costs  and  costs  of  translation.  Two  respondents  replied  no,  due  to  the 
argument that costs remain more or less the same in their contexts and that the claimant will still need a 
lawyer to enforce the order in court. 

7. Did the EEO help recover the debt? (n=11)

36%

64%

Yes No

Summary of question 7a (please explain) (n=7): One respondent provides the answer that the European 
Enforcement Order has certain advantages which may favor the recovery of the debt, particularly whenever 
the title is certified at the start of an intra-European international legal relationship, as a preventive measure 
in the event of future default by the debtor. 

8. How difficult is it to launch an enforcement action 
based on the EEO certificate compared to other 
instruments for the cross-border enforcement of 
claims? (n=11)

Very easy
6%

Easy
23%

No opinion
18%

Moderate
18%

Very difficult
12%

Difficult
23%

89 

 
 
 
 
Summary of question 9 (n=12): The respondents list the following difficulties in launching an enforcement 
action based on the EEO certificate: Smaller courts/enforcement institutions are sometimes not aware of 
how to handle the request and procedures will vary from country to country (4), communication problems 
and the additional cost of translation in some MS (2), interpretation of certain articles (6,13,14, 18 are 
specifically mentioned) and the scope of the term "uncontested" (2), and other practical difficulties such as 
non-acceptance of electronic forms in certain instances (2) and that EEO in certain instances requires a 
copy of the judgment (which is not always available). 

2.  Has  the  application  of  the  EEO  Regulation  reduced  or  increased  the  burden  of  cross  border 

enforcement for the parties in comparison to the Brussels I and Brussels I (recast) mechanisms? Has 

it  reduced  or  increased  costs,  time  and  effort  required  from  the  parties?  How  has  that  situation 

evolved since the entry into application of the Brussels I Regulation (recast)?  

Member state data from the interviews, desk research and the OPC provided the data to estimate 

the time required from the parties in the context of the exequatur procedure, the EEO and Brussels I bis. 

With  regard  to  the  length  of  proceedings,  the  estimations  made  vary  greatly  depending  on  whether  one 

considers the issuance of the certification alone, or the issuance of the certification including any potential 

legal complication. While the EEO certificate typically only takes a few days to process, the need for legal 

assistance before issuance in the country of origin can prolong the duration. According to our analysis, the 

lower value average of the issuing of an EEO is 17 days. This average is based on the middle value of the 

average  found  in  the  OPC  (31  days)  and  from  national  reports  (48.5  days).    OPC,  Summary  of  average 

length  (n=18  MS):  It  is  estimated  that  the  average  value  is  31  days,  with  a  lower  value  average  is  17 

days, and the upper value average is 45 days. It is further assumes that while some respondents replies 

include  the  entire  process  of  a  legal  proceeding,  start  to  end,  others  only  estimate  the  length  of  time  it 

takes  from  the  moment  one  requests  the  EEO  certificate  until  one  receives  it.  Therefore,  the  lower  and 

upper averages are of particular interest. The estimates are calculated on the basis of a mix of quantitative 

and  qualitative  responses.  Estimations  have  been  made  by  applying  a  factor  two  where  answers  were 

given  as  "more  than"  or  "less  than."  "Weeks"  are  counted  as  maximum  three  weeks,  "months"  are 

calculated as maximum six months.  

In comparison, a simple exequatur procedure has an average duration of 45 days.192 Although there are 

no  official  sources  for  this  data,  stakeholders  estimate  that  obtaining  an  Brussels  I  a  certificate  for  an 

uncontested claim  will take the same  amount of  time as obtaining an EEO.193  This means the procedure 

should  take  28  days  less  with  the  application  on  the  EEO,  as  compared  to  the  exequatur.  However,  it 

would take approximately the same amount of time as a comparative uncontested claim under Brussels I a 

Regulation. It has been observed that length varies quite a bit between Member States. In simple cases, it 

can be done in a couple of days (e.g. Cyprus, Germany, Sweden, etc.), whereas in some Member States it 

will always take at least two weeks, but can  go up  to a couple of months  (e.g.  Estonia, Italy, Lithuania, 

Poland).194  

192  Source:  Impact  assessment  on  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on 

jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast) 

193 Source: legal expert opinion expressed during validation workshop for this study. 

194 Source: interviews 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
Interview results  have indicated that a vast majority (88%) of interviewees agree that the burden has 

decreased for the relevant parties using the solutions provided by the EEO Regulation, when comparing it 

to  the  Brussels  I  regulation.  Nearly  half  of  that  majority  (43%)  specifically  indicated  that  the  burden  is 

comparable to the burden for the Brussels I  a Regulation. A minority of respondents (8%) has indicated 

that  the  Brussels  I  a  Regulation  has  even  further  decreased  the  burden,  as  it  should  be  seen  as  a  step 

further than the EEO, as it applies to a broader scope of judgments (i.e. contested claims). Finally, 4% of 

respondents mentioned that although in theory it should have, the regulation is applied too little to make 

such a statement. 

Moreover,  a  majority  of  stakeholders  (70%)  agrees  that  the  EEO  procedure  has  helped  to  decrease  the 

burden  of  cross-border  enforcement  in  general  for the  Member  States,  especially  when  compared to the 

Brussels  I  a  Regulation.  The  other  25%  states  that  when  compared  to  the  new  Brussels  I  a,  the  latter 

should be seen as either  comparable or even a  step further in the decreasing of burden as it can be more 

broadly  used  as  the  scope  is  wider  (i.e.  contested  claims).  Finally,  a  small  percentage  of  stakeholders 

(5%)  indicated  that  although  in  theory  the  idea  was  to  decrease  the  burden,  in  practice,  the  EEO 

Regulation has been used too little to make such a statement. 

According to the OPC respondents, the EEO procedure is the same length (37%) or slightly shorter (27%) 

than the procedure under Brussels I bis. 

91 

 
 
5b. Compared to obtaining the Brussels I certificate 
(before the recast), was this longer or shorter? 
(n=11)

Don't know
27%

Slightly longer
28%

Much shorter
18%

Same length
9%
Slightly shorter
18%

5c. Compared to obtaining the Brussels I certificate 
(after the recast), was this longer or shorter? (n=11)

Don't know
27%

Same length
37%

Slightly shorter
27%

Slightly longer
9%

Summary  of question 5d (n=11): When asked how long it took from the submission of the EEO certificate 

and other necessary documents to the first enforcement action (in weeks, months, years)? A logic is applied 

where "months" is interpreted as six months or less. Four respondents said  it took one month or less, three 

respondents  said  six  months  or  less  and  one  respondent  said  more  than  one  year.  The  remaining  three 

responded 

that 

they 

do 

not 

know.  

Summary  of questions 5e, 5f (n=11): For the question, compared to enforcement on the basis of the former 

Brussels I Regulation (before the recast), was this shorter or longer?, if controlling for those who replied "don't 

know"  most  respondents  (5/7)  replied  same  length  or  slightly  shorter.  The  same  result  can  be  found  when 

respondents were asked "compared to enforcement on the basis of the former Brussels I Regulation (after the 

recast), was this shorter or longer?", where all respondents (6) other than those who responded "don't know" 

said that it is the same length or slightly shorter. 

3. Was the EEO abused by applying it in the situations that were not falling within its scope? Was it 

applied correctly with observance of the procedural rights of the parties? 

The  data  from  interviews  has  indicated  that  a  large  majority  (70%)  of  respondents  agrees  that  the 

procedural rights have been respected throughout the application of the EEO Regulation. However, a small 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
number  of  interviewees  (8%)  has  indicated  that  due  to  a  lack  of  clear  integration  of  the  Regulation  at 

Member  State  level,  you  cannot  be  sure  of  how  judges  will  apply  the  Regulation.  Another  19%  of 

interviewees has indicated that a lack of awareness can potentially lead to the minimum rights not being 

respected  and  it  was  mentioned  by  one  interviewee  that  it  could  potentially  be  interesting  to  set  up  a 

common statute of limitation to enforcing the EEO, as this can vary across countries (e.g. some countries 

will have 5 years, whereas others it might be possible that it is enforceable up to 30 years). Finally, 3% of 

the respondents have given examples of where the procedural guarantees for applying the EEO can even 

be considered stricter than at the national level.  

For  example,  one  interviewee  mentioned  that  the  Dutch  law  has  been  altered  through  the  coming  into 

force of the EEO Regulation, as it now specifies better which steps are needed in order to defend yourself. 

In addition, there  is an Article in the EEO that gives the defendant and extra opportunity for unforeseen 

cases.  As  such,  if  the  documents  have  not  been  served  in  a  way  that  he  could  properly  defend  himself. 

This opportunity did not exist in Dutch law. The EEO thus gave more remedies to the debtor than it was 

the case before. Another interviewee in Croatia mentioned that EEO is even stricter than the national law 

in the sense that there is a 30 day deadline for a debtor to take a position with regard to the request for 

certification of a judgment established by the national law, whereas for national cases the deadline is only 

8 days. 

Finally, there was one example given by one interviewee of potential abuse of  the EEO. In this example 

the  EEO  was  pursued  in Malta  by  members  of  a  political  faction  in  Germany  with the purpose  to  raise  a 

claim  against  legal  authorities  who  allegedly  are  responsible  for  the  infringement  of  fundamental  rights. 

However, such attempts at applying an EEO were not approved, but give evidence of potential misuse. 

4.  Were  there  any  unforeseen/unintended  consequences  of  the  EEO  Regulation?  If  so,  what  were 

they? 

Results  from  the  interviewees  shown  that  the  majority  of  interviewees  (75%)  did  not  identify  any 

unforeseen  or  unintended  consequences  of  the  EEO  Regulation.  Although  it  is  generally  agreed  that  the 

procedural guarantees provided for the Regulation are correctly  applied most of the time, the integration 

of  the  EEO  Regulation  has  also  been  impacted  by  some  unforeseen/unintended  consequences.  From  the 

interviews conducted for this study, certain examples were brought to our attention. 

As such, in Member States where there is little integration of the Regulation, uncertainty of how it may be 

applied  may  discourage  creditors  and  lawyers  from  using  it.  Moreover,  one  interviewee  mentioned  the 

theoretical potential of a debtor not being informed of the EEO, and the potential loopholes in validating 

the  identity  of  an  authorised  person.  Additionally,  the  lack  of  awareness  is  a  potential  obstacle,  if  the 

debtor  or  his/her  lawyer  is  unaware  of  the  grounds  for  opposition,  this  can  lead  to  unforeseen 

consequences  where  the  debtor  is  unable  to  oppose  the  claim.  Finally,  there  was  one  example  given  by 

one interviewee of potential abuse of  the EEO. In this example the EEO was pursued in Malta by members 

of a political faction in Germany with the purpose to raise a claim against legal authorities who allegedly 

are  responsible  for  the  infringement  of  fundamental  rights.  However,  such  attempts  at  applying  an  EEO 

were not approved, but give evidence of potential misuse. 

93 

 
 
 
5.  Were  the  benefits  of  the  EEO  Regulation  overweighing  the  costs  of  its  implementation  and 

application? To what extent the distribution of costs and benefits between the subjects involved in the 

EEO mechanism is proportional and acceptable? 

Data collected throughout the interviews has indicated that a very large majority (94%) agrees that 

the benefits of the EEO Regulation outweigh its costs. Most interviewees (85%) say that the distribution of 

costs and benefits between the parties involved in the EEO mechanism are fair as they follow the national 

law.  Four  interviewees  mentioned  that there  are  still  a  lot  of  costs  to  be borne  by  the  creditor.  In  some 

Member  States  (e.g.  Bulgaria,  Germany,  Greece,  etc.)  all  costs  are  borne  by  the  debtor  if  he  loses, 

however,  in  some  countries  (e.g.  Belgium,  Estonia,  Lithuania,  Romania,  etc.),  only  the  enforcement 

proceedings are covered by the debtor and the costs for issuing the EEO certificate are still borne by the 

creditor. In case of the latter, it is only interesting for the creditor to request the using of an EEO when the 

value of the claim is high enough. Finally, two interviewees commented that the exequatur procedure was 

much more costly for the creditor as the creditor now does not need representation for enforcement when 

using the EEO. 

6. Is it possible to eliminate or modify some elements of the Regulation, to increase its efficiency?  

Data from the interviews shows that a majority of respondents (62%) has indicated that soft measures 

can  potentially  provide  a  solution  for  the  EEO  to  face  these  challenges,  as  40%  of  respondents  have 

indicated the lack of awareness as the key challenge for the EEO Regulation moving forward. Examples of 

such solutions are linked to the training of legal practitioners, the sharing of best practices, the creation of 

guidelines  and/or  a  database.  The  other  38%  of  respondents  does  not  believe  that  soft  measures  will 

provide  a  sufficient  solution  to  the  challenges  the  EEO  is  facing.  As  such,  three  interviewees  have 

specifically mentioned again that the scope of the EEO is too limited and the frequency of its use can only 

increase  when  this  scope  would  be  broadened,  by  for  example,  integrating  it  within  another  existing 

Regulation  (e.g.  Brussels  I  a  Regulation).  Other  interviewees  have  indicated  that  the  Regulation  has 

become obsolete due to the entry into force of the Brussels I a Regulation that is able to tackle a larger 

scope  of  judgments  (i.e.  contested).  One  interviewee  mentioned  that  the  EEO  does  not  provide  enough 

security to the debtor, as there is an issue with the notion of what can be defined as uncontested claim in 

France.  As  such,  if  the  debtor  is  not  present  during  the  hearing,  then  this  presents  an  open  door  for 

issuing  an  EEO.  Finally,  other  issues  raised  that  could  not  be  tackled  by  soft  measures  link  back  to  the 

quantity  of  EU  instruments  that  can  lead  to  confusion,  as  well  as  the  lack  of  unified  enforcement 

procedure. 

7. What are the factors that have influenced the efficiency of the EEO?  

Results from  the  interviews  show that 38% of respondents has indicated that  the  key challenges the 

EEO faces are linked to issues with regard to the integration of the Regulation at Member State level, as 

well  as  issues  linked  to  the  need  for  clarification  and  finally,  issues  related  to  enforcement  abroad. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Examples of this can be found throughout the data analysis, but are discussed in details specifically under 

the third evaluation question of effectiveness and under the tenth evaluation question under efficiency. 

Moreover, other key challenges for the EEO  Regulation that have been raised moving forward is the fact 

that  40%  of  the  respondents  have  indicated  a  lack  or  a  need  to  raise  awareness.  Another  22%  of 

respondents  have  indicated  that  the  Brussels  I  a  Regulation  will  probably  take  the  EEO’s  place  and  the 

regulation will therefore become obsolete. 

8.  Which  resources  have  been  allocated  to  the  EEO?  Have  they  been  sufficient  for  reaching  its 

objectives?  

Results  from  the  interviews  did  not  provide  specific  information  on  the  resources  which  have  been 

allocated  to  the  EEO  within  each  Member  State.  However,  analysis  of  responses  to  interviewees  on 

whether the EEO has met its objectives, that only a minority of respondents (21%) consider the EEO was 

not  able  to  meet  these  key  challenges  (i.e.  creating  a  space  of  mutual  trust  and  accelerate  the 

enforcement of titles at cross-border level), as the scope is considered to be too limited. However, a large 

majority of respondents (79%) has indicated that the EEO has overall met its key challenges in terms of 

its  objectives  and  scope.  However,  21%  of  those  respondents  that  have  indicated  that  although  key 

challenges were overall met, some issues have limited the EEO in fully doing so. As such, they have raised 

the  issue  of  the  lack  of  awareness,  the  autonomous  interpretation  of  an  EU  Regulation  at  the  Member 

State level which can vary quite significantly and the issue of defining the subject matter (i.e. what can be 

defined as an uncontested claim). 

9.  Could  the  results,  delivered  through  EEO,  have  been  achieved  with  other  policy  instruments  or 

mechanisms,  at  European  and/or  national  level?  Could  other  means  have  provided  better  cost-

effectiveness?  

Results  from  the  interviews  indicate  that  almost  all  respondents  (95%)  agree  that  the  impact  of  the 

Regulation could not have been achieved by other means. However, a part of that majority (39%) stated 

that  although  this  is  true  in  the  past,  now  the  same  result  can  be  achieved  through  the  Brussels  I  a 

Regulation. Moreover, another 13% of that large majority states that the claimant should have the choice 

between the instrument and that the EEO can be more effective as it has less grounds for refusal. Another 

16%  of  respondents  within  that  large  majority  mentioned  the  idea  of  enlarging  the  scope  of  other 

Regulations or integrating the EEO into the Brussels I a Regulation. Finally, 5% of respondents indicated 

that  the  same  impact  could  have  been  achieved  through  bilateral  or  international  agreements,  although 

also emphasizing that this would be much more troublesome. 

10. Did a lack of a provision providing for a systematic monitoring of the practical implementation of 

the EEO Regulation influenced its operation? 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interviewees from Belgium and Italy, where there are no provisions added to integrate the Regulation, 

have indicated some issue related to how the Regulation operates within their Member State. As such, two 

out  of  four  Belgian  interviewees  raised  two  particular  issues,  being  the  different  interpretation  regarding 

Article 19 of the Regulation, as well as the issue of who is the competent figure within the court to sign the 

EEO certificate, which can lead to a difference in costs. As such, related to the last issue, the cost of the 

EEO can vary depending on who signs the document, i.e. either both the judge and the court clerk need to 

sign  the  document,  which  results  in  35  EUR  cost,  or  the  document  is  only  signed  by  the  court  clerk  in 

which case it can happen for free.  

Other  examples  in  relation  to  this  can  be  found  under  EQ3  (3.  How  effectively  was  the  EEO  Regulation 

integrated with the legal systems of the Member States and operated by their courts and other competent 

authorities?) of the effectiveness of the Regulation. 

EU added value  

1. What is the European added value of the EEO Regulation? Could the main findings (results/outputs) 

presented in the evaluation have been achieved without EU intervention?  

Results  from  the  interviews  indicate  that  almost  all  respondents  (95%)  agree  that  the  impact  of  the 

Regulation could not have been achieved by other means. However, a part of that majority (39%) stated 

that  although  this  is  true  in  the  past,  now  the  same  result  can  be  achieved  through  the  Brussels  I  a 

Regulation. However, another 13% of that large majority states that the claimant should have the choice 

between the instrument and that the EEO can be more effective as it has less grounds for refusal. Another 

16%  of  respondents  within  that  large  majority  mentioned  the  idea  of  enlarging  the  scope  of  other 

Regulations or integrating the EEO into the Brussels I a Regulation. Finally, 5% of respondents indicated 

that  the  same  impact  could  have  been  achieved  through  bilateral  or  international  agreements,  although 

also emphasizing that this would be much more troublesome. 

The  OPC  indicates  that  the  overall  opinion  of  the  EEO  is  rather  positive  (neutral  (5),  positive  (5),  very 

positive (4), n=17). It is pointed towards the opinion that the EEOs importance and recognition is rather 

low, but that there is still a need for its application, especially in notarial cases (3/6). Another respondent 

(1/6)  points  out  its  importance,  but  that  it  must  be  made  better  known  by  lawyers  and  judges  to  be 

effective.  With  regard  to  the  future  cross-border  enforcement  of  an  uncontested  claim,  a  majority  of 

respondents say that both the EEO and Brussels I  a  are  suitable  (53%), with a slight preference for the 

latter (23% vs. 18%). 

The participant of the workshop shared the following opinions: 

• 

P1 thinks the added value of the EEO is limited. If it is still important in certain MS for specific 

sectors and specific reasons, then this may be evidence of its continued added value.  

• 

P2  says that  there  is  EU added  value,  but  room  for  improvement. She suggests it could be 

inserted  into  Brussels  I  a,  limiting  the  scope  for  uncontested  claims  and  employing  minimum 

96 

 
 
 
standards.  This  would increase  rules  and  awareness  of  practitioners,  and it  would  make  it  easier 

for  law  makers  to  understand  how  to  coordinate  with  one  another.  Also,  it  would  make 

enforcement more uniform.  

• 

P3 comments that notaries in France use the EEO a lot, but for the rest of stakeholders he thinks it 

would be better to employ Brussels I a (and build further on this). 

• 

P4  agrees.  He  thinks  that  keeping  the  EEO  regulation  does  not  cause  harm  due  to  its 

optional  nature.  Some  notaries  use  it,  others  do  not.  However,  the  option  to  chose  elevates 

some concern against the EEO. However, he adds that there are  inconsistencies that are hard 

to explain. The treatment of reconcilable judgments, for instance, have two contrary processes. If 

we chose to keep the EEO, he strongly advocated for a streamlining of the EEO and a potential 

reintegration  of  the  Brussels  I  b  with  a  separate  chapter  that  provides  uncontested  pecuniary 

claims.  With  regard  to  the  service  of  documents,  there  is  a  difference  in  country  of 

origin/requested, which should be further streamlined. 

• 

P5 says that she sees it as necessary to facilitate the use of Brussels I a in the future. She 

agrees that irreconcilable judgments remains the open issue for EEO. 

• 

P6  says  Estonia  is  keen  on  keeping  the  Regulation  as  it  goes  well  together  with  national 

payment order procedures. 

In  sum,  the  participants  agree  that  the  EEO  has  added  value  in  some  countries  and  contexts,  but 

emphasise  the  need  to  streamline  certain  disparities  in  application  and  consider  integration  of  the  EEO 

Regulation and Brussels I a. 

21. What’s your overall opinion of the EEO? (n=17)

5

5

4

2

1

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Very positive

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Very negative

Summary  of  question  21a  What's  your  overall  opinion  of  EEO?  Please  explain.  (n=6):  Three 
respondents replies that the EEOs importance and recognition is rather low, but that there is still a need for 
its application, especially in notarial cases. Another respondent points out its importance, but that it must be 
made  better  known  by  lawyers  and  judges  to  be  effective.  The  remaining  three  replies  did  not  provide 
relevant data. 

97 

 
 
22. For the future cross-border enforcement of an 
uncontested claim, would you choose the EEO or 
enforcement under the Brussels I bis Regulation?
(n=17)

23%

18%

6%

53%

EEO

Brussels I bis Regulation

Both are suitable

No opinion

98 

 
 
 
2.  What  is  the  additional  value  resulting  from  the  EEO,  compared  to  what  could  be  achieved  by 

Member States at national level?  

Results  from  the  interviews  very  clearly  indicate  that  most  interviewees  (77%)  agree  that  the  key 

challenge  before  the  EEO  was  adopted  was  the  need  to  accelerate  the  enforcement  of  titles  at  cross-

border level. As such they have indicated that there was a need for a simplified cross-border procedure 

by  abolishing  the  exequatur  procedure  and  thus  no  longer  having  the  need  to  obtain  a  declaration  of 

enforceability.  Another  23%  indicates  that  the  overall  aim  of  Europe  was  to  create  a  space  of  mutual 

trust  where  all  Member  States  have  the  same  access  to  justice  and  the  EEO  was  a  first  project  that 

enabled the  possibility  of judgments  traveling  freely  across  MS.  Moreover,  a very  large  majority  (95%) 

indicates that the same impact resulting from the EEO could not have been achieved through  any other 

means  at  the  national  level.  Only  5%  of  respondents  indicated  that  the  same  impact  could  have  been 

achieved  through  bilateral  or  international  agreements,  although  also  emphasizing  that  this  would  be 

much more troublesome. The added value of the EEO is thus a more harmonised approach to accelerate 

the enforcement of titles at a cross-border level. 

According  to  the  OPC  respondents,  if  controlling  for  those  who  replied  “don’t  know”,  8/11 

respondents sat that the EEO certificate speeds up the cross-border  enforcement of uncontested claims 

either somewhat or significantly. 

15. Does the EEO certificate speed up the cross-
border enforcement of uncontested claims? (n=16)

Don't know

5

Doesn't speed it up

3

Speeds it up somewhat

6

Speeds it up significantly

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Summary of question 15a  Does the EEO certificate speed up the cross-border enforcement of 
uncontested claims? Please explain(n=5): All respondents but one state that the process is sped up 
somewhat or significantly, mainly due to the fact that there is no possibility to appeal and that it would take 
longer in local courts. This remains relative to the local contexts and experiences of the respondents. 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3. To what extent are the outcomes of the EEO sustainable?  

Looking at the future of EEO, five interviewees have indicated there is strong evidence that indicates the 

need  to  digitalise  the  procedure  of  submission  of  documents,  as  well  as  the  processing  by  public 

authorities. Moreover, considering the key challenges moving forward for the EEO Regulation, 40% of the 

respondents  have  indicated  a  lack  or  a  need  to  raise  awareness  as  the  main  challenge.  22%  of 

respondents  have indicated  that  the  Brussels I  a  Regulation  will  probably  take  the  EEO’s  place  and the 

regulation  will  therefore  become  obsolete.  Another  38%  of  respondents  has  indicated  that  the  key 

challenges the EEO faces are linked to issues with regard to the integration of the Regulation at Member 

State level, as well as issues linked to the need for clarification and finally, issues related to enforcement 

abroad. 

Finally,  a  majority  of  respondents  (62%)  has  indicated  that  soft  measures  can  potentially  provide  a 

solution  for  the  EEO  to  face  these  challenges.  Examples  of  such  solutions  are  linked  to  the  training  of 

legal practitioners, the sharing of best practices, the creation of guidelines and/or a database. The other 

38%  of  respondents  does  not  believe  that  soft  measures  will  provide  a  sufficient  solution  to  the 

challenges  the  EEO  is  facing.  As  such,  three  interviewees  have  specifically  mentioned  again  that  the 

scope of the EEO is too limited and the frequency of its use can only increase when this scope would be 

broadened,  by  for  example,  integrating  it  within  another  existing  Regulation  (e.g.  Brussels  I  a 

Regulation). Other interviewees have indicated that the Regulation has become obsolete due to the entry 

into  force  of  the  Brussels  I  a  Regulation  that  is  able  to  tackle  a  larger  scope  of  judgments  (i.e. 

contested). One interviewee mentioned that the EEO does not provide enough security to the debtor, as 

there is an issue with the notion of what can be defined as uncontested claim in France. As such, if the 

debtor  is  not  present  during  the  hearing,  then  this  presents  an  open  door  for  issuing  an  EEO.  Finally, 

other issues raised that could not be tackled by soft measures link back to the quantity of EU instruments 

that can lead to confusion, as well as the lack of unified enforcement procedure. 

4. Do the issues addressed by the EEO Regulation continue to require action on the EU level?  

Interview outcomes show that considering the key challenges moving forward for the EEO Regulation, 

40% of the respondents have indicated a lack or a need to raise awareness as the main challenge. 22% 

of respondents have indicated that the Brussels I a Regulation will probably take the EEO’s place and the 

regulation  will  therefore  become  obsolete.  Another  38%  of  respondents  has  indicated  that  the  key 

challenges the EEO faces are linked to issues with regard to the integration of the Regulation at Member 

State level, as well as issues linked to the need for clarification and finally, issues related to enforcement 

abroad. 

Finally,  a  majority  of  respondents  (62%)  has  indicated  that  soft  measures  can  potentially  provide  a 

solution  for  the  EEO  to  face  these  challenges.  Examples  of  such  solutions  are  linked  to  the  training  of 

legal practitioners, the sharing of best practices, the creation of guidelines and/or a database. The other 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
38%  of  respondents  does  not  believe  that  soft  measures  will  provide  a  sufficient  solution  to  the 

challenges  the  EEO  is  facing.  As  such,  three  interviewees  have  specifically  mentioned  again  that  the 

scope of the EEO is too limited and the frequency of its use can only increase when this scope would be 

broadened,  by  for  example,  integrating  it  within  another  existing  Regulation  (e.g.  Brussels  I  a 

Regulation). Other interviewees have indicated that the Regulation has become obsolete due to the entry 

into  force  of  the  Brussels  I  a  Regulation  that  is  able  to  tackle  a  larger  scope  of  judgments  (i.e. 

contested). One interviewee mentioned that the EEO does not provide enough security to the debtor, as 

there is an issue with the notion of what can be defined as uncontested claim in France. As such, if the 

debtor  is  not  present  during  the  hearing,  then  this  presents  an  open  door  for  issuing  an  EEO.  Finally, 

other issues raised that could not be tackled by soft measures link back to the quantity of EU instruments 

that can lead to confusion, as well as the lack of unified enforcement procedure. 

According  to  the  OPC  respondents,  the  EU  should  continue  to  work  on  facilitation  of  cross-border 

enforcement claims (87%). Two respondents explicitly state that the process to issue certificates must be 

made  less  burdensome  and  lengthy,  for  example  by  disseminating  the  existence  of  EEO  at  the  European 

level. 

20. Should the EU continue to work on facilitation of 
cross-border enforcement of claims? (n=16)

13%

87%

Yes No

Summary of question 20a Please indicate what aspects of the cross-border enforcement of claims 
require  EU  action  and  what  this  action  could  be.  (n=9):  Two  respondents  argue  that  further 
standardisation and harmonisation must be made in how the EEO is applied. Two respondents say that the 
process to issue certificates must be made less burdensome and lengthy, for example by disseminating the 
existence  of  EEO  at  the  European  level.  One  respondent  highlights  the  need  to  progress  on  the  actual 
execution phase of the warrants, particularly on assistance in the search for asset information. 

5. What would be the most likely consequences of not having a EU-wide EEO Regulation? 

Results  from  the  interviews  have  shown  that  a  very  large  majority  (95%)  indicates  that  the  same 

impact resulting from the EEO could not have been achieved without it. Although 39% has indicated that 

it  could happen through another EU-wide regulation, such  as Brussels I  a today,  at the time it  was the 

appropriate  instrument.  As  such,  results  from  the  interviews  have  indicated  that  77%  of  interviewees 

agree that the key challenge before the EEO was adopted was to accelerate the enforcement of titles at 

cross-border  level  and  that  there  was  a  need  for  a  simplified  cross-border  procedure  by  abolishing  the 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
exequatur  procedure  and  thus  no  longer  having  the  need  to  obtain  a  declaration  of  enforceability. 

Another  23%  indicates  that  the  overall  aim  of  Europe  was  to  create  a  space  of  mutual  trust  where  all 

Member  States  have  the  same  access  to  justice  and  the  EEO  was  a  first  project  that  enabled  the 

possibility  of  judgments  traveling  freely  across  MS.  Only  5%  of  respondents  indicated  that  the  same 

impact  could  have  been  achieved  through  bilateral  or  international  agreements,  although  also 

emphasizing that this would be much more troublesome. 

According to the OPC respondents, there are diverging opinions on what cross-border enforcement of 

uncontested claims in the EU be without the EEO Regulation. However, the majority share of respondents 

(6/14) say “more difficult.” 

19. How would the cross-border enforcement of 
uncontested claims in the EU be without the EEO 
Regulation? (n=14)

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

3

0

6

4

1

Much easier

Easier

Same as with EEO

More difficult

Much more difficult

102 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX VI:   RULINGS OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION CONCERNING THE EEO REGULATION 

Parties 

Case 
number 
C‑292/10  G v Cornelius de 
Visser 

C‑508/12  Walter Wapenik v 

Josef Thurner, 

Requesting 
court 
Landgericht 
Regensburg 
(Germany) 

Landesgericht 
Salzburg 
(Austria) 

C‑300/14 

Imtech Marine 
Belgium NV 
v 
Radio Hellenic SA 

Hof van 
beroep te 
Antwerpen 
(Belgium) 

Thesis of the judgment 

European Union law must be interpreted as precluding certification as a European Enforcement Order, within 
the meaning of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 
creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, of a judgment by default issued against a 
defendant whose address is unknown. 
Article 6(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 
creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that it does 
not apply to contracts concluded between two persons who are not engaged in commercial or professional 
activities 
1.      Article 19 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 
creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, read in the light of Article 288 TFEU, must be 
interpreted as not requiring Member States to establish in their national law a review procedure such as that 
referred to in Article 19 of that regulation. 

2.      Article 19(1) of Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to certify a 
judgment delivered in absentia as a European Enforcement Order, the court ruling on such an application must 
satisfy itself that its national law effectively and without exception allows for a full review, in law and in fact, of 
such a judgment in the two situations referred to in that provision and that it allows the periods for challenging 
a judgment on an uncontested claim to be extended, not only in the event of force majeure, but also where 
other extraordinary circumstances beyond the debtor’s control prevented him from contesting the claim in 
question. 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
C‑511/14  Pebros Servizi Srl 

C‑484/15 

v 
Aston Martin 
Lagonda Ltd 
Ibrica Zulfikarpašić 
v 
Slaven Gajer 

Tribunale di 
Bologna 
(Italy) 

Općinski sud 
u Novom 
Zagrebu 
(Croatia) 

C‑66/17 

Grzegorz Chudaś, 
Irena Chudaś 
v 
DA Deutsche 
Allgemeine 
Versicherung 
Aktiengesellschaft, 

Sąd Rejonowy 
Poznań-
Grunwald i 
Jeżyce 
(Polska) 

3.      Article 6 of Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the certification of a judgment 
as a European Enforcement Order, which may be applied for at any time, can be carried out only by a judge. 
The conditions according to which, in the case of a judgment by default, a claim is to be regarded as 
‘uncontested’, within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 
805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement 
Order for uncontested claims, must be assessed autonomously, solely in accordance with that regulation. 
1.      Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a 
European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that, in Croatia, notaries, 
acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings 
based on an ‘authentic document’, do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of that 
regulation. 

2.      Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a writ of execution adopted by a notary, in 
Croatia, based on an ‘authentic document’, and which has not been contested may not be certified as a 
European Enforcement Order since it does not relate to an uncontested claim within the meaning of Article 
3(1) of that regulation. 
Article 4(1) and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 
April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that 
an enforceable decision on the amount of costs related to court proceedings, contained in a judgment which 
does not relate to an uncontested claim, cannot be certified as a European Enforcement Order. 

C-289/17  Collect Inkasso 

OÜ, ITM Inkasso 
OÜ, Bigbank AS 
v 
Rain Aint, Lauri 
Palm, Raiko 
Oikimus, Egle 
Noor, Artjom 

Tartu 
Maakohus 
(Estonia) 

Article 17(a) and Article 18(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as 
meaning that a court judgment delivered without the debtor having been informed of the address of the court 
to which to respond or before which to appear, or, as appropriate, before which an appeal can be lodged 
against such a decision, cannot be certified as a European Enforcement Order. 

104 

 
 
Konjarov 

C‑518/18  RD 

v 
SC 

C‑393/21 

Lufthansa Technik 
AERO Alzey GmbH 

Okresní soud 
v Českých 
Budějovicích 
(Czechia) 

Lietuvos 
Aukščiausiasis 
Teismas 
(Supreme 
Court, 
Lithuania) 

C-
215/11195 

Iwona Szyrocka 
v 

Sąd 
Okręgowy we 

Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a 
European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that, where a court is 
unable to obtain the defendant’s address, it does not allow a judicial decision relating to a debt, made 
following a hearing attended by neither the defendant nor the guardian ad litem appointed for the purpose of 
the proceedings, to be certified as a European Enforcement Order. 
1.      Article 23(c) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 
2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims must be interpreted as meaning that the 
concept of ‘exceptional circumstances’ contained in that provision covers a situation in which continued 
enforcement proceedings in respect of a judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order, where the 
debtor has challenged that judgment or has brought an application for the rectification or withdrawal of the 
European Enforcement Order certificate in the Member State of origin, would expose the debtor to a real risk 
of particularly serious harm, the reparation of which would prove impossible or extremely difficult if that 
judgment were to be annulled or the European Enforcement Order certificate were to be rectified or 
withdrawn. That concept does not refer to circumstances connected with the judicial proceedings brought in 
the Member State of origin against the judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order or against the 
European Enforcement Order certificate. 
2.      Article 23 of Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as permitting the simultaneous application of 
the measures limiting the enforcement proceedings and requiring the provision of security laid down in 
subparagraphs (a) and (b), but not the simultaneous application of either one of those two measures and that 
staying the enforcement proceedings under subparagraph (c). 
3.      Article 6(2) of Regulation No 805/2004, read in conjunction with Article 11, must be interpreted as 
meaning that, where the enforceability of a judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order has been 
suspended in the Member State of origin and the certificate referred to in Article 6(2) has been produced 
before the court of the Member State of enforcement, that court is required to stay, on the basis of that 
judgment, the enforcement proceedings initiated in the latter State. 
Where the defendant is ordered to pay to the claimant the interest accrued up to the date of payment of the 
principal, the national court is free to determine the way in which the European order for payment form, set 

195   This case concerns Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 

L 399, p. 1) however the quoted ruling is of relevance to the EEO Regulation as far as the determination of interest is concerned. 

105 

 
 
SiGer Technologie 
GmbH 

Wrocławiu 
(Poland) 

out in Annex V to Regulation No 1896/2006, is to be completed in practice, provided that the form thus 
completed enables the defendant, first, to be fully aware of the decision that he is required to pay the interest 
accrued up to the date of payment of the principal and, second, to identify clearly the rate of interest and the 
date from which that interest is claimed. 

106