Purpose and scope of the evaluation
Regulation (EC) 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims 1 (“EEO Regulation”) was established to simplify and reduce costs of the cross-border enforcement of uncontested claims by abolishing the exequatur procedure, a separate court decision allowing enforcement of foreign judgments. The exequatur procedure was replaced by a certificate issued in the Member State of origin, confirming that the rights of the parties were observed. The EEO Regulation paved a way to the general abolition of the exequatur, that happened with the adoption of the Brussels Ia Regulation. However, the Brussels Ia Regulation retained more grounds for refusal of enforcement than the EEO Regulation.
The evaluation assesses the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value of the EEO Regulation, in today’s legal, economic, and social contexts, especially with the parallel existence of the Brussels Ia Regulation.
Main findings of the evaluation
Removing exequatur reduced costs of cross-border enforcement of uncontested claims by 70%, from about EUR 2,128 under the Brussels I Regulation to EUR 610 with an EEO certificate, mainly due to lower lawyer fees, but also court fees and translation costs. With the Brussels Ia Regulation, costs between the EEO and Brussels Ia enforcement levelled, yet the EEO prevents more grounds for refusal, possibly reducing enforcement opposition and subsequent costs. Total savings from 2006 to 2020 amounted to around EUR 107 million.
The EEO certification reduced time for enabling enforcement by 28 days compared to the Brussels I Regulation. Enforcement under the Brussels Ia would take similar time to the EEO, unless a request for refusal is made, which would prolong it to the level under the Brussels I Regulation.
The savings of time and money under the EEO Regulation were achieved with full respect of the procedural rights of the parties, proven by stakeholder feedback. However, debtor awareness of the minimum procedural standards is not sufficient, which may result in lack of reaction when they are not respected.
Annually, around 4,368 EEO certificates are issued across the Member States i.e. 168 per Member State.
The main practical issue is correct service of documents, but the EEO Regulation provides for an appropriate remedy in this respect.
Efficiency of the EEO suffers from insufficient awareness and knowledge, inconsistent interpretation, and ambiguity of translation requirements in the Member States.
The EEO Regulation is coherent with relevant EU legislation, sharing concepts from the Brussels I and influencing similar regulations like European Order for Payment and European Small Claims Procedure.
Though its added value diminished with the Brussels Ia, the number of issued EEO certificates remains stable, which illustrates relevance and sustainability of the EEO Regulation.
Conclusions
The EEO Regulation achieved its objectives by reducing costs and time for the enforcement of cross-border uncontested claims and by replacing exequatur with simple certification while upholding parties’ rights. Although the Brussels Ia generally abolished the exequatur, the EEO still offers potential benefits, mainly limited grounds for refusal, which presumably results in lower number of requests for refusal. No immediate revision or repeal is needed, but non-legislative measures to increase awareness and improve application would be useful.