COMBINED EVALUATION ROADMAP/INCEPTION IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Title of the initiative

Modernisation of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters: Taking of evidence

Lead DG – responsible unit

DG JUST /A1

Likely Type of initiative

Legislative proposal amending : Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters

Indicative Planning

Q2/2018

Additional Information

The modernisation of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters comprises of two initiatives (i) the service of documents and (ii) the taking of evidence. A common 'combined evaluation roadmap/inception impact assessment' covers both of these initiatives. You may thus express your views on one or both of the initiatives via either of the links below.

1.Service of documents: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/judicial-cooperation/service-documents/index_en.htm or

2.Taking of evidence: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/judicial-cooperation/taking-evidence/index_en.htm

This combined evaluation roadmap/Inception Impact Assessment aims to inform stakeholders about the Commission's work in order to allow them to provide feedback on the intended initiative and to participate effectively in future consultation activities. Stakeholders are in particular invited to provide views on the Commission's understanding of the problem and possible solutions and to make available any relevant information that they may have, including on possible impacts of the different options. The Inception Impact Assessment is provided for information purposes only and its content may change. This Inception Impact Assessment does not prejudge the final decision of the Commission on whether this initiative will be pursued or on its final content.

A. Context, Evaluation, Problem definition and Subsidiarity Check

Context

The EU has the task to develop the European area of justice in civil matters based on principle of mutual trust and mutual recognition of judgements. The area of justice requires judicial cooperation over the borders. For this purpose, and for the proper functioning of the internal market, the EU has adopted legislation on cross-border service of judicial documents 1 and on cooperation in taking of evidence 2 . These are crucial instruments to regulate judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters between the Member States. Their common purpose is to provide an efficient framework for cross-border judicial cooperation. They have replaced the earlier international, more cumbersome system of Hague conventions 3  between the Member States 4 .

Although the legislation on judicial cooperation appears to address technical procedural matters, its impact on the everyday lives of EU citizens is substantial. It is applied in each and every judicial proceeding having cross-border implications; its proper functioning in these concrete cases is indispensable for ensuring access to justice and a fair trial for the parties to the proceedings (e.g. the lack of proper service of the document initiating proceedings is by far the most often used ground for refusing the recognition and enforcement of judgments 5 ). The efficiency of the framework of international judicial assistance has, therefore, a direct impact on the perception of the citizens involved in such cross-border disputes on the function of the judiciary and the state of the rule of law in the Member States. This indicates both the persistent existence of problems in this area and the potential for improvements to make it easier for citizens and businesses to enforce their rights throughout the EU. 

The aim to improve the cooperation framework is in close convergence with the objectives of the Commission set by the Digital Single Market Strategy 6 . In terms of the e-Government the Strategy expresses the need for more actions to modernise public (including judicial) administration, achieve cross-border interoperability and facilitate easy interaction with citizens. In its Political Guidelines, President Juncker has defined the need for a better judicial cooperation among one of the 10 priorities of the Commission: "as citizens increasingly study, work, do business, get married and have children across the Union, judicial cooperation among EU Member States must be improved step by step... so that citizens and companies can more easily exercise their rights across the Union". In line with this, the EU Justice Agenda for 2020 specifically referred to the need to reinforce civil procedural rights, for example as regards the service of documents or the taking of evidence. 7  

The initiative also fits in the agenda of the European Parliament, which has just recently adopted an own-initiative report on common minimum standards of civil procedure in the EU 8 . The resolution, which includes recommendations to the European Commission, expresses the need of minimum procedural standards and a wider use of modern communication technology both relating to service of documents and taking of evidence.

The Commission assessed the practical operation of the Regulation on service of documents in 2013 9 . It concluded that the Regulation has been applied satisfactorily by the Member States’ authorities in general but that the increasing judicial integration of Member States, where the abolition of exequatur (intermediate procedure) has become a general rule, has brought to light the limits of its current rules. The report has encouraged a broad public debate on the role of the Regulation in the Union's civil justice area and how in particular the service of documents may be further improved. 

The legislation on judicial cooperation has undergone detailed assessments over the past few years on its implementation in studies, in reports by the Commission and discussions in the European Judicial Network (see detailed list under chapter D relating to data collection).

Evaluation

To be able to provide relevant and up-to date conclusions on all key evaluation criteria, in addition to the findings of the assessment exercises indicated above, the initiative will be accompanied by a updated evaluation and an Impact Assessment. In line with the Better Regulation guidelines, the evaluation will examine the 5 key mandatory evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, coherence and EU added value, in order to examine issues which have already been identified (see following section) and to identify any additional problems which should be tackled. The evaluation's findings will feed into an impact assessment of the policy options which could address the problems identified. The work will therefore cover both a backward-looking evaluation and a future oriented Impact Assessment, and one single, open public consultation covering both aspects will be carried out.

The current evaluation should collect data and evidence (including stakeholder opinions), as regards the legislation and practices, taking into account the already existing evidence collected in course of the preceding assessment projects carried out prior to this full evaluation (see section D relating to data collection). On the basis of the evidence collected, the Commission will assess the operation of the existing EU framework on cross-border judicial assistance (focussing separately on Regulation (EC) 1393/2007 and on Regulation (EC) 1206/2001). This assessment will have the goal to measure the extent to which the core objectives of the two instruments (such as the improvement of the efficiency and speed of judicial procedures, the simplification and acceleration of cooperation mechanisms, the better access to justice by reducing costs of the procedures concerned and the protection and improvement of the rights of the defence) have been achieved in practice. As a part of this work, a cost-benefit analysis of the Regulations will be carried out. Furthermore, expected and unexpected economic and social impacts on the parties (may they be consumers or businesses) and other actors of judicial proceedings with cross-border implications, on the justice systems in general and beyond, and on fundamental rights will be assessed.

The evaluation covers the entire period of application of Regulation (EC) 1393/2007, which goes back to 13 November 2008, which is the date on which the new Regulation on service of documents replaced the old one (Regulation (EC) 1348/2000); whereas the Regulation on taking of evidence will be evaluated as of 5 December 2007, which is the date of adoption of the relevant report of the Commission on the practical operation of the Regulation 10 . The geographic scope of the evaluation will extend to the territorial scope of application of the two instruments (which, in terms of the Regulation on service of documents, includes Denmark).

Problem the initiative aims to tackle

Both regulations apply in judicial procedures containing cross-border elements. The exact number of proceedings is difficult to quantify, in the absence of appropriate statistics, but it is linked to the overall number of the legal relationships across borders, which continues to increase as more and more businesses make use of the free movement of persons and goods.

The following numbers demonstrate the relevance of the regulations: in the area of commercial law, the number of problematic transactions in business to consumer relations within the EU amounts to 18.6 million per year, whereas the number of cross-border disputes between EU businesses reaches a 1.2 million annually 11 . In the area of family law, available figures relating to cross-border legal situations are also high: yearly 250.000 to 310.000 new international marriages are concluded in the EU 12 , whereas the number of international divorces is between 100.000 and 140.000 13 . Up to 230.000 children are born every year to international couples within the EU 14  and there are up to 588.000 successions with cross-border elements 15 . While not all of these international relationships or disputed transactions end up in court, from the available data it can be estimated that each year there are approximately 1.7 million court proceedings dealing with civil and commercial matters with cross-border implications involving another Member State. 16

In each and every case with at least one party in another Member State than the one where litigation takes place, courts do apply both regulations. At least two documents per instance (the document instituting the proceedings and the judgment) have to be served under the Service Regulation. Also, courts may have recourse to the channels provided by the Regulation for the taking of evidence whenever there is a party or witness to be heard, or an inspection to be carried out in another Member State. But the application of the two Regulations is not restricted to proceedings before the civil law tribunals (e.g. the Regulation on service of documents covers also "extra-judicial" documents, or situations where service is necessary without any underlying judicial proceedings; whereas the Regulation on taking of evidence may be applied also in proceedings before administrative authorities or judicial officers when they exercise judicial functions).

During the assessment process so far the following shortcomings have been identified:

1)Technical developments provided by the digitalisation of judicial proceedings are not used;

There is evidence that despite their ambition to promote the use of modern technologies, Member States' designated authorities do not accept electronic means of communications for interactions between themselves and that electronic service methods are not used and neither electronic evidence is transmitted or accepted under the Regulation.

2)Disincentives to the use of the available direct methods of judicial assistance;

Certain methods accepted by the Regulation on service of documents, such as the service by post, are important alternatives to the traditional means of transmission of documents involving the transmitting and receiving authorities of Member States. They provide a cheaper way of serving documents, when under the existing framework some Member States charge up to € 150 for a service of a document through the traditional channel. Therefore, postal service is a popular alternative, but problems are reported, mainly relating to the quality of the delivery (lack of or incorrect/incomplete filling in of the acknowledgement of receipt).

With regard to the Regulation on taking of evidence, available data suggest that the method of direct taking of evidence is used rarely. This is partly explained by objective obstacles, such as the inaccessibility of videoconferencing equipment, but partly also by the structure of the procedure established by the Regulation, which is considered to be formalistic and cumbersome.

3)Shortcomings in the protection of the rights of the defence;

Both Regulations include safeguards in order to ensure that efficiency and speed of judicial procedures will not come at the expense of the rights of the defence. Despite these rules, there is reporting on persistent problems in cases where the protection of the right of the defence fails. This is partly due to the unclear nature of the existing rules. For example, with regard to the right of the addressee to refuse the service of the document due to inappropriate language uncertainties remain as to

a. the procedure of informing the addressee of this right,

b. the procedural steps to refuse the acceptance of a document, and

c. the legal consequences of a refusal.

4)Problems related to the scope of the instruments. 

The Regulation on service of documents is applicable only where the address of the recipient is known. It does not provide any solution for the situation where the address is unknown or incorrect. At present, EU citizens and residents are left without any effective help if they have to locate their adversary in another Member State.

With regard to the Regulation on taking of evidence, there are diverging interpretations by Member States' courts of what is precisely considered as "taking of evidence" under the Regulation. This leads to differences between Member States and a "variable geometry" in terms of the scope of the Regulation. In addition, where courts in a Member State seek evidence in civil or commercial matters from another Member State, the use of this Regulation is not mandatory.

The compounded effect of these shortcomings is that both instruments cannot live up to their potential in terms of both making judicial proceedings more speedy and efficient and saving costs for the parties as well as for Member States which fund the judicial assistance mechanism. In addition, they result in an adverse impact on the protection of fundamental rights of the parties involved, in particular access to justice and the rights of the defence.

Subsidiarity check (and legal basis)  

The legal basis of this initiative is Article 81 TFEU. Subparagraphs (b) and (d) of paragraph (2) of this Article grants the EU the power to adopt measures, particularly when necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market, aimed at ensuring the cross-border service of judicial and extrajudicial documents and the cooperation in taking of evidence. Already, the existing two Regulations were adopted under the predecessor of this legal basis (Article 61(c) and 65 TEC), which implies that any legislative amendments of these instruments requires an EU level intervention.

The aim of the policy area concerning judicial cooperation in civil matters has been always be to establish a genuine area of justice, where judicial decisions circulate and legal situations acquired under one legal system are acknowledged within the EU across borders without unnecessary obstacles. This approach is based on the conviction that without a genuine judicial area the underlying freedoms of the single market cannot be fully exploited.

The problems to be tackled by the initiative arise in cross-border judicial proceedings which by definition transcend the reach of national legal systems and stem either from the insufficient level of cooperation between the authorities and officers of the Member States, or from the lack of interoperability and coherence of the existing domestic systems and legal environment. These problems can be solved efficiently only at EU level.

B. Objectives and Policy options

The general objective of the initiative is to further improve the efficiency and speed of judicial procedures and ensure proper administration of justice in cases with cross-border implications, thereby contributing to a better functioning of the internal market and reducing unnecessary costs whilst at the same time protecting or improving the rights of the defence.

The specific objectives are to further accelerate and simplify cooperation mechanism for cross-border judicial assistance; to adapt the system to the technical developments provided by the digitalization (thereby facilitating the switch from paper-based channels to electronic ones); to create greater transparency in finding the whereabouts of an addressee (thereby avoiding unnecessary use of fictitious methods of service of documents and reducing the number of default judgments against defendants residing in another Member State); to improve legal certainty in dealing with cross-border cases by clarifying the scopes of the Regulations and their role in the protection of the rights of the defence.

 To achieve the policy objectives set out above, the Commission is considering the options listed below (final options remain subject to findings from the evaluation):

1. Baseline scenario: no policy change;

2. Non-legislative measures aiming at improving implementation of existing EU legislation related to international judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters;

3. Legislative changes to the two underlying Regulations;

4. Legislative amendments to the Regulations complemented by (minimum or maximum) standards of procedural law relating to additional aspects of cross-border litigation, where such alignment of national provisions/ practices would contribute to the free circulation of judgments within the EU.

Under the baseline scenario, Member States might continue in a unilateral and uncoordinated manner to develop their technical standards establishing digitalised workflows and communication channels in judicial proceedings which would increase obstacles to interoperability. Cross-border proceedings would be further on managed exclusively through paper-based interactions, which would increase the difference in terms of the time needed to process such cases compared to digitalised domestic proceedings. The problems identified in section A above would by and large continue.

Regarding the options of improving implementation and application of existing legislation by non-legislative measures, potentials provided by the European e-Justice Portal and the European Judicial Network (EJN) in civil matters may be exploited. There is already experience in this regard: the EJN elaborated factsheets containing information on relevant domestic laws and practices which were uploaded to the e-Justice Portal. Similarly, the Commission and the Member States have delivered several outputs providing information on promoting the use of the videoconferencing across borders 17 . These outputs cover a wide range of issues from the general description of the concepts and the inventory of the technical features to the accessibility of the available facilities. It is apparent that such activities mostly improve the availability of information on the situation in other Member States but will not bring about solutions which would require a convergence or interoperability of domestic systems. The pilot projects launched under the e-Codex, which focus only on certain specific instruments and are based on the voluntary participation of the members, illustrate that.

A legislative review of the two Regulations could appropriately address the problems outlined in Section A. Possible components of such an intervention could consist in:

a) Legal framework for setting up a technical system ensuring electronic communication and exchange of electronic documents between designated agencies and authorities of the Regulations. Mutual recognition of domestic systems of electronic service of documents and electronic evidence, to dismantle unnecessary legal obstacles and technical barriers in the way of accessibility of those systems from another Member State. The initiative could thereby build on some recent technical developments co-funded by the EU, in particular on the output of the CEF e-Delivery 18 and e-CODEX projects. Also the potential given by the regulatory framework set up by the eIDAS Regulation will be exploited 19 .

b) Provision of clearer definitions of formalities and procedural steps to be followed in course of serving judicial and extrajudicial documents by post in another Member State.

c) procedural simplifications in the Regulation of taking of evidence in order to increase the attractiveness of the method of direct taking of evidence. The Regulation should make distinctions between the various instances of taking of evidence directly by a court or authority in the territory of another Member State (e.g. obtaining the evidence through the requesting court, through a diplomatic officer or consular agent or through an appointed agent (e.g. expert)).

d) Clarification of the provisions relating to the right of the defence and to the scope of the instruments. E.g. the Regulation on service of documents should define the steps the various actors responsible for serving the document shall take in order to ensure actual delivery of the document instituting proceedings or of the judgment to an addressee. E.g. the Regulation on taking of evidence shall be more precise which actions under national laws qualify as “taking of evidence” under the Regulation; the Regulation on service of documents could clarify the concept of “extrajudicial documents”.

e) the amendment will further assess possibilities for receiving authorities under the Regulation on service of documents taking steps for clarifying incorrectly indicated addresses, and assisting in the identification of the whereabouts of the addressee, possibly with the e-Justice Portal as a single entry point for submitting on-line requests to that effect.

On the option relating to EU standards of procedural law in areas beyond service of documents and taking of evidence, an intervention should be considered if - and insofar it is - necessary and has a clear added value. For this decision, in addition to the broad public consultation to be followed, the Commission can use the findings of the external study evaluating national procedural laws and practices in terms of their impact on the free circulation of judgments, which has been concluded in June 2017. Among others, one may consider an alignment of national provisions relating to certain aspects of legal aid or the entering an appearance by the defendant.

C. Preliminary Assessment of Expected Impacts

Likely economic impacts

The switch to digitalisation and the use of electronic means of communications can save costs on the level of the individual proceedings.

With regard to the Regulation on service of documents, an increased confidence of courts and citizens in using the cheaper alternative methods of serving documents across borders may reduce costs attached to such type of judicial assistance significantly. Currently 6 Member States charge fees in a mandatory manner and at least another 5 in an optional manner for the service of incoming documents through their competent persons. Costs of such services range from € 30 to € 150 per service. By contrast, the cost of cross-border service of documents by post (by way of registered letters with acknowledgment of receipt) is between € 5 and € 20; whereas there are no individual costs for serving an electronic document through the internet, once the appropriate IT system is established. With regard to cross-border taking of evidence, available data suggests that the cost of a cross-border hearing (of a party or of a witness) carried out through distance means of communication (via videoconferencing) amounts to € 100; whereas making it without the use of distance means of communication would cost between € 400 and € 800. 20

Significant savings can be expected at the level of individual cases by an improved administration of justice. If there would be an increased transparency of or better access to the information on the whereabouts of natural or legal persons, a large amount of cases could be avoided in which the defendant is currently notified of the proceedings against him/her by a fictitious method of service of documents (such as publication in a gazette). In addition, as a consequence of better, faster and more reliable judicial assistance in this field, the proceedings will be carried out and concluded faster with greater legal certainty and less grounds for challenges and problems at the later stage of enforcement (e.g. because deficient service is invoked as a ground of refusal. This will result in efficiency gains translating into cost savings both for parties and Member States.

The switch to IT solutions has a one-off cost for the Member States. Some costs for the EU budget can be counted for a technical solution in which the e-Justice Portal will be used as a single entry point for submitting requests to national authorities or publicly available registers. If the intervention would encompass an idea of interconnecting domicile registers for natural persons of those Member States where such registers exist, the establishment of such an interconnection would require financial input which, however, is minimal compared to the expected savings on long-term. Taking the estimates used for the establishment of the system of interconnection of insolvency registers 21 , it can be estimated that the development of the central interconnection would cost between €0.5 - 1 million, the yearly maintenance costs of this central interconnection would be between €100.000 – 300.000 (both items charge the EU budget); whereas the development and maintenance cost for the Member States concerned could be around €50.000 per year.

 

Likely social impacts

Fairer and quicker administration of justice is a public good. It increases trust of citizens in the justice and in the democratic values, in more general.

Likely environmental impacts

Digitalisation will have a positive impact on the environment, by avoiding the use of paper in the administration.

Likely impacts on fundamental rights

A better level of protection of the right of the defence in cross-border civil and commercial matters can be expected from the intervention. This will contribute to the legal certainty and to the principle of rule of law. Data protection aspects and the right to privacy should be considered when trying to create greater transparency of or better access to the information concerning the whereabouts of legal and natural persons in the Member States.

Likely impacts on simplification and/or administrative burden

This initiative will lead to smoother functioning of the justice systems in Member States, thus reducing the burden for citizens to locate their adversary in other Member States, or to effectuate service of documents electronically to addressees residing in another Member States. Similarly, due to the systematic use of electronic means of communication, administrative burdens will be reduced for courts to engage in judicial cooperation with courts or authorities in another Member State. Procedural simplifications in the Regulation of taking of evidence in order to increase the attractiveness of the method of direct taking of evidence may contribute to legal certainty. They are also expected to result in a decrease of the situations when national courts replace the ways of the Regulation by means provided in the national procedural laws (e.g. instead of summoning a person (witness) to the court from abroad, more hearings will take place through videoconferencing).

D. Data Collection and Better Regulation Instruments

Impact assessment

An Impact Assessment, backed up by an evaluation, will be undertaken to support the preparation of this initiative and to inform the Commission's decision. The evaluation will cover the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, EU value-added and utility of the two instruments as they are in force today. The Impact Assessment will analyse the options set out above in order to determine how such action can be best designed. The Impact Assessment Report will be corroborated by the deliverables of an external economic study. A Commission inter-service group will be set up for steering the process.

Evidence base and data collection

The Commission has contracted the following studies to analyse the economic and legal angles of the initiatives above that can be used as evidence for the evaluation and impact assessment:

Study on the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil and commercial matters (carried out by Mainstrat and the University of the Basque Country) – final report adopted in June 2012;

Study on the application of articles 3(1)(C) and 3, and articles 17 and 18 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (carried out by Mainstrat and the University of the Basque Country) – final report adopted in June 2012 22 ;

Study containing a comparative legal analysis of laws and practices of the Member States on service of document (carried out by a consortium composed of University Firenze, University Uppsala and DMI) – published in November 2016 23 ;

An evaluation study of national procedural laws and practices in terms of their impact on the free circulation of judgments and on the equivalence and effectiveness of the procedural protection of consumers under EU consumer law (carried out by a consortium led by MPI Luxembourg) – final report accepted in June 2017 24 .

Furthermore, in the context of an action grant of the EU Justice Programme, a study was carried out by the consortium led by University of Maribor (SI) delivering a comparative analysis of the law of evidence in 26 Member States – this study was closed in spring 2016.

In addition, the Commission organised several other activities with the purpose of assessing the practical operation of the two Regulations. In particular, several meetings of the civil EJN have been dedicated to this issue, most recently at the EJN meeting in Bratislava in November 2016; but there are plans to organise another dedicated session under the Estonian Presidency. A large-scale questionnaire (containing more than 50 questions) was submitted to and answered by the Member States assessing the practical operation of the Regulation on taking of evidence, in 2014.

It is to be reminded that the Commission adopted an evaluation report relating to the Regulation on service of document on 4 December 2013 – COM(2013) 858 final 25 .

The own-initiative report of the European Parliament on common minimum standards of civil procedure in the EU will also be considered, as it contains provisions related to the acceptance of modern communication technology both for service of documents and for taking of evidence. The report was adopted by the plenary on 4 July 2017.

Also the findings of the ongoing ELI (European Law Institute) and Unidroit (International Institute for the Unification of Private Law) project "From Transnational Principles to European Rules of Civil Procedure" may be considered in course of the preparation of this initiative.

In the course of the current comprehensive evaluation and impact assessment exercise, the Commission aims at collecting complementary evidence to ensure full coverage of all standard evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value, in line with the Better Regulation guidelines. This evidence will be collected through several tools, indicated in the consultation strategy, namely through an on-line public consultation, consultation workshops with targeted stakeholders, an economic study carried out by an external contractor, discussions with representatives of EU Member States, with the assistance of an expert group of independent experts.

 

Consultation strategy

A formal public consultation on key achievements and shortcomings experienced (as well as solutions to address them), priorities for future implementation and policy options set out above will be launched. The objective of this public consultation is to collect stakeholders' views in relation to the practical operation of the current legal framework of cross-border judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters, with particular focus on the service of documents and taking of evidence.

The public consultation will include questions relating to the current policy as well as to future policy options for each of the two Regulations. This consultation, which will take place over twelve weeks, will be available on the Commission's central consultation website (https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations_en) and, directly, via https://ec.europa.eu/eusurvey/runner/Service_and_Evidence. The questionnaire will be available in all EU official languages with the exception of Irish. Replies are welcome in any official language of the EU, including Irish.

The public consultation will be supported by workshops organised for a closed group of selected stakeholders with a particular interest on the issues of cross-border judicial assistance (e.g. stakeholders representing various judicial professions – such as lawyers, members of the judiciary, bailiffs etc. –, postal operators, IT sector, business actors and consumers).

Furthermore, an expert group gathering expertise from independent experts in the field of international judicial assistance and private international procedural law will be set up; a dialogue with Member States' experts will be undertaken.

The consultation activities will be promoted through a dedicated webpage of the Commission. The results of the consultations will be summarised and published on the relevant Commission web page.

Will an Implementation plan be established?

Despite the fact that the initiative is likely to be two regulations which apply directly in Member States, support will be sought from the EJN civil and e-Justice for a smooth implementation.

(1)      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, OJ L 324, 10.12.2007, pp. 79-120.
(2)      Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, OJ L 174, 27.06.2001, pp. 1-24.
(3)      The Convention of 15 November 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters and the Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters.
(4)      The Regulations apply to all EU countries except Denmark. Denmark has concluded a parallel agreement on 19 October 2005 with the European Community on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, which extends the provisions of the Regulation on service of documents and its implementing measures to Denmark. The agreement entered into force on 1 July 2007.
(5)      An evaluation study of national procedural laws and practices in terms of their impact on the free circulation of judgments and on the equivalence and effectiveness of the procedural protection of consumers under EU consumer law (carried out by a consortium led by MPI Luxembourg), final report, June 2017, pp.60-61 (not published yet).
(6)      COM(2015) 192 final of 6.5.2015.
(7)      The EU Justice Agenda for 2020 Strengthening Trust, Mobility and Growth within the Union, COM(2014) 144 final, p. 8.
(8)      European Parliament resolution of 4 July 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on common minimum standards of civil procedure in the European Union (2015/2084(INL), P8_TA(2017)0282.
(9)      Commission Report COM(2013) 858 final of 4.12.2013.
(10)    Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of the Council Regulation (EC) 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, COM(2007)0769 final.
(11)      See table 6 of the external Study "Assessment of the socio-economic impacts of the policy options for the future of the European Small Claims Regulation", prepared by Deloitte, July 2013, p 26-27. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/small_claims_report_ia_ en.pdf   (hereinafter: IA Study Small Claims).
(12)      Study on the assessment of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 and the policy options for its amendment, prepared by Deloitte, May 2015, Analytical Annexes p.238. available at  http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/bxl_iia_final_report_analtical_annexes.pdf (hereinafter IA Study Brussels IIa). Impact Assessment of the Commission Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes and the Proposal for a Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions regarding the property consequences of registered partnerships, SEC(2017) 327 final, p. 54, available at http://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/45c25309-3267-46bb-95d6-d3d4cf102bca/language-en/format-RDF (hereinafter IA MPR-RP).
(13)      Impact Assessment accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsability, and on international child abduction (recast), SWD/2016/0207 final, p. 10, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52016SC0207 (hereinafter IA Brussels IIa). IA MPR-RP, p. 53.
(14)      IAStudy Brussels IIa, Analytical Annexes p.248.
(15)      Impact Assessment accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and authentic instruments in matters of successions and on the introduction of a European Certificate of Inheritance, SEC(2009) 410 final, p.58, available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52009SC0410&from=EN (hereinafter: IA Succ).
(16)      A sum of the estimates extrapolated from Eurobarometer surveys EBS 395 (p.25) and Flash EB 347 (pp. 9, 14); IA Brussels IIa (p.10); IA MPR-RP (p. 53) and IA Succ (p. 59)..
(17)      See these collected under the e-Justice Portal: https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_videoconferencing-69-en.do  
(18)      CEF e-Delivery is one of the building blocks of the Connecting Europe Facility. CEF building blocks offer basic capabilities that can be used in any European project to facilitate the delivery of digital public services across borders. CEF e-Delivery is a set of technical specifications and a software product which complies with the Electronic Registered Delivery Service (ERDS).requirements of the eIDAS Regulation. It has been tested in the e-Codex project. It provides secure transmission from end user to end user. CEF connects the gateways of different Member States. It could provide a streamlined standard for interoperability of national e-delivery systems.
(19)      The eIDAS Regulation refers to Regulation EU 910/2014 on electronic identification and trust services. The ERDS is one of the trust services acknowledged and defined by the eIDAS Regulation, and describes the technical standards of a service that, to a certain extent, is the equivalent in the digital world of registered mail in the physical world.
(20)   Pilot project carried out in Norway in 2006 and 2007, see IA Study Small Claims, p. XII.
(21) Impact Assessment accompanying the document Revision of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings, SWD(2012) 416 final, p. 43, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/insolvency-ia_en.pdf .
(22)  http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/final_report_1206_en.pdf
(23)  http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/studies/service_docs_en.pdf
(24)  available at  https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/531ef49a-9768-11e7-b92d-01aa75ed71a1/language-en  
(25)  http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/report_service_documents_en.pdf