Table of contents

1.Introduction

Purpose and scope of the evaluation    

Short description of methodology and data sources    

Limitations and robustness of findings    

2.What was the expected outcome of the intervention?

2.1    Description of the intervention and its objectives    

2.2 Overview of the provisions of the EEO Regulation    

2.3 Points of comparison    

3.How has the situation evolved over the evaluation period?

Current state of play    

Brussels Ia Regulation – general abolition of exequatur    

4.Evaluation findings (analytical part)

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

Coherence    

4.2.How did the EU intervention make a difference?

4.3.Is the intervention still relevant?

5.What are the conclusions and lessons learned?

5.1.Conclusions

5.2.Lessons learned

ANNEXES

Annex I: Procedural Information

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

Organisation and timing    

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    

Use of external expertise    

Annex II. Methodology and Analytical models used

Annex III. Evaluation matrix and Details on answers to the evaluation questions

Effectiveness    

Achievement of the general and specific objectives    

Efficiency    

Coherence    

EU added value    

Annex V. Stakeholders consultation - Synopsis report

Relevance    

Coherence    

Effectiveness    

Efficiency    

EU added value    

Annex VI: Rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the EEO Regulation

Glossary

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 claims 1 (‘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 matters 3 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

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 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 Regulation 5 ), as well as on key assumptions and estimates provided by the study. These assumptions and estimates were validated through a workshop with key experts 6 .

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 judgments 8 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 1999 9 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 Council 10 laid the foundations 11 for the European Area of Justice by endorsing mutual recognition as the cornerstone of European judicial cooperation 12 .

Against this background, the Brussels I Regulation 13 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 Programme of measures 14 , 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.

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 Regulation 15 . 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.

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;

-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

othe 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

othe 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

-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.

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).

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 therein 18 . 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.

In order to ensure a smooth and uniform application of the EEO Regulation, 19 Member States 19 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 issued 20 . 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 later 21 . 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 sought 22 . Therefore, the irreconcilability ground for refusal in the Brussels Ia Regulation is broader than in the EEO Regulation.

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 enforcement 23 , deficient service of documents in the proceedings leading to judgment 24 , and non-observance of certain rules of jurisdiction protecting weaker parties 25 .

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 EEO 26 .

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 States 27 , 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 claims 28 . 

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 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 I 30 .

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 table 31 below:

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

Source: Study supporting evaluation

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)

Source: Study supporting evaluation

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)

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

Table 4 - Estimations of overall EU-wide savings throughout the EU in EUR on proceedings per scenario per year 58

 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 reasonable 59 and in any case lower or equal to obtaining comparable national certificate. 60

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 days 61 . 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.

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 EEO 64 .

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.

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 debtor 70 . 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 Marine 71 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. 72 73  The EEO certificate is considerably shorter than the Brussels I or Brussels Ia certificate 74  and the certification is carried out ex parte, without court hearing 75 . 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 data 76

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 exception 77 .

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 Regulation 78 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

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.

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 law 82 , 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

-European Order Payment Regulation (EOP Regulation) 87

-Service of Documents Regulation 88

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 revised 89 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 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 EEO 91 . 

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).

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 States 95 , 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.

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 Regulation 96 , 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, 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 Regulation 97 . 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 claims 99 .

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.

5.1.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 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 ESCP 100 , 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.

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 instrument 101 .

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.

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.

·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.

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.

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.

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

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 Regulation 102 ), as well as on key assumptions and estimates provided by the study. These assumptions and estimates were validated through a workshop with key experts.

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

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 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 effect 111 . 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.

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 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 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 Marine 121 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 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.

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 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 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)

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 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 matters 136 . 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)

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)

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 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 5 155 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 days 157 , therefore 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 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 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 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 Regulation 168

·Brussels I a Regulation 169

·European Account Preservation Order Regulation (EAPO) 170

·European Small Claims Procedure Regulation (ESCP) 171

·European Order Payment Regulation (EOP) 172

·Service Regulation 173

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

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 revised 177 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 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 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).

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 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 Regulation 183 . 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?

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 Regulation 188 , 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.

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

Coherence

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. 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.

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

Effectiveness

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 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.

·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.

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

Efficiency

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. 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).

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  

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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).

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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.”

Annex VI: Rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning the EEO Regulation

(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 

(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

(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)

(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

(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”.

(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.

(18)      Recital (19) of 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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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)

(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).

(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.

(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.

(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. 

(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.

(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.

(80)      Source: interviews

(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,

(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”.

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

(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.

(96)      See above under point 2.1

(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.

(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. 

(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.

(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.

(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).

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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

(122)  Source: stakeholders opinions reflected in interviews and OPC.

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

(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).

(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

(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.

(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)

(158) Source: interviews

(159) Source: interviews

(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

(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 enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, ( http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2012:351:0001:0032:en:PDF )

(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 to facilitate cross-border debt and recovery in civil and commercial matters, ( https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014R0655&from=EN ).

(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

(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.

(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

(178)      Source: interviews

(179)      Source: interviews.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(189)      Source of data: Annex I to the Study supporting evaluation, page 159

(190)  Source of data: Study supporting evaluation, point 6.1.2, page 41

(191) 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)

(192) Source: legal expert opinion expressed during validation workshop for this study.

(193) Source: interviews

(194)      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.