First thoughts on an electronic European order for payment procedure Bartosz Sujecki, Molengraaff Instituut, University of Utrecht, Netherlands 5 th eJustice.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
European payment order Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment.
Advertisements

The European Small Claims Procedure and other EU Instruments: Why is it useful to choose the European Small Claims Procedure? Elena DAlessandro University.
International insolvency law – basic principles within the European union.
European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims
European Order for Payment Procedure April 22nd, 2008 Mgr. Petra Novotna.
Interim measures in Russian courts in support of international arbitration: principles, procedure and the range of remedies available BRLA seminar 25 January.
Taking of evidence within the European Union Council regulation no 1206/2001 on cooperation between the courts of Member States in the taking of evidence.
Arbitration in Poland Practical issues Monika Hartung Legal Adviser, Partner Warsaw 16 June 2011.
Patent Enforcement in Germany Pros and Cons by Alexander Harguth Attorney at law Patent- und Rechtsanwälte Alexander Harguth - Attorney at law - Galileiplatz.
The Brussels II Regulation The jurisdiction of courts.
Irish Centre for European Law Conference The Law of the Lisbon Treaty.
E-commerce Law Jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is relevant to e-commerce law in 2 ways: 1.Private International Law 2.Taxation implications.
Private International Law Tourism Electronic Contracts Dra. Silvia Feliu Álvarez de Sotomayor Private International Law Tourism Electronic Contracts Dra.
INTRODUCTION INTO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Marko Jovanovic, LL.M. MASTER IN EUROPEAN INTEGRATION Private International Law in the.
Unit 8: The European order for payment procedure and the European small claims procedure Dr. Matthias Frey Head of the Municipal Court.
Liability and Procedure in European Antitrust Law The EU Damages Directive Does the European Union overstep the mark again?
Forum Selection in Attorney-Client Agreements Anita Schläpfer.
A narrow pathway between fences Seminar on free movement of same sex families in Europe European Parliament, 3 May 2011 Pál Szirányi – Permanent representation.
International Treaty in EU PIL
EU: Bilateral Agreements of Member States
EU: Bilateral Agreements of Member States. Formerly concluded international agreements of Member States with third countries Article 351 TFEU The rights.
Consumer Collective Actions in Cross-Border Claims LAURA CARBALLO PIÑEIRO (USC) 1.- Consumer collective actions: diversity 2.- Problems on recognition.
8-th CIS Local Counsel Forum Kiev-Odessa, June 2013 Recognition and Enforcement of EU Countries Court Decisions in European Union: Illustration –
European payment order Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment.
The Law of the European Union Information and Communication.
Introduction to EU Law Cont.d. ECJ – TFI (Arts ) “The Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance, each within its jurisdiction, shall ensure.
EFFECTS ON OTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST OR BY THE DEBTOR CREDITOR RIGHTS DR MAREK PORZYCKI European Insolvency Regulation.
European Commission Taxation and Customs Union Brussels, 10 November Taxation of International Artistes and Community Law European Commission
European civil procedure law Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Circulation of authentic instruments under Regulation 650/2012 speaker – Ivaylo Ivanov – Bulgarian Notary Chamber.
LITIGATION COSTS IN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS IN ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS AND PRINCIPLE OF OBJECTIVE INVESTIGATION MARTA OŠLEJA LEGAL DEPARTMENT,
Dr Marek Porzycki.  Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968) – Member States of the.
UNITS 1 and 2: THE EUROPEAN JUDICIAL AREA IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS. THE JUDGE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EUROPEAN JUDICIAL AREA Joaquín Delgado.
Support of the foreign language profile of law tuition at the Faculty of Law in Olomouc CZ.1.07/2.2.00/
European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims JUDr. Radka Chlebcová.
Small claims procedure Regulation (EC) No 861/2007of European Parlament and of the Council of 11 July establishing a European Small Claims Procedure (OJ.
Discussion “International Cooperation: Service of Documents, Taking of Evidence” – Practical Implementation of Regulations No 1393/2007 and No 1206/2001.
Introduction to EU Civil Judicial Cooperation Dr. Francesco Pesce Assistant Professor in International Law Università degli Studi di Genova (IT)
REGULATION (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure S. Laganovskis.
Taking of evidence within the European Union Council regulation no 1206/2001 on cooperation between the courts of Member States in the taking of evidence.
Gösta Petri Consumer and Marketing Law Unit DG Justice and Consumers Consumer protection and enforcement in EU law.
European civil procedure law Judicial cooperation in civil matters.
The Brussels I Regulation Jurisdiction in matters of insurance, consumers contracts and individual contracts of employment.
Support of the foreign language profile of law tuition at the Faculty of Law in Olomouc CZ.1.07/2.2.00/
European Private International Law JUDr. Tereza Kyselovská.
Seminar on EC case-law Bedanna Bapuly Brno, 2007 October 15th.
Cross-border Cooperation of Judges Andrej Kmecl. Cross-border Cooperation of Judges Different aspects of judicial cooperation in environmental cases:
“THE UNITARY PATENT AND THE UNIFIED PATENT COURT: A PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW PERSPECTIVE” Prof Dr Paul L.C. Torremans School of Law University of Nottingham.
European Model(s) of Protective Measures in Cross-Border Maintenance Debt Recovery Mirela Župan Professor at Faculty of Law University of Osijek Croatia.
Essential Elements of the Complaint Request for Review of Public Procurement Procedure Kiev, 19 April 2012 Essential Elements of the Complaint Hubert Reisner.
Trends and Successes in Improving Access to Justice Dr. Pim Albers Special advisor.
CRIMINAL LAW OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 1 April 2015 THE LISBON TREATY AND CRIMINAL LAW Dr. sc. Zoran Burić Department of Criminal Procedural Law University.
Experience of Slovenia in implementation of European Arrest Warrant
European enforcement order for uncontested claims Regulation n. 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April
Turkish private international law on matrimonial property and successions Zeynep Derya TARMAN Koç Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi
HOW TO PROTECT YOUR INTEREST IN A SALE CONTRACT Focus on what you “get” when you sign!
Lost in Translations – An Examination of the Legal & Practical Problems Associated with the Implementation (or Non-Implementation) of Directive 2010/64/EU.
Legal Foundations of European Union Law II Tutorials Karima Amellal.
© OECD A joint initiative of the OECD and the European Union, principally financed by the EU Concessions laws from EU procurement directives perspective.
Support of the foreign language profile of law tuition at the Faculty of Law in Olomouc CZ.1.07/2.2.00/
Interactive Gaming Council Board Meeting I-Gaming Legal status
Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and arbitral awards in Russia Roman Zaitsev, PhD, Partner 05/09/2018.
The Mutual Recognition Regulation
INTRODUCTION INTO PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
The EU-Service Regulation
European actions.
Mediation Law in Austria
FRANK SLEUTJES CASE C About the right to interpretation and translation in criminal proceedings. Esta foto de Autor desconocido está bajo licencia.
European account preservation order and national instruments
Presentation transcript:

First thoughts on an electronic European order for payment procedure Bartosz Sujecki, Molengraaff Instituut, University of Utrecht, Netherlands 5 th eJustice Dialogue 23 rd august 2005 Saarbrücken, Germany

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken2 Topics Definition of an order for payment procedure Goals for the European order for payment procedure European legal competence Proposal for a regulation introducing the European order for payment procedure Function of IT-technology within the European order for payment procedure Required changes within the proposed regulation Conclusions

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken3 Definition of an order for payment procedure Upon application Court or other authority Takes a decision ex parte Decision is served on the defendant with The instruction to abide by the order or to contest the claim within a certain time limit If there is no reaction, the order acquires enforceability If there is a defence, the case is transferred to the ordinary proceedings “inversion du contentiuex”

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken4 Goals of a European order for payment procedure Improvement of the access to justice Relief of the workload within the courts

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken5 European legislative powers –art. 61 (c) in combination with art. 65 (c) EC Judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications in so far as necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market; Elimination of obstacles to the good functioning of civil proceedings; Subsidiarity and proportionality –“Problems” with this legal competence Scope of an European procedure Introducing an electronic procedure –Financial burdens –Changes within the judicial organization required –BUT: stimulation of the electronic processing

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken6 Proposal COM (2004) 173 fin. Applicability International jurisdiction Application for a European order for payment Run of the procedure Opposition by the defendant

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken7 Applicability Civil and commercial matters Uncontested pecuniary claims For a specific amount At the time of application have fallen due Independent of their origin –Contractual –Non - contractual

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken8 International jurisdiction According to the Reg. 44/2001 General rule here according to art. 2 para 1 But exceptions are allowed Duty to state the reasons for an exception of the general rule No further rules on jurisdiction

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken9 Application for a European order for payment, art. 3 –Standardized form Personal information on the parties Name and address of the court Claim Demanded interest rate and the time period Cause of action and a short description of the circumstances invoked Brief description of at least one means of evidence Signature –Manually –Electronic according to art. 2 para 2 of el. Signature Dir.

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken10 Run of the procedure I Scrutiny has to cover but cannot go beyond (art. 4 para 1) »Scope of application »Formal requirements for the application European payment notification, art. 6 »Not an executorial title, but only a notification (“two-step”) »Standardized form »Notification of the defendant to pay the claimed amount or to submit a statement of defence within a time period of three weeks »Information of the defendant that the court has not examined the justification of the claim and the legal consequences of a failure to act

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken11 Run of the procedure II The period of three weeks for contesting the claim begins with the service of the payment notification The service of the payment notification is governed either by internal rules or the Reg. 1348/2000 In absence of a reaction by the defendant within the time limit the court shall deliver a European order for payment Enforceability of the European order without the condition of the provision of security Enforceability is governed by the law of the MS In case of cross-border enforcement the rules of the Reg. 805/2004 on the European Enforcement Order or of the Reg. 44/2001 apply

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken12 Opposition by the defendant I Statement of defense against the payment notification, art. 7 –Standard or own formulated response –Where the claim is contested in whole or in part –Signature »Manually »Electronic according to art. 2 para 2 of el. Signature Dir Opposition to the European order for payment

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken13 Opposition by the defendant II Extraordinary remedy, art. 11 para 4 –The order for payment was served by a method without proof of receipt by the defendant personally, and –Service was not effected in sufficient time or in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defense without any fault on his part –or –The debtor was prevented from objecting to the claim by reason of force majure, or due to extraordinary circumstances without any fault on his part

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken14 Function of IT-technology within the European order for payment procedure Supportive function (Austria) –El. communication between the court and the parties –Periods are monitored electronically –But: the final decision remains in the hands of the human being –Question: How detailed is such an scrutiny?

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken15 Function of IT-technology within the European order for payment procedure Supportive and Examining function (Germany) –Computerized scrutiny of the applications –No examination of the justification of the claim Reason –Function of the examination within the Mahnverfahren Is there a dispute?!

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken16 Function of IT-technology within the European order for payment procedure European order for payment procedure Technology not only supportive but as well examining function Consequences: –No examination of the justification of the claim possible –But: this examination is also under conventional circumstances difficult »Description of the facts »Evidence »Problems of languages!

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken17 Requirements for the use of IT Standardized procedure No valuing examination possible Content of the applications must be limited to the essential information

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken18 Needful changes within the proposal Applicability Rules on jurisdiction Application for a European order for payment Rules on service

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken19 Applicability Introduction of exceptions –Pecuniary claims that are dependent on a consideration or where the consideration has not been preformed yet –Pecuniary claims with disproportional interest rates or with disproportional out of court costs

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken20 Rules on international jurisdiction Problems with the rules on jurisdiction according to Reg. 44/2001 »Basis is natural forum »BUT: exceptions are allowed »Difference between the jurisdiction in contractual matters and tort matters »Result: electronic scrutiny is not possible Therefore! exclusive jurisdiction in the MS where the defendant hat his domicile »Better accessible, even though in another MS »Better protection of the defendant »No cross border service and execution necessary

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken21 Rules on jurisdiction –Creation of a central court –Better access –Limited investment costs for IT –Persons being in charge within the European order for payment procedure? –Clerks of the court –Only in the way there is a effective relief of the workload within the courts –BUT: There is not a common education within the EU

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken22 Application for a European order for payment Problems with the proposal Description of evidence and of the circumstances Individualization of the claim sufficient Application Conventional Electronic –Via fax – –Interactive form

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken23 Rules on service –Problem: No common rules on service –Too many differences within the MS »UK via Royal mail »NL only via bailiff –Effects on the procedure »Cost »Time –Unified rules on service necessary –Higher legal certainty –But the rules should be simple –Registered mail

23rd august 20055th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken24 Conclusion –Introduction of the European order for payment procedure is basically preferable –BUT: the procedure should lead to a real relief of the workload within the courts and should be fast –THEREFORE: The use of IT is necessary –The European order for payment procedure should stimulate and not hinder the use of IT

Thank You for Your attention! Bartosz Sujecki Molengraaff Instituut University of Utrecht Nobelstraat 2a 3512 EN Utrecht, Netherlands Tel.: Fax: