first thoughts on an electronic european order for payment procedure bartosz sujecki, molengraaff...
TRANSCRIPT
First thoughts on an electronic European order for payment procedure
Bartosz Sujecki, Molengraaff Instituut, University of Utrecht, Netherlands
5th eJustice Dialogue
23rd august 2005
Saarbrücken, Germany
23rd august 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 2
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 3
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 4
Goals of a European order for payment procedure
• Improvement of the access to justice
• Relief of the workload within the courts
23rd august 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 5
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 6
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 7
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 8
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 9
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 10
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 11
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 12
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 13
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 14
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 15
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 16
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 17
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 18
Needful changes within the proposal
• Applicability
• Rules on jurisdiction
• Application for a European order for payment
• Rules on service
23rd august 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 19
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 20
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 21
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 22
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– E-mail– Interactive form
23rd august 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 23
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 2005 5th eJustice Dialoge, Saarbrücken 24
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.: +31 30 253 7254
Fax: +31 30 253 7203
E-Mail: [email protected]