Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice pp 245–264Cite as

Legal Interoperability in Europe: An Assessment of the European Payment Order and the European Small Claims Procedure

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Law, Governance and Technology Series ((LGTS,volume 13))

Abstract

EC Regulations No. 861/2007 on the European small claims procedure and No. 1896/2006 on the European payment order represent a significant example of the action of the EU in the field of civil proceedings. Indeed, for the first time, the EU legislature has proposed an autonomous model of rules governing civil proceedings with the purpose to facilitate European citizens to autonomously access to justice in cross border disputes. To this purpose the Regulations entail high levels of legal interoperability between all the subjects involved (courts, citizens, judiciary functionaries). In this chapter I focus on the mechanisms of legal interoperability and assess the problems which, at the present state, prevent a fast and effective communication between the above mentioned subjects. I then propose a wide range of solutions in order to facilitate the practical application of these European instruments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Regulation (EC) No. 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure, in OJ L 399, 30.12.2006, pp. 1–32.

  2. 2.

    Regulation (EC) No. 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European small claims procedure, in OJ L 199, 31.7.2007, pp. 1–22.

  3. 3.

    See, on the one hand, Article 28 of Regulation No. 861/2007 and, on the other, Article 32 of Regulation No. 1896/2006.

  4. 4.

    See Art. 4, n. 1 of Regulation No. 861/2007.

  5. 5.

    See Art. 4, n. 3, ibidem.

  6. 6.

    See Art. 4, n. 4, ibidem.

  7. 7.

    See Art. 5, n. 2, ibidem.

  8. 8.

    See Art. 5 n. 3, ibidem.

  9. 9.

    See Art. 5, n. 4, ibidem.

  10. 10.

    See Art. 5, n. 6, ibidem.

  11. 11.

    See Art. 7, ibidem.

  12. 12.

    See Art. 7. n. 2, ibidem.

  13. 13.

    See Art. 22, ibidem.

  14. 14.

    More precisely, according to Article 18 of the regulation, the defendant will be entitled to apply for a review provided that: ‘(a) (i) the claim form or the summons to an oral hearing were served by a method without proof of receipt by him personally, as provided for in Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No. 805/2004; and (ii) service was not effected in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defense without any fault on his part, or (b) the defendant was prevented from objecting to the claim by reason of force majeure, or due to extraordinary circumstances without any fault on his part, provided in either case that he acts promptly’.

  15. 15.

    See Art. 17 of Regulation No. 1896/2006.

  16. 16.

    See Art. 9, ibidem.

  17. 17.

    See Art. 11, ibidem.

  18. 18.

    See Art. 12, ibidem.

  19. 19.

    See Art. 10, ibidem.

  20. 20.

    See Art. 17, ibidem.

  21. 21.

    See Art. 18, ibidem.

  22. 22.

    See Art. 20, ibidem.

  23. 23.

    See Art. 22, ibidem.

  24. 24.

    Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, in OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, pp. 1–23. A huge number of doctrinal contributions exist on this subject: see mainly, Stadler, Astrid. 2005. From the Brussels Convention to Regulation 44/2001: Cornerstones of a European law of civil procedure, in Common Market Law Review 42(6): 1637–1661.

  25. 25.

    It must be remembered that, starting from the 10th of January 2015, Regulation No. 44/2001 will be replaced by Regulation No. 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012, in OJ L 351, 20.12.2012.

  26. 26.

    There are other Regulations that set up rules on jurisdictions in international civil claims, such as Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1347/2000, in OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, p. 1–29; Council Regulation (EC) No. 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, in OJ L 7, 10.1.2009, pp. 1–79; Council Regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, in OJ L 160, 30.6.2000, pp. 1–18. These regulations deal with subjects not covered by the scope of the EPO and ESCP, however.

  27. 27.

    Article 22 and 23 of Regulation No. 44/2001.

  28. 28.

    Sections No. 3, 4 and 5 of Regulation No. 44/2001. These rules on jurisdiction refer to the ‘weak’ parties of a civil relationship, such as consumers, employees or persons who joined an insurance agreement: in such cases, these ‘weak’ parties can bring civil proceedings before the court of their residence, instead of the court of the counterparty’s residence.

  29. 29.

    It must be added that the European Court of Justice is competent to deal with preliminary references concerning the interpretation of these rules (starting from the Treaty of Lisbon, it is also competent for preliminary references coming from European courts not of last instance). The case-law of the European Court of Justice is huge: just for the latest (but not less important) decisions on Regulation No. 44/2001, see: 11.03.2010, C-19/09, Wood Floor Solutions, in Rep. 2010 I-02121; 25.02.2010, C-381/08, Car Trim, in Rep. 2010 I-01255; 07.12.2010, Joined cases C-585/08 and C-144/09, Pammer and Hotel Alpenhof, not yet published; 23.04.2009, C-533/07, Falco, in Rep. 2009, I-03327; 16.07.2009, C-189/09, Zuid-Chemie, in Rep. 2009, I-6917; 19 April 2012, C-523/10, Wintersteiger, not yet published. 17.11.2011, C-327/10, not yet published. 15.03.2012, C-292/10, G, not yet published; 12.05.2011, C-144/10, Berliner not yet published.

  30. 30.

    See Article 27 of Regulation No. 44/2001: ‘Where related actions are pending in the courts of different member states, any court other than the court first seized may stay its proceedings.’

  31. 31.

    European Court of Justice, 8.12.1987, C-144/86, Gubisch; 27.09.1988, C-189/87, Athanasios; 19.05.1998, C-351/96, Drouot Assurances; 8.05.2003, C-111/01, Gantner; 9.12.2003, C-116/02, Erich Gasser GmbH; 27.04.2004, C-159/02, Turner; 14.10.2004, C- 39/02, Maerks Olie; 11.10. 2007, C-98/06, Freeport. It must be added that Regulation No. 1215/2012 will partially modify these rules, introducing some elements of flexibility.

  32. 32.

    See Article 34 of Regulation No. 44/2001.

  33. 33.

    Regulation (EC) No. 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the member states of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No. 1348/2000, OJ L 324, 10.12.2007, pp. 79–120. This regulation replaces Regulation (EC) No. 1348/2000.

  34. 34.

    For this purpose, it must be remembered the first judgment issued by the European Court of Justice on the interpretation of Regulation No. 1896/2006, 13.12.2012, C-215/11, Szyrocka, not yet published.

  35. 35.

    See Article 11 of Regulation No. 861/2007 and Article 29 of Regulation No. 1896/2006.

  36. 36.

    In particularly, member states should cooperate via the European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters: the European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters is a network established in accordance with Council Decision of 28 May 2001 establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters, OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, pp. 25–31, the goal of which is to ensure a narrow coordination between the EU and the member states in matters related to the application of EU Regulations of civil judiciary cooperation.

  37. 37.

    See Article 4 of Regulation No. 861/2007 and Article 7.5 of Regulation No. 1896/2006.

  38. 38.

    Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures, Official Journal L 013, 19/01/2000 pp. 0012–0020.

  39. 39.

    Article 2.2 of the directive.

  40. 40.

    Indeed, according to Article 5.4 of Regulation No. 1896/2006, ‘“court of origin” means the court which issues the EPO’.

  41. 41.

    Fourteen member states do take part in it, plus a non-member state and some professional and scientific associations.

  42. 42.

    See Regulation No. 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community, OJ 17, 6.10.1958, pp. 385–386.

  43. 43.

    European Court of Justice, 20.11.2011, C-268/99; 20.11.1993, C-152/01.

  44. 44.

    See the positions of the delegations at the Council in doc. n. 14708/06 of the Council at http://register.consilium.europa.eu, p. 43 e p. 49.

  45. 45.

    Let me mention Nobel Prize winner José Saramago and his work ‘Historia do cerco de Lisboa’, in which he describes the power of the word and how even a single word can completely change the meaning of human history.

  46. 46.

    Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1347/2000, O.J. 23.12.2003, L 338/1.

  47. 47.

    Art. 22, lett. b of the Italian version of Regulation No. 2201/2003: ‘La decisione di divorzio, separazione personale o annullamento del matrimonio non è riconosciuta nei casi seguenti: (…) (b) quando è resa in contumacia, ovvero la domanda giudiziale o un atto equivalente non è stato notificato o comunicato al convenuto contumace in tempo utile e in modo tale da poter presentare le proprie difese, salvo che sia stato accertato che il convenuto ha accettato inequivocabilmente la decisione.’

  48. 48.

    It must be remembered that the term ‘documents’ in the ‘European meaning’ refers to the claim and to the attached documents. See European Court of Justice, 08.05.2008, C-14/07.

  49. 49.

    See the European Court of Justice, 8.11.2005, C-443/03; 09.02.2006, C-473/04; 08.05.2008, C-14/07.

  50. 50.

    Indeed, according to article 22 of Regulation No. 44/2001, the Court of the member state where the immovable property is located shall be competent to deal with the case.

  51. 51.

    See article 21 of the Regulation No. 861/2007.

  52. 52.

    Article 5 and Article 9 n. 2of Regulation No. 861/2007.

  53. 53.

    Council Regulation (EC) No. 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the member states in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, pp. 1–24.

  54. 54.

    See Article 10.4 of Regulation No. 1206/2001.

  55. 55.

    Article 8 of Regulation No. 861/2007 states that, ‘The court or tribunal may hold an oral hearing through video conference or other communication technology if the technical means are available’.

  56. 56.

    See recital No. 20 of Regulation No. 861/2007.

  57. 57.

    It must be added that, in some cases, parties can ask for legal aid. member states are obliged to grant this aid within the common framework set up by Decision 2005/630/EC.

  58. 58.

    See Article 29 of Regulation No. 1896/2006.

  59. 59.

    See Article 25 of Regulation No. 861/2007.

References

  • Abba, L. 1988. Computer e linguaggi settoriali: Analisi automatica di testi giuridici e politici. Milan: Angeli.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan, M. 2007. The Brussels/Lugano lis pendens rule and the ‘Italian torpedo’. Scandinavian Studies in Law 51: 89–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campeis, G., and A. De Pauli. 2007. Prime riflessioni sul procedimento europeo di ingiunzione di pagamento (regolamento n. 1896/2006/CE). Giustizia Civile 355–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Défossez, M. 2008. Titre exécutoire européen, injonction de payer européenne et procédure européenne de règlement des petits litiges. In Enforcing contracts: Aspects procéduraux de l’exécution des contrats transfrontaliers en droit européen et international, dir. M. Défossez and J. Sénéchal, 105–116. Brussels: Larcier.

    Google Scholar 

  • ECCS European Consumer Centres Network. 2011. Procédure de règlement des petits litiges et injonction de payer européenne. http://www.cec-zev.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/eu-consommateurs/PDFs/publications/etudes_et_rapports4.4.3_procedure_de_reglement_des_petits_litiges.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2012.

  • ECCS European Consumer Centres Network. 2012. European small claims procedure report. http://ec.europa.eu/consumers/ecc/docs/small_claims_210992012_en.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2012.

  • Fiorini, A. 2008. Facilitating cross-border debt recovery: The European payment order and small claims regulations. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 57(2): 449–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franzina, P. 2009. Commentario al regolamento (CE) N. 593/2008 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio del 17 giugno 2008 sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni contrattuali. In Le nuove leggi civili commentate. Milan: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, N. 2006. Parallel proceedings, res judicata and lis pendens: Problems and possible solutions. In Pervasive problems in international arbitration, ed. A. Loukas and J.D.M. Lew, 329–356. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebauer, M. 2007. Lis pendens, negative declaratory-judgment actions and the first-in-time principle. In Conflict of laws in a globalized world, ed. A.T. von Mehren and E. Gottschalk, 89–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Guinchard, E. 2008. L’Europe, la procédure civile et le créancier: l’injonction de payer européenne et la procédure européenne de règlement des petits litiges. In: Revue trimestrielle de droit commercial et de droit économique. Afl. 3: 465–483//2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, X.E. 2010. Enhancing enforcement in the European Union: The European order for payment procedure and its implementation in the member states, particularly in Germany, the Netherlands, and England. In Enforcement and enforceability: Tradition and reform, ed. C.H. van Rhee and A. Uzelac, 17–39. Anvers: Intersentia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopez de Tejada, M., and L. D’Avout. 2007. Les non-dits de la procédure européenne d’injonction de payer. Revue critique de droit international privé 96(4): 717–748.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan, C. 2009. “Lis pendens” in international litigation. Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marongiu Buonaiuti, F. 2010. Lis alibi pendens and related actions in civil and commercial matters within the European judicial area. Yearbook of Private International Law 11: 511–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellone, M. 2011. Brevi considerazioni in merito all’impatto del diritto internazionale privato e processuale europeo sulla prassi giudiziaria italiana. In Il diritto internazionale privato e processuale dell’unione europea, ed. L.S. Rossi and M. Mellone. Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morawetz, T. 2000. Law and language. Aldershot: Ashgate/Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellone and Pancaldi. 2008. Il nuovo regolamento comunitario sulle controversie di modesta entità. Rivista di Diritto dell’Unione europea 281–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacco, R. 2005. Language and law. In Ordinary language and legal language, ed. B. Pozzo, 1–21. Milan: Giuffrè.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsikrikas, D. 2009. L’injonction de payer européenne. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess international: Jahrbuch des internationalen Zivilprozessrechts 14: 221–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visconti, J. (ed.). 2010. Lingua e diritto: livelli di analisi. Milano: LED.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interdepartmental Research Centre on European Law, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Marco Mellone

  2. Research Institute on Judicial Systems, National Research Council of Italy (IRSIG-CNR), Bologna, Italy

    Marco Mellone

Authors
  1. Marco Mellone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Mellone .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. National Research Council of Italy, Research Institute on Judicial Systems, Bologna, Italy

    Francesco Contini

  2. Department of Political and Social Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

    Giovan Francesco Lanzara

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mellone, M. (2014). Legal Interoperability in Europe: An Assessment of the European Payment Order and the European Small Claims Procedure. In: Contini, F., Lanzara, G. (eds) The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice. Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol 13. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7525-1_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation