Ι. Introduction
The need to protect creditors in cross-border private disputes has led the EU to establish specialised procedures for the effective recovery of debts, in particular when the assets are located in a Member State other than that of the claimant. In practice, the choice of the appropriate mechanism depends on the nature of the claim, the degree of urgency and the need for surprise. In this contribution, three main instruments are examined: the European Order for Payment (EOP), the European Account Commitment Order (EAPO) and the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP).
II. The European Order for Payment (Regulation 1896/2006)
The EOP is a flexible mechanism for resolving uncontested pecuniary claims through a simplified ex parte procedure. In practice, it has become an important tool for individuals and businesses. However, the procedure following the lodging of an objection is governed by national law – a point that has caused confusion, as evidenced by the contradictory decisions of the Athens, Thessaloniki and Patras Courts of First Instance regarding the continuation of the objection proceedings. The central problem is whether to follow the ordinary procedure as the EOP opposition proceedings or alternatively to try the national procedure mutatis mutandis for the opposition to the national payment order. The latter problem results in increased court costs, on the one hand, and delays in obtaining justice, on the other. The issue of coordination with the existing national regime, despite the procedural autonomy of the Member States, highlights the complexity of the regulatory landscape, as well as the complexity of the way service is to be effected under Reg. 1784/2020.
III. The European Account Preservation Order (Regulation 655/2014)
The EAPO is a provisional measure, which in its nature is reminiscent of the conservative seizure measure of domestic law. It allows the creditor to freeze the debtor's bank funds in any Member State, without prior notice to the debtor. This is the “surprise effect” and is the reason for its uniqueness as an ex parte procedure. It is a particularly useful measure in cases where the debtor is attempting to conceal assets, including foreign accounts, and it is even strongly debatable whether this also involves investments in cryptocurrencies. Although it does not require an enforceable title in every case, proof of the likelihood of success and the need to issue the measure is a critical requirement. The question that fundamentally arises here is whether the concept of “Authentic Instrument“, as narrowly interpreted by the case law, is an element of admissibility of the application. The element of the enforceability of the record understood as a “title” plays the greatest role here (C-555/18 case). Ultimately, however, in its applicability as a measure, it is considered sufficient and, because it is issued within short deadlines by the judge, it is also effective for the applicant seeking judicial protection.
IV. The European Small Claims Procedure (Regulation 861/2007, as amended by 2015/2421)
The ESCP provides an alternative, fast and cost-effective solution for claims up to €5.000. Despite the advantages of simplification and low costs, the procedure often stumbles on the heterogeneity of national rules. Such rules may include, for example, suspension of proceedings in the case of counterclaims above €5.000 or issues of translations and notifications, as well as allowances. It would appear, therefore, to be a rapid procedure, where the advice of a lawyer is not imperative. However, issues of the preliminary nature of the decision given, which require increased diligence on the part of a lawyer, as well as the need to know the procedural details, make the lawyer's advice useful. Ultimately, in light of the soaring costs in legal fees, the question is whether it is worthwhile to initiate these proceedings rather than proceed with another route.
V. Conclusion
While the EU has equipped creditors with valuable legal tools to recover cross-border debts efficiently, each mechanism comes with its own strengths, limitations and procedural intricacies. The European Order for Payment offers a swift solution for uncontested claims but can lead to legal uncertainty if contested. The European Account Preservation Order ensures fast and silent asset freezing, ideal for cases requiring urgency and discretion. Meanwhile, the European Small Claims Procedure promises simplicity and low costs but may, in practice, prove more complex than expected due to national procedural diversities.
Ultimately, legal advice remains essential—not to complicate the process, but to navigate it wisely. Choosing the right instrument at the right time is not just a legal decision; it is a strategic one.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
