Book Description

The objective of this European Implementation Assessment is to form a broad picture of the overall achievements and difficulties recorded with the European order for payment procedure (EOP). The analysis explains, firstly, the background to the procedure and its main objectives, and clarifies how the Regulation establishing the procedure has evolved. It goes on to appraise the work carried out to date, in particular, the findings and recommendations of the Commission's 2015 report on the application of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 establishing a European order for payment procedure, and the studies which supported the Commission's report. An overview of related EU instruments and relevant European Court of Justice (ECJ) case law is also provided. Overall, it transpires that the quality of reporting by the Member States on the functioning of the Regulation is not comprehensive.^Consequently, the Commission's ability to monitor the application of the procedure has so far been restricted, and the Commission's report, which is already late, lacks detail. In particular, the report is not based on consistent quantitative Member State data providing transparent feedback on the operation of the procedure's various provisions. Nevertheless, the Commission's report establishes that the Regulation seems to be functioning well, with no major problems recorded, in particular, as regards the abolition of exequatur. However, importantly, the report also reveals that only a limited number of Member States actively uses the procedure, notably Austria and Germany. Despite issues with monitoring and the limited extent to which the procedure is used, the report considers overall that the Regulation does not require updating. A range of measures to improve its functioning could, however, be considered.^In light of the limited take-up of the procedure, this in-depth analysis critically reviews the Commission's related findings and draws on other sources examining the functioning of the procedure and the broader EU policy of cross-border debt recovery. In this context, an in-house analysis of a number of the Regulation's provisions is also provided, arguing that the effect of certain provisions in the Regulation is potentially detrimental to use of the EOP. Various possible operational improvements to the EOP are identified, which might, in particular, have a positive impact on implementation and monitoring. The analysis concludes that the Regulation may well, in fact, benefit from the roll-out of additional initiatives to improve its functioning.^A further review of the EOP is also recommended for the future, in conjunction with a review of the revised European small claims procedure, to ascertain how the application of these instruments has modernised and brought efficiency to the recovery of cross-border debt in the EU. Finally, the EOP is reviewed against key evaluation criteria in a summary table.