9 Enforcing payment of uncontested debt
| (27288)
6133/06
COM(06) 57
| Draft regulation creating a European order for payment procedure
|
| Legal base | Article 61(c) and 65 EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Document originated | 7 February 2006
|
| Deposited in Parliament | 14 February 2006
|
| Department | Constitutional Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | EM of 2 March 2006
|
| Previous Committee Report | None
|
| Discussed in Council | The Council reached political agreement on the proposal on 2 December 2005
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Clear
|
Background
9.1 The Commission's proposal would allow creditors to pursue
a simplified procedure for enforcing uncontested debts in civil
and commercial matters. Debtors would be given the opportunity
to object within a specified period of time. Any opposition by
the defendant would have the effect of transferring the claim
to ordinary civil proceedings. The proposed order for payment
procedure would not extend to revenue, customs or administrative
matters, nor would it apply to property and matrimonial law, claims
arising out of bankruptcy proceedings or matters related to social
security. The measures are intended to work as an alternative
to the existing internal procedures in each Member State, and
creditors would remain free to use either procedure.
9.2 We considered a previous version of this proposal on 23 November
2005 and cleared it. The Council agreed this text on 2 December
2005.
The document
9.3 The text agreed by the Council in December did not include
the recitals or standard forms, which were subsequently agreed
by the Council on 21 February 2006. The document contains the
revised Commission proposal based on the supplementary Council
agreement in February and limited amendments adopted by the European
Parliament. Otherwise it follows the text agreed by the Council
in December 2005. Importantly, the definition of cross-border
cases in Article 3 of the revised text remains unchanged from
the cleared text.
9.4 However, as a consequence of agreement by the Council on the
definition of "cross-border cases" amendments to Articles
13 and 14 are required. As the definition of cross-border cases
refers to those in which at least one of the parties is domiciled
or habitually resident in a Member State other than a Member State
of the court seized, it is possible for the creditor to live in
one Member State, for the court to be in another, and for the
defendant to live outside the EU. For this reason the reference
in Articles 13 and 14 to service of the order for payment on the
defendant needs to be changed so that the reference will be to
service in accordance with the law of the state addressed, rather
than of the Member State addressed.
The Government's view
9.5 In her Explanatory Memorandum of 2 March 2006 the Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State in the Department of Constitutional
Affairs (Baroness Ashton) expresses the Government's support for
the updated text on the grounds that it does not significantly
differ from the previous Presidency text:
"As the Commission has since accepted the Presidency
text, including the definition of cross border agreed by the Council
in December, the Government does not expect any further action
to be taken on this amended proposal. If that position changes
the Government will inform the Committee."
Conclusion
9.6 We thank the Minster for her outline of the latest amendments
to the proposal and the Government's view on them. We agree that
the latest amendments do not change the substance of the proposal.
Accordingly, we are content to clear the document.
| 
