INTRODUCTION

This report is based on a quantitative and qualitative analysis carried out in the Netherlands as a partner in the IC2BE project. The quantitative analysis rests on the Dutch case law uploaded to the IC2BE database. The database includes 76 European Enforcement Order (EEO) cases, 26 European Order for Payment (EOP) cases, 101 European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP) cases, and 10 European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) cases. The qualitative analysis relies on 23 interviews and written responses, and an observation of an ESCP court hearing. The empirical research involved judges, clerks, lawyers, judicial officers (gerechtsdeurwaarders), business legal advisers, and consumer organisations.

PERVASIVE PROBLEMS

AWARENESS OF REGULATIONS

Awareness in General

The Dutch legislature adopted separate implementation laws to facilitate the application of the EU Regulations and their integration within the national procedural law system. Although not part of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (Wetboek van Burgerlijke Rechtsvordering), the implementation laws created general knowledge of the existence of these instruments and partially clarified which national procedural rules apply for aspects not directly addressed by the Regulations.

In practice, professionals who often use the European procedures are familiar with the characteristics of these Regulations, the particularities of their application, and their potential. Alternatively, those who never or seldom receive such requests are likely to encounter more difficulties and require additional time to use these instruments. The perceived difficulties of some courts lead practitioners to choose instead the national procedures, which are swiftly applied by judges, and then rely on Brussels Ibis. if enforcement needs to take place in another Member State. Consumers and businesses, who generally have more limited knowledge, encounter hurdles in carrying out the European procedures in person. A limited awareness of these European Regulations also makes these users more inclined to choose well-known national procedures. Thus, there is room for further improvement.

Scholarly contributions support practitioners’ general awareness. However, as some respondents remarked, rare opportunities to apply these European Regulations make practitioners forget about them. Consequently, they do not actively consider them in their daily practice. Several interviewed practitioners mentioned that the European uniform procedures are not as popular as other European private international law instruments (e.g. Brussels I/Ibis, the Service Regulation).