🇱🇺 Luxembourg

1. The status of digitalisation in enforcement of the judgments under the regulation in

question (a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

The enforcement of enforceable titles, whether issued by a Luxembourg court or by a court in another Member State, falls exclusively within the remit of judicial officers. Enforcement procedures are governed by the provisions of the New Code of Civil Procedure and include a variety of procedures such as seizures of movable property, seizures of immovable property and seizures of bank accounts. Although enforcement procedures themselves have not yet been digitized, many aspects of the process are already benefiting from dematerialization. For example, judicial officers have access to digital databases to identify the persons concerned, locate their addresses, check their real estate holdings, or consult information on registered vehicles.

Procedural aspects

2. Competent court or authority and procedure involved in the enforcement (a) under EOP

Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

a) European order for payment

With regard to material jurisdiction, the following are competent to hear applications for European payment orders: 1) The president of the district court, or the judge who replaces him, when the claim exceeds the value of 15,000 euros; 2) The Justice of the Peace, when the claim is for a value of up to 15,000 euros; 3) The President of the Labour Court, or the judge replacing him/her, regardless of the amount of the claim, for the disputes referred to in article 25.

b) European Enforcement Order

The application for a European Enforcement Order must be sent to the court that issued the judgment.

3. rules on service

The application form for a European order for payment and the application for a European Enforcement Order must be sent or lodged by post with the registry of the competent court. The defendant is notified of the European order for payment and the European enforcement order in accordance with the rules of procedure applicable before the competent court.

4. Language of the certificate and documents to be appended

The languages accepted are French and German.

5. enforcement fees In Luxembourg, judicial officers have exclusive jurisdiction for the enforcement of enforceable titles, in accordance with their status as defined by the amended law of December 4, 1990 organizing the profession of bailiff. This competence applies to the enforcement of all enforceable titles, whether issued by a Luxembourg court or by a court of another Member State, in application of European regulations, in particular regulation (EC) n°805/2004 (article 20) and regulation (EC) n°1896/2006. Enforcement fees charged by judicial officers are set by Grand-Ducal regulation and are uniform regardless of the origin of the enforcement order. Thus, the cost of enforcement acts does not vary according to whether the instrument is issued in Luxembourg or in a foreign Member State.

6. Refusal, stay, or limitation of the enforcement procedure under the regulation in question in

the intended Member State (a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

The judicial officer is the competent enforcement authority in Luxembourg. The defendant, who may under certain conditions request the suspension, limitation or refusal of enforcement, must apply to the "competent court in the Member State of enforcement". In Luxembourg, this request is brought before the president of the tribunal d'arrondissement sitting in summary proceedings, by a writ issued by a judicial officer. (art.: 685-6 (2) NCPC).

7. Availability of any legal aid for guidance on the enforcement procedures under the

regulation in question in the intended Member State (a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

Legal advice can be sought from legal practitioners such as lawyers and judicial officers. A reception and legal information service is available to individuals seeking information and referral to the appropriate services.

RECEPTION AND LEGAL INFORMATION SERVICE - LUXEMBOURG Judicial precinct Building BC Plateau du Saint-Esprit L-2080 Luxembourg Tel. : (+352) 475981 - 2600 pgsin@justice.etat.lu

8. Critical assessment of the enforcement procedures under the regulation in question in the

intended Member State (a) under EOP Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

a) European Enforcement Order (EEO) Although Regulation (EC) No. 805/2004 defines the notion of "uncontested claim", Member States retain significant discretion in its interpretation. Claims may be considered uncontested when the debtor does not object within the prescribed time limit or expressly or tacitly recognises the claim, but the concrete criteria vary across national systems. This divergence has generated legal uncertainty and led to litigation before the Court of Justice of the European Union. A major source of uncertainty concerns the methods of service of documents. The Regulation establishes "minimum standards" but adopts a very broad approach to admissible notification methods. Articles 13 and 14 distinguish between service with proof of receipt and service without such proof, yet all methods within each category are treated as legally equivalent. In practice, however, some methods (e.g. postal service with acknowledgement of receipt or simple deposit in a mailbox) provide weaker guarantees than personal service by a qualified professional. This undermines legal certainty as to whether the debtor was effectively informed. To address these shortcomings, reform options include excluding the least reliable notification methods and introducing a hierarchy favouring those that offer stronger safeguards, such as professional personal service and secure electronic service.

b) European Order for Payment (EOP) Regulation (EC) No. 1896/2006 presents similar structural weaknesses. First, it lacks effective mechanisms ensuring transparency regarding the debtor's assets, a gap also highlighted by the European Commission in its 2015 implementation report. Second, the Regulation mirrors the EEO framework on service of documents, reproducing the same legal uncertainty concerning admissible notification methods. As with the EEO, reforming Articles 13 and 14 to strengthen legal certainty would be necessary.