🇸🇰 Slovakia

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 process of prioritizing the digitization of enforcement proceedings was introduced through an amendment to the Enforcement Code effective from April 1, 2017. From this date, communication with the enforcement court is mandatory via designated electronic forms. A motion for enforcement must be submitted electronically to the electronic mailbox of the enforcement court using an electronic form published on the website of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic. The motion for enforcement must be authorized; otherwise, it will not be considered. Documents that need to be attached to the motion must also be submitted electronically to the enforcement court's electronic mailbox together with the motion. The enforcement title and public documents must be attached to the motion either as an original authorized electronic document or as an electronic document created through guaranteed conversion from the original paper document. Any errors in writing or other obvious inaccuracies must be corrected using the designated electronic form; otherwise, the corrections will not be considered. A dedicated portal for communication with the enforcement court, among other uses, is the E-complaints portal: https://obcan.justice.sk/ezaloby. In addition to the above, the stricter enforcement of digitization is evident in communication with participants in enforcement proceedings. In the delivery process, current legislation prioritizes electronic communication with public authorities through the electronic mailboxes of entities on the www.slovensko.sk platform. Similarly, bailiffs are obligated to communicate electronically with third parties from whom they require cooperation in enforcement (e.g., identifying the assets of the obligated party). Particularly noteworthy is the communication with banks, including the delivery of requests for cooperation as well as all decisions in enforcement proceedings, based on an agreement between the Slovak Chamber of Bailiffs and the banking interest group. The bailiff regularly informs the entitled party about the status of the enforcement proceedings via electronic means.

Procedural aspects

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

Regulation, and (b) under EEO Regulation

Civil enforcement in Slovakia is governed by the Enforcement Code (Act No. 233/1995 Coll.) and is highly centralised and digitalised. Jurisdiction is divided between two enforcement authorities:

• Enforcement Court: the District Court of Banská Bystrica, which has nationwide jurisdiction

and acts as the sole enforcement court.

• Court Bailiff: a state-designated enforcement officer with the status of a public official when

carrying out enforcement activities. Bailiffs are appointed randomly by the enforcement court according to a regional principle, normally linked to the debtor's residence or registered office; if the debtor has no link to Slovakia, a bailiff from the Banská Bystrica regional district is appointed. Enforcement proceedings are initiated by the creditor, who must submit a motion for enforcement exclusively by electronic means to the enforcement court, using designated electronic forms and attaching the enforcement title (and a power of attorney where applicable). The enforcement court examines the motion for formal and substantive enforceability and, within 15 days, either authorises enforcement by issuing an authorisation for enforcement to a specific bailiff or rejects the motion on statutory grounds. Once authorised, the bailiff conducts the enforcement, which typically unfolds in four stages:

1. Identification of assets: the bailiff notifies the parties of the initiation of enforcement and

informs the debtor of the right to file a motion to halt enforcement within 15 days (with suspensive effect if filed in time). For foreign enforcement titles, the debtor is also informed of possible objections under EU law, and relevant documents are attached.

2. Securing assets: third parties (such as banks or employers) are instructed to suspend

payments or otherwise secure assets subject to enforcement.

3. Execution: an enforcement order is issued if no valid motion to halt enforcement is filed or

if such a motion is rejected.

4. Completion: enforcement ends either with a notification of successful completion or with a

decision halting enforcement, issued by the bailiff or the enforcement court depending on the grounds. Information and electronic forms for enforcement proceedings are publicly available through the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic's online portals, ensuring accessibility and transparency for parties involved.

3. rules on service

a) Under EOP Regulation

The European Payment Order must be served personally on the defendant together with the claim. If service fails on even one defendant, the court cancels the EOP in its entirety, unless the defendants form an independent procedural group. The fiction of service does not apply to EOPs: if personal service is unsuccessful, the EOP is cancelled and the case continues as an ordinary contentious proceeding. Service may be effected electronically under the e-Government Act via the defendant's electronic mailbox on slovensko.sk. Electronic service requires confirmation of receipt; delivery is deemed effective either upon confirmation or upon expiry of the storage period. Legal persons must have an activated electronic mailbox; natural persons may activate it upon request. If no electronic mailbox is activated, service is carried out in person under the CCP (by post, court courier, or designated authority). Refusal to accept service without justification is deemed valid service on the date of refusal. b) Under EEO Regulation

The claim and the decision on the merits are served under the CCP or electronically under the e- Government Act if the defendant has an activated electronic mailbox. For natural persons without an electronic mailbox, if service at the official registered address fails, the court must search for the defendant's actual residence. If unsuccessful, the court publishes a notice on its official board and website; service is deemed effective 15 days after publication. Subsequent documents, including the judgment, are served at the official registered address; if delivery fails, service is deemed effective upon return of the undelivered mail to the court.

4. Language of the certificate and documents to be appended

Under both EOP and EEO Regulation

The CCP explicitly stipulates in § 270 that a motion for the issuance of a European Payment Order and an objection against it must be submitted in the state language. The accepted language for proceedings under the EOP and EEO is Slovak. Consequently, it is necessary to ensure the translation of documents into Slovak, with the exception of the Czech language. This requirement is also reflected in: - § 3 ch. 4 of Act No. 270/1995 Coll. o štátnom jazyku Slovenskej republiky / on the State Language of the Slovak Republic, as amended, which establishes the obligation to accept a document in a language meeting the requirement of basic comprehensibility in terms of the state language, if the document is issued or certified by the relevant authorities of the Czech Republic. - § 51 ch. 5 of Decree No. 543/2005 Coll. o Spravovacom a kancelárskom poriadku pre okresné súdy, krajské súdy, Špeciálny súd a vojenské súdy / on the Administrative and Office Rules for District Courts, Regional Courts, the Special Court, and Military Courts, as amended, which states that the court shall appoint a translator to translate documentary evidence submitted into the court file by the parties to the proceedings if such evidence is in a language other than the state language, except for the Czech language.

5. enforcement fees

Court fees are regulated by Act No. 71/1992 Coll. on Court Fees and the Fee for Extracts from the Criminal Records Register, as amended. The party liable for the court fee in judicial proceedings is the applicant for the procedural action. The court fee for a motion to initiate enforcement is uniform, regardless of the type of enforcement title, and currently stands at 25 EUR. The liable party for this fee is the entitled party (creditor). The fee was increased from the original 16.50 EUR to 25 EUR effective from April 1, 2023. Court fees can be paid via postal money orders, payment cards, or bank transfers from an account at a bank or a branch of a foreign bank. The court does not issue a formal request to the entitled party to pay the court fee; instead, it sends the payment details automatically. The court fee is due upon submission of the motion to initiate enforcement and must be paid in full no later than 15 days after the motion is submitted. If the fee is not paid within this time, the motion is disregarded. An exception applies if the entitled party is exempt from the court fee by law or by a court decision under the CCP. A specific court fee of 25 EUR is also payable in enforcement proceedings for a decision on the change of the entitled party or for issuing an addendum to the authorization for enforcement if the change in the entitled party is due to the assignment of the claim being enforced or the sale of a business or part thereof.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

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

Act No. 460/1992 Coll. Ústava Slovenskej republiky / The Constitution of the Slovak Republic (hereinafter referred to as "CSR") guarantees everyone the right to legal aid. According to art. 47 ch. 2 of the CSR, everyone has the right to legal aid in proceedings before courts, other state authorities, or public administration bodies from the beginning of the proceedings, under conditions established by law. Legal services in the Slovak Republic are provided by attorneys, as stipulated in Act No. 586/2003 Coll. o advokácii / on Advocacy. A specific regulation, Act No. 327/2005 Coll. on the Provision of Legal Aid to Persons in Material Need, established the Legal Aid Centre based in Bratislava. The centre provides legal aid through its employees, designated attorneys, and mediators. The legal aid provided by the Legal Aid Centre also includes arranging the translation of documents required by the court or relevant authority, which are necessary for deciding the case. This special form of legal aid is provided to persons in material need, either as legal aid without financial participation or as legal aid with financial participation.

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

Enforcement of European Order for Payment (EOP) and European Enforcement Order (EEO) judgments in Slovakia generally follows ordinary national enforcement rules, without formal differentiation. In practice, however, several procedural specificities reduce the efficiency and coherence of cross-border enforcement. A first issue concerns the allocation of bailiffs when the debtor has no domicile or registered office in Slovakia. In such cases, enforcement is automatically assigned to a bailiff within the jurisdiction of the Regional Court in Banská Bystrica, a rigid territorial rule that is ill-suited to foreign enforcement titles and would be more effectively replaced by asset-based allocation. Further limitations arise from restrictive language requirements, as only Slovak and Czech submissions are accepted without translation, while English is excluded, increasing costs and hindering cross-border efficiency. Certain procedural safeguards apply to foreign titles, including the obligation for bailiffs to inform debtors of their right to object to recognition or enforcement where no exequatur is required, as under the EOP and EEO regimes. At the same time, enforcement practice requires repeated service of the full foreign enforcement title at the initiation stage if it was not previously served, a requirement widely regarded as redundant and burdensome. More serious concerns arise from the concentration principle governing motions to halt enforcement. Debtors must file suspensive motions within a strict 15-day period, after which challenges are limited to new facts and lack suspensive effect. Courts cannot halt enforcement ex officio, even where serious defects exist, forcing debtors to seek restitution only after enforcement has been completed, thereby increasing costs and procedural inefficiency. Finally, a systemic inconsistency persists between the Enforcement Code and the Civil Procedure Code regarding judicial decision-making and appeal mechanisms in enforcement proceedings. While the Civil Procedure Code broadly allows appeals in matters concerning foreign judgments, the Enforcement Code restricts appeals to cases expressly provided for by law. As the Enforcement Code operates as lex specialis, legislative amendment is needed to resolve this conflict and ensure coherence in court composition and appeal rights in cross-border enforcement cases.