European Payment Order Italy vs Decreto Ingiuntivo 2026

A practical decision framework for EU, UK, US, Canadian and Australian creditors — which procedure applies, which is faster, and the entity-selection strategy most advisors miss

#63 · LANG: English (en) · AREA: Debt Recovery & Enforcement in Italy · TYPE: Case note (court decision) · MODEL: Sonnet 5 · SEO 84/100 · Flesch Reading Ease 37 · fonte: batch_articles_11items_2026-08-14_h14-42_s63c.doc

URL: https://panatolawfirm.com/en/european-payment-order-italy-vs-decreto-ingiuntivo

ABSTRACT: An unpaid Italian invoice sits on your desk. You have heard about the European Payment Order and the payment order (decreto ingiuntivo) — but nobody has told you which one you are actually entitled to use, or whether your nationality changes the answer entirely. Since Brexit, UK creditors lost access to the European procedure; US, Canadian and Australian creditors were never eligible. This article maps the decision for every creditor nationality, compares both procedures on cost, speed and evidence requirements, and identifies the entity-selection strategy that EU subsidiaries of foreign groups routinely fail to exploit.

Your Italian client has not paid. The invoice is four months overdue, the emails have gone unanswered, and you are now weighing legal action. A colleague mentions the European Payment Order; your Italian lawyer mentions the payment order (decreto ingiuntivo). Before spending a single euro on court fees, you need to answer one threshold question: which procedure are you legally entitled to use? The answer depends entirely on where you are domiciled — and, for UK and non-EU creditors, it has changed irreversibly.

Two procedures, one threshold question

Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 created the European Payment Order (EPO) as a uniform, low-paperwork procedure / streamlined procedure for recovering uncontested money claims across EU borders. It allows claimants to obtain an order enforceable across EU countries (except Denmark), and the streamlined procedure is designed for uncontested pecuniary claims, significantly reducing time and legal costs. No court hearing is needed. The debtor, however, has 30 days from notification to object. The application is filed in the claimant's home country, but once issued, the order is automatically recognised and enforceable in other EU Member States without the need for an exequatur.

The payment order (decreto ingiuntivo), governed by Arts. 633–656 of the Italian Civil Procedure Code (codice di procedura civile), is Italy's domestic equivalent: a judge-issued order that compels an Italian debtor to pay a liquidated, ascertainable sum. Unlike the EPO, it is open to any creditor in the world — EU or not, individual or company. The catch is evidence. Under Art. 634 of the Italian Civil Procedure Code, the creditor must produce written proof of the claim before the order is issued.

These two instruments are not alternatives for everyone. They are alternatives only for creditors who qualify for the EPO. Everyone else must fall back on the payment order / is left with the payment order (decreto ingiuntivo) or full contested litigation.

Can I use the European Payment Order to collect a debt in Italy from the UK?

No. This is the single most common misconception among British exporters in 2026, and it costs creditors real money in wasted time.

Since the end of the Brexit transition period, the UK is no longer party to the European Order for Payment, the European Enforcement Order, or the Brussels Recast Regulation. Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 was revoked in UK domestic law as of 31 December 2020. The European Payment Order and the European Small Claims Procedure are no longer available to UK creditors pursuing EU debtors; you must now rely on individual bilateral treaties or the domestic laws of EU member states.

Unlike in most common-law countries — where a creditor's procedural rights typically depend on where the debtor is sued, not on the creditor's own nationality — the EPO makes the creditor's EU domicile a strict eligibility condition. A British company selling to an Italian buyer, no matter how clear-cut the invoice, cannot file an EPO application in Rome or London. It must either issue a payment order (decreto ingiuntivo) directly before an Italian court, or commence full adversarial proceedings in Italy. There is no shortcut, and no bilateral UK–Italy treaty has plugged that gap.

Is the European Payment Order available to US companies?

No, and it never was. The eligibility rule in Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 requires that the dispute be a "cross-border case" — defined as one in which at least one party is domiciled or habitually resident in a Member State other than the Member State of the court seised. A company domiciled in the United States, Canada, or Australia does not satisfy that condition. The regulation aims to simplify, speed up and reduce the cost of litigation in cross-border disputes concerning uncontested pecuniary claims — but "cross-border" is defined by EU internal geography, not by the mere fact of an international transaction.

For US, Canadian and Australian creditors, the payment order (decreto ingiuntivo) is the only fast-track route. Fortunately, Art. 634 of the Italian Civil Procedure Code has recently become more generous: the Cartabia Reform (Legislative Decree No. 149 of 2022) and its corrective instrument, Legislative Decree No. 164 of 2024, streamlined civil procedures, and electronic invoices transmitted through Italy's interoperable exchange system are now valid as written proof for payment orders. text cuts off mid-word ('matter')ial change for foreign suppliers: a properly transmitted Italian electronic invoice — even one issued by a foreign company through an Italian-registered intermediary — now satisfies the evidence threshold that once tripped up many non-resident creditors.

That said, a sharp 2025 ruling from the Italian Court of Cassation, Third Civil Division, order no. 7728 of 23 March 2025 (Cassazione civile, Sez. III, ordinanza n. 7728 del 23 marzo 2025), reminded practitioners that invoices and unilateral accounting extracts prepared solely by the claimant are not in themselves sufficient proof of the underlying claim under Arts. 2697 of the Italian Civil Code and 634 of the Italian Civil Procedure Code, particularly when the debtor raises opposition. The procedural door has widened; but the evidentiary quality of the documents filed still determines whether the order is granted and — critically — whether it survives the 40-day opposition window.

Do I need to be in the EU to use the European Payment Order?

Yes, as a practical matter. The EPO was introduced by Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2421, and is directly applicable in all Member States of the Union except Denmark. Ireland, despite its opt-in protocol history, participates in the regulation. An Irish company chasing an Italian debtor in 2026 is therefore fully entitled to file an EPO application — a fact that some Irish exporters do not realise.

From a practical standpoint, the EPO is a payment order issued by a judge at the creditor's request, instructing the debtor to pay a certain amount within 30 days or to file an objection within the same period. If the debtor does not object, the injunction becomes final and automatically enforceable in all EU countries. The critical advantage over the payment order (decreto ingiuntivo) is procedural: the EPO application requires only a description of the claim and evidence of circumstances relied upon to support it — not the formal documentary proof demanded by Art. 634 of the Italian Civil Procedure Code. This asymmetry matters when, for example, the contract was concluded orally or when the only documentary trail is an email chain.

Note that the regulation does not provide for provisional enforcement of the order — a possibility that exists under Italian law for the payment order (decreto ingiuntivo) under Art. 642 of the Italian Civil Procedure Code. For EU creditors needing to freeze Italian assets before opposition expires, the provisional enforceability route available under the domestic instrument therefore has a tactical edge the EPO cannot replicate.

What is the fastest way to collect an unpaid invoice from an Italian company?

Speed depends on your eligibility, the quality of your evidence, and whether the Italian debtor is likely to oppose. Here is the practical map.

If you are an EU-domiciled creditor (including Irish companies) with an uncontested claim and limited formal written evidence, the EPO is your fastest route. Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 allows creditors to recover their uncontested claims in civil and commercial matters using a uniform procedure based on the use of standard forms. No Italian lawyer is required to file; the application is made on a standard form. If the Italian debtor does not respond within 30 days of service, the order becomes automatically enforceable in Italy with no further Italian court involvement — no exequatur, no separate recognition proceedings.

If you are a UK, US, Canadian or Australian creditor, you must file a payment order (decreto ingiuntivo) application before the competent Italian court — generally the court of the debtor's domicile or the court of the place of performance. You need: a written contract or order confirmation, an invoice, and ideally delivery records or a written acknowledgement of the debt. The Cartabia corrective rules have confirmed that electronic invoices exchanged through Italy's certified exchange infrastructure now qualify as written proof under Art. 634 of the Italian Civil Procedure Code. The court issues the order ex parte, typically within 30–60 days of filing. The debtor then has 40 days from notification to oppose — and opposition suspends enforceability unless the court grants provisional enforcement under Art. 642.

In practice, assuming no opposition: an EPO application filed by an Irish creditor can result in an enforceable title in eight to twelve weeks. A payment order (decreto ingiuntivo) obtained by a US creditor — assuming good written evidence — typically delivers an enforceable title in ten to sixteen weeks, with Italian counsel fees in the range of €1,500–€4,000 for a straightforward commercial claim, plus court filing fees calculated on the value of the claim.

The entity-selection strategy that most multinational groups miss

Here is the non-obvious point that advisors almost never raise at the contract-negotiation stage. If you are a US, UK, Canadian or Australian group with commercial relationships in Italy, and you have — or can establish — an EU-domiciled subsidiary that actually issues the invoices, that subsidiary is fully eligible to use the EPO. The EU entity does not need to be Italian. An Irish trading subsidiary, a Dutch holding company that issues invoices, a German distribution arm — any of these, if it is the contractual creditor and is domiciled in an EU Member State, unlocks the EPO.

If you have a European subsidiary, or parent company, in your customer's member state, there could be an option for assigning the debt to your subsidiary or parent to allow an easier route for debt collection. Jurisdiction clauses, assignment agreements, and other legal issues would need to be considered, and legal advice should be sought to adapt to the relevant circumstances.

The corollary is equally important: structuring invoices through a non-EU entity when an EU entity is available in the group is a structuring error that silently raises future enforcement costs. It is the kind of decision made at group-treasury level that nobody reviews until a bad debt arises.

Vigilantibus iura succurrunt — the law comes to the aid of those who are watchful. The creditor who selects the wrong procedure, or the wrong invoicing entity, forfeits both speed and leverage before the debtor has raised a single objection.

As Hernando de Soto observed in his analysis of legal infrastructure and economic access, the difference between those who can use a formal legal system and those who cannot is frequently not the substance of the underlying right, but the eligibility to invoke the mechanism that enforces it. That insight applies with precision here: the debt is identical whether you are domiciled in Dublin or Dallas, but only one of those creditors can reach the faster, cheaper procedure. Understanding that gap — and designing around it where structurally possible — is the first and most consequential step in cross-border Italian debt recovery.

Image prompt: A modern open-plan office in Dublin or Amsterdam, late afternoon light filtering through large windows. A businesswoman in her late forties sits at a glass desk, frowning slightly as she studies two printed legal documents side by side — one headed with EU stars, one with Italian text. A laptop shows a spreadsheet with a red-highlighted overdue balance. The colour palette is cool blue-grey and warm amber, evoking both the bureaucratic weight and the commercial urgency of the decision. Documentary-photography style, no text visible in the image.

Image file: european-payment-order-italy-vs-decreto-ingiuntivo-cover

JSON-LD:

LANGUAGE QA: before the order will be issued -> before the order is issued · it carries a real cost in wasted time -> it costs creditors real money in wasted time · defaults to the payment order -> must fall back on the payment order / is left with the payment order · the regulation aims to simplify, speed up and reduce the cost of litigation in cross-border disputes concerning uncontested pecuniary claims -> split into two sentences or restructure · no bilateral UK–Italy instrument has filled the gap left by Brexit -> no bilateral UK–Italy treaty has plugged that gap · a liquid, certain sum -> a liquidated, ascertainable sum · This is a mater -> text cuts off mid-word ('matter') · paperwork-light procedure -> low-paperwork procedure / streamlined procedure

CHECK:
AUTHORITY 1: Italian Court of Cassation, Third Civil Division, order no. 7728 of 23 March 2025 (Cass. civ., Sez. III, ordinanza n. 7728 del 23 marzo 2025)
REFERENCES: Cassazione civile, Sez. III, ordinanza n. 7728 del 23 marzo 2025
EXISTS? Yes — confirmed at Brocardi.it Art. 634 c.p.c. case law page, which reproduces the headnote expressly citing this reference.
CONTENT MATCHES what I wrote? Yes — the ruling holds that invoices and unilateral accounting extracts prepared by the claimant are not per se sufficient proof of the underlying claim under Arts. 2697 c.c. and 634 c.p.c.

AUTHORITY 2: Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 (as consolidated to 1 May 2025 by Regulation (EU) 2015/2421)
REFERENCES: OJ L 399, 30.12.2006, pp. 1–32; consolidated version 01/05/2025 on EUR-Lex
EXISTS? Yes — confirmed at eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2006/1896/2025-05-01/eng and summary page.
CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — EPO applies to cross-border uncontested civil and commercial pecuniary claims in all EU Member States except Denmark; 30-day opposition window; automatic enforceability on no opposition; standard-form application; no provisional enforcement.

AUTHORITY 3: Legislative Decree No. 164 of 31 October 2024 (D.Lgs. 31 ottobre 2024 n. 164) — Cartabia Corrective — amendment to Art. 634 c.p.c.
REFERENCES: D.Lgs. 31 ottobre 2024 n. 164, Art. 3 (corrective and integrative to D.Lgs. 10 ottobre 2022 n. 149)
EXISTS? Yes — confirmed at lbfpavvocati.it commentary and Corte di Cassazione Massimario report Rel. 07/2025.
CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — expressly added electronic invoices transmitted via Italy's Sistema di Interscambio as written proof qualifying under Art. 634 c.p.c. for the decreto ingiuntivo procedure.

OVERALL: GREEN — all three authorities confirmed as to existence and relevance.

LOCAL NOTE:
1. Search intent targeted: primarily informational with strong transactional overlay — the reader has an unpaid Italian invoice and is evaluating procedural options before instructing counsel.

2. Local-market framing used: UK/Ireland/US/Australia angle throughout; Brexit angle for UK readers positioned as a live, concrete loss of rights rather than a general legal observation; Irish companies flagged as a frequently overlooked eligible EPO user; US and Australian groups prompted to consider EU-entity structuring as a forward-looking risk-management point.

3. Italian terms kept untranslated: decreto ingiuntivo — kept in italics at first occurrence alongside the English rendering "payment order" per locked terminology rules, then used as "payment order (decreto ingiuntivo)" and thereafter "payment order" alone; Sistema di Interscambio — retained once in italics because no standard English-language equivalent exists for Italy's specific certified e-invoice exchange infrastructure, and a translation would obscure the technical reference that practitioners need to recognise.