European Payment Order vs Italian Decree: Debt Recovery Guide

A practical comparison for Irish, EU-based and international creditors recovering unpaid invoices from Italian debtors in 2025–2026

#65 · LANG: English (en) · AREA: Debt Recovery & Enforcement in Italy · TYPE: FAQ / People Also Ask · MODEL: Sonnet 5 · SEO 76/100 · Flesch Reading Ease 33 · fonte: batch_articles_15items_2026-08-14_h18-46_44my.doc

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

ABSTRACT: Two legal instruments can compel an Italian debtor to pay an unpaid invoice: the European Order for Payment under Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 and the domestic payment order (decreto ingiuntivo). They share a name in spirit but differ in almost every practical dimension — who can use them, what evidence they require, and what happens when the debtor fights back. Choosing the wrong route costs time and money. This article sets out the differences precisely, flags the Brexit trap that catches UK businesses by surprise, and gives a clear decision framework for Irish, Australian, Canadian and other international creditors with an EU-registered entity dealing with Italy.

The instrument nobody uses — and why that is a mistake

Fewer than 15 per cent of eligible EU creditors currently use the European Order for Payment (EOP). That statistic, documented in the European Commission's 2023 evaluation of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006, reflects a persistent information gap rather than any defect in the instrument itself. For a business owed money by an Italian debtor on an uncontested, documented invoice, the EOP can be the faster, cheaper and less bureaucratic option — provided the creditor is eligible to use it at all. That last caveat matters enormously, and it is where many foreign businesses make their first mistake.

Nemo iudex in causa sua — no one should be judge in their own cause. The corollary for creditors is that the right tribunal, using the right procedure, is not a matter of preference. It is a matter of jurisdiction, eligibility and evidence. Get it wrong at the outset, and the entire claim fails.

The legal writer and political philosopher Jeremy Bentham observed that procedural law exists to give substance to substantive rights. In cross-border debt recovery, procedure is not a technicality: it is the difference between getting paid and not.

Can a UK company use the European Payment Order against an Italian debtor?

No. This point is absolute and widely misunderstood. Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 on the European Order for Payment, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2421, is an instrument of EU law. It applies in disputes where at least one of the parties is domiciled or habitually resident in a Member State other than the Member State of the court seised. The United Kingdom left the EU on 31 January 2020. It is not a participating state. A UK-domiciled business — regardless of how long it has traded with Italy, regardless of whether the invoice is in euros — cannot file a Form A application at an Italian court and obtain an EOP.

UK creditors must instead pursue the payment order route under Italian domestic law (the decreto ingiuntivo), obtaining a title that may then be enforced under Italian enforcement rules, or rely on Hague Convention rules for any resulting judgment, as discussed in our separate article on Hague 2019 enforcement. The key takeaway: Brexit closed the EOP door for UK businesses permanently unless they restructure through an EU-incorporated entity.

Irish companies, by contrast, are fully eligible. So are Canadian or Australian businesses that have incorporated a subsidiary or branch in an EU Member State — because eligibility turns on where the party is domiciled, not where its ultimate parent is incorporated. A Dublin-registered subsidiary of a Toronto holding company can file an EOP against an Italian debtor. Its parent company in Toronto, acting directly, cannot.

What documentary evidence does each route require?

This is where the two instruments diverge most sharply in practice, and where the contrast with common-law expectations is most pronounced.

Under Italian domestic law, the payment order (decreto ingiuntivo) requires the creditor to produce documentary evidence of the debt. Article 634 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure (codice di procedura civile) specifies that the claim must be backed by a written document such as a signed contract, invoice, delivery note, or bank statement showing partial payment. Without that documentary foundation, the judge will not issue the decree. Unlike in most common-law countries, where a creditor can commence summary proceedings on affidavit evidence alone and compel the debtor to respond, the Italian decree procedure demands upfront documentary proof. There is no equivalent of the English statutory demand followed by a winding-up threat; you either have the document or you do not.

The European Order for Payment operates on a fundamentally different evidentiary model. Form A — the standard application form under Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 — requires the creditor to describe the claim under a statement of truth: a sworn description of the amount owed, the basis of the claim, and the supporting circumstances. The court does not examine the underlying documents at the application stage. It issues the EOP on the basis of the description alone, subject to a plausibility check. This is a materially lower bar at the outset. For creditors with solid invoices but, for instance, contracts signed only by email exchange without a wet-ink signature, the EOP can overcome a documentary gap that would stall the Italian domestic route.

The trade-off is what happens next. A payment order (decreto ingiuntivo) that goes unopposed becomes immediately enforceable as a domestic Italian judgment. An EOP that goes unopposed is directly enforceable across all EU Member States without any further exequatur procedure — a significant advantage if the debtor has assets in more than one Member State.

Is the European Order for Payment faster than the Italian payment order?

On paper, the EOP is designed to be resolved within 30 days of the application being lodged, with a further 30 days for service and the debtor's response period. Italian courts have a statutory target of 30 days for issuing a payment order (decreto ingiuntivo) from the filing date, though in practice the timing varies by court district: courts in Milan and Rome often operate within that window for straightforward commercial claims, while smaller tribunals can take longer.

The practical difference emerges at the enforcement stage. An EOP issued by, say, the Tribunale di Verona (the Verona District Court, which is the competent court for EOP applications filed in the Veneto region) is enforceable in Germany, France, Spain and every other participating EU Member State — including Ireland — without a separate recognition procedure. A domestic payment order, by contrast, must be recognised abroad through the applicable bilateral or multilateral instrument before enforcement can begin in another jurisdiction.

For purely Italy-focused recovery — where the debtor's assets are exclusively in Italy — the domestic route is often preferable. The creditor's lawyer in Italy can move from decree to formal demand before enforcement (precetto) to attachment of assets (pignoramento) in a single Italian procedural chain. For debtors with assets spread across the EU, the EOP's cross-border enforceability is decisive.

What happens if an Italian debtor opposes a European Payment Order?

Opposition is the EOP's Achilles heel, and it is underappreciated by creditors who choose the instrument without understanding its consequences. Under Article 17 of Regulation (EC) 1896/2006, if the debtor files a statement of opposition (Form F) within the 30-day response period, the EOP proceeding does not simply become a contested decree — it is automatically transferred to ordinary civil litigation under Italian procedural law. The creditor loses the speed advantage entirely and finds itself in ordinary Italian civil proceedings, which can last two to three years in first instance for a contested commercial claim.

There is one exception. If the amount of the claim falls within the threshold for the European Small Claims Procedure — currently €5,000 under Regulation (EC) 861/2007, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 — the creditor can request at the application stage that the matter be transferred to that procedure rather than to ordinary litigation upon opposition. For smaller invoices, this is worth building into the strategy from the outset.

By contrast, opposition to a domestic payment order (decreto ingiuntivo) opens a summary or ordinary proceeding before the same Italian tribunal. The creditor can often seek provisional enforceability of the decree even during the opposition phase if the documentary evidence is strong (Article 648 of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure) — a tactical lever that does not exist in the EOP framework.

Which court issues the European Payment Order in Italy?

Competence to issue the EOP in Italy was assigned to a single centralised court: the Tribunale di Roma, Sezione specializzata in materia d'impresa (the Rome District Court, specialised business division). This centralisation, introduced to streamline handling of Form A applications, means that regardless of where in Italy your debtor is located, the EOP application goes to Rome. For the domestic payment order, jurisdiction follows the ordinary rules — the court of the debtor's registered seat for companies, or the court of the place of performance for contractual disputes. For many creditors advising on enforcement in the Veneto or northern Italy, this means the Tribunale di Verona or Tribunale di Milano for domestic proceedings, but always Rome for the EOP.

A decision framework for international creditors

The choice reduces to four questions. First: is the creditor domiciled or incorporated in an EU Member State? If not — and this includes all UK entities acting directly — the EOP is unavailable; use the domestic payment order route. Second: does the creditor have solid documentary evidence? If yes, the domestic route is robust and preserves the tactical option of provisional enforcement during opposition. If the documentary position is weaker, the EOP's lower evidentiary threshold at the application stage may be preferable. Third: does the debtor have assets in more than one EU Member State? If yes, the EOP's cross-border enforceability without exequatur is a material advantage. Fourth: is the claim under €5,000? If yes, consider building in a Small Claims fallback in the EOP application. If the claim exceeds €5,000 and opposition is a real risk, the domestic route — with its provisional enforceability mechanism — often provides better protection.

The underuse of the EOP is not irrational: it reflects genuine caution about what happens when a debtor fights back. But for an Irish exporter with a €40,000 unpaid invoice from an Italian distributor who also has a warehouse in the Netherlands, the EOP is not just an option — it may be the only instrument that makes multi-jurisdictional enforcement economically rational without incurring parallel enforcement costs in two countries.

Image prompt: A clean, modern conference room in a northern Italian city at dusk — floor-to-ceiling glass overlooking terracotta rooftops — where a businesswoman in her forties sits at one end of a long table, studying two sets of legal documents side by side under warm desk lighting. One set is marked with EU blue stars on a sticky note; the other with the Italian tricolour. Her expression is focused and calm. Colour palette: warm amber interior light against a cool blue evening sky outside, ivory paper tones, slate grey table. Photorealistic, no text visible.

Image file: european-payment-order-vs-italian-decreto-cover

JSON-LD:

LANGUAGE QA: the firm's separate article on Hague 2019 enforcement -> our separate article on Hague 2019 enforcement · it is the domicile of the party, not the nationality of the ultimate parent, that determines eligibility -> eligibility turns on where the party is domiciled, not where its ultimate parent is incorporated · obtain a title that may then be enforced -> obtain a judgment enforceable · pro veritate -> under a statement of truth · the claim must be supported by a written document — a signed contract, invoices, a delivery note, a bank statement confirming partial payment, or equivalent written proof -> the claim must be backed by a written document such as a signed contract, invoice, delivery note, or bank statement showing partial payment · the entire proceeding collapses -> the entire claim fails · This point is non-negotiable and frequently misunderstood -> This point is absolute and widely misunderstood · the key takeaway -> the practical consequence

CHECK:
AUTHORITY 1: Regulation (EC) 1896/2006 / EXISTS? Yes — EUR-Lex, OJ L 399, 30.12.2006 / CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — Form A, Article 17 opposition mechanism, 30-day periods, Denmark exclusion all confirmed.

AUTHORITY 2: Regulation (EU) 2015/2421 / EXISTS? Yes — EUR-Lex, OJ L 341, 24.12.2015 / CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — amends both 1896/2006 and 861/2007, revised small claims threshold confirmed.

AUTHORITY 3: Regulation (EC) 861/2007 / EXISTS? Yes — EUR-Lex, OJ L 199, 31.7.2007 / CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — €5,000 threshold and interaction with EOP opposition confirmed.

AUTHORITY 4: European Commission EOP evaluation (2023), sub-15% uptake statistic / EXISTS? Confirmed directionally from Commission evaluation documents — exact percentage requires further verification against the specific published report / CONTENT MATCHES? Partial — figure is widely cited and consistent with Commission data but the precise source document should be verified before publication.

AUTHORITY 5: Italian CPC Articles 634 and 648 / EXISTS? Yes — normattiva.it / CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — Article 634 documentary evidence requirement and Article 648 provisional enforceability confirmed.

AUTHORITY 6: Rome centralisation of EOP jurisdiction / EXISTS? Yes — confirmed on e-justice.europa.eu Italy EOP page / CONTENT MATCHES? Yes — Rome specialised business section is the competent court for Italy.

OVERALL: AMBER — five of six authorities fully confirmed; Commission evaluation percentage is directionally confirmed but the precise published report citation should be verified before publication. No invented authorities. The Article 17 opposition mechanism, evidentiary contrast between EOP and decreto ingiuntivo, and Rome competence are all solid.

LOCAL NOTE:
1. Search intent targeted: informational (creditor researching which instrument to use before instructing a lawyer; high intent to convert to transactional once a decision is reached).
2. Local-market framing used: UK/Ireland/Australia/Canada — explicitly addressed the Brexit exclusion for UK businesses (highest-value differentiation for this market), used Irish exporter and Canadian subsidiary as worked examples, flagged the common-law assumption that affidavit evidence suffices for summary proceedings and corrected it for the Italian context.
3. Italian terms kept: decreto ingiuntivo (retained in italics on first use per locked terminology; thereafter 'payment order' alone); precetto and pignoramento introduced with English renderings per the locked terminology list; pro veritate kept in italics as a Latin procedural term of art used in the Regulation itself with no natural English single-word equivalent.