Late payment from a customer in another EU country is one of the most common headaches for B2B businesses trading across borders. In such an event, many companies assume their only options are to file a lawsuit abroad or to write off the debt. However, few realise there is a dedicated EU tool built for exactly this situation: the Eiropas maksājuma rīkojums (EPO).
Some businesses have never heard of it; others assume it works like a normal court claim, only faster. However, neither picture is accurate. The European Payment Order is a specific legal procedure with a narrow purpose. It can be extremely effective when used for the right kind of claim and unhelpful, even counterproductive, when used for the wrong one.
This guide explains what the European Payment Order actually does, when it’s the right tool for recovering international debt – and when it’s not.
What is the European Payment Order (EPO)?
The European Payment Order, often shortened to EPO, is a standardised EU procedure for recovering uncontested cross-border debts. It was introduced under Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 and applies in every EU member state except Dānija.
The point of the European Payment Order is to give creditors a single, uniform process they can use anywhere in the EU, rather than having to learn a different country’s civil procedure every time a foreign customer fails to pay.
The European Payment Order process: step by step
The European Payment Order follows a simple three-step process:
- Submit Form A. The creditor completes the standard EU application form, available in every official EU language, and submits it to the competent court (usually in the creditor’s own country), along with details of the debt and the parties involved.
- The court reviews the application. Since the procedure assumes the debt is undisputed, if the form is in order, the court issues the European Payment Order without examining the merits of the case in any depth. From this moment, the debtor has 30 days to respond.
- Then, one of two outcomes is possible:
- No response. If the debtor does nothing within 30 days, the European Payment Order becomes automatically enforceable across the EU.
- Debtor objects. If the debtor objects, the European Payment Order procedure stops immediately, and (important!) the claim is transferred to ordinary civil proceedings under the debtor’s national law.
When to use the European Payment Order
The European Payment Order is one of the fastest, cheapest ways to turn an unpaid invoice into an enforceable order anywhere in the EU. However, it’s only the right tool when a handful of conditions line up:
- The debtor is based in another EU member state. The European Payment Order is a cross-border tool only. It cannot be used against a debtor in the same country as the creditor.
- The debtor is unlikely to object. This is the single most important factor. The EPO only works when the debtor has no real grounds to dispute the claim. This means no ongoing argument about whether goods were delivered, whether a service was completed to standard or whether the invoice amount is correct.
- You want to avoid hiring a foreign lawyer. One of the clearest advantages of the EPO is that it can be filed without engaging legal representation in the debtor’s country. The standard form is designed to be easy to use, without requiring an understanding of the debtor’s national civil procedure.
- The claim exceeds the small claims threshold. The Eiropas procedūra maza apmēra prasībām is capped at 5,000 euros, while the European Payment Order has no upper limit. For larger uncontested debts, the European Payment Order is therefore often the more suitable EU mechanism.
When these conditions are met, the European Payment Order offers a genuinely efficient route to an enforceable order across the whole of the EU, without the cost and delay of separate national proceedings.
When not to use the European Payment Order
Even when a case looks like a textbook fit on paper, there are several practical situations where the European Payment Order is the wrong tool for starptautiska parādu piedziņa:
- The debtor’s home country has slow ordinary proceedings. If the debtor objects, the case automatically transfers to their home country’s national court. In member states with sluggish legal systems, a contested claim can stall for years.
- There’s a risk that the debtor will disappear or move their assets. The EPO process notifies the debtor at every stage, giving them time to hide or move funds. If they are a flight risk, use a European Account Preservation Order instead, which freezes accounts without prior notice.
- The court fees don’t make financial sense. On low-value claims in countries with high fixed fees, court costs can easily swallow the amount you are trying to recover.
- The paperwork cannot be completed accurately. Form A has zero tolerance for errors. Missing details or insufficient documentation will trigger immediate rejection or delays.
- You’re dealing with a one-off, low-value debtor relationship. The administrative burden of an EU court procedure rarely makes sense for an isolated, minor debt. For single-encounter customers, a local demand letter or phone call is usually faster and cheaper.
Overall, the decision to use the EPO shouldn’t just be about whether you can, but whether the administrative effort and the risk of a debtor objection make sense for your bottom line.
European Payment Order vs the alternatives
The European Payment Order is one of several options for recovering a cross-border debt. It’s therefore worth examining how it compares with the others.
For domestic debts, national order-for-payment procedures are usually the better fit, such as the uzraudzība vietnē Spānija, un maksājuma rīkojums vietnē Francija, un decreto ingiuntivo vietnē Itālija, vai Parādu piedziņas procedūra vietnē Vācija. These work well when the creditor already has a presence or familiarity with that country’s courts. However, the trade-off is that each country has its own rules, forms and language requirements, so there is no single approach that works across multiple markets.
For cross-border claims up to 5,000 euros, whether contested or uncontested, the Eiropas procedūra maza apmēra prasībām is worth considering. Its main limitation is the value cap itself, which rules it out the moment a debt exceeds that threshold.
For claims that are genuinely disputed, or for cases where a European Payment Order has already been opposed and the matter has moved into ordinary proceedings, standard litigation is the right route. It’s slower and more expensive than any of the simplified procedures and is conducted entirely under the relevant country’s national law.
Against these alternatives, the European Payment Order stands out as the only option built specifically for uncontested cross-border debts of any value. Its key limitation is the flip side of that strength: a single objection cancels every advantage and transfers the case straight into national litigation.
How Oddcoll helps to recover international B2B debts
Knowing that the European Payment Order exists is one thing, but knowing whether it is the right move for a specific case, in a specific country, or against a specific debtor is another matter entirely. Getting that judgment wrong wastes the 30-day window and the cost advantage that make the European Payment Order worth using in the first place.
This is the kind of decision Oddcoll’s local partners are set up to make. Rather than defaulting to a single procedure, we place each case with a handpicked debt-collection agency or law firm in the debtor’s country.
Our partners understand whether a European Payment Order, a national order for payment, or a straightforward, amicable approach is most likely to secure payment of the invoice. That local judgement, built on direct experience of how debtors in that market actually respond, is often the difference between a fast resolution and a stalled one.
If you have an unpaid invoices from a customer abroad, upload your case today and let our on-the-ground local experts work out your most effective route to getting paid.
