Aegón España de Seguros y Reaseguros.Roj: AAP TO 66/2017 - ECLI: ES:APTO:2017:66A
Details of the court
Spain, Second Instance
Articles referred to by the court
European Payment Order (EPO)
Date of the judgement
08 March 2017
CJEU's case law cited by the court
National case included with interpretative purposes. The Court of appeal uses Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure only to reinforce its reasoning.
Court reference: Audiencia Provincial de Toledo. Sección: 2 (Court of appeal of Toledo. Section 2).
Key facts: Consumer dispute between an insurance company and a client raised before a second instance Spanish court. Claim for payment (consumer debt). Legal framework: Spanish Civil Procedure Law (LEC); Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure.
The insurance company Aegón España de Seguros y Reaseguros, appeals against the decision of a Spanish Court of First Instance (Juzgado de Primera Instancia No. 2 of Talavera de la Reina,) which does not accept the initiation of an order for payment procedure against one of its clients in Spain (Mr. Florián).
Aegón España de Seguros y Reaseguros insists that the documentary evidences presented to prove the existence of the debt were valid (copies but not original documents).
Court judgement: Article 812 of the Spanish Civil Procedure Law (LEC), in accordance with article 3 of Regulation 1896/2006 does not require the provision of documentary evidences, although the amount of the debt, the type and the period of interest, the cause of the action and the description of some evidence on which the ordinary trial would be based must be clearly determined.
Article 812 of the LEC requires that invoices, delivery notes and other documents be included, among other things, on the request for an order for payment procedure. The documents must usually certificate the credits and debts generated in the commercial relationship existing between the creditor and the debtor.
In the particular case, the documentation brought by the claimant is sufficient for accepting the initiation of an order for payment procedure in Spain. The court accepts the appeal.
Critique: The court makes a broad interpretation of the validity of the documents that prove the existence of a debt and that justify the initiation of an order for payment procedure at national level. Regulation 1896/2006 is taken as an interpretive reference. The court of appeal manifests a jurisprudential position opposite to that expressed by the majority of the doctrine.