Advocate-General Sharpston delivered on 31 October 2019 her opinion in joined Cases C 453/18 and C 494/18 (“Bondora”), which is about the EOP Regulation:

“In the context of the examination of an application for an order for payment made under Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 […] creating a European order for payment procedure and relating to a claim based on a contract concluded between a seller or supplier and a consumer, the court seised is entitled to review of its own motion the potentially unfair nature of the terms laid down in that contract, in accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, read in the light of Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 6(1) TEU.

For that reason, under Article 9(1) of Regulation No 1896/2006, read in conjunction with Article 7(2)(d) and (e) of that regulation, the court seised may require the claimant to reproduce the contract relied on in support of his claim, with the aim of carrying out the review referred to above.

Articles 7 and 9 of Regulation No 1896/2006, read in conjunction with Articles 6 and 7 of Directive 93/13, preclude a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which regards as inadmissible additional documents submitted by a claimant to the court seised, such as a copy of the contract supporting the claim brought against the consumer”.

Source: here