The Court of Justice delivered last month (19 December 2019) its judgment in joined cases C‑453/18 and C‑494/18 (Bondora AS v Carlos V.C. (Case C‑453/18), XY (C‑494/18)), which is about the European Order for Payment. The Court endorses here an opinion expressed years ago in literature, and which aims to address some of the weaknesses at the root of the EOP Regulation:

« Article 7(2)(d) and (e) of Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 […] creating a European order for payment procedure and Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, as interpreted by the Court and read in the light of Article 38 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as allowing a ‘court’, within the meaning of that regulation, seised in the context of a European order for payment procedure, to request from the creditor additional information relating to the terms of the agreement relied on in support of the claim at issue, in order to carry out an ex officio review of the possible unfairness of those terms and, consequently, that they preclude national legislation which declares the additional documents provided for that purpose to be inadmissible”.

Source: here