text:
Members of the UIHJ
Toolkit on the Preservation Order
Toolkit on European Order for Payment
Toolkit on Service of Documents in the EU
Toolkit on the European Small Claims Procedure
BREXIT and EU-regulations
Hague Conference
Global Code of Enforcement
UIHJ Magazine
Presentation of EC Regulation 1896/2006
Toolkit on the European Order for Payment: Presentation of EC Regulation 1896/2006
1. Source
The information contained in the European Judicial Atlas are currently migrating towards the European e-Justice Portal.
From March 2016, most of the information will be only available on the Europea, e-Justice Portal.
European e-Justice Portal
European Judicial Atlas in Civil matters
The regulation
2. Introduction: Creation of a genuine European civil procedure
Purpose of the Regulation
Recital 6 explains the purposes of the Regulation by stating: "The swift and efficient recovery of outstanding debts over which no legal controversy exists is of paramount importance for economic operators in the European Union, as late payments constitute a major reason for insolvency threatening the survival of businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, and resulting in numerous job losses."
As long as the content of domestic laws and their efficiency vary significantly from a Member State to another, there is a need to set up a European law that would guarantee identical conditions to all the debtors and the creditors throughout the European Union.
Complementary and optional nature of the Regulation
Article 1,3 of the Regulation states that "This Regulation shall not prevent a claimant from pursuing a claim within the meaning of Article 4 by making use of another procedure available under the law of a Member State or under Community law."
The claimant, when he fulfils conditions to obtain a European order for payment can also resort to domestic procedures to recover his debt or resort to domestic order of payment of his own country. In such a case, he will not benefit directly from a European title. He has to claim in the country that issued the decision for a certificate according to the EC Regulation 805/2004 , or according to the EU Regulation 1215/2012 , so called Brussels I a.
Moreover, the claimant still has the possibility according to article 11,3 of the Regulation to apply for a European Order for Payment or to any other procedure of the domestic law of a Member State.
This is explained in Recital 10 of the Regulation that states "The procedure established by this Regulation should serve as an additional and optional means for the claimant, who remains free to resort to a procedure provided for by national law. Accordingly, this Regulation neither replaces nor harmonises the existing mechanisms for the recovery of uncontested claims under national law."
Cost of the procedure
Article 25 explains in its first paragraph the order of magnitude "The combined court fees of a European order for payment procedure and of the ordinary civil proceedings that ensue in the event of a statement of opposition to a European order for payment in a Member State shall not exceed the court fees of ordinary civil proceedings without a preceding European order for payment procedure in that Member State."
The Regulation gives an explanation of court fees in its second paragraph: "court fees shall comprise fees and charges to be paid to the court, the amount of which is fixed in accordance with national law."
3. Object
To simplify, to speed up, to reduce the cost
These are the goals of the regulation that are mentioned in its first article. The idea is to simplify, to speed up and to reduce the cost of litigations in cross-border disputes concerning uncontested pecuniary claims by creating a European order for payment procedure. The wording of article 4 of the EC regulation 1896/2006 also makes it obvious as it states: "The European order for payment procedure shall be established for the collection of pecuniary claims for a specific amount that have fallen due at the time when the application for a European order for payment is submitted."
To ensure free movements of orders of payment
The Regulation also aims to ensure free movements of orders of payment among Member States by creating minimum standards. The respect of these standards makes intermediary procedures prior to execution or recognition in the State of execution unnecessary.
According to article 69 of the Treaty of the European Union, the Regulation does not apply directly to Denmark, The United Kingdom and Ireland.
However, as stated in Recital 31 of the EC Regulation 1896/2006, The United Kingdom and Ireland expressed their wish to participate in the adoption and application of the Regulation, in accordance with article 3 of the Protocol Annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community.
Denmark is thus the only Member State in which the Regulation is not applicable.
Scope rationae materiae
The subjects dealt with in the EC Regulation 1896/2006 are listed in its article 2.
It states: "This Regulation shall apply to civil and commercial matters in cross-border cases, whatever the nature of the court or tribunal. It shall not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters or the liability of the State for acts and omissions in the exercise of State authority ('acta iure imperii')."This article is almost a complete replica of article 2 of the EC regulation 805/2004, which deals with the scope of this text. But, this provision differs from the EU Regulation 1215/2012, which does not exclude acta jure imperii.
Some subjects are explicitly excluded from the scope of the Regulation: rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship, wills and succession, bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings. Are also excluded: claims arising from non-contractual obligations, unless they have been the subject of an agreement between the parties or there has been an admission of debt, or they relate to liquidated debts arising from joint ownership of property.
The EC Regulation 1896/2006 does not explicitly exclude arbitration from its scope while it is excluded from the scope of the EC Regulation 805/2004. Arbitration can be considered as de facto excluded from the scope of the EC Regulation 1896/2006.
Cross-borders situations
Unlike the EC Regulation 805/2004 concerning European Enforcement Order, the Regulation concerning European order for payment procedure is only applicable to cross-borders disputes.
The Regulation explains in it article 3 that as cross-borders dispute is a dispute "in which 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 Regulation does not give any definition of the notion of "habitual residence" which can lead to legal uncertainty.
5. Competence
Generalities
Jurisdiction is dealt with in article 6 of the Regulation.
The 1st paragraph specifies that jurisdiction is determined according to the applicable rules of the European Union, especially, the EU Regulation 1215/2012 (so-called Brussels I a).
Specificities for the consumer
According to article 6.2 of the Regulation, when the defendant is a consumer who concluded a contract "for a purpose which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession", only the courts of the Member State where he is domiciled according to article 62 of the EU Regulation 1215/2015 have jurisdictions.
The Regulation is stricter than the EU Regulation 1215/2012 that allows minor exemptions to this principle.
6. Where to find the documents?
The European Commission established the European Judicial Atlas in civil matters which provides to citizen and practitioner an easy access to important practical information for judicial cooperation in civil matters.
The site is accessible in 22 of the 24 official languages of the European Union (Cratian and Danish are missing)
For a direct access to the information on the Regulation:
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/judicialatlascivil/html/epo_information_en.htm
The left column gives access to the following information:
Courts with jurisdiction
Courts for reviews
Communication of members States
Forms 1 to 7 available on the European e-Justice Portal)
From March 2016, most of the information will be only available on the e-Justice Portal.
Vade Mecum on the European Order for Payment: Procedure
1. Specificities
Unilateral procedure
The European Order for Payment procedure is a unilateral procedure introduced by a creditor. This one must only give precise information concerning the claim to allow the defendant to decide to file opposition at the claim or not to do so. In fact, the competent court does not proceed to a thorough examination of the request to deliver the order for payment but bases its decision only on the application form.
It is an efficient tool for the claimant in case the defendant does not pay. The Regulation places all the responsibility on the defendant. If he does not react by using the opposition procedure, the claimant will benefit from a decision enforceable in each and every country of the European Union.
The application can be made by the claimant or his representative
Article 7.6 states that "The application shall be signed by the claimant or, where applicable, by his representative."
The ratio legis of this provision is to organise a simple, quick and efficient procedure based on the use of standard forms concerning the recovery of uncontested debts. Thus, it seems normal to give to the claimant the opportunity to sign the application for a European order for payment on his own.
However, the claimant can face several issues while filling in the forms in an appropriate manner. In such a case, he should contact a professional, for example a judicial officer.
The Regulation provides standard forms to facilitate the procedure and to allow the use of new technologies.
As the procedure is unilateral and can be used directly by the sole claimant, it was necessary for the legislator to set up a very simple and easily accessible procedure.The legislator created 7 standard forms in 7 Annexes to the Regulation:
Standard Form A in Annex I: Application for a European Order for Payment
Standard Form B in Annex II: Request to the claimant to complete and/or rectify an application for a European Order for Payment
Standard Form C in Annex III: Proposal to the claimant to modify an application for a European Order for Payment
Standard Form D in Annex IV: Decision to reject the application for a European Order for Payment
Standard Form E in Annex V: European Order for Payment
Standard Form F in Annex VI: Opposition to a European Order for Payment
Standard Form G in Annex VII: Declaration of enforceability
Given that, the court must check the application, including jurisdiction and description of the evidence, based on the elements written in the standard form A, the claimant shall not abuse by using such a procedure.
Therefore, Article 7.3 of the Regulation states that "In the application, the claimant shall declare that the information provided is true to the best of his knowledge and belief and shall acknowledge that any deliberate false statement could lead to appropriate penalties under the law of the Member State of origin."
In the application, the claimant must provide specific information to identify and prove the debt so that, if relevant, the defendant can challenge the decision. He must also provide a description of the evidences in support of his claim. However, evidences themselves shall not be attached to the application.
Subsidiary role of the domestic procedural law
Even in the case of a European procedure, the Regulation defines cases in which domestic laws apply concerning specific details. It is the case in the following articles:
Article 7.3: "the claimant (…) shall acknowledge that any deliberate false statement could lead to appropriate penalties under the law of the Member State of origin."
Article 7.5: "the application shall be submitted (…) by any other means of communication, (…), accepted by the Member State of origin"
Article 12.5: "The court shall ensure that the order is served on the defendant in accordance with national law (…)".
Article 17.2: "The transfer to ordinary civil proceedings within the meaning of paragraph 1 shall be governed by the law of the Member State of origin."
Article 18.2: "(…) the formal requirements for enforceability shall be governed by the law of the Member State of origin."
Finally, in its Article 26, the Regulation explicitly states that "All procedural issues not specifically dealt with in this Regulation shall be governed by national law."
Claims arising before the entry into force of the RegulationAs the Regulation does not limit its scope to claims that aroused after its entry into force, one can assume that a claim that aroused before can be submitted to the European Order for Payment procedure.
2. Conditions
Pecuniary claims for a specific amount that have fallen due
Article 4 explicitly explains that only pecuniary claims for a specific amount that have fallen due at the time when the application for a European order for payment can submitted.
The regulation is not applicable for obligation to do or not to do something.
In the form, there is a line for the main amount (point 6), a line for the interests (point 7), a line for contractual penalties (point 8) and a line for the fees (point 9). Therefore, the amounts claimed must be determinable when a European order for payment is introduced.
Uncontested claim
Article 1.1 states that: "The purpose of this Regulation is to simplify, speed up and reduce the costs of litigation in cross-border cases concerning uncontested pecuniary claims by creating a European order for payment procedure".
The contested or uncontested nature of the claims depends on the behaviour of the defendant. If he does not object to the European order for payment, the claim can be considered uncontested. On the contrary, if the defendant opposes the order, the uncontested nature of the claim disappears.
The contested or uncontested nature of the claim is not definitely determined at the time of the application but during the European Order for Payment procedure, which is an important difference compared to the Regulation concerning the European Enforcement Order.
No limitation of the amount
The Regulation does not set any debt ceiling to introduce an application of order for payment.
Therefore, the claimant can introduce an application of order for payment for small amount but also for significant debts.
3. Application for a European Order for Payment (Article 7)
Mandatory information that should be included in the application
The application has to be made by using Standard Form A, set out in Annex 1.
The application shall state:
The names and addresses of the parties, and, where applicable, their representatives, and of the court to which the application is made;
The amount of the claim (including the principal and, interest, contractual penalties and costs);
The interest rate and the period of time for which that interest is demanded
The cause of the action
A description of evidence supporting the claim
The grounds for jurisdiction
The cross-border nature of the case within the meaning of Article 3.
Opposition to the transfer to ordinary civil proceedings according to Article 17In an appendix attached to the claim, the claimant is entitled to inform the court that he refuses the transfer to ordinary civil procedure as organised by Article 17 of the Regulation if the defendant decides to lodge a statement of opposition.
The claimant keeps this option throughout the process until the delivery of the order for payment.Signature of the application
According to Article 7.6, the application shall be signed by the claimant or, where applicable, by his representative.
If the application is introduced by electronic means, it should be signed in accordance with article 2 paragraph 2 of the Directive 1999/93/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 1999 on a Community framework for electronic signatures. This signature is recognised in the Member State of origin, which cannot ask for supplementary conditions.
Submission of the application
According to Article 7.5 of the Regulation, the application shall be submitted in paper form or by any other means of communication, including electronic, accepted by the Member State of origin and available to the court of origin.
According to Article 29 of the Regulation, Member States shall communicate to the Commission which courts have jurisdiction to issue a European Order for Payment.
These communications are available on the website of the European Judicial Atlas in civil matters, which is regularly updated.
Competent court to deliver a European Order for Payment
According to the Brussels I Regulation and now Brussels I Recast Regulation, the court where the defendant is domiciled has jurisdiction.
4. Examination of the application
Article 8 of the Regulation explains that "The court seised of an application for a European order for payment shall examine, as soon as possible and on the basis of the application form, whether the requirements set out in Articles 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are met and whether the claim appears to be founded. This examination may take the form of an automated procedure."
It means that the court must check if the application falls under the scope of the Regulation (Article 2), if it is a transborder case (Article 3), which concerned a pecuniary claim for a specific amount that have fallen due (Article 4) and if it has jurisdiction according to international rules (Article 6). Finally, the court must check if the claimant accurately filled in the Standard Form A set out in Annex I (Article 7).
5. Completion and rectification
Article 9 of the Regulation offers to the claimant, the possibility to complete or rectify the application when the conditions of Article 7 are not met.
In such a case, the court will use Standard Form B set out in Annex II.
The claimant will have to complete or rectify his application within a time determined by the court.
6. Modification of the application
Article 10 of the Regulation states that if the requirements referred to in Article 8 are met for only part of the claim, the court shall inform the claimant to that effect, using Standard Form C as set out in Annex III.
In such a case, the claimant can accept or refuse the proposal for a European order for payment made by the court. According to Article 9.2, the claimant has to use Standard Form C as set out in Annex III in a period determined by the court.
If the claimant accepts the proposal, the judge will issue an order for payment. Domestic laws deal with the consequences for the rest of the amount.
In case the claimant does not reply in the fixed period or if he refuses the offer made by the court, this one rejects the application for a European order for payment in its entirety.
7. Rejection of the application
Article 11 of the Regulation lists the cases when courts reject the application for a European Order for Payment:
The requirements set out in Articles 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 are not met;
The claim is clearly unfounded;
The claimant fails to send his reply within the time limit specified by the court under Article 9(2);
The claimant fails to send his reply within the time limit specified by the court or refuses the court's proposal, in accordance with Article 10.
The claimant is informed of the reasons of rejection by means of Standard Form D set out in Annex IV.The decision of rejection cannot be challenged. The rejection is thus permanent. However, this rejection does not prevent the claimant from applying for a new European Order for Payment or for any other national procedure available according to the domestic law of its Member State.
8. Issue of a European Order for Payment (Article 12)
The court shall issue a European Order for Payment as soon as possible and normally within 30 days of the lodging of the application.
This period can be extended for the period given by the court to the claimant to complete or rectify his application.Form of the order for payment
The order of payment is issued by using Standard Form E set out in Annex V of the Regulation.
It is delivered together with a copy of the form of the applicationInformation given to the defendant
In the European order for payment: the defendant shall be advised of his options to:
Pay the amount indicated in the order to the claimant;
Oppose the order by lodging with the court of origin a statement of opposition,
In the European Order for Payment, the defendant shall be informed that:
The order was issued solely on the basis of the information, which was provided by the claimant and was not verified by the court;
The order will become enforceable unless a statement of opposition has been lodged with the court
Where a statement of opposition is lodged, the proceedings shall continue before the competent courts of the Member State of origin in accordance with the rules of ordinary civil procedure unless the claimant has explicitly requested that the proceedings be terminated in that event.
Service of documents
Vade Mecum on the European Order for Payment: Service of documents
1. Principle
Article 12.5 of the Regulation states: "The court shall ensure that the order is served on the defendant in accordance with national law by a method that shall meet the minimum standards laid down in Articles 13, 14 and 15."
2. Respect for the rights of the defence
Article 27 of the Regulation explains that service of documents should be made according to the EC Regulation 1393/2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil and commercial matters.
The execution agent is responsible for doing his utmost, with all the means at his disposal, in order to deliver the European Order for Payment to the recipient himself or to an address where he can guarantee that the recipient lives and then, where he will be able to be informed about the European Order for Payment.
3. Service with proof of receipt by the defendant
Article 13 organises four different ways of serving the document which common point is to ensure the proof of receipt by the defendant.
4. Service without proof of receipt by the defendant
The means of communication provided for in Article 14 do not guaranty the effective receipt of the document by the addressee. It is a compromise as some European States use service by postal channel without any certificate from the authority, which is in charge.
Due to the lack of security of some of these means of service, the European legislator added one condition. Such a service will be valid only if the address of the recipient is known with certainty. Moreover, protective measures such as the faculty to lodge a statement of opposition or to ask for a review of the decision in exceptional cases have been created.
5. Service on a representative
Article 15 states that "Service pursuant to Articles 13 or 14 may also be effected on a defendant's representative."
In case of doubts concerning the identity of the representative of the defendant, it is better to serve the document to the defendant himself.
Protection of the defendant
Vade Mecum on the European Order for Payment: The Protection of the Defendant
1. Opposition to the European Order for Payment
To protect the defendant, he can lodge a statement of opposition against the claim according to Articles 16 and 17.
Article 16.1 of the Regulation states that the defendant can lodge a statement of opposition to the European order for payment within 30 days of service of the order on the defendant by using Standard Form F as set out in Annex IV which shall be supplied to him together with the European order for payment.
The defendant only needs to lodge a statement of opposition against the order for payment. He does not need to give the grounds of challenge.
According to Article 16.4, the statement of opposition shall be submitted in paper form or by any other means of communication, including electronic, accepted by the Member State of origin and available to the court of origin.
Period of 30 days
According to Article 16.2 of the Regulation the period starts from the service of the European order of payment to the defendant.
Article 18 states that after this period of thirty days the European order for payment can be enforceable. Moreover Article 17.1 states that if a statement of opposition is entered within thirty days, the proceedings shall continue before the competent courts of the Member State of origin. One can deduce from these two articles that if a statement of opposition if lodged too late, it must be declared inadmissible.
Effects of the opposition procedure
As a consequence of a valid statement of opposition, lodged in the period of thirty days by the defendant, the procedure will continue before the relevant court of the Member State of origin according to the domestic rules concerning civil procedure.
The claimant can avoid such a procedure if he clearly expressed his wish to end the procedure in such a case. Such a choice might avoid him to support costs that would be disproportionate compare to the amount of the debt to recover.
According to Article 17. 2 of the Regulation, the law of the Member State of origin shall govern the transfer to ordinary civil proceedings. Each Member State must adapt its legislation to determine how to proceed for the transfer from a unilateral European order for payment procedure to a domestic procedure, which is open.
Finally, in order not to harm the interests of the claimant, Article 17.1 paragraph 2 states that "Where the claimant has pursued his claim through the European order for payment procedure, nothing under national law shall prejudice his position in subsequent ordinary civil proceedings."
The court decision issued after the opposition procedure will circulate among the Member States following the same procedure as a domestic judgement.
2. Review in exceptional cases
If the defendant does not lodge a statement of opposition to the European order for payment within thirty days after the service of this act, it becomes irrevocable and cannot be challenged anymore.
However, the European legislator allowed a review in exceptional cases. According to Recital 25, this option cannot be considered as a normal appeal contrary to the opposition procedure. This Recital states that: "(..) Review in exceptional cases should not mean that the defendant is given a second opportunity to oppose the claim. During the review procedure the merits of the claim should not be evaluated beyond the grounds resulting from the exceptional circumstances invoked by the defendant. (…)". As a result, it has to be strictly interpreted.
Cases of review
Three exceptional cases of review exist:
Article 20 1 a) Where "the order for payment was served by one of the methods provided for in Article 14, and service was not effected in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence, without any fault on his part," As long as the order for payment has not been served, the defendant has thirty days to lodge a statement of opposition. Then, there is no reason to extend the period as long as the service has not been realised.
Article 20.1 b): Where "the defendant was prevented from objecting to the claim by reason of force majeure or due to extraordinary circumstances without any fault on his part," In the EC Regulation 805/2004, the possibility to object the claim by reason of force majeure or extraordinary circumstances is a condition to obtain the certificate of the decision as enforceable title. Concerning the EC Regulation 1896/2006, it offers a possibility to obtain a review of the case before the court of origin that delivered the European Order for Payment.
Article 20.2 : "the defendant shall also be entitled to apply for a review of the European order for payment before the competent court in the Member State of origin where the order for payment was clearly wrongly issued, having regard to the requirements laid down in this Regulation, or due to other exceptional circumstances." In such a case, a review is possible either due to the requirements of the Regulation or due to exceptional cases.
Consequences of the review in exceptional cases
If the court rejects the request of the defendant because none of the conditions to review stated in paragraph 1 and 2 of article 20 is met, the European order for payment is still valid.
On the contrary, if the court decides that the review is justified as one of the conditions of the paragraph 1 or 2 of article 20 is met, the European order for payment is null and void.
In its Article 20, the Regulation organises the cases where a review can be asked by the defendant before the courts of the Member States of origin and its consequences.
The Regulation does not create forms for the review nor explains how the defendant can be informed of his faculty of asking for a review and it does not explain either which court shall deal with the review.
3. Refusal of enforcement (Article 22)
The defendant has means to challenge the enforcement of the European order for payment. This means must be used before the courts of the Member State of enforcement and not in the Member States of origin.
But, as specified in Article 22.3, "Under no circumstances may the European order for payment be reviewed as to its substance in the Member State of enforcement"
Enforcement shall be refused based on two grounds:
Incompatibility with an earlier decision
If the debtor already paid the amount determined in the European Order for Payment
Incompatibility with an earlier decisionEnforcement shall be refused by the competent court in the Member State of enforcement if the European order for payment is irreconcilable with an earlier decision or order previously given in any Member State or in a third country, if three cumulative conditions are met:
The earlier decision or order involved the same cause of action between the same parties;
The earlier decision or order fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the Member State of enforcement;
The irreconcilability could not have been raised as an objection in the court proceedings in the Member State of origin.
Prior paymentThe relevant court of the Member State of execution also refuses enforceability if the defendant already paid to the claimant the amount determined in the European Order for Payment.
4. Stay or limitation of enforcement (Article 23)
According to Article 23 of the Regulation, the defendant, when he asked for a review according to Article 20, can neutralize the execution of the European order for payment by lodging his case with the relevant court of the State of execution. This court is competent to adopt various measures such as to:
Limit the enforcement proceedings to protective measures;
Make enforcement conditional on the provision of such security as it shall determine;
Under exceptional circumstances, stay the enforcement proceedings.
Vade Mecum on the European Order for Payment: Enforcement
1. Enforceability (Article 18)
If within thirty days after the date of service, the defendant does not lodge any statement of opposition, the court of origin shall declare the European order for payment enforceable using Standard Form G as set out in Annex VII.
To do so, the court shall verify the date of service. The claimant is responsible for asking the Court to declare the order for payment enforceable.As a consequence, it will be able to circulate and to be executed in all the countries of the European Union, (except Denmark).
2. Execution (Articles 19 and 21)
Article 19 of the Regulation defines the principal and states: "A European order for payment which has become enforceable in the Member State of origin shall be recognised and enforced in the other Member States without the need for a declaration of enforceability and without any possibility of opposing its recognition."
Article 21 paragraph 1 states that "enforcement procedures shall be governed by the law of the Member State of enforcement. A European order for payment which has become enforceable shall be enforced under the same conditions as an enforceable decision issued in the Member State of enforcement."
The creditor has a court decision from the Member State of origin that can "travel" freely and without any constraints in all the Member States. It will be assimilated to a national title. This principle of assimilation means that the European order for payment does not bestow less nor more rights than a national title.
Amendments of the Regulation from 14 July 2017
Vade Mecum on the European Order for Payment: Amendments from 14 July 2017
On 24th December 2015 was published on the European Journal of the European Union (L 341/1) REGULATION (EU) 2015/2421 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 16 December 2015 amending Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure and Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure
The amendments on the European Order for Payment will apply from 14 July 2017.
The amendments concern the following Articles:
In Article 7, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following:
'4. In an Appendix to the application, the claimant may indicate to the court which, if any, of the procedures listed in points (a) and (b) of Article 17(1) he requests to be applied to his claim in the subsequent civil proceedings in the event that the defendant lodges a statement of opposition against the European order for payment.
In the Appendix provided for in the first subparagraph, the claimant may also indicate to the court that he opposes a transfer to civil proceedings within the meaning of point (a) or point (b) of Article 17(1) in the event of opposition by the defendant. This does not prevent the claimant from informing the court thereof subsequently, but in any event before the order is issued.'.
Article 17 is replaced by the following:
'Article 17
Effect of the lodging of a statement of opposition
1. If a statement of opposition is lodged within the time limit laid down in Article 16(2), the proceedings shall continue before the competent courts of the Member State of origin unless the claimant has explicitly requested that the proceedings be terminated in that event. The proceedings shall continue in accordance with the rules of:
(a) the European Small Claims Procedure laid down in Regulation (EC) No 861/2007, if applicable; or
(b) any appropriate national civil procedure.
2. Where the claimant has not indicated which of the procedures listed in points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 he requests to be applied to his claim in the proceedings that ensue in the event of a statement of opposition or where the claimant has requested that the European Small Claims Procedure as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 be applied to a claim that does not fall within the scope of that Regulation, the proceedings shall be transferred to the appropriate national civil procedure, unless the claimant has explicitly requested that such transfer not be made.
3. Where the claimant has pursued his claim through the European order for payment procedure, nothing under national law shall prejudice his position in subsequent civil proceedings.
4. The transfer to civil proceedings within the meaning of points (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 shall be governed by the law of the Member State of origin.
5. The claimant shall be informed of whether the defendant has lodged a statement of opposition and of any transfer to civil proceedings within the meaning of paragraph 1.'.
Article 25, paragraph 1 is replaced by the following:
'1. Where, in a Member State, the court fees for civil proceedings within the meaning of point (a) or point (b) of Article 17(1), as applicable, are equivalent to or higher than those of the European order for payment procedure, the total of the court fees for a European order for payment procedure and for the civil proceedings that ensue in the event of a statement of opposition in accordance with Article 17(1) shall not exceed the fees for those proceedings without a preceding European order for payment procedure in that Member State.
No additional court fees may be charged in a Member State for the civil proceedings that ensue in the event of a statement of opposition in accordance with point (a) or point (b) of Article 17(1), as applicable, if the court fees for such proceedings in that Member State are lower than those for the European order for payment procedure.'.
Amendment of the Annexes
The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 31 concerning the amendment of Annexes I to VII.'.
Exercise of the delegation
1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article.
2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 30 shall be conferred on the Commission for an indeterminate period of time from 13 January 2016.
3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 30 may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force.
4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council.
5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 30 shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.'.
Vade Mecum on the European Order for Payment: Bibliography
DÉFOSSEZ M. « Titre exécutoire européen, injonction de payer européenne et procédure européenne de règlement des petits litiges », in Enforcing contracts. Aspects procéduraux de l'exécution des contrats transfrontaliers en droit européen et international, Bruxelles, Larcier, 2008
CUNIBERTI G., NORMAND J., CORNETTE F., Droit international de l'exécution, LGDJ, 2011
GUINCHARD E., « La procédure européenne est née. Vive le créancier ! », in Le droit judiciaire en mutation. En hommage à Alphonse Kohl, coll. CUP, vol. 95, Louvain-la-Neuve, Anthemis, 2007, pp.14-16
FREUDENTHAL, M. P&B 2004,
GIELEN, P. « Le nouveau règlement relatif à la signification et à la notification dans les États membres des actes judiciaires et extrajudiciaires en matière civile et commerciale », J.J.P. 2009, pp.431-440 ;
HESS et D. BITTMANN, IPRax 2008, 307
KRAMER X. en SUJECKI, B., NIPR 2006, 368
PERROT, R. « L'injonction de payer urbi et orbi », Coll. Ius & Actores, n° 01/2009, Bruxelles, Larcier, 2009, p. 45
RÖTHEL, A. et SPARMANN, I., WM 2007
STORME, H. Europese betalingsbevelprocedure, NjW 2009, n° 196, 101-102
VANDEKERCKHOVE, K. tijdschrift@ipr.be 2007, nr.2, 106
ZILINSKY M., « Incasso op grond van de Europese betalingsbevelprocedure en de Europese procedure voor geringe vorderingen », in Internationale incasso van geldvorderingen, Maklu, 2008, p. 102
© 2020 - UIHJ - International Union of Judicial Officers - Legal notice - Data protection
made by WEB l GRAPHIC DESIGN l PRINT Agency mc-pint.com


text:
Sonic movie delayed until 2020
Megan Cronin Friday, May 24, 2019
Sonic won't be going fast any time soon. The minds behind the upcoming Sonic movie delayed its release until 2020, according to a recent tweet by director Jeff Fowler. The move likely comes in response to widespread criticism of the film's design. The tweet states that the delay is to "make Sonic just right." For now, the November release date has been pushed back to February.
The movie stirred up fan ire for a number of reasons, mostly surrounding the design of the beloved Hedgehog. People were critical of Sonic's strange appearance, looking more like a human/Sonic hybrid than anything resembling the famous character. Even details such as his gloves were missed by fans, many of whom were left wondering if the team behind the movie had played Sonic at all. The official trailer was panned on YouTube and turned into memes across the internet.
The criticism did not fall on deaf ears, as a tweet by Jeff Fowler on May 2 addressed:
"Thank you for the support. And the criticism. The message is loud and clear… you aren't happy with the design & you want changes. It's going to happen. Everyone at Paramount & Sega are fully committed to making this character the BEST he can be."
Given the promise to redo aspects of the movie and the recent delay to improve quality, it's not a stretch to assume the two are tied together. There may have been too much work to do between the outcry and the November release date. Now, we're looking at a four-month Sonic movie delay and a new release date of February 14, 2020. Yes, that's Valentine's Day and, no, this probably isn't the best place for a first date.
Taking a little more time to make Sonic just right.#novfxartistswereharmedinthemakingofthismovie pic.twitter.com/gxhu9lhU76
— Jeff Fowler (@fowltown) May 24, 2019
For what it's worth, it looks like Sonic is wearing his gloves again. Perhaps there will be more good news to come.
Tags: sonic, sonic movie, Sonic The Hedgehog

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Adoption is a highly specialized field that focuses on placing children with families and providing services to ensure that these placements are permanent. In recent decades, the emphasis of adoption practice has shifted from helping families find children to finding safe and permanent families for children.
Adoption workers are now expected to have extensive knowledge and understanding of the recruitment and assessment of adoptive families, the placement of children with a variety of strengths and needs, and supportive post-adoption services to promote attachment and permanency for children.
When making the decision to adopt an infant an adopting couple will come across a number of agencies willing to help them in their cause. Some adoption agencies deal only with International adoption, others only domestic and there are those that will work with all forms of adoption. Choosing the correct adoption agency for your situation is critical to a successful and speedy adoption process.
The scenarios that could affect whether an adoption ends successfully or with heartbreak are endless. It is key, when contacting and visiting adoption agencies, to ask important questions in order to logically select the right company to work with.
Although, not important in the scheme of the emotions surrounding the adoption of an infant, different families have different resources and some agencies have different fees for different situations. The one caveat to be ware of is hidden fees; some adoption agencies tack on at the end or during the process of adoption.
Ask up front a detailed list of every possible fee the agency might charge or will charge. This way you are aware of what the final agency bill might be, or what adoption options you may want to or not want to choose. Also, obtain information from the agency representative as to when certain fees are expected to be paid. During the process of the adoption, many agencies expect funds at certain stages of the procedure.
It is also important to inquire about refunds. Some adoption agencies have a no refund policy; others will refund monies depending on what stage the adoption is at and others refund most or all of the costs paid.
The number of adoptions they perform will also prove to be critical to the success of the adoption process. If the adoption agency handles a mind boggling number of adoptions each year they may not be able to provide the quality of support and service one would expect from an agency. Of course, if this is the case and they employ an equally high number of competent associates.
On the flip side of over extending themselves, some adoption agencies do not perform enough adoptions per annum to accrue the kind of experience needed to be able to offer the proper advisement when out of the ordinary circumstances occur. It should be realized, however, that some agencies pride themselves on the fact that even if they do not perform large numbers of adoptions, they provide a higher quality of support.
When discussing the experience of a particular agency, ask for references. Even though privacy is a major concern with most adoptions, there will be a handful of people willing to discuss their experiences with the agency.
For most parents looking to adopt an infant, this is the most important question to ask. Adoptive parents have already made the decision to adopt and sometimes the wait can seem like the most difficult aspect of the entire process.
Most adoption agencies will have this information directly in hand and often take pride in the fact that their wait times are shorter than those of other agencies. However, simply because an agency purports a short waiting period does not mean they are the best adoption agency to deal with.
It is important to not solely base the decision of what adoption agency to choose simply because their wait period is shorter than their competitors. Take into account what steps and procedures each uses, it could be the one agency has a shorter wait time than another because they skip over valuable aspects of the adoption process.


That's how to easily extract RAR ZIP files on Android, hopefully it is useful. Thank you for visiting the ToveweXYZ Website.
Keyword: ZIP RAR Android, Open ZIP RAR File on Smartphone Tablet Android, How to Open ZIP RAR File on Android, ZIP RAR File on Android, How to Extract ZIP RAR File on Android, How to Open ZIP RAR File on Android, Tutorial Open ZIP RAR File on Android, How to make ZIP RAR file on Android.


Little Mix will headline this summer's Fusion Festival in Liverpool, it has been revealed.
The band are among the first names to be revealed for this year's line-up at the Sefton Park festival, along with Rudimental, Dizzee Rascal, Clean Bandit and John Newman.
DJ Jonas Blue, Anne-Marie, DJ Sigala, X Factor winners Rak-Su and singer presenter Hrvy are also on the bill, with more names set to be announced in the coming weeks.
Arguably one of the biggest girl bands on the planet, Little Mix have been on an impressive winning streak since winning the X Factor back in 2011 - going on to have four multi-platinum selling albums, nine platinum singles and four UK number one singles.
Their appearance at Sefton Park, the festival's brand new venue, on is a 'UK Festival exclusive' and it's set to make the event's popularity soar even more, following the huge success of last year which saw stellar performances from Years & Years, Jess Glynne and David Guetta.
Tickets for Fusion Festival are on sale from 9am on Friday April 5 and can be bought here .
Local residents in postcodes L8, L15, L17 and L18 will have access to a limited number of General Admission tickets at half price - £27.25 + BF (£2.95).
These resident tickets are available on a first come, first served basis. To purchase the half-price tickets, use promo code RESIDENT2019.


SUNNYVALE, Calif., Feb 25, 2009 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- Trimble (Nasdaq: TRMB) announced today that it is providing outdoor rugged computers for the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race -- The Toughest Race on Earth. Iditarod race officials will use the Trimble Nomad(TM) handhelds and the new Yuma(TM) rugged tablet computers to help with safety, communications and logistics challenges over the 1,150 mile race through the heart of the Alaskan wilderness which is scheduled to begin March 7.
While the Nomad functions as a powerful advanced handheld computer, the new Yuma puts the power of a fully-functional PC in the hands of people who work outdoors. The family of products is an ideal fit for the Iditarod, as it provides a rugged platform for computing on the trail and at checkpoints.
"Our goal every year at the Iditarod is to make the race safer for participants, as well as more accessible to people around the world that follow the event," said Stan Hooley, executive director of the Iditarod Trail Committee. "Using Trimble rugged computers will give us a greatly increased ability to communicate in the harshest of environments in order for us to provide the continuum of safety that we are committed to provide for each team on the Trail. The extreme challenge of musher and dogs against the elements is timeless. Now, we add highly-sophisticated technology, like truly rugged computers, GPS and wireless communication, to improve the event's logistics. It's a great juxtaposition."
"The Iditarod is the ultimate test of toughness, not just for dogs and mushers, but also for the equipment that makes the race possible," said Shawn Curtis, marketing manager for Trimble's Mobile Computing Solutions Division. "The Iditarod epitomizes everything Trimble's rugged outdoor computing is about. The Toughest Race on Earth is the perfect opportunity to demonstrate Trimble's capabilities, as we facilitate real-time data communication, provide logistical support, and capture critical data like sled dog health as mushers progress across the 1,000-plus miles to Nome."
The AT&T-certified Nomad handheld computers will be used to scan barcodes when sleds enter and leave check in points to capture time and location data. They will also track the number of dogs to identify when an injured dog must be left behind. Race officials, veterinarians and logistics personnel will use the Yuma tablet computer for real-time communication to enhance safety and to capture location information to keep race participants and officials informed as the race progress. In addition, Yuma will facilitate uploading data to the Web to keep race fans updated in real time.
The Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race celebrates the historical values and the lifestyle of sled dog mushing. The 37th running of "The Last Great Race on Earth" also celebrates the 100 year anniversary of the National Historic Iditarod Trail and the 50th Anniversary of Alaska Statehood. The Iditarod embraces the high technology research that allows products such as the Nomad and Yuma to create a safety net for the mushers and canine athletes as they make their way through the Alaska Range on to the Mighty Yukon River and across the Gold Coast of Norton Sound in order to arrive safely in Nome Alaska.
The Trimble Nomad packs an amazing amount of functionality into a powerful and full-featured rugged handheld computer. The Nomad handheld computer features Windows Mobile 6, an 806 MHz processor, up to 1 GB of Flash storage, a long-life battery and integrated wireless capabilities such as GPS, 802.11g and Bluetooth. The Nomad handheld also features a high-resolution, sunlight-visible VGA display that shows graphics and maps in crisp detail.
The Nomad rugged computer makes it easy to collect, save and transmit data in the field because it's available with so many built-in capabilities, plus you can use the Nomad's CompactFlash (CF) and Secure Digital (SDIO) slots to add even more devices.
The Yuma tablet is at home in the harshest outdoor conditions as a hand-carried computer, mounted on a tripod or pole for data collection, or secured in a vehicle-mount for use as a computer on the road. It is equally adept in a climate-controlled office.
The Yuma rugged tablet computer is expected to be available in April 2009.
The Nomad and Yuma computer's rugged construction makes them ideal for forestry, public safety, field service, utilities, military and other outdoor or service-related applications.
For more information about Trimble outdoor rugged computers, visit www.trimble.com/rugged, e-mail handhelds@trimble.com or call 541-750-9200.


text:
Making revolution: a reply to Davidson
By Guy Rundle
When you write a book about the technologies of today that are building the future, and hear that a Marxist science-fiction writer is going to review it, one is liable to get a little nervous. After all, he knows where the bodies are going to be buried. So I'm grateful to Rjurik Davidson for his generous review of A Revolution In the Making, my breezy (a word for light-on) romp through the new world of 3D printing, robotics and new materials, with an added fun chapter about the political implications of such for Marxist and radical liberatory politics, a section finished by about 11 percent of the readership.
My very general argument in that section was that replication (3D printing and related technologies) and robotics constitute a radical break with existing modes of production, and that they thus represent a process that undermines the value-form of capitalism, in a way that makes other relations of production possible. Eventually, I argued, many simple objects will be able to be produced at a cost approaching zero, and without a countercultural turn to pre-capitalist modes of production. In the future, both home-based replicators and more complex machines housed at depots and makerspaces – places currently developing where people use technology in a variety of ways, from hobbying to expertise – would provide networks of production wherein people could obtain complex objects, either by self-producing or by paying a depot fee and having unlimited access and supply of simple objects.
Rjurik's core critique of this proposal is this:
Rundle's future history is driven by two key ideas: the notion of 'autonomous' zones – makerspaces using 'open source' material – and technological determinism, the notion that the technology itself has the power to transform society. Admittedly, Rundle is never crude in his position, making his own critiques of these things, and pointing towards more dystopian future possibilities. But in the end, he still follows these general arguments.
Autonomous zones have a long history, dating back at least to the utopian socialist communities of the nineteenth century….Technological determinism has a longer lineage, but is found across the world today. Its embodied in notions like the 'singularity': the concept, driven by post-humanists (and familiar to anyone in the field of science fiction) that at some indeterminate point technological progress will ascend at such a rate that it will outstrip human control and lead to a radically transformed world of artificial intelligence, the end of death and virtual worlds into which we might download ourselves.
Both of these projects face the same problem, an objection that has as a history almost as long as autonomous zones and techno-utopianism. It's one that Rundle never addresses front-on. The objection runs like this: the circuits of capitalism regulate society in such a way that transformative moments are always contained and re-integrated.
There's perhaps a fair criticism that I underplayed the degree to which my forecast was the suggestion of a provisional future, that I should have teased some of that forward more. But I do think that Rjurik has read over, or misread, the caveats I did put in – and I think he's also missed a larger and deeper critique, which is that of political Marxism in the twentieth century, over against a more determinist Marxism that was underplayed and submerged by the political success of Leninism. My argument is that an overemphasis of activist and voluntarist politics has led us to ignore both the possibilities of technical change, and the limits to activism imposed by material history, and that this reaches back fairly deeply into radical history and tactics.
First to the present critiques. Rjurik suggests that I am seeing makerspaces – collective high-tech/low-tech workshops that have developed over the last decade – as the possible core of autonomous zones, which would be in the lineage of utopian socialist communes and so on of Left history. But that is the opposite of what I said. Here's what I argue:
The alternative [to dystopia] would seem to be a distribution of the new technologies. This could potentially provide the wider population with the tools to create forms and regions of countervailing power against centralisation…..– but in a way that does not require all those involved in it to be conscious 'makers', devoting their lives and expertise to reproducing their own environment…. The maker fraternity would like to see it as a process whereby everyone becomes a maker, intimately involved with the creation of their own objects. But that seems to me to be not only archaic and foolish, but also a step back from the full liberation that such integrated new technologies offer. The result of a generalised, easy-to-use and safe ensemble of new technologies would be to offer people a source of contemporary and up-to-the-minute set of visible technologies of life at a fraction of the production cost they have today, and therefore as something approaching a free good.
In other words, my priority is to avoid the trap of intentional communities of the nineteenth century socialists or after. I am taking exactly the position that Marx took in relation to these experiments – that they are either coercive, or, if freely intentional, demand an abnegation of the modern flourishing self that Marx saw as essential to communism. That's my argument with the 'makers' of the makerspace movement, as well – their moralising idea that everyone should be bound up in the product is a return of a Puritan ethos. Some people will always want to do that, and that is surely what a communistic network of production would look like – something centred around a 'production hub', where a wide variety of objects can be printed out with close to zero human involvement, but where people have all sorts of relationship to such hubs. My suggestion is that such production levels would allow people who have zero interest in actual making and those totally into it (and all points in between), to simply interact in a free way, as an expression of their own abilities and needs (this is considerably elaborated in the book).
Indeed, I've seen this in some of these research institutes and spaces – places where someone is studying the molecular structure of grapheme on a screen while behind them, a 3D printer chuckles away making a spiral DVD tower. People make objects for each other, those with expertise run them for people who have none, because it takes very little time to do so, and the material and machine-time cost approaches zero.
My argument is that this new mode of production would spread not out of Owenite commitment to it, but because it would be better than capitalism at producing a whole range of stuff. Better, easier, more time free. Imagine having a 2m x 2m x 2m 3D replicator in your garage, loaded with ten different materials, capable of printing out a vast range of simple objects for use in everyday life. Printed out in the same way you'd print a Pdf, just by finding it on an internet site, and clicking print.
That does not succeed by asking people to make some higher moral commitment to the objectness of the objects. It will succeed only if it makes life easier: that is, if it eliminates or minimises shopping. You may find that hard to imagine – just as people a century and a half ago would have found it impossible to imagine that houses would be places where clean water, power, information and entertainment flowed without human carriage.
Rjurik criticises me for determinism in this respect, and compares such a prognosis to the crazy forecasts of the singularity. But mindful of such earlier forecasts I note:
There is not going to be any great transition to a printed-out world, onedevoid of mass manufacture, whether by human or robot. The development of 3D printing will continue in fits and bursts over the next decades. The mass production of new materials will be slow, and the introduction of everyday robotics capricious. The 'period' of co-existence between these two systems may well be an indefinite one – a new historical stage, to be sure, but one created by an accumulation and accretion, a change in quantity, while any qualitative change remains unclear. The most dialectical part of this revolution is that it offers no clean break, no way in which we could simply shift into another mode.
As regards singularity stuff, I note:
Transhuman futurists and the like have an arid vision of a world so dominated by technology as to be exhausted by it, its humanity squeezed out.
Finally, Rjurik argues, and one can agree with him, as a counter to wild optimism, that capitalism has a capacity to draw back just about everything into its dominant framework, recommodifying and reproprietising with a dismaying energy. Unquestionably true.
Rjurik's answer: 'The problem is one of political will, and it's here that Rundle's book, for all its vitality and verve, is silent.'
OK, that's where we part company, absolutely, and that is one purpose of the book. Part of my interest in replication technologies comes from a familiar moment in Marx, in which he argues that history up to the rise of proletariat is technically determined – 'the mill wheel gives you the feudal lord, the steam engine the capitalist' – but that after that, with the rise of the proletariat, history becomes a process of self-knowing liberation, albeit one set within a growing technical/economic development that would make a socialist transition possible.
From the 1890s to the October revolution, the determinist view of Marx dominated – the contradictions of capitalism could not be forced, and the political task was to build mass parties and to be ready to take over when the moment arrived. The collapse of the German SDP (and just about every-bloody-one else) into chauvinism on the outbreak of the First World War, and the success of the October Revolution tilted conceptions of Marxism in a radically different direction – to audacity, dialectical thinking, and a radical voluntarism, in which historical crises could be engineered from relatively little, so long as people worked hard enough with a correct analysis.
My argument is that even if that was correct for a period, it sure ain't now, and any notion of separating the technical change required for a post-capitalist free society from the political act of achieving it, is simply replaying an error of the century: an overvaluing of the possibilities of political will, and self-conscious liberation. Various forms of socialist transition failed for various reasons over the twentieth century. My argument is that post-capitalist socially just development – socialism – simply cannot be achieved within a mass-produced industrial context. The development of such distributable technologies offers a new path to socialism, by making possible the autonomy of networks of associated producers. The socialist transformation of mass production is still possible, but distributed production offers a better and more immediate path to transformation. It is already occurring with the mass distribution of renewable energy capacity, especially solar, and the reversal of grid supply involved therein.
Rjurik worries that this will be drawn back into a capitalist framework. My argument is that replication is the stage of automation that makes the rate of profit (prior to any manipulation or sequestration) drop like a stone, and thus undermines capitalism to enclose or recuperate autonomous production. Capitalism's response to profit falls in base goods – visible now – is to commodify ever-greater areas of time, space and life and sell them back to people. A networked culture of replication, initially adopted by intentional groups seeking time-rich lives without deprivation, would spread until it offered a real alternative to those who wanted to take it up. It would only succeed if it was easier and more genuinely liberating than consumer capitalism, not an ethical step backward. Such production hubs and networks would not be like Owen's pious communities in the 1800s; they would be like Ironbridge, Dudley and other cities in the English midlands in the 1700s, where one industrial discovery after another was made, as the Industrial Revolution regularised labour power and refined wage labour allowing it to spread out and transform the wider world of artisanal mercantilism and aristocratic pastoralism in which it was set.
The more fluid, abstract and general mode will always colonise the more particular and bound system. Capitalism and commodity production are to replication and open source what pre-capitalist eighteenth century England was to the ferocious energy of manufacture and commerce, and its yeast-like ability to transform everything it touched (and yes, I'm well aware what a gross oversimplification that is). It is the market and proprietorial relations that now slows things down so greatly, compared to the speed, fluidity and creativity of open source, hacking and replication. That's why people everywhere – medical researchers for example – are rebelling against proprietorial intellectual property, and forcing institutions to restore open exchange between scientists – because science operates better, faster, when borderless co-operation and exchange can occur. Once replication technologies are better, easier and freer than commodity distribution, their enclosure becomes impossible.
That said, I do take Rjurik's point that the more traditional processes of radical and transformative politics have to be factored into this scenario. But I also think that he has to burrow back into the really transformative layers of Marxism, the brute energies and ballet of object life to be found in the base. The transition between one mode of production and another is a rare thing, and we are living across it. The material revolution is an event of far greater moment than the 'information revolution', which was overvalued by a social class whose life practice was the manipulation of information, and who thus saw it as a world transformation, when it wasn't. This is – and it is just beginning.
Guy Rundle is currently a correspondent-at-large for Crikey online daily, and a former editor of Arena Magazine. His ebook, And the Dream Lives On? Barack Obama, the 2012 Election and the Great Republican Whiteout, is forthcoming.
More by Guy Rundle
From silicon alley on 24 November 2014 at 9.30 pm
If we are birds living in a nest, what is the cost to the nest of simple objects being able to be produced at a cost approaching zero, through home-based replicators and more complex machines, I wonder? That is, is the cost to the environment of your material revolution factored in here? If not, there won't be a future.
From Rjurik on 24 November 2014 at 9.51 pm
Thanks Guy for responding to my review, which was intended at least in part to draw attention to your book, and also to hopefully open up the space for this discussion – which is important, it seems to me.
It may not have helped to refer to the utopian communities of the 19th Century and after, because we have a responsibility to rethink the changing conditions as they are now – as you note, there's nothing more tedious than rereading established verities rehearsed anew: we know where the bodies are buried. Using historical examples always flattens out the truly novel in any situation. So understanding that – and pointing it out – in that mode you refer to the emergence of industrial capitalism in the interstices of pre-capitalist Europe, as an analogy to the current period. Recognising the problems of erasure of the particularity, we might extend this a little further, because even then there was a period of radical rupture which included what Marx called 'Primitive Accumulation' in a famous chapter of Capital. That is, the State – and institutions of violence – intervened to violently assert the new social relations. People were thrown off their land, etc. That is, in that situation, the political was still fundamental. What's more, the State was acting – to be awfully crude about it – to assert this new system.
This immediately highlights what is really the essential difference between us, when it comes down to it: the difference in the weight we put on the political, and the larger state (or Integral State as Gramsci would have put it) as the decisive factor at the moment. In the end – and perhaps this is a weakness of imagination on my part – I can't envisage capitalism going down without a fight. It's a system that has all kinds of tripwires and safety switches to halt the sorts of changes you suggest. So one of the problems I had – and still have – with your argument, is that I'm not convinced these new "networks of associated producers" that you suggest might emerge can exist in the autonomy you claim for them.
My reference to the various Utopian communities was less to their internal structure, or moral examples, as to their belief – more important in the 1960s – that they could exist in radical contradiction to the culture at large, and that this would transform that larger culture. I can see that what's novel about this new situation is that, as you claim, we're dealing with an emerging economic force, rather than an act of political will. You claim that force will grow whether we like it or not. This will happen precisely because it is economically more viable than commodity capitalism (cheaper, etc). But I find this to be something which is a question of speculation – in one sense it's unprovable. One can only throw up objections which are mostly theoretical and historical. And here we come back to the regularities of capitalism.
One analogy that might help your argument, or mine – it depends – is the transformation that's undergoing the culture industry. The publishing industry (and film and music) has for some time been suffering from seismic strains. The essential problem, to use Marx's terminology, is that the methods of reproduction and distribution have outstripped the social relations (the property relations). People can essentially download almost any digital product – book, film, music – for free, if they so chose. Thus we have all kinds of challenges to the laws, and threats against those who are doing the downloading. Without a doubt this is causing a series of related crises (as Marx suggested it would). Here's the rub: I'm not convinced we're facing a transformation, a post-capitalist economy, are we? Rather, a variety of 'morbid symptoms' have appeared (to steal again from Gramsci). In one sense this analogy is a good one, because this process is irreversible. And in one sense, this new set-up IS post-capitalist: one can get the latest book for free, outside of the realms of corporations. Yet, capitalism rolls on, as strong as before, without an alternative system in sight because the overarching mode is still dominant. One can also produce one's own music, film, books, etc – and yet, this hasn't resulted in a challenge to the dominant system (at least not yet, and perhaps never). Quite which way this develops is the question before us.
From guy rundle on 28 November 2014 at 2.03 pm
Hi Rjurik
A brief response on key points, because this item will click over. Perhaps to be expanded later.
– the political/state origins of capitalism. I don't think anyone historically, economically or otherwise, accepts Marx's account of primitive accumulation any more. The better model is a slow transition to capitalism, with a continued exchange between inside and outside of an emerging system, often stewarded by the state, with violence.
But it's a long time since we've accepted that account as the whole or even half the story The transition debate – between people like Brenner, Mielant and Meiksins Wood – suggests the longer development of capitalist forms, prior to their full enforcement by the state.
Indeed these accounts – and the evolutionist dimension of Marx's approach – emphasises the point i'm making with regard to the development of new modes of production. They only acquire the capacity to challenge existing state structures when they have acquired a social and economic heft of their own, and a class to go with them.
After all, the creation of the capitalist state was not only a necessary advance in broad historical terms, but also a liberation for a number of rural workers (those who left the land voluntarily). The Owenite etc communities that you, erroneously i think, compare to the new modes of production im talking about, weren't an advance on capitalist development, they were a reversion to pre-capitalist scarcity, shared equally (rural idiocy as Marx put it, about Proudhon's schemes). capitalist hubs, whether in venice in the 1200s, or england from the 1500s onwards, existed and grew within the wider, less abstract social form, before the form became large enough to gain force at the state level. thats what im analogising replicated production too. the utopian communities really is a false trail.
You talk of the capitalist state's capacity capacity to recuperate, trip up, etc and that is of course true. But that relies to a degree on a reification of a state that is always in contradiction in transitional periods. after all, some of the greatest opponents of capitalist development from the 1700s into the early 1800s were aristocratic forces trying to enforce limits on land use, prices and production.
Their failure to restrain it was due to the degree that the new mode of production had already spread, and to its superior mode of reproduction and expansion.
So, yes, things become a site of struggle at the state level. That's been going on for a while, with attempts to limit the development of 3d printing by patenting holds – got round by successive open-source redesign – and related campaigns to change patenting and IP laws (with some success).
My argument is that marx's view of the c'ism-s'ism transition – as one more focused on political-social revolution than prior transitions – has distorted our idea of the multiple paths to radical transformation. Quite aside from the transforming effect of such a ramrodded production revolution, conducted for its own immediate rewards, rather than being an ethical project, it would create the social class with an interest in carving out a space within social and economic life. It's clear that replication, as a new mode of production, radically automates to such a degree, that its spread would be the start of a change in the value-form that underpins commodity production. That does not guarantee that it will spread, but that it could be. It seems strange to call on Marx, and then suggest that arguing about the course of techno-economic development is 'speculation'. marx's whole project was to find the laws that would make prediction of future probabilities a do-able, and politically useful activity.
Surely machines that produce complex-design useful objects with no attendant labour, at a material cost close to zero, represent a challenge to the deep structure of capital accumulation through surplus value? And there is a debate to be had at that level.
That's why the physical/material character of this transformation matters – and why trying to analogise it to the culture industry is to miss the connection between the two. this was a point i argued in the book – the online transformation made culture approach zero cost for physical production. inevitably the social class bound up in it mistook for a full transformation. but still needed shelter and food. free exchange in culture would only be a liberation in a wholly free exchange economy. set within an industrial-commodity one, it was simply a shift in specific vale-form with good and bad consequences for culture workers. what draws it back into capitalist relations is in part our insistence on that. i mean i still collect my royalties 🙂
i do feel that the whole question of production, its transformations, and different pathways has to be considered – especially as part of an evolving capitalist crisis of the base, of profitability and accumulation. That century-old 'morbid symptoms' thing is well past use-by date surely? after all, capitalism may be sick, but mass revolutionary socialism is dead, and there's no large scale alternative proposal on the table. There's a need to examine new possibilities outside older frameworks.
But the general point about re-factoring in the state in these accounts is well taken.
Okay, I've finally gotten some time to respond in a way which is less cursory than the last. I can see there's some incommensurability of view – as philosophers of science would call it – going on here, and it's certainly important to see other positions from the inside (as I've tried with yours – and will try again; apologies if I misunderstand your position). I will note that I'm neither an economist nor a historian, and so all my arguments – as I tried to indicate with my language in my initial review – come with that caveat.
Just a methodological thing: perhaps it's the way I've expressed it, but there are a couple of places where you've mistaken the form of my argument for its content.
I brought up Marx not because it's necessarily an accurate model of the transition from feudalism to capitalism, but because no account of the transition can succeed without taking into account the state's role: whether it be resistant, or facilitate them (what Gramsci would have called Passive Revolution). One fundamental difference, which I didn't spell out, is that in the transition between feudalism and capitalism, the emerging "bourgeoisie" were able to colonise that state and indeed intermix with the aristocracy – or the aristocracy began to invest in businesses themselves and became capitalists. The result was that political power often accompanied the rising social power of the business classes. So while I accept your points about the process of transition, we have to ask, will the process you describe result in a a similar change in the nature of the state – will the emerging post-capitalist spheres be able to rise economically and politically? Or, as is a usual Marxist position, is capitalism quite different, in the sense that its opponents have typically only very circumscribed power within that system – the power to withdraw labour and voluntarily associate, etc – and hence no ability to transform the state, in the way the capitalist interests did during the transition to capitalism? In this position, the State would remain -to lean on Poulantzas – an institution whose role is to ensure the reproduction of capitalism. More on these questions later.
Similarly, I mentioned autonomous zones in general, not specifically the Owenites (say), simply to mention that all non-capitalist spaces have always been radically attenuated and temporally limited. Until now, none have survived for very long, or without interaction with capitalism. It seems to me that many of the contemporary maker-spaces face – as I mentioned in the review, similar challenges: "Some of the inventors will move on to other interests; others will be bought off by corporations; some will become entrepreneurs in their own right, making the kind of transition that Jerry Rubin did after the 1960s." Mind you, I think this is a political process, and the task of the Left is to support the zones independence, to bring them into a Left hegemonic project, if you like. I'm not one of those who see such spaces as distractions from the "real tasks."
In response, you draw a distinction between the new maker-spaces and all previous "autonomous zones", on the basis that the new economics of the maker-spaces – the fact that they are a change in economic "base", not "intentional communities." That what we're seeing is the productive forces (as Marxists usually call it), breaking free of the social relations. The result will be a mixed capitalist and post-capitalist economy.
This side of Marx – the structuralist side, if you like – is commonly, as Perry Anderson points out 'In the Tracks of Historical Materialism', brought into contrast with the side which focuses on agency – the Marx of the Communist Manifesto. But it seems to me you re-emphasis the first at the expense of the second. Let's assume for argument, that these developments do occur. What, we might argue, would be the consequences? Most likely – and this is an old argument – the result would be economic and social crises, as capitalism is radically undermined by the emerging technologies. The result of this radical undermining – crises of use and exchange values, leading to crises of money, leading to crises of the property form, resulting in structural adjustments, etc – is typically political polarisation. In the political sphere, capitalism usually attempts to foist increasingly bellicose responses onto society and radical political movements tend to emerge to provide alternative, and sometimes anti-capitalist solutions. The inter-war period of the 20s and 30s was one such historic period, and it seems that we're re-entering a similar (though obviously not identical) one now. A glimpse across the forces emerging in Europe suggests this is true: Podemos, Le Pen and Melanchon, Die Linke, the True Finns, UKip, etc. We are forced, then, to ask, what would their responses be to any emerging crisis? Would they let any post-capitalist zones continue on, would they crush them, incorporate them into the state, or encourage them? And so on. Factoring in the response of the state – which you admit we have to do – turns out to be far from a minor factor.
Finally, you claim that, "It seems strange to call on Marx, and then suggest that arguing about the course of techno-economic development is 'speculation'." My point here was that we can't actually be certain of the actual effects of 3-D printing, or robotics, etc. Perhaps 3-D printing will result in our ability to produce useful household items in our garages, but then again, we can all also – should we wish – make our own clothes using sewing-machines. Only a few do, though. I used the word speculation without any negative connotations, but in its literal meaning – it IS speculation quite what the effects of this new technology will be.
You object to my analogy of the Culture Industry, but I used it advisedly, because I think you divorce the material and the cultural here in an unconvincing way. Each of us have the ability to download a PDF and print out a book, where once we bought them in bookshops sourced by printing factories – just as you suggest we might with household items using 3-D printers (though presumably not food, etc). It has radically undermined the culture industry, caused crisis, but we don't have any emerging post-capitalist zones, do we? Aren't you agreeing with me when you say: "free exchange in culture would only be a liberation in a wholly free exchange economy. set within an industrial-commodity one, it was simply a shift in specific vale-form with good and bad consequences for culture workers. what draws it back into capitalist relations is in part our insistence on that. i mean i still collect my royalties :-)"?
From Anthony Hayes on 3 December 2014 at 12.47 pm
You guys! Maybe if you actually read some Marx rather than just evoked him from time to time you wouldn't make such silly claims as,
"It's clear that replication, as a new mode of production, radically automates to such a degree, that its spread would be the start of a change in the value-form that underpins commodity production."
First, Marx spoke of a 'mode of production' as a unity of forces and relations of production. At best 3D printing, replication, what have you, may constitute a new technique, new technology; but it does not constitute a new 'mode' by Marx's reckoning. Even if we limited it to being a new 'force of production' it is not too clear that Marx would agree. For instance Marx considered new social relations under the rubric of 'forces of production', and indeed he considered the revolutionary proletariat as a new force of production. We should also not forget that Marx appropriated the term 'force of production' from (bourgeois) political economy in order to criticise the reduction of human activity to being a mere force of production.
Secondly, let's not forget that the 'value-form' is in fact a social relation. Not only does it 'underpin' commodity production in the words of Rundle, but in capitalist societies it is the very social essence of commodity production, circulation and consumption. Which is to say that value is not so much 'congealed' in commodities (as Marx's ironically states) as it is the alienated 'residue' of human activity under capitalist social relations. Or better, the 'value-form' insofar as it operates at the level of the social totality (as a regulative principle amongst other things) *is* the capitalist social relation. So to say that that 3D printing technology changes, undermines, whatever, the value-form is like saying that machine production, electrical automation and nuclear power changes, undermines, whatever, the value-form. But that of course is silly. Technique in and of itself does nothing other than what it is developed for, or any new uses to which it is applied or extended. It's we humans that do the changing, transforming, undermining, etc. To the extent that the labour-time congealed in objects produced under capitalist conditions of production (3D or otherwise) tend towards zero, is the extent to which the capitalist social relation is an antagonistic and crisis ridden social relation. Nothing new to see here folks. The problem as ever remains a question of consciousness and practice. And this is even to get into the silly conception of 3D technology still required the produced materials as inputs not to mention maintenance, repair, etc. (though Rundle may have gotten carried away and dreamt of a world of self-replicating bots a la Skynet).
A now, a word from my sponsor:
"to the degree that large industry develops, the creation of real wealth comes to depend less on labour time and on the amount of labour employed than on the power of the agencies set in motion during labour time, whose 'powerful effectiveness' is itself in turn out of all proportion to the direct labour time spent on their production, but depends rather on the general state of science and on the progress of technology, or the application of this science to production. […] Labour no longer appears so much to be included within the production process; rather, the human being comes to relate more as watchman and regulator to the production process itself. […] He [the labourer] steps to the side of the production process instead of being its chief actor. In this transformation, it is neither the direct human labour he himself performs, nor the time during which he works, but rather the appropriation of his own general productive power, his understanding of nature and his mastery over it by virtue of his presence as a social body – it is, in a word, the development of the social individual which appears as the great foundation-stone of production and of wealth. The theft of alien labour time, on which the present wealth is based, appears a miserable foundation in face of this new one, created by large-scale industry itself. […] Capital itself is the moving contradiction, [in] that it presses to reduce labour time to a minimum, while it posits labour time, on the other side, as sole measure and source of wealth. […] On the one side, then, it calls to life all the powers of science and of nature, as of social combination and of social intercourse, in order to make the creation of wealth independent (relatively) of the labour time employed on it. On the other side, it wants to use labour time as the measuring rod for the giant social forces thereby created, and to confine them within the limits required to maintain the already created value as value. Forces of production and social relations – two different sides of the development of the social individual – appear to capital as mere means, and are merely means for it to produce on its limited foundation. In fact, however, they are the material conditions to blow this foundation sky-high."
(Marx, Grundrisse, Penguin ed., pp. 704-06)
From marx made marx on 3 December 2014 at 11.19 pm
Yes, and if speaking of 'replication as a new mode of production', still within the bourgeois rationalization of the world, or capitalism, the opening sentence to Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production, speaks volumes too: "The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as 'an immense accumulation of commodities.'" And in respect of value-form, anti-commodities, if market forces so dictate, where gold (money) exchanges places with shit (junk), exchanges places with gold, exchanges places with shit, and so on, through a death dance withering its unwilling social relations of production. So much for the change in value-form underpinning commodity production.
From Rjurik on 9 December 2014 at 10.06 pm
You write that:
"So to say that that 3D printing technology changes, undermines, whatever, the value-form is like saying that machine production, electrical automation and nuclear power changes, undermines, whatever, the value-form.But that of course is silly. Technique in and of itself does nothing other than what it is developed for, or any new uses to which it is applied or extended. It's we humans that do the changing, transforming, undermining, etc. To the extent that the labour-time congealed in objects produced under capitalist conditions of production (3D or otherwise) tend towards zero, is the extent to which the capitalist social relation is an antagonistic and crisis ridden social relation. Nothing new to see here folks."
That's all well and good, though the point you're making, that capitalism can integrate these developments is pretty much the same as the one I am, in which case, I'm not sure whether you're arguing just against Guy or myself too. However the idea that there is nothing new to see here is a strangely ahistorical way of putting it. These developments, as I mentioned above, are likely to result in crisis – in a way that plenty of technological developments (steam technology, for example), didn't. I mean, surely you don't think capitalism can integrate full automation and renewable power, right? I did enjoy your tone, though. It made me laugh.
From Anthony Hayes on 10 December 2014 at 3.37 pm
Rurik, the 'nothing new to see here' I am referring to is the capital-labour relation. No doubt it has been transformed in various ways, most notably through the incorporation of the representational forms of organisation thrown up by working class struggle into state and para-state organisations (labour parties, trade unions, soviets, etc.). But in its fundamentals the capital-labour relation remains, i.e. the enforced 'need' for people to sell their labour-power in order to gain access to the 'means of subsistence'.
Rundle's argument reminds me of the type of crazy claims that were made for the 'internet revolution' in the late 1990s, or even the claims made regarding the computerisation concomitant with Western 'de-industrialisation' in the 1970s and 80s. Yes this technology is amazing, particularly with its implicit promise of the liberation of time away from work and the possibilities of automatizing production more generally. But this promise is perhaps the primary ghost that has stalked capital since at least the industrial revolution. As Marx pointed out (here we go…) capital can never overcome its prime 'contradiction' (or at least 'opposition'): it tends to expel living labour from the production process and yet it depends upon it as the source of new value (NB. we can read this analogously to the opposition of forces/relations of production, i.e. the development of the forces of production tends to expel workers from the production process and the relations of production are what guarantee the extraction of surplus-value).
So rather than saying, like you that 'these [technological] developments […] are likely to result in crisis' I would argue that technological developments are precisely a *result* of the crisis-nature of the capital nature relation. For instance when you go on to say that 'plenty of technological developments (steam technology, for example), didn't' result in crisis, surely you are forgetting the real impact of such technology even in the early days of industrialisation. Most will rightly remember the Luddites. Indeed steam technology had far ranging effects, not only upon the local textile industries in the UK but further afield it helped to destroy the textile industries in India around the same time. If we were Stalinists we could shrug our shoulders and toast the progressive development of the forces of production and the 'necessary' slaughter. Nonetheless if this wasn't a crisis I'm not sure what is.
There is a great bit in Capital 1 in which Marx writes of considering all *applied* technical developments in the productive process as directly a result of 'the refractory hand of labour'. Workers rebel; capital responds by expelling workers from production (primarily with technical development). And as Marx argued this changing ratio of the 'organic composition' leaves capitalists with intractable problems.
Finally (and to bring this relatively long response to a close) I mostly disagreed with Rundle – so apologies if I seemed to lump you into the same oversized bucket. However your belief that crises are the result of the breakdown of capitalist social relations rather than the very heart of these relations is no doubt fertile ground for further argument.


Midtowns On The Subway is a new townhouse development by Wycliffe Homes currently in preconstruction at Lawrence Avenue West, Toronto. The development is scheduled for completion in 2021. Sales for available units range in price from $539,900 to over $759,900. Midtowns On The Subway has a total of 82 units. Sizes range from 724 to 1055 square feet.


Destination weddings in Friuli Venezia Giulia: tradition meets romance.
A wedding in Friuli Venezia Giulia will be an unique experience, since this is one of the most surprising of the Italian wedding locations at only and hour away from Venice. It is the perfect area to be surprised by the real Italian flavors and so the best Italian location for a real destination wedding in Italy. The beautiful hills, the sea with the long beaches, the white mountains and the long last historical heritage, as part of the Venetian land, gives to Friuli Venezia Giulia an incredible charm for romantic wedding ceremonies and receptions. Friuli Venezia Giulia castles and villas are amongst the most beautiful in Italy. With a wedding in Friuli Venezia Giulia you will have the possibility of enjoying a very genuine cultural and natural environment without giving up on luxury, and the historical and architectonical beauty.
Why is Friuli Venezia Giulia so special to get married?
There are very few Italian areas like Friuli where the tourism is still very low and you can feel a great combination of cultural exposure where the Italian culture finds the Austrian, Venetian and Slovenian historical heritage. A combination of beautiful scenarios, charming venues, warm people and real Italian feelings. The perfect choice for your special wedding in Italy!
Friuli Venezia Giulia is near to beautiful escapes.
A wedding in Friuli Venezia Giulia will benefit from the lucky position of this region at the side of Venice, that makes it very easy for everyone to reach the most beautiful locations. Friuli Venezia Giulia has its own airport also in Trieste with direct flights to the main European location including low cost destinations.
Weddings in Friuli Venezia Giulia are often chosen for those seeking an unique, new and very personal wedding destination in Italy.
call today or fill in this form.
Let us be on your side!