Payment order request for EUR 50,000, dismissed: a case study

A company asked the court to issue a payment order for approximately EUR 50,000, relying on a services contract and the invoices issued under it. We acted for the party sued. We challenged the undisputed character of the claim, sought a declaration of absolute nullity for a set of unfair terms in the contract, and raised the defence of non-performance. The court dismissed the application for a payment order, and the creditor’s subsequent application to set aside was dismissed as unfounded. The decision is final.

The case at a glance

• Amount claimed: approximately EUR 50,000, under a services contract concluded earlier between the parties
• Procedure: payment order, under art. 1014 et seq. of the Romanian Civil Procedure Code
• Our client’s position: the party sued, as alleged debtor
• Defences: inadmissibility of the application in the special procedure, absolute nullity of unfair contract terms, the defence of non-performance
• Duration: roughly four and a half months, from the filing of the application to the final decision
• Outcome: the application for a payment order was dismissed, the application to set aside was dismissed, the decision is final

Background

The parties had signed a services contract some time before. After the collaboration ended, the provider issued invoices and asked the court for a payment order in the amount of approximately EUR 50,000, presenting the claim as an undisputed one, arising from a document signed by both parties.

Our client had an entirely different picture of the contractual relationship: part of the invoiced services had not been delivered in the agreed form, and the amount claimed came, to a large extent, from the application of contractual terms we considered unbalanced. The question was therefore not „whether an invoice gets paid”, but whether a dispute of this kind can be settled in a procedure decided within a few months, on documents alone.

Why an application for a payment order is not a formality

It is decided quickly, and on documents alone

The payment order is a special procedure, built for claims that raise no genuine dispute. The court reviews the application on the basis of the documents on file and the parties’ explanations, without expert reports and, as a rule, without witnesses. The speed advantage belongs to the creditor: if the debtor does not contest the claim, the order is issued within no more than 45 days of the application.

A silent debtor pays for it

This is where the trap lies. Many debtors treat an application for a payment order as a simple demand letter and wait for „the real trial”. The real trial never comes: an order issued in the absence of a defence becomes, under the law, an enforceable title, and the discussion moves straight to enforcement, where the room for manoeuvre is far smaller.

The statutory filter: a certain, liquid and due claim

In exchange, the law places a clear filter at the entrance to the procedure: only claims that are certain, liquid and due, established by a document accepted by the parties, may be pursued this way (art. 1014 of the Civil Procedure Code). And art. 1021 of the same code sets out what happens when the debtor contests: if the debtor’s defence is well founded, or if the substantive defences would require evidence other than documents, the court dismisses the creditor’s application. The claim remains open to discussion, but under ordinary law.

Our entire defence was built around that filter.

What we did

1. We rebuilt the performance history of the contract

The first step was not legal but documentary: from the correspondence and the records of the collaboration, we reconstructed what had actually been delivered, over what period, and how those services related to the amounts invoiced. An application for a payment order is won or lost on that comparison, because it is the only one that can be proven with documents.

2. We challenged the terms the claim was built on

The amount sought did not follow from a simple calculation of the services delivered, but from the application of a set of contractual terms. We asked the court to declare those terms absolutely null, arguing that they create a significant imbalance between the rights and obligations of the parties, in favour of the party that drafted the contract.

The intended effect was twofold. On the merits, removing the terms emptied the claim of its basis. Procedurally — and perhaps more importantly in this procedure — a claim that depends on the validity of contested terms is no longer a „certain” claim within the meaning of the law.

3. We raised the defence of non-performance

A services contract is a synallagmatic contract: the parties’ obligations are reciprocal and interdependent. Art. 1556 of the Civil Code allows a party that does not receive the agreed performance to refuse, to a corresponding extent, to perform its own obligation. We raised that defence in relation to the services that had not been delivered in the form assumed under the contract.

The court held that the defence of non-performance is a substantive defence and examined it together with the merits — precisely the area where the payment order procedure shows its limits.

4. We built the defence entirely on documents

In a procedure where documentary evidence is the rule, we filed a case that could be read without further explanation: the contract, the records of the collaboration, the relevant correspondence and written submissions. The objections raised were joined to the merits under art. 248 (4) of the Civil Procedure Code, precisely because deciding them called for the same evidence as the merits.

The outcome

The court reclassified the objection of inadmissibility and the objection of absolute nullity of the unfair terms as substantive defences, and dismissed the application for a payment order.

For our client, the practical effect is this: there is no payment order, therefore no enforceable title obtained by the fast route, and the amount of approximately EUR 50,000 cannot be enforced on the basis of this procedure. The creditor did use the remedy specific to this procedure, an application to set aside, heard by the same court sitting as a panel of two judges. That application was dismissed as unfounded, with no order for costs, and the decision became final.

For the amount claimed, what remains open is only an action under ordinary law — where the dispute is argued with full evidence, in genuine adversarial proceedings and over a far longer period.

Four takeaways

The defence is built on the contract, not on the invoice. The invoice is only the consequence. The useful discussion is about the terms that generate the amount and about what was actually delivered.

„Undisputed” does not mean „not invoiced until now”. If the debtor brings serious defences backed by documents, the claim is no longer certain within the meaning of the special procedure — and that is often the most realistic outcome.

The deadlines are short and unforgiving. The statement of defence, the objections and the written submissions each have their own window. A good defence filed late is worth as much as one never filed.

Unbalanced terms are easier to fight before signing. Reviewing a services contract takes a few hours; litigating over its terms takes months or years.

Have you received an application for a payment order?

We review the contract, the invoices and the correspondence, establish whether the claim passes the filter of the special procedure, and build the defence within the deadlines set by law. We act both for companies and for individuals, in defence as well as in recovering their own receivables. Book a discussion.

Confidentiality note. This case study is anonymised. The parties, the case number, the exact subject matter of the contract and other identifying details have been omitted, and the account has been written so that the case cannot be attributed to a specific client. This material is for informational purposes and to illustrate our professional experience; it does not constitute legal advice for an individual situation. Outcomes depend on the specific circumstances of each case, and the legal framework described is the one in force at the date of publication.