This paper analyses and compares the notarial summary debt collection procedures of Croatia, Hungary and Spain with the aim of determining the status that notaries shall be given under the Brussels Ia Regulation. Against the backdrop of the CJEU’s judgment in Pula Parking, this paper contends that the choice of including or excluding notaries within the Brussels Ia Regulation notion of “court” is essentially “political” in nature and lies with the EU legislature. Noting the impossibility, in current law, of encompassing Croatian and Spanish notaries within that notion, this paper will additionally assess whether their “orders to pay” could circulate as “authentic instruments” under that regime.

中文翻译：

---

根据《布鲁塞尔Ia条例》，公证人及其收债令状。难以描述

本文分析并比较了克罗地亚，匈牙利和西班牙的公证摘要收债程序，目的是确定根据布鲁塞尔Ia条例应授予公证人的地位。在欧洲法院对普拉停车场的判决的背景下，本文认为，在布鲁塞尔Ia法规“法院”概念中包括或排除公证人的选择本质上是“政治性”的，属于欧盟立法机构。注意到现行法律不可能将克罗地亚和西班牙的公证人包含在该概念中，因此本文将另外评估他们的“支付令”在该制度下是否可以作为“真实的工具”传播。