I only learned of the payment order when enforcement began. Is there still anything I can do?

An enforcement officer sends you a notice of commencement of enforcement. It identifies a payment order you have never seen as the enforceable instrument. The decisive issue is whether the order was properly served on you. The time limit for an objection is 15 days from service (Section 265(1) of the Code of Civil Contentious Procedure, Act No. 160/2015 Z. z.), and the order becomes final only when that period expires without an objection being filed (Section 268). The Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic has stated that a decision not properly served on a party cannot become final and that failure of service may be raised in enforcement proceedings (order in case No. 8Cdo/19/2024 of 29. 5. 2024). Given the short time limit in enforcement proceedings, it is appropriate to pursue your defence simultaneously before the issuing court and with the enforcement officer.

When a payment order is served

A payment order is served on the defendant together with the statement of claim, by personal service (Section 266(1)). The rule deeming a document served on the day the undelivered item is returned to the court does not apply. Nor does the special procedure for serving a statement of claim on an individual that ends with a notice on the court’s official notice board (Section 266(2)). Therefore, if the envelope containing the order remained at the post office and was returned to the court, the order was not served. If it cannot be served, the court sets it aside (Section 266(3)). The same applies to an order issued in the special payment order procedure, and the order is set aside if it is not served (Section 9(4) and Section 10 of Act No. 307/2016 Z. z.).

The position is different for an electronic mailbox. A legal entity’s mailbox is activated without an application, while an individual’s mailbox, including that of a sole trader, is activated only at the holder’s request (Section 13(1) of Act No. 305/2013 Z. z.). A message requiring personal service is also deemed served upon expiry of the collection period, even if nobody opened it (Section 32(5), letter b)). In its order in case No. 9Cdo/181/2021 of 14. 6. 2023, the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic rejected an appeal on points of law and stated that, since 1. 11. 2017, a payment order can also be validly served in this way. The mailbox holder’s principal remaining remedy is an application for a declaration that electronic service was ineffective. This must be based on objective grounds and filed within 15 days of when you became, or could have become, aware of the message’s contents (Section 33(1) and (2)). Further details are given in the question on a judgment in an electronic mailbox.

What to do at the court that issued the order

Inspect the case file to establish where and how the court attempted service. The acknowledgment of service is a public document, and its contents are presumed correct unless proved otherwise (Section 111(1)). If the order was not served, ask the court, stating your reasons, to serve it properly and to correct the erroneous certification of finality. In the cited order 8Cdo/19/2024, the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic also recommended requesting service as the first step. It further stated that failure of service is not a ground for reopening proceedings, a remedy that, in any event, is available only against a final decision.

The court may also serve a document when carrying out another procedural act (Section 105(1)). A 15-day time limit for an objection runs from the fresh service, so have an objection setting out substantive grounds prepared in advance. The required contents are explained in the question on what an objection must contain. If the order was served on you and you missed the deadline for an excusable reason, relief from the missed deadline may be available. The application must be filed within 15 days after the impediment ceased and must be accompanied by the objection (Section 122). This is discussed in the article on a missed deadline for filing an objection.

Defence in enforcement proceedings

A court decision qualifies as an enforceable instrument only if it is enforceable (Section 45(1) of the Enforcement Code, Act No. 233/1995 Z. z.). Failure to serve the order is raised in enforcement proceedings as a circumstance preventing enforcement of the instrument (Section 61k(1), letter d)). The time limit for filing the application is short:

The following quotation is reproduced in its original language:

Povinný môže z dôvodov podľa odseku 1 podať do 15 dní od doručenia upovedomenia o začatí exekúcie návrh na zastavenie exekúcie. Návrh na zastavenie exekúcie musí byť odôvodnený a musia v ňom byť uvedené všetky skutočnosti, ktoré povinný môže ku dňu podania návrhu uplatniť. Takýto návrh má odkladný účinok.

§ 61k ods. 2 zákona č. 233/1995 Z. z.

Include every ground you can raise in the application. A subsequent application may rely only on circumstances arising after the time limit expired, unless you were unable to raise them earlier through no fault of your own (Section 61k(3)). In one case, the enforcement court refused to examine whether the order had been served and referred the debtor to the court that had issued it. In July 2026, the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic admitted that debtor’s complaint for further proceedings and suspended the effects of the challenged order (II. ÚS 389/2026), but has not yet ruled on the merits. This is another reason to file the application with the enforcement officer and the request with the issuing court simultaneously.

We will examine the case file, apply to terminate enforcement within the deadline and, at the same time, prepare an objection in case the court serves the order again. We act through our objections to payment orders and defence of defendants service. Send us the notice of commencement of enforcement, including the date you received it, and everything you have concerning the original claim.