Dear Sir or Madam.
Enforcement by authentic instrument (including e-enforcement) is an excellent thing, but we have had rather bad experiences with it in terms of effective completion. I am referring in particular to the experience that most applications have either ended in the debtor's bankruptcy or have been transferred to litigation. In practically all cases, this has been mainly because the debtor has prolonged the proceedings or prevented the effective recovery of the debt by making untrue statements in the objection. Particularly in cases where a claim worth several hundred euros is transformed from an enforcement action into a lawsuit as a result of the debtor's untruthful statements, I wonder whether it is not possible to prevent or at least to sanction such deceitful actions at a later stage.  I ask: "Can someone who, simply put, lies in court proceedings, and this can be established beyond doubt later on in the proceedings, be penalised for this later on?"?
Case in point: In enforcement proceedings based on a credible document, the debtor declares that he is not in business with the creditor and that the claim does not exist. The case proceeds to a lawsuit, where the facts are established and the debtor is ordered to pay. In the meantime, the court system is unnecessarily burdened, unnecessary work and costs are incurred by the creditor and the court, and the debtor "gets away with it" over time by simply paying the claim and interest on late payment.  I suggest that consideration be given to the possibility of high penalties being imposed and, of course, implemented in such cases, to deter debtors from similar commercially wasteful actions.