EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
 
Brussels, 14.10.2009 
SEC(2009) 410 final 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
Accompanying the  
Proposal for a 
 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognitio n and enforcement of decisions and authentic 
instruments in matters of successions and on the introduction of a European Certificate 
of Inheritance 
  
Impact Assessment  
{COM(2009) 154 final) 
{SEC(2009) 411} 
EN ii   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS  
 
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 5  
2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES ....................... 5  
2.1. Legal basis, political mandate and existing instruments ........................................ 5  
2.2. Organisation and timing............................................................................................ 6  
2.3. Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................ 6  
3. PROBLEM DEFINITION ................................................................................................. 8  
3.1. The causes of the current problems (the drivers).................................................... 8  
3.1.1. Divergences in national subs tantive rules on successions ........................................... 9 
3.1.2. Problem 1 - Problems relating to the dete rmination of which country and body is 
competent to handle the case...................................................................................... 10 
3.1.3. Problem 2 – Conflicting laws applicable  to the same succession in different 
Member States............................................................................................................ 11 
3.1.4. Problem 3 - Insufficient (limited) freedom  of choice of law for the testator ............. 13 
3.1.5. Problem 4 - Restricted recognition* and enforcement* of judgments, non-
contentious decisions and notarial deeds* ................................................................. 13 
3.1.6. Problem 5 - Restricted recognition of the status as an heir or as an 
administrator/executor................................................................................................ 14 
3.1.7. Problem 6 – Difficulties identifying wills abroad...................................................... 14 
3.2. Negative consequences faced by Union citizens (the problem) ............................ 15  
3.2.1. An intended or expected heir may fail to  inherit, or an unintended or unexpected 
person may inherit...................................................................................................... 15 
3.2.2. Shares of the inheritance may be differ ent to what was intended or expected .......... 16 
3.2.3. Heirs may face long delays in obtaining their inheritance ......................................... 16 3.2.4. International aspects lead to significant increase in costs .......................................... 17 
3.2.5. Planning of international succession is difficult ........................................................ 18 
3.3. Scope of the problem................................................................................................ 18  
4. N
EED FOR ACTION AT EU LEVEL ............................................................................. 19  
4.1. How would the problem evolve, all things being equal?....................................... 20  
EN iii   EN 4.2. Legal framework in place........................................................................................ 20  
4.3. Does the EU have the power to act? ....................................................................... 21  
5. OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................... 22  
6. DESCRIPTION OF POLICY OPTIONS ........................................................................... 23  
6.1. Definition of policy options...................................................................................... 23  
6.2. Description of policy options ................................................................................... 25  
6.2.1. Policy options A addressing problems cau sed by national legislative differences 
concerning successions with transnational elements ................................................. 25 
6.2.2. Policy options B addressing problem s of identifying wills abroad............................ 27 
6.3. Discarded policy options.......................................................................................... 28  
6.4. Alternative elements which could have formed part of policy options A ........... 28  
7. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS ............................................. 31  
7.1. Impact of the Policy Options addressi ng problems caused by national 
legislative differences concerning succe ssions with transnational elements 
(Policy Options A) .................................................................................................... 31  
7.2. Impact of the policy options that that address problems of identifying wills 
abroad (Policy options B) ........................................................................................ 38  
8. COMPARING THE OPTIONS ........................................................................................ 41  
8.1. Comparison of policy options and just ification of choosing the preferred 
option......................................................................................................................... 41 
9. THE PREFERRED OPTION .......................................................................................... 44  
9.1. The preferred option and its effects........................................................................ 44  
9.2. The preferred option’s achiev ement of the objectives .......................................... 44  
9.3. Economic impacts..................................................................................................... 46  
9.3.1. Financial costs and benefits........................................................................................ 46 
9.3.2. Impact on the legal profession ................................................................................... 46 9.3.3. Impact on taxation...................................................................................................... 47 
9.4. Potential draw-backs/risks and sensitive elements ............................................... 47  
9.5. Fundamental Rights, EU added value and proportionality ................................. 48  
9.5.1. Fundamental rights..................................................................................................... 4 8 
9.5.2. Proportionality......................................................................................................... ... 48 
EN iv   EN 9.5.3. European added value ................................................................................................ 48 
10. MONITORING AND EVALUATION ............................................................................... 49  
ANNEX  1 - GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................ 50  
ANNEX  2 - THE MAGNITUDE OF INTERNATIONAL SUCCESSIONS AND WILLS ....................... 53  
ANNEX  3 – FINANCIAL COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PREFERRED POLICY OPTION ............. 69  
ANNEX  4 – ECONOMIC EFFECT ON FEES FOR LEGAL PROFESSIONALS ................................. 71  
ANNEX  5 – IMPACT OF THE PREFERRED OPTION ON INHERITANCE TAX .............................. 73  
EN 5   EN Lead DG: Justice, Freedom and Security 
1. INTRODUCTION  
More and more European citizens take advantage of the Internal market, live in another 
Member State and have family members or ow n property (houses, bank accounts) in more 
than one Member State. Upon th eir death, their potential heir s often face great difficulty, 
long delays and high legal costs in trying to obtain their inheritance. Worse, many rightful 
heirs, particularly the most vulnerable, do not receive all of their inhe ritance.  The process 
is protracted, expens ive and stressful.   
The causes of this problem are complex. Succes sion law varies considerably between the 
Member States. National legal systems are of ten in conflict with one another, which 
results in multiple legal proceedings taking place in more than one Member State for the same succession. Judgments, the powers of admini strators or executors of wills, and status 
as an heir in one Member State are often not  recognised in others. In addition, unless the 
testator registers his will, or at least informs his potential he irs, notary or legal practitioner 
that he has made a will, there is no obvious means for potential heirs to find out whether 
the testator made a will before his or her death.   
This is a cross-border problem which affects a large and growing proportion of citizens in 
the European Union. Member States and stakeh olders have therefore urged action at EU 
level to address it.  
2. P
ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
2.1. Legal basis, political mandate  and existing instruments 
At its meeting of 15 and 16 October 1999 in  Tampere (Finland), the European Council 
called for the development of a genuine Europ ean Area of Justice in which individuals and 
businesses should not be prevented or discour aged from exercising their rights by the 
incompatibility or complexity of legal and ad ministrative systems in the Member States.  
Although much progress has been made toward s the creation of a genuine European Area 
of Civil Justice*1, successions have not, so far, been c overed in this progre ss. In particular, 
they are excluded from the most important legal instrument in the field of civil judicial cooperation, the Regulation on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of 
judgments in civil and commercial matte rs (so-called "Brussels I" Regulation)
2.  
The adoption of a European instrument relating to successions was already among the 
priorities of the Vienna Ac tion Plan adopted by the Counc il and the Commission in 19983. 
The Programme of measures for implementation of the principl e of mutual recognition of 
                                                 
1 Legal terms marked by "*" are explained in the glossary contained in Annex 1.  
2 Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, OJ C 12, 15.1.2001. 
3 OJ C 19, 23.1.1999.  
EN 6   EN decisions in civil and commercial matters4 adopted by the Council and the Commission at 
the end of 2000 provides for an instrument to  be drafted on succession. Finally, the Hague 
Programme adopted by the European Council of 4-5 November 2004 called on the Commission to present a Gr een Paper on succession cove ring a range of issues – 
applicable law, jurisdiction and recognition and administrative measures (certificates of inheritance, registration of wills).
5 
2.2. Organisation and timing 
The Commission's Work Programme for 20086 included the adoption of a proposal for a 
regulation on successions and wills7 as a priority initiative. A road map was prepared for 
this strategic initiative. 
The Commission commissioned an external study (hereinafter  "the external study") to 
support the preparation of the Impact Assessment.8 The problems, objectives and policy 
options assessed were based on the outcome of  the consultations and the expertise brought 
together by the Commission to prepare the pr esent initiative (see po int 2.3 hereafter) as 
well as contributions from the contractor.  
This report also incorporates comments subm itted during two meetings of the inter-service 
steering group on September 9 and December 9 2008 at which representatives of the 
Directorates-Generals Enterprise and Industry, Internal Market and Services and Taxation 
and Customs Union, as well as the Secretar iat General and the Le gal Service of the 
Commission participated.  
This Impact Assessment was reviewed by the Impact Assessment Board (IAB). The 
recommendations for improvements have been accommodated in this revised version of the report. In particular, the following change s were made: (i) additi onal explanations on 
the reasons why other alternativ e elements have been discarde d; (ii) clarification on the 
cross-linkages with the taxation of successi ons; (iii) reference to methodology on the 
evaluation of the instrume nts including indicators. 
2.3. Consultation and expertise 
To better understand the status quo , the Commission commissionned a "Study on Conflict 
of Law of Succession in the European Union", prepared by the Deutsches Notarinstitut (German Notary Institute) in November 2002
9. 
                                                 
4 OJ C 12, 15.1.2001. 
5 See Presidency conclusions, Brussels Eu ropean Council, 4 and 5 November 2004. 
6 http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/pro grammes/docs/clwp2008_en.pdf. 
7 Although the Commission proposal for a Regulatio n will be entitled "successions upon death" 
instead of "successions and wills", the question of wills will be addressed in  this proposal. From a 
legal perspective it is obvious that  wills are part of succession law. 
8 EPEC, Impact Assessment Study on Community Instruments on Successions and Wills, under 
framework contract No DG BUDG  No BUDG06/PO/01/Lot no.2, ABAC 101908, available at the 
following website: […]. 
9 http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/civil/studies/doc_civil_studies_en.htm. 
EN 7   EN Since this study confirmed the ex istence of practical problems in devolution of estates and 
drafting of wills in cross-border successions,  the Commission decided to launch an in-
depth reflection and debate with all relevant stakeholders on the arch itecture of a future 
Community initiative. It ther efore presented a Green Paper on Succession and wills  
(COM(2005)65 final) on March 1, 2005,10 launching a public debate on successions with 
an international dimension.  
The Commission received approximately 60 wr itten contributions from Member States, 
non-governmental organisations, academia, bars  and law societies.  All contributions, 
including the opinions by the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions have been published on the JLS website
11.  
Following a call for proposal, the Commission set up an expert group (PRM III/IV) 
composed of experts acting independently of the Member States, including several 
notaries, and representing the different legal tr aditions of the EU to assist the Commission 
in its work on a future legislative proposal on  successions. Seven meetings of the Expert 
Group took place between 2006 and 2008, and a public hearing on the question of the applicable law on succession was held on 16 November 2006. In addition, the 
Commission consulted national ex perts on a preliminary draft proposal for a regulation on 
successions upon death between June and November 2008. 
                                                
 
10 Available at: http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l16017.htm. 
11 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/successions/ 
news_contributions_successions_en.htm. 
EN 8   EN  
3. PROBLEM DEFINITION  
The following figure outlines the current proble ms and factors influencing these problems 
prepared on the basis of available informa tion from desk research and stakeholder 
consultations. The different elements are de veloped further in the following sections.  
Figure 1 - Outline of problems and factors influencing them 
Acquisition of 
immovable / 
movable 
property in 
another country 
than that of 
nationality or 
habitual 
residenceDifferent  
substantive 
laws, e.g. 
rules on 
reserved 
portion- Different jurisdiction rules;
- Different conflict of law rules;- Insufficient (limited) choice of law for the testator;- Restrictions to the recognition of wills, joint wills and succession agreements;- Restrictions to the recognition and enforcement of 
judgments, other decisions and deeds on international 
successions;- Restrictions to the recognition and enforcement of the status as an heir and administrator / executor; and,- Difficulties identifying wills in other EU Member States.Causes of problems for deceasedOutcome of transnational successions do not meet 
the expectations and objectives of those who die.Consequences of current problems for deceased and heirs: time delays and costs
Societal trends, 
for example:
- Increased movement of persons- International marriages, divorces- Same-sex partnershipsFactors which the EC can influenceFactors outside the 
EC competenceActions by citizens 
impacting on the 
magnitude of cross-
border successions 
& willsInstitutional factors affecting current problems- Conflicting national legal systems;
- No choice of law by the deceased;- Non-recognition;
- Inaccessibility of information on existence of wills abroad.Outcome not consistent with rights of (potential) heirs, 
persons formally or otherwise related to the deceased, 
private and public creditors etc. 
Causes of problems for heirs
Different bodies 
handling and 
deciding on 
international 
successions- Conflicting national legal systems;
- It is not possible to make a (limited) choice of law in all MS;- Non-recognition;- Inaccessibility of information on existence of wills abroad.
 
3.1. The causes of the current problems (the drivers) 
The outcome of international su ccessions in the EU often does not meet the expectations 
and objectives of those who di e. In addition the rights of (potential) heirs, persons 
formally or otherwise related to the decease d, private and public cred itors, etc. are not 
being fulfilled. 
This initiative aims to address the problems and factors behind this situation. The starting 
point for outlining the problems currently faced  by citizens are the national substantive* 
rules on successions which diverge widely betw een the Member States. Some of the most 
significant problems in the area of successions are caused by those divergences in national substantive rules, the most important of wh ich will be briefly outlined in the following 
section. While their harmonisation remains outside the competence of the European 
Community, it is nevertheless important to have  an understanding of these differences and 
what this entails for citizens.  
EN 9   EN 3.1.1.  Divergences in national subs tantive rules on successions 
Some of the main differences between subs tantive rules which ha ve given rise to 
difficulties for the citizens are as follows: 
1. If a person dies intestate*, i.e. without a will, the inheritance is divided according to 
substantive* succession rules. The shares that the family members inherit vary widely , 
depending on which national law is applied to th e succession. In particular the division of 
the inheritance between a spous e and children is handled very  differently. For example, 
while English law in practice leads to the spous e receiving the majority  if not all of the 
inheritance, French law in some cases grants the spouse merely a quarter of the inheritance, with the remaining three quarter s inherited by the children of the deceased. 
2. All Member States recognize testaments . Some Member States furthermore provide for 
more elaborate instruments to plan successions, namely joint and reciprocal wills* as 
well as succession agreements* .
12 A joint and reciprocal will, unlike a testament that can 
be revoked or modified at any point in time , cannot be unilaterally changed and can bind 
the surviving spouse even  after the death of th e partner. Similarly, a succession agreement, 
which can be concluded between a testator and any third part y, can limit a testator's right 
to modify his or her last will after the conclusion of the agreement. As many Member 
States, especially the Romance legal orders, place particular emphasis on the free will of the testator, reciprocal wills or succession agreements may not be recognized. 
3. All Member States except for the UK (s pecifically, England and Wales) grant a 
compulsory share of the inheritance to close family  members , regardless of any 
testamentary dispositions by the deceased. This  share, the "statutory reserve", can amount 
to between 25 and 100% of th e inheritance, depe nding on the applicable law and the 
number of remaining family members, and also  varies widely between the Member States. 
4. The procedural rules governing succession  are very different between Member States. 
While in some Member States all possessions of the deceased become the property of his 
or her heirs automatically upon death, in other Member States the estate is managed by an 
administrator and transferred to the heirs afte r their shares have been established and any 
inheritance tax has been paid. 
5. The rights of unmarried or same-sex partners , as compared to those of spouses, vary 
widely between the Member States. While England, the Netherlands, Spain and Germany 
treat a registered same-sex partner like a s pouse in most respects, other Member States 
that do not provide for same-sex marriage or registered partnerships as a consequence do 
not have any rules granting a share of the inhe ritance to the registered partner. Even in 
some Member States that have a registered  partnership, the inhe ritance rights of a 
registered partner are non-exis tent or very limited in scope . For example, the surviving 
                                                
 
12 Joint and reciprocal wills are accepted in, e.g., Denmark, Sweden, the UK, Germany, Austria and 
Lithuania (in the last three states, between spou ses only). Succession ag reements exist only in 
Austria, Germany, Denmark and the UK. Some other Member St ates provide for alternative 
solutions, e.g. a contractual promise of a gift between spouses in case of death (France, Belgium, 
Portugal, the Netherlands and Luxemburg). 
EN 10   EN partner of a French PACS is entitled by law only to a habitation right as regards a home 
shared with the deceased partner. 
Given these differences, it is evident that  the results of a succession vary widely, 
depending on which national law is applied. As mentioned above, these results can also 
diverge from the expectations of the deceased and the heirs.  
To address these issues, the Member States have set up their own rules to define the 
competence of their authorities and the appl icable law in international succession cases. 
However, as these rules also vary widely fr om Member State to Member State and have 
not always been adapted to the mobile life style of European citizens taking advantage of 
the Internal market, they create further problems for those citizens, in particular due to the lack of predictability of the applicable law (problem 2). Consequently, citizens suffer from 
a very low level of legal certainty. 
3.1.2.  Problem 1 - Problems relating to the dete rmination of which country and body is 
competent to handle the case 
Difficulties for citizens to predict wh ich country has competence to handle the 
international jurisdiction and positive and negative conflict s of jurisdiction.  Citizens 
have difficulties predicting which Member Stat e's authorities are competent to handle an 
international succession. The authorities of two ore more Member States may accept to 
handle the same succession (positive conflict of  jurisdiction*) or, on the other hand, none 
of them might accept to handle it (n egative conflict of jurisdiction*). 
This situation mainly oc curs due to the fact that the Member States have adopted widely 
varying criteria for determining the competence of their courts in an international succession. Many take the last ha bitual residence of the de ceased as connecting factor, 
others the nationality of the testator.
13 But other connecting fact ors exist: in cases of 
contentious litigation (e.g. because of a dis pute among potential heirs), the habitual 
residence of the parties, the location of the property or the nationality of the parties may be used. Some Member States even allow a choice  of jurisdiction by the parties in case of a 
dispute between (potential) heirs. 
Beside different connecting fact ors, there are other rules on international procedure which 
differ among Member States, t hus increasing the risk of positive or negative conflicts of 
jurisdiction: e.g. the power of courts/judges to declare them selves incompetent (i.e. not 
having jurisdiction) on their own motion or on request of the parties, including the UK 
mechanism of forum non conveniens * or the rules on lispendence*. 
These different rules lead to a situation where the competent bodies of different countries 
may accept to decide on the same succession and even on the same question, which may 
                                                
 
13 Nationality as a connecting factor is used in the laws of Austria, Germany, Spain, Greece, Hungary, 
Italy, Poland, Portugal, Roma nia (for movable prop erty), Slovenia, Sweden and the Czech 
Republic. Habitual residence is used in Belgium (movables), Bulgaria (movables), Cyprus 
(movables), Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France (movables), Luxembourg (movables), Ireland, 
Lithuania, the Netherlands and the UK (Englan d and Wales; Scotland: for movables only). 
EN 11   EN lead to contradictory decisions, even more since each of the courts may then apply a 
different law (see 3.1.3). This dive rsity also favours the phenomenon of forum shopping * : 
parties involved in an interna tional succession case may try to  bring their claims before 
the courts of a certain Member State, because they will apply substantive succession law which is particularly favourable for them. 
Difficulties for citizens to predict wh ich body or court will handle the case.  Even once 
citizens have identified the Member State th e authorities of which have competence to 
handle the succession, they often do not know which body is competent in this Member 
State. In many Member States, the majority of successions are settled  outside the courts, 
sometimes with the support of public bodies or certain legal professions (mainly notaries); 
courts are involved only in complex or cont entious successions. In other Member States, 
the courts always have to be involved. Furthe rmore, in some countries, only one court is 
competent, whereas in other countries the plaintiff has an option to choose between 
several courts. This makes it difficult for citizens to predict what body or court will actually handle their case.  
3.1.3.  Problem 2 – Conflicting laws applicable to  the same succession in different 
Member States 
It must be borne in mind that, in matters of pr ivate law, a court is not obliged to apply the 
law of its own country; it may also appl y the rules of law of another country.
14 For this 
reason, Member States have adopted their own rules to decide which law of which country 
should be applied to which case, ca lled conflict of laws rules*.  
At present, the Member States have different conflict of laws rules in matters of 
successions. Since the authorities of several Member States may be competent to deal with 
a given succession (see point 3.1.2 ), these authorities might come to different results as 
regards the question “what belongs to whom”, which is not only a major factor of legal 
uncertainty, but has serious consequences on the estate planning and the mutual 
recognition of judgments between Member States. 
The main existing discrepancies between the conflict of laws rules of the Member States 
are the following. 
Different connecting factors in the conflict of laws rules. The connecting factors used 
in the conflict of laws rules of the Member States to determine the law applicable to succession are quite different. In particular, th ere is a striking difference between Member 
States which apply the law of the last habitual residence of  the deceased and others who 
follow the principle of nationality.
15  
                                                 
14 For example, for the succession of a national of  Member State A living in Member State B, the 
courts of Member State B might conclude that the succession is governed by the substantive laws of 
Member State A. The applicati on of a foreign law may be problematic itself. However, this 
problem is not specific to successions. 
15 For a list of which Member State uses which conn ecting factor, please see n. 13 above. Even if two 
Member States apply the same rules to determine th e applicable law, they can nevertheless come to 
a different result because of their respective solutions on renvoi  (situation in which the conflict of 
EN 12   EN Example : a French citizen whose last habitual resi dence was in Germany dies, leaving movable 
property (e.g. bank accounts, shares) in both c ountries. The authorities of both Germany and France 
would have competence to handle the case (cf. point 3.1.2). Applying their own national conflict of 
laws rules, the German authorities would apply French succession law to identify the heirs, whereas 
the French authorities would apply the German rules. As a further consequence, conflicting 
judgments will be given by French and German courts with regard to the succession of the same 
deceased person, and recognition will be denied to  the French judgment in Germany as being in 
contradiction to the German judgment, and vice versa . 
Distinction between unitary systems and sy stems of separate conflict rules for 
movable and immovable property . Seventeen Member States have unitary systems 
where all succession property (i.e. both mova ble and immovable property) wherever it is 
located, is subject to a single law (e.g. the Austrian succession law determines the heirs of both the bank account in Luxemb ourg and the house in Granada). Ten Member States 
have systems where movable and immovable goods can be subject to different laws if they 
are located in different countries. Accordin g to this system, immovable property is 
governed by the law of the country where it is located, whereas movables are subject to the general connecting factor (mainly nationa lity or last habitual residence). The 
application of the law of the country in whic h the immovable property is located makes it 
easier to transfer ownership of the property, but makes it more difficult to organise 
succession of the entire estate and to draft wills.
16 
Example : An Italian citizen dies in England, leav ing a house there. English courts will apply 
English succession law (law of the place of location). Italian courts  would apply Italian succession 
law to the whole estate including the house in England.  
Difference in the treatment of the administra tion* and the distribution* of the estate.  
Further difficulties arise from the fact that the administration of the estate is part of 
succession law in civil law countries, governed  by the law applicable to the succession, 
whereas it is part of the national pr ocedural law in common law countries.  
Different scope of application of the conflict  of laws rules relating to successions in 
the Member State . The fact that the delimitation be tween succession la w on the one hand 
and other laws (family law, property law, comp any law) is drawn in a different way in the 
Member States also makes it difficult to know which law is applicable, and can lead to 
contradictory decisions.  
Examples : The law of the last country of residence (M ember State A) provides that the surviving 
spouse automatically becomes life tenant of all property owned by her husband, including the 
holiday residence in Member State B, whereas the law of Member Stat e B stipulates that such a life 
tenancy can only be arranged by a written cont ract. As a consequence, the spouse will have 
difficulties enforcing her rights in Member State B.   
                                                                                                                                                   
laws rules of Member State A call for the applicatio n of the law of country B. The conflict of laws 
rules of Member State B, however, provide for the ap plication of the law of Member State A or of a 
third State). 
16 In addition, the distinction between movable proper ty and immovable property is not the same in all 
Member States, which can lead to the application of  different laws for a gi ven property even among 
those Member States which have the split system, when it is qualified as being movable in one 
Member State and as being immova ble in another Member State. 
EN 13   EN 3.1.4.  Problem 3 - Insufficient (limited) free dom of choice of law for the testator 
When a citizen taking advantage of the Intern al market is aware of the differences in 
substantive succession law and in the conflict of  laws rules in the Member States and is 
also aware of the resulting problems, he/she may wish to get around this by drawing up a will and choosing a single law applicable to his/her entire estate irrespective of the 
location of the property. However, most Me mber States do not yet allow the future 
deceased to choose the law applicable to his/her succession
17. Those Member States which 
give a choice also introduce li mitations, varying from one count ry to the other, as regards 
in particular the laws which may be chosen (in general, law of habitual residence or of nationality, in one Member  State the law of the matrimonial property regime)
18, the 
property for which such choice is allowed (m ovable or immovable property) and the form 
of the choice. 
Due to these limitations, in practice, no Member  States allows citi zens to choose a single 
law governing the whole succession. This may ca use particular problems for those citizens 
that take advantage of their freedom of movement in the EU . When such persons make a 
will and then change their country of residence, they are often unaware that this change may mean that their will no longer has the e xpected effects, since it may become subject 
to a different law. But even when these citi zens are aware of this fact, they have no 
possibility to avoid these consequences by choosing the law of their former habitual 
residence as governing their succession. The onl y alternative is to draw up a will which 
satisfies the requirements of all Member Stat es concerned, which is nearly impossible in 
practice.  
3.1.5.  Problem 4 - Restricted recognition* and enforcement* of judgments, non-
contentious decisions and notarial deeds* 
A judgment given by a court in one country is  not automatically recognised and enforced 
in another country the courts  of which may render a conflicting judgment on the same 
question. Although the mutual recognition of judg ments within the EU is a cornerstone of 
the objective to create a genuine European area of civi l justice, succession matters are 
expressly excluded from the scope of the inst ruments adopted so far, in particular the 
Brussels I Regulation. This question is theref ore regulated either by bilateral conventions 
or by the national procedural laws of the Memb er States. As a consequence, there are still 
grounds for non-recognition of judgments and non-contentious decisions given in another 
Member State. In certain Member States, not aries or other authorities prepare deeds to 
determine the order of succession and to provide  for the administration of the estate. There 
is currently a lack of provision for the recognition and enforcement of such deeds. 
                                                
 
17 No choice of law admitted in  Austria, Cyprus, France, Greece,  Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slov enia, Spain, Sweden and Czech Republic. 
Information is unavailable for Hungary, Malta and Northern Ireland. 
18 Although Belgium grants a limited choice, this choi ce is not valid if the result is to deprive one of 
the heirs of his/her rights to a reserved portion to which he/she would be  entitled according to the 
succession law normally applicable.  
EN 14   EN 3.1.6.  Problem 5 - Restricted recognition of  the status as an heir or as an 
administrator/executor 
Lack of automatic recognition of cert ificates on the status as an heir . Currently there 
are various types of evidence to prove the st atus as an heir in the Member States. 
Documents concerning one's status  of an heir executed in one Member State are at present 
normally not automatically recognised in other Member States. This gives rise to duplication of procedures to prove one's status as an heir in the country where the property 
is situated and additional costs and time delays ; often heirs are required to initiate new 
proceedings to obtain a document attesting thei r status as heir, when in fact such a 
document has already been issued in anothe r Member State. For example, Luxembourg 
banks are often faced with the questio n of the legal value of a German Erbschein  or a 
French acte de notoriété ; in case of non-recognition, the heirs are required to initiate new 
proceedings before a Luxembourg court to obtain a second proof of their status. 
Lack of automatic recognition of the status  as administrator/executor with the power 
to dispose of the estate . The designation of an administra tor of the successi on or of the 
executor of a will is either optional or compulsory, depending on the law of the Member State in question. In a few Member States (United Kingdom and Ireland) it is compulsory 
to appoint an administrator or executor to ha ndle matters of succession. In the majority of 
Member States this is merely an option and it is upon the moment of the death of a person that the heirs become owners of the deceas ed's property. The problems faced by citizens 
are twofold: (i) citizens of those Member States where heirs become owners of the 
property upon the death of a person see their rights to administer the property refused in 
those Member States which require the interven tion of an administrato r or executor; (ii) 
administrators appointed under the rules of one  Member State see thei r rights refused in a 
Member State where th e property is located.  
3.1.7.  Problem 6 – Difficulties identifying wills abroad 
Even in cases which are purely internal to one  Member State, it is not always easy for 
heirs to know whether the deceased had esta blished a testament, especially in those 
Member States which authorize handwritten wills with no requirements as regards registration. This question is even more probl ematic for citizens looking for a will abroad: 
in ideal cases, the testator warns his relatives or  notary that he/she dr afted a will in another 
country. If this is not the case, the heirs and the professionals involve d have to investigate 
if the testator has a will in one of the c ountries with which he was connected. This 
situation causes extra work for the legal pr ofessionals and triggers  severe time delays, 
uncertainty as to whether wills exist that may change the completion of the succession of 
the deceased, whether other heirs will step forward, etc. The procedures become extended 
and complex which in turn results in greater costs. 
EN 15   EN 3.2. Negative consequences faced by Union citizens (the problem)19 
As outlined above in section 3.1, there is a ri sk that the outcome of successions with an 
international element does not match the legiti mate expectations of the deceased and the 
heirs. In particular, the divergent rules may result in the following issues that will be addressed in more detail in the following sections: 
• a person who was not expected or intended to  inherit the estate may do so; conversely, 
a person who was intended or expect ed to inherit may fail to do so; 
• the shares of the estate can deviate in size from what was intended or expected; 
• heirs face long delays in obtaining their inheritance; 
• heirs face significantly higher costs; and 
• EU citizens face difficulties in atte mpting to plan their succession. 
We have been unable to collect hard data as regards the extent of these problems; 
however, each of these problems, the importance of which was confirmed by the stakeholders interviewed for the preparatio n of the external st udy, is illustrated by a 
concrete example in the following section. Furt her details on all examples by practitioners 
cited in this section ma y be found in Annex 8 of the external report. 
3.2.1.  An intended or expected heir may fail to inherit, or an unint ended or unexpected 
person may inherit 
Under the present rules, there is a high risk th at an intended or expected heir may fail to 
inherit or that an unintended or unexpected person may inherit.  The practical result can be 
unfair, e.g. when it leads to discrimination among siblings. 
Example : A Spanish father living in Spain owns two houses of equal value, one located in London, 
the other in Spain. He made a will, leaving the first house to his son, the second to his daughter. 
Upon his death, the two houses ar e treated separately, the succession of the first being subject to 
English law, the succession of the second to Span ish law. Under Spanish law, which provides for 
an equal statutory reserve for a ll children of the deceased, the son could claim a share in the house 
in Spain. Since English law does not provide for such statutory reserve, the daughter would not be 
allowed to do the same for the house in London. As a consequence, brother and sister could be 
treated in an unfair manner although their father had wanted to treat them equally. 
In addition, sometimes the problem of failing to inherit despite legitimate expectations is 
faced by children because the ab ility of minors to own propert y varies from Member State 
to Member State. 
Registered partners in particular suffer from not seeing their legitimate 
expectations achieved in s ituations in which they do not receive a share of the 
                                                 
19 While this report focuses on EU citizens, the benefits of any measures taken would extend to any 
foreign resident in a Member State. 
EN 16   EN estate because their partnership is not r ecognized by the national law applicable to 
the succession. Accordingly, that law will not  provide for rights of inheritance for 
the registered partner.  
Similar cases were cited in particular by English, German and Dutch practitioners. 
A particular issue arises in relation to the English substant ive law of succession, which, as 
mentioned above, does not provi de a statutory share to close family members of the 
deceased. In case of an Englishman who has ma de important gifts during his lifetime (gift 
intra vivos* ), the change of applicable law follow ing the move to another Member State 
can lead to unexpected results.  
Example : An Englishman has invested most of his wealth in a collection of modern art paintings, 
which he gives away to a museum. Shortly thereaf ter, he moves to France,  where he eventually 
marries a French woman, and the couple have two children who are also French citizens. When the 
father passes away years later, the children unde r the applicable French law of succession are 
entitled to a statutory share of the inheritance, which in this example would amount to ⅔ of the 
estate. For the purposes of calculating the value of th at share, the value of th e estate of the deceased 
including all gifts made during his lifetime is calculated. Assuming that the value of the collection 
of paintings amounts to ½ of the estate's total value, the statutory share cannot be satisfied by the 
remaining assets in the estate. In this case, the children can bring a so-called "claim for reduction" 
against the museum, forcing it to pay the remaining 1/6 of the estate to complete the statutory share 
of the children. 
3.2.2.  Shares of the inheritance may be differen t to what was intended or expected 
The share of the inheritance can be smaller or larger than was originally expected.  
Example : A Lithuanian couple has drawn up a joint and reciprocal will, naming the surviving 
spouse as the heir to the entire estate and the co uple's three children as the heirs of that surviving 
spouse. If that couple e.g. owns a vacation home  in France, the French courts will refuse to 
recognize the surviving spouse as the heir as they do not accept joint and reciprocal wills. 
Accordingly, French rule s will apply. The surviving spouse recei ves – at his or her choice – either 
¼ of the estate or the usufruct of the entire esta te. The rest of the estate goes to the children. 
Problems can also arise due to the fact that the protection of the su rviving spouse can be 
governed either by family law or by succession law, or by a combination of the two. Since 
almost all conflict of laws rules differentiate between family law and succession law, it may be that different national substantive ru les apply to questions of family law and 
questions of succession law. Depending on the combination, this can lead either to an 
unintended decrease (the spous e is protected neither by suc cession nor by family law) or 
increase (the spouse is protected by both su ccession and family law) in the spouse's share 
of the estate. Examples of such cases were cited by Swedish, Dutch and Spanish 
practitioners. 
3.2.3.  Heirs may face long delays in obtaining their inheritance 
When the deceased owned property in another Member State, heirs are faced with two 
main problems. First, they have to prove to the authorities in the second Member State that 
they are the rightful heirs, which may be difficult in particular if a joint and reciprocal will 
EN 17   EN not recognized by the second Member State. Se condly, they have to find out about and 
follow the correct procedures to transfer ow nership of the property from the deceased to 
themselves, e.g. effecting the necessary ch anges in the land register. An English 
practitioner cited the example of a client who had to wait two years to settle her 
inheritance. The non-recognition of decisions an d other acts also freque ntly leads to long 
delays, as reported by several practitioners. Sim ilarly, the failure to recognize the authority 
of an administrator/executor causes delays . One practitioner cited the example of a 
Spanish bank which did not recognise the pow ers of a Swedish administrator/executor; it 
took three years before it was possible to access the account. 
The legal uncertainty can also lead to an increased risk of  dispute amongst the potential 
heirs. In the case of contentious procedures, practitioners estimate that it may take up to 10 years or more to settle the inheritance, de pending on the efficacy of the relevant national 
legal system. 
3.2.4.  International aspects lead to significant increase in costs 
Successions with international aspects also tend to be much more costly, in particular due 
to the legal uncertainty faced by the heirs. As the national rules on jurisdiction and the 
applicable law diverge, it can be difficult to establish which Member State's authorities are competent to handle the succession and wh ich national law applies. Depending on the 
national competence rules, the authorities in  several Member States might consider 
themselves to be competent (positive conflic t of jurisdiction) or, conversely, no Member 
State's authorities may find themselves comp etent (negative conflict of jurisdiction). 
Furthermore, some Member States' conflict of  laws rules provide for the application of 
different national laws depending on the location of the estate ("scission"* of the estate). 
Accordingly, in cross-border cases, legal professionals estimate that costs are twice or 
three times as high as in national cases due to  the necessity to seek advice from lawyers, 
notaries and tax advisers in more than one  country. Costs also increase compared to 
national successions due to additional court costs, witnesses, expe rt opinions, etc. An 
English practitioner estimates that, while th e costs of a purely na tional succession might 
amount to 2% of the estate, a transnational succession would cost the heirs approximately 
5% of the estate.
20 A German practitioner cited an example involving property in Spain 
which cost the heirs € 10,000 more than it woul d have absent the international element. 
These problems are especially difficult for pers ons with limited financial means, since the 
legal procedures need to be financed in a dvance of acquiring the estate, which, as seen 
above, may take many years. An English legal pr actitioner estimated that the legal fees for 
a complicated succession may start at 20,000 Euro s. Such an upfront investment can be 
difficult to finance and can deter potential he irs from even pursuing their rights to the 
inheritance. 
                                                 
20 For more information, see Annex 8 of the external study. 
EN 18   EN 3.2.5.  Planning of international succession is difficult 
As explained in section 3.1.4, the divergent nati onal substantive and co nflict of laws rules 
pose a challenge for a Union citizen attempting to  plan his or her succession in advance, if 
that succession contains an international elemen t. As most national legal systems currently 
do not offer any possibility of choosing the law applicable to the succession, the 
applicable law often cannot be determined in advance. Furthermore, legal professionals in 
England and Germany cited examples of succession plans that had been voided by a later change in habitual residence of the citizen. 
3.3. Scope of the problem  
According to the external study, around 4.5 m illion people die each year in the EU. For 
successions without an international dimension, it is assumed that the value of the average 
estate is about € 137,000. Accord ingly, the total va lue of the estate s per annum would 
amount to € 646 bn. 
This study currently estimates that about 1 in 10 (that is, about 450,000) successions in the 
EU have an international dimension. This in ternational dimension, as outlined above, can 
arise for example due to the existence of m ovable or immovable property of the deceased 
in another Member State, due to the deceased's  having a nationality other than that of the 
Member State in which he or she was resident or simply due to the fact that the potential heir lives in another Member State than th e last habitual residence of the deceased.  
The likelihood of an international element to the succession rises with the value of the 
estate. A wealthy person is more likely to  have e.g. an account or a second home in 
another Member State. It is th erefore estimated that the aver age value of estates with an 
international dimension would amount to around double the value of an average estate (i.e. 
€ 274,000), totalling approximately € 123.3 bn euro per annum. 
These estates are liable to problems. Even if resolved in a reasonable manner, the costs of 
legal fees according to estimates by pract itioners might amount to between 2% (€ 2.466 
bn) and 5% of the total valu e of international successions (€ 6.165 bn). An average of 3% 
(€ 3.699 bn) of the value of estates can be co nsidered realistic. Moreover, the costs of 
delays, which may be measured in  terms of years rather than months, might be of the same 
order of magnitude. Addressing the problems gi ving rise to the need for legal advice 
beyond the flat rate norm for a ‘straightforwar d’ national will and the associated delays 
could thus generate benefits to EU citi zens in the order of € 4 bn per annum.  
The heirs are not only faced with legal uncertainty, increased costs and time delays. 
Depending on the financial situation of a poten tial heir and the value of the expected 
shares, the succession may prove to be altogeth er too costly for the heir. Practitioners cited 
examples of heirs who were forced to renounce rights to a succession because their 
enforcement in a foreign Member State would have been too expensive. The complications arising out of such an intern ational connection add to the distress already 
experienced by many heirs in dealing with the succession of a loved one. 
EN 19   EN The magnitude of the problem is very likely goin g to increase in the future, as the number 
of EU citizens taking advantage of the intern al market and the mobility it affords is on the 
rise continuously. As is evidenced by Eurostat  data, while the number of foreign residents 
stagnates in a few Member States, it  increases continuously in others:21 
 
Figure 2 – Residents from other Member States in selected EU countries 
Foreign residents in selected EU countries
0500.0001.000.0001.500.0002.000.0002.500.0003.000.0003.500.0004.000.0004.500.0005.000.000
1996 2001 2007
YearNumber of foreign residentsSpain
Italy
Portugal
UK
Czech Republic
 
Further arguments explaining why the magnitude of the problem is likely to increase over 
the next years are set out in Annex 2. 
4.   NEED FOR ACTION AT EU LEVEL  
The problems outlined above are due to the cross-border nature of succession. National 
law alone can therefore not so lve the problems, and action at  Community level is needed. 
In the absence of such action, there are a number of factors th at might lead to an increase 
in the scale of the problem. 
                                                 
21 Source: Eurostat statistic "Population par citoyenneté". 
EN 20   EN 4.1.  How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? 
Given the increased numbers of  international marriages, the growing numbers of complex 
extended and same sex family relations and th e rising propensity of  estates to include 
immovable and movable property lo cated in more than one Member State, the costs to EU 
citizens would probably increase beyond the estimated 4 bn euro per annum without 
policy changes. Indeed, in view  of these developments, a doub ling of costs within a period 
of ten years is not unlikely, particularly as  there has been a marked recent increase in 
foreign property ownership within the EU that is unlikely to level off. Furthermore it has 
been reported that the incidence of wills be ing contested has increased, partly because the 
value of individual successions ha s increased, leading to greater costs and delays for heirs.  
However, other developments also need to be taken into account with regard to the 
evolution of the problem. It is  by no means certain that there will be an increase in the 
value of estates in successions; indeed there are several tendencies th at could reduce it. 
Firstly, people are living longe r and staying active until a much late r age. There is 
evidence that the ‘baby boom’ generati on who have enjoyed high incomes and 
accumulated wealth may choose to consume it dur ing their retirement years and give less 
priority to leaving a legacy to their heirs. Secondly, the elderly often incur high health care costs in the years shortly befo re their death that may, depend ing of course on the insurance 
and social security arrangements applying, dimi nish their wealth. Thir dly, individuals may 
choose, for tax, altruism or othe r reasons to give away (parts of) their wealth during their 
lifetime.  
Taking into account these trends  and the forecasts as regard s the scope of the problem 
(section 3.3 and Annex 2), in balance it can be  expected that problems will get worse at 
least in the short term; it is reasonable to  estimate that the costs of international 
successions will double within a period of ten years. 
4.2. Legal framework in place  
As already mentioned, successions  are excluded from all instruments adopted so far at EU 
level in matters of civil judicial cooperation. The probl ems outlined above are also 
unlikely to be eliminated by a concerted actio n of the Member States, e.g. by means of an 
international convention. Alt hough there have been three Ha gue Conventions on questions 
of succession alone, only the first one of 1961, which harmonises the conflict of laws rules 
relating to the form of testamentary disposi tions, has been widely ratified by the Member 
States
22. Another convention, dealin g with the problem of the administration of the 
succession, of 1973, was ratified on ly by a few Member States,23 and a convention on the 
                                                 
22 Hague Convention of 5 October 1961 on the Conflict of Laws Relating to the From of 
Testamentary Dispositions, in force in the followi ng Member States: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, 
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Irela nd, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, 
Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK. 
23 Hague Convention of 2 October 1973 Concerning the International Administration of the Estates of 
Deceased Persons; in force in th e following Member States: Czech  Republic, Italy, Luxembourg, 
Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, UK. 
EN 21   EN law applicable to the successions of 1989 ha s never entered into force due to an 
insufficient number of ratifica tions by the contracting States24. 
However, national and international action has begun with a view to alleviating the 
problem of identifying wills in other count ries. In 1972, the members of the Council of 
Europe signed the Basel Convention on the esta blishment of a scheme of registration of 
wills.25 In the past few years, those Member States  that previously did not have a register 
of wills have begun to create such registers. 22 Member States presently have registers of 
wills at a national or regional level, and two (Bulgaria and Latvia) are in the process of establishing registers.
26 In order to facilitate the exchange  of information on the existence 
of wills, a system for connecting registers of  wills has been developed by the European 
Network of Registers of Wills Associa tion (ENRWA). ENRWA was started by the 
Slovenian, French and Belgian notary associatio ns in 2005 and is open to all states able to 
respect the Basel Convention principles and certain other requireme nts. The following 
Member States have joined the network to date: Romania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, Bulgaria and Latvia. Moreover, the following additional countries ha ve expressed their 
intentions to join the ENRWA: Austri a, Greece, Luxembourg, Hungary, Poland, the 
Czech Republic and Slovakia. They will likely become members during the first semester 
of 2009. The notary associations of Estonia,  Germany and Spain are also considering 
joining the ENRWA but, due to national partic ularities, are still in the process of 
investigating the modalities. 
Two other key factors influence the success of this trend: the first is the extent to which 
wills are actually registered. The second factor is whether information from these registers 
can be obtained efficiently, quickly and at low cost. Ideally, every will would be registered 
and the registers would be interlinked, allowi ng a quick search via e.g. a search form. At 
the moment, the ENRWA requires its member s to nominate a contact point in their 
respective state to deal with inquiries regarding wills. Beyond this contact person system, 
no connection between the registers exists at this point in time. 
4.3. Does the EU have the power to act? 
Treaty base.  Since the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, the competence of the 
European Community to act in the area of conflict of laws rules is governed by Article 61(c) of the EC Treaty. Under Article 67 EC , as amended by the Treaty of Nice, the 
Regulation is to be adopted in accordance with the co-decision procedure of Article 251 EC. Article 65(b) furthermore provides: “ Measures in the field of judicial cooperation in 
civil matters having cross-border implications, to be taken in accordance with Article 67 
and in so far as necessary fo r the proper functioning of the internal market, shall include : 
… promoting the compatibility of the rules appl icable in the Member States concerning 
the conflict of laws  and of jurisdiction ”.  
                                                
 
24 Hague Convention of 1 August 1989 on the Law Applicable to Succession to the Estates of 
Deceased Persons; this Convention has never entered into force. 
25 Available at: http://conventions.coe.i nt/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/077.htm. 
26 No information available for Malta. 
EN 22   EN As outlined above, it is evident that the differe nces in the conflict of laws and jurisdiction 
rules create significant obstacles to the fr ee movement of persons and the freedom of 
establishment. They also impede the full enjoyment of the citizens' right to private 
property, which according to the established ca se law of the European Court of Justice 
(ECJ) forms an integral part of the f undamental rights safeguarded by the Court.27 
Accordingly, there is a need for action at Community level. 
Title IV of the EC Treaty, which is the basi s for the matters covered by this proposal, does 
not apply to Denmark by reason of the Protoc ol applicable to it. Nor does it apply to 
Ireland and the United Kingdom, unless those countries exercise their right to opt into this initiative as provided by the Pr otocol annexed to the Treaty.  
Necessity test (subsidiarity).  The solution to the problems outlined above cannot be 
adequately attained by th e Member States alone, wh ich cannot lay down uniform 
Community rules, and can therefore, by r eason of its effects throughout the Community, 
be better achieved by action at Community level.  
As outlined above in Section 4.2, it is also unlikely that a concerted action by the Member 
States would make Community action unnece ssary, as evidenced by the failed Hague 
Conventions. Accordingly, Co mmunity action is required. 
The Community can take measures in accordance with the subsidiarity principle set out in 
Article 5 of the Treaty. The m easures respect the proportionalit y principle set out in that 
Article, by increasing certain ty in the law without requ iring harmonisation of the 
substantive rules of domestic law. They th erefore go no further than necessary. Purely 
national successions are not affected by this initiative. 
Point 6 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and 
proportionality provides that “ Other things being equal, direct ives should be preferred to 
regulations. .”. For this proposal, howeve r, the Regulation would seem  to be preferable as 
its provisions lay down uniform rules on the app licable law that are detailed, precise and 
unconditional and require no measures for th eir transposal into domestic law. If the 
Member States enjoyed some room for manoeuvr e in transposing, the uncertainty as to the 
law which the aim is to abolish would be rest ored (see Section 6.3). Regulations have, in 
the vast majority of cases, been the preferre d instrument for mutual recognition in civil 
law. 
5. O
BJECTIVES  
The overall objective of the Proposal is to cont ribute to the creation of a genuine European 
area of civil justice in the field of successions upon death. 
The general, specific and operational objectives  are summarised in the following table: 
                                                 
27 ECJ, Judgment of 3 December 1998, Case C-368/96 – Generics (UK) , ECR 1998 I-07967; 
Judgment of 28 April 1998, Case C-200/96 – Metronome Musik , ECR 1998 I-01953. 
EN 23   EN Overview of general, specifi c and operational objectives 
General objectives Specific objectives Operational objectives 
To achieve a situation where parallel 
proceedings do not occu r and where different 
substantive laws are not applied to the same 
international succession To adopt common rules on jurisdiction 
To adopt common rules on applicable law 
To provide a (limited) choice of law for the 
testator To introduce harmonised rules providing a 
limited choice of law to the testator 
To ensure the recognition of rights, relevant acts and decisions regarding successions. To harmonise rules on the recognition and 
enforcement of judgments, other decisions and 
authentic acts / deeds  
To ensure recognition of the powers of 
administrators/executors  
To ensure recognition of the status as an heir  • To allow citizens to efficiently plan 
and to organise their succession in advance in a cross border context  
• To increase the likelihood that the 
rights of potential heirs, persons 
formally or otherwise related to the deceased, private and public creditors 
etc. are respected in an efficient way 
To increase the accessibility of information on 
the existence of  wills abroad To create a European system for registering 
wills and obtaining information on the existence of wills abroad. 
 
6. DESCRIPTION OF POLICY OPTIONS  
6.1. Definition of policy options 
The policy options have been split into the fo llowing two different sets, in order to take 
account of the different options to be considered (see table below):  
• Policy options A : Options that address problems  caused by national legislative 
differences concerning devolution of succe ssion with transnational elements (nine 
different options have been identified); and, 
• Policy options B : Options that address problems of identifying wills abroad (six 
different options have been identified). 
The preferred option can combine op tions from both of these sets. 
Definition of policy options that address proble ms caused by national legislative differences 
concerning successions with transnational elements (Policy Options A) 
No common EU level action 
• Policy Option A.1: Status quo 
EU legislative action 
• Policy Option A.2: Harmonisation of jurisdiction rules and introduction of rules on automatic 
EN 24   EN recognition and enforcement of judgments, other decisions and authentic acts/deeds 
• Policy Option A.3: Harmonisation of conflict of law rules 
• Policy Option A.4: Harmonisation of conflict of law rules and introduction of a European 
Certificate of Heir and Executor / Ad ministrator in transnational successions 
• Policy Option A.5: Harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules 
• Policy Option A.6: Harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules, and 
introduction of rules on automatic recognition an d enforcement of judgments, other decisions 
and authentic acts/deeds (A.2 plus A.3) 
• Policy Option A.7: Harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules, and 
introduction of rules on automatic recognition an d enforcement of judgments, other decisions 
and authentic acts/deeds, and introduction of a Certificate of Heir and Executor / 
Administrator in transnational successions (A.2 plus A.4) 
Non-legislative action 
• Policy Option A.8: Establishment of a data base / knowledge management system on conflict 
of laws, jurisdiction rules and competent bodies 
• Policy Option A.9: EU wide information campaign on succession (legislation and existing / 
forth-coming instruments)  
 
Definition of policy options that address prob lems of identifying wills abroad (Policy 
Options B) 
No common EU level action 
• Policy Option B.1: Status quo 
EU level action (legislation and funding) 
• Policy option B.2: Commission Recomm endation on the establishment of 
interconnected national register s of wills and organisation of information campaigns.  
• Policy option B.3 Compulsory establishment of interconnect ed national registers of 
wills.  
• Policy option B.4 Establishment of a central EU Register of Wills.  
Non-legislative action 
• Policy Option B.5: Creation of a webpage on existing registers of wills and national 
rules. 
EN 25   EN • Policy Option B.6: National information campaigns on wills (legislation and existing 
/ forth-coming instruments) 
6.2. Description of policy options 
6.2.1.  Policy options A addressing problems caused  by national legisl ative differences 
concerning successions with transnational elements 
Policy Option A.1 - Status quo.  Under this policy option th ere would be no common EU 
legislative action.  
Policy Option A.2 - Harmonisation of jurisdic tion rules and introduction of rules on 
automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments, other decisions and authentic 
acts/deeds . This option would imply EU legislat ive action in terms of a Regulation 
establishing harmonised rules on jurisd iction and recognition and enforcement of 
judgments, other decisions and authentic acts /deeds. The Regulation would establish one 
unique head of jurisdiction, i.e. the court of the deceased's last habitual residence, which 
would have competence for the whole succ ession (movable and immovable property).28 
Like the Brussels I Regulati on, this Regulation would also include rules on lis-pendence* 
and other procedural rules.29 Following the example of the Brussels I Regulation, the 
instrument would introduce rules on recognitio n and enforcement. The general rule would 
be automatic recognition of judgments and othe r decisions given in one Member State in 
matters of successions in all other Member St ates. The partial or to tal refusal would be 
allowed in exceptional cases only30. As regards enforcement, the general rule would be 
that a judgment given in one Member State and enforceable in that Member State would 
be enforced in another Member State when, on  the application of a ny interested party, it 
has been declared enforceable there (s ee Article 38 Brussels I Regulation). 
Policy Option A.3 - Harmonis ation of conflict of laws  rules on successions upon 
death.  This option consists of adopting harmonised conflict of laws rule s to ensure that 
the whole succession (movable and immovable pr operty) is governed by a single law, the 
law of the deceased's last habitual residence. The testator would also be allowed to choose instead the law of his or her nationality. These rules could also lead to the application of 
the law of a third state. The applicable law would not only govern the determination of the 
                                                
 
28 The courts of the Member State in which imm ovable property is located might also be granted 
jurisdiction, not to rule on succession as such, but with regard to property rights which are often 
linked. 
29 E.g. a rule allowing the competent court to send  the case before a more closely connected court. 
30 Article 34 Brussels I Regulation and Article 22  of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 
November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in 
matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility ("Brussels II bis") contain four 
grounds for refusing to recognise foreign judgments: (i ) if such a judgment is manifestly contrary to 
the public policy of the Member State of recognition; (ii) in case of violation of the rights of the 
defending party; (iii) if it is irreconcilable with  a judgment given in a dispute between the same 
parties in the Member State in which recognition is s ought; (iv) if it is irreconcilable with an earlier 
judgment given in another State, provided that this earlier judgment  fulfils the cond itions necessary 
for its recognition in the Member State addressed. 
EN 26   EN heirs and their respective shares, but also any obligation to restor e or account for gifts 
made during lifetime, the statutory share, admi nistration and distributi on of the estate. In 
practice, this would mean th at an administrator nominate d in one Member State would 
also be allowed to act in other Member States. 
Policy Option A.4 - Harmonisation of conflic t of laws rules and introduction of a 
Certificate of Inheritance a nd Executor / Administrator in transnational successions.  
Under this option, in addition to the establishment of harm onized conflict of laws rules 
(see Policy Option A.3 above for description) , a European Certificate of Inheritance 
and/or of Administrator/Executor would be introduced. This certificate, which would be 
based on a harmonised form included with the legislative measure, would serve as proof 
of heirship and/or of  the power of administration in al l Member States, allowing the heir 
or administrator to manage and eventually di stribute the estate. The Regulation would also 
specify the conditions under which third pa rties can rely upon th e content of the 
certificate. 
Policy Option A.5: Harmonisation of conf lict of law rules and jurisdiction rules . This 
option consists of a combination of Policy Option A.3 with a more limited version of 
Policy Option A.2, namely, an establishment of one single head of juri sdiction at the last 
habitual residence of the deceased, whic h would have competence for the entire 
succession. 
Policy Option A.6: Harmonisation of conflict  of law rules and jurisdiction rules, and 
introduction of rules on automatic recognit ion and enforcement of judgments, other 
decisions and authentic acts/deeds. This option, which is sligh tly wider in scope than 
Policy Option A.5, entails a combination of Policy Options A.2 and A.3 described above.  
Policy Option A.7: Harmonisation of conflict  of law rules and jurisdiction rules, and 
introduction of rules on automatic recognit ion and enforcement of judgments, other 
decisions and authentic acts/deeds, and intr oduction of a Certif icate of Inheritance 
and Executor / Administrator in transnational successions. This option represents a 
further increase in scope, combining Po licy Options A.2 and A.4 described above. 
Policy Option A.8: Establishment of a data base / knowledge management system on 
conflict of law, jurisdiction  rules and competent bodies. This non-legislative option 
would entail the creation and maintenance of a database providing information on the 
various national rules governing applicable law and jurisdicti on, as well as on the relevant 
competent authorities in the Member States. Such a database would be accessible via the 
Internet and could be linked to from the European Judicial Network's website31 or the e-
Justice portal32. 
Policy Option A.9: EU-wide information ca mpaign on succession (legislation and 
existing/forthcoming instruments). This option, which is also non-legislative in nature, 
could consist of a combined EU and national initiative to inform EU citizens of the 
                                                 
31 http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/. 
32 http://www.ejustice.eu.com/. 
EN 27   EN various national rules governi ng successions. It could either be run as an independent 
initiative or as part of a larger EU information campaign. 
6.2.2.  Policy options B addressing problems of identifying wills abroad 
Policy Option B.1 - Status quo. The Community could refrain from taking any action to 
facilitate identifying wills abroad. 
Policy Option B.2 - Commission Recomme ndation on the establishment of 
interconnected national registers of wills and organisation of information campaigns.  
This option would entail th e adoption of a Recommendation encouraging the Member 
States to establish national registers for wills where such a register does not yet exist, and 
to provide for a connection between the individu al national registers fo r ease of obtaining 
information on the existence of a will in another Member State. This connection could be provided via the European Network of Registers of Wills Association (ENRWA) described above in Section 4.2. Concurren tly, the Recommendation would encourage the 
Member States to run a publicity campaign info rming the public about the existence of the 
registers and the benefits of re gistering wills would be conducted. 
Policy option B.3 - Compulsory establishment of interconnected national registers of 
wills . Under this option, the EU would adopt a directive requiring all Member States to 
establish national registers of wills and connect to the other registers, e.g. via the ENRWA 
system. The Community could furthermore pr ovide funding to as sist transnational 
cooperation. 
Policy option B.4 - Establishment of a central EU Register of Wills . The EU could 
create a central EU register by means of a dopting a regulation. EU citizens would then be 
able to register their wills usin g a standard form available in all 23 official languages, e.g. 
via the Internet. An administrative office would have to be set up to manage the database 
and provide help to users. Information on the existence of a will would only be given upon 
proof of death of the person in question. 
Policy Option B.5 - Creation of a webpage on  existing registers of wills and national 
rules.  This is a non legislative action. The webpa ge would provide contact information for 
the existing registers of wills as well as information on national rules governing 
succession. It could be include d in the e-Justice portal. 
Policy Option B.6 - National information campaigns on wills (legislation and 
existing/forthcoming instruments).  This is another non legi slative action which could 
either be adopted on its own merits to inform  citizens about the current legal situation or 
in combination with other options. 
EN 28   EN 6.3. Discarded policy options 
Another option is the ratifica tion of the 1989 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to 
Succession to the Estates of Deceased Persons,33 eventually in combination with other 
measures. However, this option was discarded since experts and stake holders agree on the 
shortcomings of this Convention with regard to the harmonisation of the law applicable to 
an international succession. Thes e shortcomings have led to th e fact that, almost 20 years 
after its signature, the Convention has yet no t entered into force. It results from the 
consultations that Member States do not intend to ratify it. In addition, the flaws of this convention cannot be remedied by combining th ese rules with other measures, such as 
harmonisation of jurisdiction rules or rules on recognition and enforcement since Member 
States would not accept to tackle the latter without having harmonised rules on applicable 
law. Therefore this option has also been discarded. 
With regard to the po licy options which imply EU legisla tive action, theoreti cally either a 
Regulation or a Directive is possible. For this proposal, however, the Regulation would 
seem preferable since its provisions lay down uniform rules on the applicable law that are 
detailed, precise and unconditi onal and require no measures for their transposition into 
domestic law (see Section 4.3). If the Member  States enjoyed some  room for manoeuvre 
in transposing, the uncertainty as to the app licable law which the aim is to abolish would 
be restored and the defined objectives would not be met. The same solution is suggested 
with regard to the establishment of a European  Register of wills if policy option B.4 on a 
European central register will be followed, because such Register should be based on the 
same rules in all Member States. By cont rast, for the compulsory establishment of 
interconnected national register s of wills (policy option B.3) , a directive would be the 
preferable legal instrument since Member Stat es would be required to establish a national 
register.  
6.4. Alternative elements which could have  formed part of policy options A 
As concerns the definition of policy options A, theoretically  it would also be possible to 
assess other options. Most of these options w ould have consisted of  isolating different 
elements of option A (e.g. an instrument pr oposing harmonisation of  jurisdiction rules 
only
 or the introduction of a European  certificate as to successions only ). The reasons why 
these options alone do not solve the problems faced by citizens and have, as a consequence, been discarded are ou tlined in the external study.   
The definition of the options overall involves a large number of rather specific elements. 
Details of such specific elements may be extr emely important for the effects of legislation 
(compare e.g. the word ‘should’ to ‘may’). It was however d ecided to assess only "full" 
policy options that already co mbine selected elements, in particular as several good 
sources of information on the ‘preferred’ altern ative elements are available, i.e. the 2002 
Study, the Green Paper responses and the wo rk of the Expert Group. The individual 
relative advantages of altern ative elements are not assesse d since this would not only 
provide an artificial picture of the potential impacts, but worse; it would not provide a 
                                                
 
33 Available at: http://www.hcch.net/index_ en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=62. 
EN 29   EN correct picture of the results of adopting various individual el ements. Furthermore, in view 
of the vast number of theore tical possibilities to combine different elements, it is not 
practically feasible to assess all potential combinations of alternative elements. 
To illustrate these challenges, take the example of "habitual residence" as the unique 
connecting factor for conflict of laws rules,  which can be combined into at least 480 
‘realistic’ proposals.34 Furthermore, five of the total ni ne identified policy options include 
conflict of laws rules, i.e. these elements can also be combined with the alternative 
elements of the other options (jurisdict ion and recognition, Eu ropean Inheritance 
Certificate, etc.).   
Hence, given that some of these alternative elements are very sensitive from a political 
point of view, the reasons for which they have  been preferred to others, which have been 
discarded, need to be explained.35   
The use of habitual residence as a unique connecting factor rather than nationality . 
Habitual residence, favoured by the majority of stakeholders, corres ponds to the practical 
needs of the large majority of successions: in general, it is the place where most of the assets, the heirs and the creditor s are located. Should there be closer links to the country of 
nationality, the proposed Regulation provides for an exception. It could be argued that 
nationality would provide more le gal certainty as it is easily ascertainable and that the use 
of habitual residence would allow for abuse of  the system (citizens could change habitual 
residence in order to avoid the reserved portion) . Hence, not only is the risk of abuse very 
limited (there is only one Member State in which there is no protection in the form of reserved portion), but there are several other reasons why nationality has been discarded: further rules would be needed in the more a nd more frequent cases of deceased having two 
or more nationalities; it is in appropriate if the deceased has settled in a Member State of 
which he is not a national and has lived there for many years; it is not in line with the 
principles of the Internal market which aims  at abolishing discriminations among citizens 
living in a same Member State. For all these reasons the trend in national legislation also 
tends towards replacing nationa lity by habitual residence.
36   
Introducing a unitary system rather than a system of separate conflict rules for 
movable and immovable property . Although ten Member States have a system where 
                                                 
34 Alternatives that could have been considered include, amongst others, th e possibility to choose 
nationality instead of habitual residence as the un ique connecting factor; to  introduce a hierarchy of 
connecting factors in the order habitual residence, nationality, or the other way around. All of these 
alternative elements can furthermore be combined  with a (limited) choi ce of law, which would 
change the impacts of the alterna tive elements. The testator could e.g. be enabled to choose the 
applicable law on the basis of habitual residence or nationality; or, additionally, of the matrimonial 
property regime. This choice of law could in turn be restricted to prevent decrease of the statutory 
reserve. To examine all these options would have meant analysing more than 400 possible 
combinations. Please also see the external study  for more detail on the discarded policy options. 
35 Section 7.7 further develops the advantages and drawbacks of the preferred alternative elements. 
36 Habitual residence is used by the Hague Convention and at least 12 Member States: Belgium 
(movables), Bulgaria (movables), Cyprus (movables), Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France 
(movables), Luxembourg (movables), Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands and the UK (England and 
Wales; Scotland: for movables only). 
EN 30   EN movable and immovable property can be subject to different laws if they are located in 
different countries, this solution would perpetua te a situation where citizens would need to 
take into account the often conflicting rules of different substantive national laws on 
successions. The general and specific policy obj ectives would not be met. This view is 
shared by the legal professionals consulte d who unanimously reject a split system.37 
Providing for a (limited) choice of law for the testator . The protection of compulsory 
inheritance right for the benefits  of close family members (in particular children) could be 
a reason for refusing any choice of law to the test ator. However, this risk of abuse is very 
limited given that such compulsory rights are known by all Member States except one, 
which therefore have legislation to preven t the deceased from circumventing those 
compulsory inheritance rights.38 To the opposite, in the consultations some stakeholders 
wish a larger choice for the testator (inclu ding, for example, the law of the matrimonial 
property regime). However, this solution is not  compatible with the solutions in place in 
the Member States where choice of law, if a ny, is very limited. A la rge choice would also 
increase the risk that the pr otection of compulsory inherita nce rights is undermined. As a 
consequence, only a limited choice of law can realise the overall objectives of the present initiative.  
Inclusion of the administration of a su ccession into the scope of the future 
Regulation . In the consultations some Member St ates question any solution which would 
modify the regimes governing the administratio n of a succession, either  because they fear 
the instrument might affect their regime of tran sfer of the estate's assets or because they 
want to safeguard their inher itance tax collection schemes. Yet, the instrument will not 
govern property rights which are outside the scope of Community competences. In 
addition, the Commission proposal contains a specific rule to preserve national mandatory 
rules relating to the nomination of an admini strator and tax collect ions schemes. As a 
consequence, the limitation of the scope goes far beyond the legitimate requests of 
Member State and would prevent the present initiative to fulfil its objectives in respect of citizens who need to proof their status as an he ir or as an administra tor/executor in another 
Member State.  
                                                
 
37 See Annex 17 of the external study "Legal profes sionals' views on altern ative elements of the 
policy options. 
38 Accordingly, if the future deceased  gives away a large part of the estate as a gift to a third party, 
this gift could potentially be subject to a clai m for reduction in very exceptional circumstances.  
Nevertheless, one Member State (United Kingdom for England and Wales), whose law does not know such claims for reduction, has expressed concerns as regards the effects of an EU instrument 
on the validity of lifetime gifts made by the deceased. 
EN 31   EN 7. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS  
7.1. Impact of the Policy Options addressi ng problems caused by national 
legislative differences concerning succes sions with transnational elements 
(Policy Options A)39 
Policy Option A.1 - Status quo.  (i) Objectives to achieve : This option would not meet 
the objectives outlined above. Member States may make changes to their national legal 
systems on their own initiative, but it is un likely that these will be made in view to 
streamline the country’s rules with other EU Member States’ ru les to facilitate 
international succession. On the contrary, the situ ation would worsen in view of the trends 
of EU citizens’ increasing inte rnational connections; negative effects are likely to become 
aggravated for citizens. More serious probl ems could in the long term reduce citizens’ 
trust in the EU internal market and European citizenship. (ii) Fundamental Rights : 
Maintaining the status quo  would mean that the fundamental right to property according to 
Article 17 of the European Charter of Fundame ntal Rights and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to 
the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes the right of  heirs of property 
inherited from a deceased person on the basis of  a will or intestate succession, is not fully 
operative with regard to propert y situated in another Member St ate. Even if the right of the 
heir to the estate has been acknowledged by the courts of the Member State in which the heir is habitually resident, th is judgment may not help to en force his right to property in 
another Member State. Furthermore the fundame ntal rights in Article s 20 and 21 (equality 
before the law, non-discrimination) w ould not be fully respected if the status quo  was 
maintained, because heirs living in the Me mber State where certain property of the 
deceased person is situated may have advant ages compared to heirs living abroad. In 
particular, discrimination on the basis of nationa lity of the different heirs is possible as 
jurisdiction in succession matters  is still, in the domestic law of many Member States, 
dependent on the nationality of the deceased or  the heir. With regard to Article 24 on the 
rights of the child, the negative consequences of  the status quo in cross-border successions 
(time delays, cost increases) are aggravated if minors are am ongst the heirs, since they are 
unable to protect their legal interests themselv es, but need to be represented by a guardian 
who has to be paid in addition to the lawyers. (iii) Social effects : The problems 
experienced by the economically disadvantaged  and by children are lik ely to remain and 
even become more severe as costs are likely to rise in view of increasing international 
connections. With regard to the present problems experienced by citizens who have 
concluded a civil/registered pa rtnership in one Member Stat e, the situation may improve 
as their status and rights may be recogni sed in more countries  than at present. (iv) 
Financial cost:  The option itself would not imply any financial costs to the EU or other 
public authorities. (v) Economic effects : Legal professionals will be able to charge more 
for increasingly complicated cases due to links to two or more countries. Time delays and costs, including reduction of the value of assets, will become worse. 
Policy Option A.2 - Harmonisation of jurisdic tion rules and introduction of rules on 
automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments, other decisions and authentic 
acts/deeds.  (i) 
Objectives to achieve: Overall, this option would only lead to limited 
                                                 
39 The external study contains a more detailed analysis of the impact of each policy option.   
EN 32   EN positive effects. Even though it is likely to re duce the number of problems, it is unlikely 
that Member States will accept that the State of  the deceased's last habitual residence has 
exclusive jurisdiction as regard s their own nationals and over the estate located in their 
territory without harmonisation of the app licable law. As a consequence, several 
jurisdictions would still be competent to ha ndle the case at the same time, with varying 
outcomes, which would also have negative e ffects with regard to the recognition of 
judgments. (ii) Fundamental Rights:  By reducing slightly the number of problems, thus 
creating a positive economic impact, this opt ion would promote fundamental rights to a 
greater extent than the status quo . (iii) Social effects : There would be minor 
improvements compared to the present situa tion for economically disadvantaged persons 
and children as costs for legal advice and assistance could slightly decrease. (iv) Financial 
costs: Costs for administrative work to produce th e necessary legislation at EU level and 
legislative changes at national level. Eff ective enforcement would require some minor 
expenditure on awareness rising. (v) Economic effects: This option would imply some 
limited cost savings, estimated to a maximum of  5% of the costs curr ently pertaining due 
to the problems addressed. It w ould in particular lead to cost  savings in those cases where 
only one Member State has juri sdiction. Costs would decrease fo r heirs as it would not be 
necessary to prove that they are indeed heirs by bringing proceedings in another Member 
State. Furthermore, the option would also le ad to cost reductions in Member States 
requiring exequatur* of foreign decisions ; such proceedings would no longer be 
necessary. Overall, the option would,  however, not achieve the objectives. 
Policy Option A.3 - Harmonisation of conflict of law rules.  (i) Objectives : The policy 
option would have some limited positive impacts with regard to achieving the objectives. Several jurisdictions could still handle the ca se (i.e. the problem of  parallel proceedings 
would remain), but they would all apply the same conflict of  law rules and, as a result, 
(normally) the same substantive succession law and the introduction of choice of law 
would help citizens to better organise th eir succession. However, due to varying 
interpretation of the concept of habitual resi dence, different laws may still be applied by 
the courts of different Member States in the s hort term (which will be  reduced in the long 
term through case law/rulings by the ECJ).
40 Furthermore, different law may still be 
applied to a succession due to different require ments to pleading and proof of foreign law. 
Finally, the same law may also be applied slightly different in different countries due to 
difficulties in applying foreign law. In certain cases the policy option may help. In particular, it may prevent the phenomenon of forum shopping (at present heirs may try to 
get the succession handled by a certain jurisdic tion depending on what law the court will 
apply, i.e. depending on what law has the best  outcome for them). But since there are no 
rules on recognition and enforcement, heirs may have to go through the same procedures 
in another Member State. Problems due to  lack of recognition of the powers of 
administrator's/ executors would remain, sl owing down the administration and distribution 
of the estate. (ii) Fundamental Rights : With increased legal ce rtainty and a lower risk 
that the outcome of the succession differs am ong Member States, the enforcement of the 
rights of citizens in other Member States is improved.  Due to the introduction of a choice 
                                                
 
40 A reference for a preliminary ruling is already pending before the ECJ: ECJ, Case C-523/07 – 
Applicant A – Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged 
on 23 November 2007. 
EN 33   EN of law, a child may in some rare cases lose a reserved portion; this is not likely to happen 
very often in practice, depending on the extent  to which the testator is allowed to choose 
the law applicable to his/her succession. (iii) Social effects:   The positive impact mainly 
consists of the increase in legal certainty and the resulting economic consequences. It may 
in many cases help to avoid litigation between  family members, such litigation being a 
particular strain for vulnerable parties and ch ildren. The positive economic effect of this 
option for those citizens who have entered into civil partnerships there will be greater 
certainty with regard to the outcome in terms of whether the rights of civil partners (as heirs) are recognised or not
41. (iv) Financial costs:  Financial costs for administration 
would be very low for the introduction of new rules. The introduction of the unitary 
succession system and of habitual residence as dominant connecting factor as well as the admission of limited choice would tend to decr ease costs for applying foreign law, to a 
differing extent in different Member States. (v) Economic effects:  Cost savings would 
amount to maximum 10% due to decreased legal uncertainty. There would be cost 
reductions for citizens in terms of reduced legal fees, in particular in those cases when the 
deceased made a choice of law. Moreover, costs would also be reduced as legal professionals would not need to  look into other countries’ co nflict of law rules. However, 
there would still be costs due  to non-recognition. With rega rd to increased costs for 
citizens, in those countries where citizens ha ve to prove foreign law (e.g. in the United 
Kingdom) costs would be higher than at present when laws of other countries, in particular 
third countries, are applied (for example, if the deceased had his/her habitual residence in 
China, Chinese law would be applied, which the citizen would need to ‘prove’ unless a 
choice of law of the nationality of the deceased had been made). 
Policy Option A.4 - Harmonisation of conflict of law rules and introduction of a 
Certificate of Inheritance a nd Executor / Administrator in transnational successions.  
(i) Objectives to achieve:  Although this option would not fully achieve the objectives, it 
would have some advantages compared to the current situation. In addition to the positive 
impact of option A.3, the key benefits of th is option are that it  would reduce current 
problems in terms of time delays and costs by speeding up the administration and devolution of the estate if the executor/administ rator is allowed to act in the entire EU, and 
the heirs obtain a certificate proving in all Member States that they are, indeed, the rightful 
heirs. However, if there is no harmonisation of  jurisdiction rules there will still be parallel 
proceedings. As a result, certificates may be issued in different countries. (ii) 
Fundamental rights and (iii) Social effects:  Slightly improved compared to option A.3 
due to positive economic effects.
42 (iv) Financial costs:  In addition of those of option A.3, 
those Member States that curr ently do not have a certificat e would need to introduce it. 
There would be a small administrative cost for issuing the certificate in those Member 
States. This may however, be  offset by a court fee. (v) Economic effects:  Cost savings 
would amount to maximum 15% due to decreased legal uncertainty.  
Policy Option A.5 - Harmonis ation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules . (i) 
Objectives to achieve: The same jurisdiction rules would be applied across all Member 
States, which would create some increased le gal certainty with rega rd to which country 
                                                 
41 Except if the "ordre pub lic" clause is applied. 
42 See the external study for more detail. 
EN 34   EN will handle the case and the outcome thereof, in particular as conflict of law rules would 
also be harmonised. Moreover, if jurisdicti on rules are harmonised, there will be less 
conflicting proceedings. However, as recognition and enforcement is still based on bilateral agreements or on national law, proc eedings may still take place in different 
Member States. Furthermore, normally harmoni sation of jurisdiction rules is only a means 
to facilitate the national recognition and enforcement of decisions between Member 
States; none of the existing Conventions or Regulations harmonise jurisdiction rules 
without also harmonising recognitio n and enforcement of decisions. (ii) Fundamental 
rights and (iii) Social effects : Similar to options A.3., A.4 and A.5. (iv) Financial costs:  
Administrative costs more or less similar to  the added costs of options A.2 plus A.3. (v) 
Economic effects:  As for policy option A.4 cost reductions can be expected to be 
maximum 15%.  
Policy Option A.6 - Harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules, and 
introduction of rules on automatic recognit ion and enforcement of judgments, other 
decisions and authentic ac ts/deeds (A.2 plus A.3).  (i) Objectives to achieve: This 
option is more advantageous than the previous options as it combines the three main legal 
elements used to handle international succession s at present (jurisdiction rules, conflict of 
law rules and rules on recognition and enfor cement). Harmonised jurisdiction rules that 
provide exclusive jurisdiction to a Member St ate in combination with rules on recognition 
and enforcement would significantly reduc e the scope for parallel and conflicting 
proceedings or lack of proceedings. Even if an exclusive jurisdiction of only one Member 
State would not be introduced, the harmonised jurisdiction rule s would lead to very few 
possibilities for parallel proceed ings. Predictability of the outcome of the international 
succession would be greatly improved in those cases where a choice of law was made by 
the deceased. The choice is likel y to be recognised in other Me mber States due to the rules 
on automatic recognition and enforcement. This  option would therefore be beneficial for 
heirs (and deceased/testators) in that the succes sion could be finalised faster, in particular 
in those cases where the deceased had made a choice of law, as proceedings may be 
quicker. With regard to the disadvantages of th e option, due to the lack of a certificate of 
administrator/executor it is not certain that an administrator/executor could exercise 
his/her powers in other Member States under this option. (ii) Fundamental rights and 
(iii) Social effects : Slightly improved compared to option A.6. (iv) Financial costs:  
Administrative costs more or less similar to option 1.5. (v) Economic effects:  The option 
would lead to cost reductions of maximum 20%  and would be a great improvement to the 
current situation in terms of achieving the objectives. 
Policy Option A.7 - Harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules, and 
introduction of rules on automatic recognit ion and enforcement of judgments, other 
decisions and authentic acts/deeds, and intr oduction of a Certif icate of Inheritance 
and Executor / Administrator in tran snational successions (A.2 plus A.4).  On the basis 
of the assessment of the polic y options, option A.7 is the pref erred one as it would address 
most of the current problems and lead to th e greatest cost reduction (maximum 30%). It is 
the most ambitious policy option and, corre spondingly, goes furthest in terms of the 
challenges it is designed to address. The fo llowing table presents its impact in a more 
detailed manner than for the other options:   
EN 35   EN Table - Summary assessment of Policy Option A.7 
Objective to be achieved/ 
problem addressed 
 Anticipated 
impact 
effectiveness 
(rated from  – to 
√√√√√√√√√√ )43 Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option necessary to 
achieve impact 
To achieve a situation 
where parallel proceedings 
do not occur and where the same substantive law is 
applied to the entire 
international succession  
√√√√√√√√√√  This option would introduce harmonised jurisdiction rules and conflict of law 
rules, with habitual residence as the so le connecting factor. Apart from an EU 
wide succession system where all countries  have the same substantive rules, 
this option best addresses the problems. 
Harmonised jurisdiction rules that provide  exclusive jurisdiction to a Member 
State in combination with harmonise d conflict of law rules and rules on 
recognition and enforcement and a common certificate of heir (see below) 
would significantly reduce the scope fo r parallel and conflicting proceedings 
or lack of proceedings. 
Despite the harmonised conflict of la w rules, challenges may arise in 
achieving a unified definition of "habitual  residence". In this respect, legal 
certainty would increase in the longer term (e.g. through case law/rulings by 
the ECJ). A reference for a preliminary ruling regarding the interpretation of 
the concept of habitual residence, wh ich is also used in other Community 
instruments, is currently pending before the ECJ.44 
To provide a (limited) 
choice of law for the testator 
√√√√√√√√√√  This option would provide the testator w ith a limited choice of the applicable 
law as part of the conflict of law rules, which would be recognised across the 
EU and would facilitate planning of the succession. Moreover, the succession 
would be finalised faster, as proceedi ngs will be quicker and rules will be 
much clearer with regard to who is the heir (and proving this). 
 To ensure th e recognition 
of:  
 
• Judgments, other 
decisions and authentic 
acts / deeds on 
international 
successions; 
• The powers of 
administrators/ 
executors; and, 
• The status as an heir √√√√√√√√√√  This option would introduce rules on automatic recognition and enforcement 
of judgments, other decisions and authentic acts/deeds. It would also include the introduction of a European Ce rtificate of inheritance and 
Executor/Administrator. 
Problems with regard to the recognition of the powers of 
executors/administrators and decisions would be solved. Problems in relation 
to recognition or enforc ement of judgments/decisions concerning the 
determination of the heirs are likely to  be resolved. Moreover, the powers of 
executors/administrators would be rec ognised, thus facilitating administration 
and distribution, and legal fees and time delays would be reduced. 
This option would in particular be bene ficial for the heirs as implementation 
and administration would be improved (w ith regard to the proceedings as 
well as the outcome of the proceedings).  
To increase the accessibility 
of information on the existence of wills abroad 
– More citizens may draw up wills in orde r to take advantage of the possibility 
to choose the applicable law. Desp ite the current developments in the 
Member States which are establishing and interconnecting registers of wills, 
the problems in relation to obtaining information on the existence of a will 
abroad may therefore increase at least in the short term. 
Fundamental rights:  
Article 17 – Right to 
property 
Article 20 – Equality before Article 17 – Right to property : The right to property would be re inforced. First, testators would 
enjoy a greater freedom in planning their successi on and would have greater security that their 
intentions would be carried out; secondly, by in troducing a faster and more  coordinated process, 
heirs would receive their part of the succession more  quickly, and cases of heirs having to give up 
rights to an inheritance due to legal complexity and pre-emptively high costs would be reduced if 
                                                 
43 Maximum of 10 checkmarks indicates that  the option fully meets the objective(s). 
44 ECJ, Case C-523/07 – Applicant A – Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-
oikeus (Finland) lodged on 23 November 2007. 
EN 36   EN Table - Summary assessment of Policy Option A.7 
Objective to be achieved/ 
problem addressed 
 Anticipated 
impact 
effectiveness 
(rated from  – to 
√√√√√√√√√√ )43 Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option necessary to 
achieve impact 
the law 
Article 21 – Non-
discrimination  
Article 24 – The rights of 
the child  not eliminated. 
Article 20 – Equality before the law:  The measure would have a positive impact on equality 
before the law, as the same law would be applie d across the EU regardless of jurisdiction and forum 
shopping would be avoided. 
Article 21 – Non-discrimination : For same-sex couples, the measure would improve the 
possibility to dispose of their prope rty to the benefit of their partne r regardless of where they have 
their habitual residence.  
Article 24 – The rights of the child : Children are typically involved in succession cases as heirs 
rather than deceased or testators. As a conseque nce, the measures under this option which improve 
the legal situation of heirs would have at the same time positive impacts on children. The 
introduction of a right of the testator to choose th e law applicable to his succession in cross-border 
cases may in some cases weaken the legal position of  children even if such choice is very limited 
(nationality or habitual residence). For instance, a child being entitled to a reserved position of the 
estate under the law of deceased’s last habitual residence (e.g. French law) may lose such a 
reserved portion if the testator has validly opt ed for the application of a law which does not 
recognise a reserved portion of children (e.g. Englis h law). However, the negative impacts of such a 
limited choice of law on children would only occur in  rare cases (most Member States recognise a 
reserved position of children of the deceased), a nd are outweighed by considerable positive effects 
in most cases (in particular increase of legal certa inty, avoidance of legal disputes over conflict of 
law issues, costs savings etc.). Legal practitioners ha ve confirmed that parents only very rarely give 
their children inheritance of  a value which is lower th an the reserved portion. 
Whether the option would lead to positive effects fo r a child of a non-married couple or of a same-
sex couple to have its rights in  cross-border successions recognise d in other Member States is 
doubtful, since preliminary questions concerning w ho qualifies as an heir (e.g. spouse, children, 
close relatives, etc.) are not included in the option. Subject to the case law of the European Court of 
Human Rights, the determination of who is a ‘child ’ of the deceased (e.g. wh ether a child born out 
of wedlock is a ‘child’ of the deceased parent or whether the child of a same -sex couple is the child 
of both parents) would therefor e still be governed by the national conflict of law rules on family 
law of the jurisdiction seized. Harmonisation of substantive family law would be required to 
enforce the right of these children in Member Stat es where such rights are not, or not to the same 
extent, recognised as in other Member States. This is, however, outside the Community's 
competence.  
Social effects There would be considerable benefits for economi cally disadvantaged persons  and children as legal 
fees would be lower than at present. The positiv e impacts of the Regulation on the situation of 
children mainly consist of incr eased legal certainty in cross- border successions and the resulting 
economic consequences (decrease of costs, enforc ement of hereditary rights without time delays 
etc.). As a rule, this will also have a ‘social im pact’ on children, because it may in many cases help 
to avoid litigation between family members, such litigation being a particular strain on children. 
The option would lead to positive effects for same-s ex couples. The determination of who qualifies 
as an heir if the deceased dies intestate is left  to the national substantive law and lies outside the 
Community's power to act; however, a same-sex coup le would be free, within certain limits, to 
choose the law applicable to their succession and coul d thus in certain cases ensure the application 
of a law that recognizes the inherita nce rights of the surviving partner.45 
Legislative effects  Jurisdiction rules, recognition and enforcement The adoption of the Regulation would lead to 
changes of national legislation concerning issues  not indicated in the Regulation (e.g. which 
court/authority locally would need to handle the case, what type of court/authority etc.). The 
Regulation will also only establish the basic prin ciples on recognition and enforcement of foreign 
decisions; the details of the enforc ement procedure will be determined  by the Member States but in 
                                                 
45 The proposal's impact on the rights of the children of such couples are mentioned under "Fundamental Rights".  
EN 37   EN Table - Summary assessment of Policy Option A.7 
Objective to be achieved/ 
problem addressed 
 Anticipated 
impact 
effectiveness 
(rated from  – to 
√√√√√√√√√√ )43 Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option necessary to 
achieve impact 
most cases will likely not differ from the procedures already in place today. 
Conflict of law rules.  No national additional rules are normall y necessary; the Regulation would be 
directly applicable in all Member States. Member States may have to modify or abolish a few rules 
in order to ensure a smooth integration of th e Regulation into their national legal system.  
Certificate . For those countries who at present do not issu e certificates of inheritance, this would 
entail some legislative changes to introduce the rele vant procedure; for those Member States that 
already have certificates, the pro cedures may have to be adapted slightly to take into account the 
uniform EU format. 
Essential accompanying 
measures General . Training of legal professionals (e.g. lawyers,  judges, notaries, solicitors) and judicial 
cooperation. 
Certificate . Clear template for the certificate(s). It would need to be determined if there would be 
fixed costs for obtaining a certificate across the EU  (for example, a fee would be charged rather 
than having to pay a proportion of the property, as currently is the case in e.g. Germany, where the certificate is used for taxation purposes). 
Financial costs General . Costs for administrative work to produce the n ecessary legislation at EU level. This is 
estimated to be the equivalent of one Full Time  Equivalent Commission o fficial during one year. 
Training of legal professionals to  ensure judicial cooperation. 
Jurisdiction rules.  Costs to establish the necessary additiona l changes of national legislation in the 
Member States with regard to the harmonised ju risdiction rules, e.g. what court/authority would 
need to handle the case, and enforcement. 
Applicable law.  Financial costs for administration would be low for the introduction of the new 
rules; costs would be similar to the costs for the introduction of the Rome I and II Regulations. 
Certificate . The Member States that currently do not ha ve a certificate would need new legislation 
to identify what body should issue the certificate and what proceedings would lead to it. There 
would also be a small administrative cost of issu ing the certificate in those countries that do not 
have a certificate at the moment. This  may be weighed up by a court fee.  
Economic effects This option would lead to cost reductions of maxi mum 30% of the costs currently pertaining due to 
the problems addressed by the policy option. These cost savings would be a result of clearer rules 
on which jurisdiction will handle the case, that th e same law is normally applied independent of 
jurisdiction and that the outcome of the succession not only is the same across the EU, but also is 
recognised across the Union and that heirs can prove their rights. 
Benefits and advantages This option would solve most of the problems experi enced at present, which can be solved without 
amending national substantive laws . 
Disadvantages and risks  The political feasibility of the option; it is the most far-reaching option of  those identified and 
therefore could potentially give rise to more political opposition than a less ambitious measure.  
Policy Option A.8: Establishment of a data base / knowledge management system on 
conflict of law, jurisdiction rules and competent bodies.  (i) Objectives to achieve:  If 
citizens are more aware that another country may have juri sdiction over (parts of) their 
succession and that another country’s law may be applied with different outcomes than 
expected, they would be (slightly) better prepared and may e.g. seek legal advice. 
However, the database would need to be regularly updated and translated, and not all 
EN 38   EN citizens have access to Internet-based systems (in particular older generations). Benefits 
would be very limited; it is  unlikely that they would outwe igh the costs for establishing 
and running the system. In particular, the option would not solve any of the current 
problems due to legal differences; at its best  it would only make citizens more aware of 
the consequences resulting from them. (ii) Fundamental rights : Insignificant impacts due 
to very limited positive e ffect on legal certainty. (iii) Social effects : Economically 
disadvantaged citizens may be able to access information which they would otherwise not have been able to obtain (due to high cost s for legal advice). However, not all these 
citizens are likely to have access to Intern et-based systems. In addition, due to the 
technical complexity of this subject matter, it is likely that not all citizens are able to 
understand the full impact of the different legal rules. (iv) Financial costs:  Administrative 
costs for creating and regular ly updating the knowledge management system. Little or no 
income from users. (v) Economic effects:  Very limited positive impact due to reduction 
of costs for legal advice for those citizens involved in relatively simple cases. 
Policy Option A.9: EU wide information campaign on succession (legislation and 
existing / forth-coming instruments).  (i) Objectives to achieve: As with policy option 
A.8, national information campaigns  could at its best make ci tizens better aware that the 
outcome of their succession may be different than expected if th ey have property in 
another Member State. The campaign would no t allow citizens to check the outcome of 
their specific case (which th e database/knowledge management  system would), but it may 
reach a wider audience than the database/know ledge management system. Also similar to 
option A.8, it would not solve a ny of the current problems due to legal differences; it 
would only make citizens more aware of the consequences resulting from them. Benefits would be very limited; it is  unlikely that they would outwe igh the costs for establishing 
the and running the campaigns. (ii) Fundamental rights and (iii) Social effects : Similar to 
option A.8 . (iv)  Financial costs:  5,000,000 € minimum, depending on the duration and 
the media chosen. (v) Economic effects:  Similar to option A.8. 
7.2. Impact of the policy options that that address problems of identifying wills 
abroad (Policy options B) 
Policy Option B.1 - Status quo . (i) Objectives to achieve : Due to the ongoing trend of 
establishing registers of wills and interconnec ting these, it is likely that wills could be 
identified abroad more easily in  the future than at present, which will have a small positive 
impact on the occurrence of parallel and confli cting proceedings or lack of proceedings. 
However, the positive impact w ill be very limited. First, ev en though most countries are 
currently establishing registers of wills, most  benefits will not be experienced until the 
long term (since wills registered now may not be executed until in many years time). 
Second, as not all wills are registered, even the possibility to check whether a will is 
registered in another country will not lead to legal certainty concerning whether a will 
exists or not. Finally, stake holder consultations have pointed  to current problems with 
regard to searching for wills in other countries;  this is on the basis of names at present and 
there are problems e.g. with regard to names written in another alphabet and what name to 
search for (maiden name, name as married etc. ). This may improve in the short term, but 
all related problems are unlikely to be  possible to solve until the long term. (ii) 
Fundamental rights : If wills are identified to a higher  degree, the right to property is 
EN 39   EN promoted. This policy options includes exchan ges information concer ning the existence of 
wills may lead to issues with regard to the protection of personal data (Article 8 of the Charter). The European Network of Register s of Wills Association (ENRWA) is a notary-
based system set up in 2005 which according to stakeholders is a secure repository of 
personal data. Also with regard to the indivi dual registers of wills, and exchanges of data 
outside of the ENRWA system, according to the individual registers, personal data is 
protected. (iii) Social effects:  In practice, disadvantaged ci tizens who do not seek advice 
from notaries might be unaware of the possibility to register wills. (iv) Financial costs:  
There would be no financial costs to the EU of  this option. The costs for establishing and 
maintaining registers of wills would continue to be borne at national or local level, or even 
at organisational level (notary or ganisations). Citizens would bear  some of the costs, as the 
current systems are based on a fee for registering wills as well as searching for wills. The initial costs for setting up a register of  wills vary greatly between Member States
46. As far 
as interconnection costs are concerned, the Belg ian register of wills  indicated that the 
costs of the creation of inte rconnection with the French register amounted to 95,000 euro. 
(v) Economic effects:  The positive economic effects rela tive to the problems addressed 
will be extremely limited. The economic effects will mainly be experienced by individual citizens (time delays may be decreased, fees to  legal professionals to identify wills abroad 
may be decreased, but in particular it would be less likely that the inheritance be given to 
the ‘wrong’ heirs) and legal professionals (easier searches  for wills abroad). For the 
general economy, it is not particularly relevant who the individual heir is; what is relevant 
is if undue time delays with regard to th e succession can be avoided (as wills would be 
identifable faster than at present). 
Policy option B.2 – Commission Recomme ndation on the establishment of 
interconnected national registers of wills . (i) Objectives to achieve: Similar to the 
status quo , if more Member States establish registers of will s which are interconnected, it 
is likely that wills can be iden tified abroad to a higher extent in  the future than at present, 
which will have a small positive impact on the occurrence of parallel and conflicting 
proceedings or lack of proceedings, as well as allowing citizens to know they may inherit. 
A Commission Recommendation may speed up the pr ocess of Member States establishing 
registers of wills that are compatible and may be interconnected. It may also lead to that 
some Member States that otherwise would not have established a register will do so. 
Therefore, this option scores higher than st atus quo. However, even though registration of 
wills would be encouraged, this would still no t be compulsory. This means that although 
registers would be available in a higher proportion of EU Member States, a confirmation 
that no will has been registered would not mean that no will exists. (ii) Fundamental 
rights and (iii) Social impacts: Similar to option B.1. European wide information 
campaigns could make a larger group of citizen s aware of the benefits of registering wills.  
(iv) Financial costs: Similar to option B.1 plus costs for administrative work to produce 
Recommendation. (v) Economic effects : This option would lead to maximum 1-2% 
reduction of costs due to current problems. 
                                                
 
46 See Annex 3 for more detailed figures as regards the costs for running a register in the different 
Member States who have done so. 
EN 40   EN Policy option B.3 - Compulsory establishment of interconnected national registers of 
wills and organisation of information ca mpaigns. (i) Objectives to achieve: Compared 
to the two previous options, under this option Me mber States would be obliged not only to 
create registers of wills, but to ensure that they are compatible with registers of wills in 
other countries and could be interconnected. If more wills are identified, the risk of parallel and conflicting proceedings is re duced. However, citizens would still not be 
obliged to register their wills, which reduces the positive effects of the option. (ii) 
Fundamental rights and (iii) Social impacts: Similar to option B.1. On the other hand, if 
a will has been registered, reduced legal fees to legal professionals related to identifying a 
will may mean that economically disadvant aged groups may have improved possibilities 
to access their (potential) inheritance.  (iv) Financial costs: Similar to option B.1 plus 
costs for administrative work to produce a Directive. (v) Economic effects : Similar to 
policy option B.2, this option w ould also lead to maximum 1- 2% reduction of costs due to 
current problems. 
Policy option B.4: Establishment of a central EU Register of Wills.  (i) Objectives to 
achieve: If more wills are identified, the risk of  parallel and conflicting proceedings is 
reduced. However, positive impacts would not be much greater than the previous option 
B.3; both options would merely mean that it is  possible to register wills across the EU. In 
the short term (and with great lik elihood also in the long term),  the register would need to 
co-exist with national registers. Indeed, acco rding to stakeholders consulted, registering 
and identifying wills is at present primarily a national problem, even though the proportion of wills that concern cross-bo rder successions is likely to increase. (ii) 
Fundamental rights and (iii) Social impacts: Similar to option B.4.  (iv) Financial costs: 
The establishment of a central register, whic h would co-exist with  national registers, 
would amount to 120 million €. It can be assu med that the costs would be reimbursed by 
those registering and requesting information. (v) Economic effects : Similar to policy 
option B.2, this option would also lead to  maximum 1-2% reduction of costs due to 
current problems.  
Policy Option B.5 - Creation of a webpage on  existing registers of wills and national 
rules . (i) Objectives to achieve:  The option may lead to some positive impacts in that 
slightly more citizens may become aware that re gisters of wills exist, and it could facilitate 
the work of legal professiona ls. It would, however, not solv e any problems. Indirectly, it 
could potentially promote the establishment of registers in those count ries that currently 
do not have any (as it would become obvious which countries have and which ones do not have registers), but positive impacts on reducin g current problems can be expected to be 
insignificant. The option may at the best be  used as an information tool by legal 
practitioners and may have some minor posit ive impacts on the awareness of citizens. (ii) 
Fundamental rights and (iii) Social impact:  Those citizens who are currently most 
likely to make wills (older citizens) may not have access to Internet. (iv) Financial costs: 
Costs for information campaigns at national level. (v) Economic effects : Insignificant. 
Policy Option B.6 - National information campaigns on wills (legislation and existing 
/ forth-coming instruments).  (i) Objectives to achieve:  This policy option would only 
lead to minor positive impacts as some citizen s that would otherwise not have made and 
registered a will are likely to draw up and re gister a will, which would lead to a minor 
EN 41   EN reduction of parallel and conflicting proceedi ngs (or lack of proceedings). It would, 
however, not solve any problems. Furthermore, not all countries have registers of wills at present, which means that in some countries there would be no positive impacts at all. (ii) 
Fundamental rights and (iii) Social impact : Minor positive effects on some citizens that 
would otherwise not have made a registered will. (iv) Financial costs: Costs for 
information campaigns at national level. (v) Economic effects : Insignificant. 
8. C
OMPARING THE OPTIONS  
8.1. Comparison of policy options and justification of choosing the preferred 
option 
Table 8.1 provides a comparison of the ‘ratings’ of the nine  policy options A (policy 
options that address problems caused by nati onal (legislative) differences concerning 
devolution of international successi ons) elaborated in section 6.2.1.  
Table 8.2 compares the ratings of the six pol icy options B (policy options that address 
problems of identifying wills abro ad), elaborated in section 6.2.2. 
The policy options are categorised according to  their potential to meet the objectives 
defined above in section 5, with ten checkmarks ( √√√√√√√√√√ ) indicating that an option fully 
meets all objectives. 
As regards policy options A, on the basis of the assessments  of the policy options, the 
preferred option is Policy Option A.7  as it would address current problems as 
effectively as possible and lead to the greatest cost reductions  (maximum 30%).  
As regards policy options B, on the basis of  the assessments of the policy options, the 
preferred option is Policy Option B.2  (Commission Recommenda tion) even though it 
does not receive the highest rating. In comp arison, option B.4 (EU central register of 
wills), which received the highest ranking, wo uld be significantly more costly without 
providing substantially higher bene fits. It takes account of the fact that the identification 
of wills is to a certain extent a national probl em and is likely to remain such even in the 
long term (despite the trend towards citizens having increasing cross- border links). This 
preference is also in line with th e rating made by the stakeholders. 
 
EN 42   EN Table 8.1 – Comparison of ratings of policy options A  
Objective/costs Policy Option 
A.1 
(Status quo) Policy Option 
A.2 
(Jurisdiction 
rules & 
recognition) Policy Option 
A.3 
(C-O-L rules) Policy Option 
A.4 
(C-O-L rules & 
certificate) Policy Option 
A.5 
(C-O-L rules & 
jurisdiction 
rules) Policy Option 
A.6 
(A.2 plus A.3) Policy Option 
A.7 
(A.2 plus A.4) Policy Option 
A.8 
(Database)  Policy Option 
A.9 
(National 
information 
campaigns) 
To achieve a situation where parallel 
proceedings do not occur and where 
different substantive laws are not applied to the same international succession  0 √√ √√√√  √√√√√√  √√√√√√√  √√√√√√√√  √√√√√√√√√√  √ √ 
To provide a (limited) choice of law for the 
testator 0 0 √√√√√  √√√√√√  √√√√√  √√√√√√√√√  √√√√√√√√√√  0 0 
To ensure the recognition of:  
(i) Judgments, other decisions and 
authentic acts / deeds on international 
successions; 
(ii) The powers of 
administrators/executors; and, 
(iii) The status as an heir 0 √√√√√  √√ √√√√√√  √√√ √√√√√√√√  √√√√√√√√√√  0 0 
To increase the accessibility of information 
on the existence of wills abroad 0 0 – – – – – 0 0 
Total score: 0 7 11 18 10 25 30 1 1 
Economic effects Present: 4 bn 
euro/year; 
potential doubling of costs in 10 years. Costs savings: 
Max 10% Costs savings: 
Max 15% Costs savings: 
Max 15% Costs savings: 
Max 15% Costs savings: 
Max 20% Costs savings: 
Max 30% Costs savings: 
Insignificant Costs savings: 
Insignificant 
 
 
EN 43   EN Table 8.2 – Comparison of ratings of policy options B  
Objective/costs Policy Option B.1 
(Status quo) Policy Option B.2 
(EC Recommendation 
on interconnected 
national registers & info 
campaigns) Policy Option B.3 
(Compulsory 
establishment of 
national registers of 
wills that are 
interconnected) Policy Option B.4 
(EU central register of 
wills) Policy Option B.5 
(Webpage on national 
registers of wills and 
national rules) Policy Option B.6 
(National information 
campaigns) 
To achieve a situation where parallel proceedings do 
not occur and where different substantive laws are not 
applied to the same international succession  0 √√ √√√ √√√√  √ √ 
To provide a (limited) choice of law for the testator 0 0 0 0 0 0 
To ensure the recognition of:  
i) Judgments, other decisions and authentic 
acts / deeds on international successions; 
ii) The powers of administrators/executors; 
and, 
iii) The status as an heir 0 √ √ √ 0 0 
To increase the accessibility  of information on the 
existence of wills abroad 0 √√ √√√ √√√√  √ √ 
Total score 0 5 7 9 2 2 
Economic effects Present: 4 bn euro/year; 
potential doubling of costs in 10 years.
 Costs savings:  
Max 1-2%  Costs savings: Max 1-2%
 Costs savings: Max 2%
 Costs savings:  Insignificant
 Costs savings:  Insignificant
 
 
EN 44   EN 9. THE PREFERRED OPTION  
This section describes the preferred option and the expected imp acts of the preferred 
policy option, which is a combinati on of policy options A.7 and B.2. 
9.1. The preferred option and its effects 
The preferred option is, in brief: 
The harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules, the introduction 
of rules on automatic recognition and enfo rcement of judgments, other decisions 
and authentic acts/deeds, the introduc tion of a European Certificate of 
Inheritance (including Executor/Administrator powers) in transnational successions and a Commission Recommendation on the establishment of interconnected national registers of w ills and organisation of information 
campaigns. 
As outlined above, this option would involve EU action in the form of: 
• The adoption of a Regulation  on the harmonisation of c onflict of law rules and 
jurisdiction rules, the introduction of  rules on automatic recognition and the 
enforcement of judgments, other decisions and authentic acts/deeds, the introduction of 
a Certificate of Heir and Executor / Admini strator in transnational successions; and,  
• The issuing of a Recommendation  on the establishment of interconnected national 
registers of wills and organisation of information campaigns. 
The preferred option consists of the following elements: 
• The harmonisation of jurisdiction rules; 
• The harmonisation of applicable law ru les, including the introduction of a limited 
choice of law for the testator; 
• Establishing rules on recognition and enfor cement of judgments, other decisions and 
authentic acts/deeds; 
• The creation of a European Certificate of  heir and administrator/executor; and, 
• The adoption of a Commi ssion Recommendation on the establishment of 
interconnected registers of wills and th e organisation of information campaigns. 
Further details of the prefe rred option's elements are out lined in the external study. 
9.2. The preferred option’s achi evement of the objectives 
As indicated in the assessment of the indi vidual policy options, this  option addresses the 
problems as identified above better  than any of the other options : 
 
EN 45   EN • Risk of parallel proceedings and application of different substantive laws to the same 
international succession; 
• Insufficient (limited) choice of law for the testator; 
• Non-recognition of: 
– Judgments, other decisions and auth entic acts/deeds on international 
successions; 
– powers of administra tors/executors; and, 
– heirship. 
• Inaccessibility of information on the existence of wills abroad. 
Harmonised jurisdiction rules th at provide exclusive jurisdic tion to a Member State, in 
combination with harmonised conflict of law rules and rules on recognition and 
enforcement and a common certificate of inher itance, would eliminate the potential for 
conflicts of jurisdiction. 
The introduction of unified confli ct of law rules would allow fo r a faster finalisation of the 
succession, as the competent authorities would no  longer have to deal with different and 
potentially contradictory nati onal conflict of law rules to identify the substantive law 
governing the question of who inherits. The in troduction of rules on a limited choice of 
law for the testator would allow citizens to be tter plan and organise their succession in 
advance. 
Problems with regard to the recognition of powers of executors/administrators and 
decisions would be reduced. As these powers would be recognised abroad, legal fees and 
time delays would be reduced. Problems in relation to recognition or enforcement of 
judgments/decisions concerning th e determination of the heirs are also likely to be 
resolved. This, in combination with the recogn ition of powers of administrators/executors, 
means that implementation and administration would be optimized (with regard to the 
procedures as well as their outcome). 
Furthermore, the Commission Recommendation may speed up Member States' creation of 
registers of wills that are compatible and interoperable, which would facilitate the identification of wills in other Member Stat es. The information campaigns could lead a 
higher number of citizens to draw up wills and register them than at present. As a consequence, more wills would be registered an d subsequently identified than at present. 
This will have a certain positive impact in terms of speeding up the succession 
proceedings, and thereby lead to less delay and decreased legal costs. However, the 
 
EN 46   EN positive impact of the register may be limite d because there would be no obligation to 
register wills.47 
Overall, the preferred option would increase the likelihood that the rights of the testator, 
potential heirs and persons formally or ot herwise related to the deceased, private and 
public creditors etc. would be fulfilled in an  effective and efficient way. The option would 
also increase the likelihood that the objectiv es of the future deceased/testator are met. 
The preferred policy option respects the fundame ntal rights of the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union. 
9.3. Economic impacts 
In sum, the preferred option coul d lead to cost reduc tions of up to an es timated 32% of the 
costs of € 4 bn caused by the current problems, i.e. € 1.3 billion.48 
9.3.1.  Financial costs and benefits 
The process of adoption and implementation of the preferred option would create financial 
costs both at the EU level and on the national level, mainly costs for administrative work 
to produce the necessary legislation at EU and at national level, the costs for establishing 
and running a register of wills and for information campaigns. For a detailed analysis of these costs and corresponding benefits of th e preferred option, s ee the external study. 
9.3.2.  Impact on the legal profession 
On the one hand, the preferred option, through its harmonisation of the applicable law, 
would result in a re duction of fees for le gal professionals who would charge less for 
complicated cases. On the other hand, if th e value of legacies and the number of 
international cases increase as projected, the overall volume of successions work would 
probably also increase. As indicated above, th ere is also evidence of a rising number of 
contested cases. In addition, the new rules will  improve predictability for citizens. It is 
likely that more of them will wish to organise  their succession in advance, therefore using 
the services of legal profe ssionals. Within the legal practice, as with every other 
professional service, there are always mark et changes, and the magnitude of those 
associated with the preferred option is likely to be small and gradual.
49  
                                                 
47 Accordingly, a confirmation from a register that no  will has been registered would not mean that no 
will existed. There may also be problems searching for wills of citizens in other countries due to, 
for example, name changes or names in another alphabet. 
48 The establishment of interconnected national registers of wills and the related information 
campaigns would contribute up to 2% of these costs reductions. The remainder of the costs savings 
would be a result of clearer rules on jurisdiction; the identical applicable law regardless of jurisdiction; the outcome of the devolution of the succession not only being identical, but also 
recognised across the EU; and of heirs being able to prove their rights. 
49 See also Annex 4 for more information. 
 
EN 47   EN 9.3.3.  Impact on taxation 
The preferred option would be tax neutral in so far as it would not entail any changes to 
the Member States' national legislation on inheritance taxation, which are expressly 
excluded from the scope of the proposed Regulat ion. This is because the rules determining 
which Member State is competent to collect  inheritance taxes on a given succession are 
totally independent from those rules determin ing the civil law governing this succession: 
the first will continue to result from nati onal taxation law, includi ng bilateral conventions 
on double taxation, whereas the latter will be  harmonised by the future Regulation.  
Example : Under the future Regulation, a Dutch couple living in Spain and owing a house there, 
would be allowed to choose Dutch law as the law applicable to the civil aspects of their 
successions. However, since the future Regulation will not impact on the rules on inheritance taxes, 
the surviving spouse will, in principle, s till be subject to Spanish inheritance taxes. 
Hence, the preferred option would potentially  have implications on the amount of 
inheritance tax revenues collect ed by a given Member State.  For movable property (e.g. a 
bank account), if, under the law applicable under na tional rules, the heir is the son of the 
deceased living in Member State A, whereas, under the law applicable under the future Regulation, the heir is a charity located in  Member State B, Member State A will not 
longer be able to collect inheritance taxes.  These effects would accordingly be marginal 
and indirect (also see Annex 5). 
As a consequence, the proposed Regulat ion does not contribute to reducing the 
complexities of tax systems applicable to successions with transnational elements. In particular, it does not prevent citizens who take  full advantage of the Internal market of 
being subject to double taxation or
50 to taxation rules which do not fit their legitimate 
expectations. Indeed, it is clearly impossible, for legal and political reasons, to modify the 
existing regime in the frame of the present Regulation. 
9.4. Potential draw-backs/risks and sensitive elements 
Potential risks and politically  sensitive elements include: 
• The use of habitual residence as a unique connecting factor rath er than nationality. 
• The extent to which citizens take advantage of  the possibility to make a choice of law 
and register wills. 
• The inclusion of the administration of the succession in the scope of the instrument. 
• The treatment of compulso ry inheritance rights. 
• The political feasibility of adopting a system of exclusive jurisdiction. 
                                                 
50 This section does not come back  on the draw-backs and risks of those alternative elements which 
have already been developed in section 6.4. 
 
EN 48   EN • To what extent registers of wills are established and interconnected. 
The extent to which citizens take advantage of the possibility to make a choice of law 
and register wills  will impact the benefits and level of costs reductions. The more citizens 
choose the applicable law, make a will and regi ster this, the greater th e benefits will be. At 
present the tradition of drawing up wills va ry between Member States; whereas it is 
common in some countries (e .g. United Kingdom), in others  it is far from standard 
practice. The proportion of citizen s who take the possi bility to make a choice of law (in a 
will) may therefore vary between Member St ates. It is likely that the proportion would 
increase in the long term. 
Adopting  a system of exclusive jurisdiction  may be problematic for some of the Member 
States that currently have a split system based partly on the location of immovable property.
51 However, their concerns relate mostly  to their respective systems of land and 
other property registers, whose accuracy need s to be safeguarded. The preferred measure 
would not affect these systems; to acquire ow nership of the property in question, the heir 
would still have to comply w ith any registry requirements of  the Member State in which 
the property is situated. 
Finally, as concerns the establishment of interconnected national registers of wills and 
related information campaigns , the Recommendation would not impose any legal 
obligations on Member States. The positive imp acts on citizens are therefore not certain. 
9.5. Fundamental Rights, EU adde d value and proportionality 
9.5.1.  Fundamental rights 
See the description in th e table above in Secti on 7 (Policy Option A.7). 
9.5.2.  Proportionality 
Measures taken have to be pr oportionate to the size and extent  of the problems addressed. 
The preferred option respects the proportionality  principle. It concerns only cases with 
cross-border elements. It would not harmonise substantive laws, but merely aim to achieve 
a situation where parallel proceedings are avoi ded and different substantive laws are not 
applied to the same international succession.  As outlined above, benefits and savings 
largely outweigh its costs and disadvantages . Accordingly, the preferred option would 
ensure the harmonious co-existence of different national substantive laws. 
9.5.3.  European added value 
The preferred option has the poten tial to promote trust in the in ternal market and facilitate 
mobility of EU citizens. The problems addressed by the preferred option are in part a consequence of the internal market. At the same time, if they are not solved, the trust in 
                                                
 
51 In their responses to the Green Paper, six Memb er States (FR, LU, IT, PL, UK and SK) indicated 
that a single forum in matte rs of succession should not be appointed. Four Member States (NL, ES, 
SE, LV) were in favour  of the establishment of a single forum. 
 
EN 49   EN the EU internal market and the EU area of fr eedom, security and jus tice without internal 
borders may be damaged. Because of EU c itizens’ increasing cross-border links, higher 
numbers of citizens are likely to be affect ed by problems in the future. Cross-border 
successions are both more costly and time-consuming for citizens than national successions. Some transnational successions ar e never finalised due to complications. By 
ensuring a smoother devolution of international successions, the preferred option would 
facilitate the life of the m odern and mobile EU citizen. 
10. M
ONITORING AND EVALUATION  
In order to monitor the eff ective implementation of the Re gulation as well as the success 
of the Recommendation on the creation of interconnected registers of wills and the information campaigns, regular evaluation and reporting by the Commission will take 
place. To fulfil these tasks, the Commission w ill prepare regular evaluation reports on the 
application of the Regulation, based on consultations of Memb er States and stakeholders. 
Regular expert meetings will also take place to discuss implementation problems and 
exchange best practices between Member St ates in the framework of the European 
Judicial Network. The Commission will also mon itor the creation and the utilisation of the 
wills registers and the use of certificates of i nheritance to track the success of the measures 
in facilitating the life of the Union citizens. The extern al study contains many useful 
suggestions on potential monitori ng and evaluation instrument s and concrete indicators 
that will be taken into co nsideration by the Commission. 
 
 
EN 50   EN ANNEX 1 - Glossary  
 
Term Definition 
Administration of a 
succession Depending on the national law, the succession may not pass 
directly into the ownership of the heirs, but first be administered by a heir or a third party. The Administrator 
frequently pays all taxes on the inheritance before distributing it or manages the estate while the question of 
who has which rights to th e inheritance is solved. 
Civil justice / civil law Law that gove rns the relationships  between private 
individuals, as opposed to the relationship between the State 
and the individual (also used as a term for the continental legal orders, as opposed to common law ). 
Conflict of laws rules A set of rules that govern which national → substantive law 
is applied to a given situation. They frequently use broad categories (“Succession”, “Marriage”, “Divorce”, “Contracts” etc.). See Rome I and Rome II for examples. 
Deceased Person whose death occasions the succession. 
Deed Formal document recording a le gal fact or act, authenticated 
by a public authority such as a notary. 
Distribution of a succession The act of transf erring ownership of i ndividual items of a 
succession to the heirs and legatees. 
Enforcement The act of a judicial authority by which a judgment or 
administrative order is put into practice (e.g. a judgment 
ordering a debtor to pay 100 euros may be enforced by attaching the requisite sum in a bank account of the debtor’s 
and then disbursing it  to the creditor). 
Exequatur Procedure which is formally required in certain countries for 
recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment. 
Forum A judicial body, e.g. court. 
Forum non conveniens [Latin, ‘inconvenient forum’.] This doctrine is employed 
when the court chosen by the pl aintiff (the party suing) is 
inconvenient for witnesses or  poses an undue hardship on 
the defendants, who must petition the court for an order transferring the case to a more convenient court. 
Intestate succession Succession in the absence of a will. The heirs are 
determined by the rules of law. 
Intestacy The quality of being or dying having made no valid will 
 
EN 51   EN Term Definition 
Gifts  inter vivos  [Latin, ‘between the living’.]  transfer between living persons 
(also: transaction inter vivos ). 
International jurisdiction Power of the courts  in a particular country to try a case. 
Jurisdiction 
- positive conflict of j. 
- negative conflict of j. The power, right, or authority to  interpret and apply the law, 
usually exercised by a court or another authority. A positive conflict of jurisdiction arises when more than one court or 
authority has jurisdiction by vi rtue of its laws; a negative 
conflict of jurisdiction arises  when no court or authority 
deems itself competent for an issue. These conflicts can occur due to non-harmonized rules on international jurisdiction. 
Legatee  Beneficiary of a testamentary disposition (who might not 
have inherited anything by virtue of the application of the 
default legal rules on succession in the absence of a 
testament, e.g. a friend, a housekeeper etc.). 
lex rei sitae [Latin] The law of the state in which an item (often 
immovable property) is located. 
Lispendence [Latin, ‘pending suit’] Situati on in which at the moment 
when one court or authority is seized, another court or 
authority is already in the pr ocess of examining a dispute. 
Reciprocal wills Wills made by two or more persons in the same document, 
either for the benefit of a third party or for their mutual benefit. They are forbidden in some Member States because they can limit the testators’ testamentary freedom by binding them to the agreement. 
Recognition The act of accepting a judg ment or other act of sovereignty 
of another state as if  it had been issued  by an authority of 
one’s own state. 
Scission Situation in which the succession is not governed by one 
and the same set of → substantive rules, but where one part 
of the succession is governed by the law of one state and another part by the law of anothe r state. This situation arises 
frequently with respect to immovable property (apartments 
etc.), where the current conflict of law rules call for the 
application of the → lex rei sitae . 
Substantive rules of law The legal rules governing the subs tance of the ma tter, i.e. in 
this context the questions of who inherits, how the 
succession is divided up, etc., as opposed to e.g. the conflict of law rules, which govern the technical question of which state’s set of substant ive rules is applied. 
 
EN 52   EN Term Definition 
Succession agreements Agreements made be fore death relating to one or more 
future successions, usually in ex change for a service or good 
provided by a third party who in turn will receive a share of the succession. Often used in planning SME transfers to the next generation. 
 
 
EN 53   EN ANNEX 2 - The magnitude of international successions and wills  
To assess the general current situation, esp ecially the scale of successions with cross-
border elements and scale of legal activity de aling with successions, estimates have been 
made of the following (as far as possible): 
• The number of successions and wills in the EU; 
• The number of cross-border successions w ithin the EU involving (a) a deceased who 
lived in a Member State different from his/ her its state of origin  or (b) a succession 
involving properties (e.g. ba nk accounts or immovable prope rty) distributed in more 
than one Member State; 
• The number of successions in which the comp etent authority (e.g. court, administrator 
or notary) applies laws of other EU Member States.  
• The number of successions in which the comp etent authority (e.g. court, administrator 
or notary) applies laws  of third countries. 
• The value/amount of all these succ essions in the EU (in euro); 
• The number of cases where foreign law is not applied on the basis of ‘ordre public’ 
concerning (a) other EU Member States; and, (b) third countries. 
• The number of legal professionals involved by Member States an d the turnover which 
cross-border successions represent for these professionals (by group of professionals).  
The estimates are based on statistical data, results from relevant surveys and information 
obtained from national authorities, professi onal bodies and individua l legal professionals. 
While efforts have been made to substantia te the estimates with data from as many 
countries as possible in order to maximise its robustness and soundness , useful data were 
received only from a limited number of Memb er States. Estimates have been made on 
available information. It is clearly outlined what data have informed what estimations. 
1. Estimated number of successions and wills in the EU 
Exact data on the overall number of successions  were not given by the stakeholders 
contacted. However, it was estimated by survey  respondents that this number comes very 
close to the number of all de ceased adults in the given Memb er State. In case of death, a 
succession procedure is launched if the deceas ed owned or is assumed to have owned 
property, which applies to almost all adults. 
According to Eurostat figures, the total number of persons deceased in 200652 was 
4,744,852 persons in the EU27 (see Table 2.2 for individual country figures). The number 
of successions launched in the EU can be estimated to correspond to the number of 
                                                 
52 2005 for the UK and 2004 for Italy. 
 
EN 54   EN deceased persons who were aged 18 or more at th e point of their death (the age of majority 
is 18 in the Member States of the Eu ropean Union53), which was 4,703,286 in 2006 
(99.1% of all deceased).   
The succession procedure of the deceased covered by Eurostat statistics is not necessary 
launched in the EU, as the main connecting fa ctor of the deceased might have connected 
him/her to a third country. Accordingly, successions of deceased EU nationals who resided in third countries (and thus not appearing in the mo rtality statistics) might be 
launched in the EU.  
An estimated 29 million citizens (correspondi ng to 6% of the EU population in 2006) are 
currently living outside the borders of th e EU. This indicator, however, strongly 
overestimates the number of deaths abroad  where a succession woul d nevertheless be 
launched in the EU. Many of these citizens work  or live abroad only temporarily and may 
return to their country of origin at a later stage.  
Table 1 – EU nationals res iding in third countries 
Country Population (2006) Citizens living outside 
the EU Citizens abroad / 
population 
Austria  8,265,925 450,000 5.4% 
Estonia   1,344,684 27,000 2.0% 
Finland   5,255,580 85,000 1.6% 
France   62,998,773 778,654 1.2% 
Germany   82,437,995 1,000,000 1.2% 
Ireland   4,209,019 1,700,000 40.4% 
Italy   58,751,711 1,727,234 2.9% 
Netherlands   16,334,210 700,000 4.3% 
Poland   38,157,055 3,742,000 9.8% 
Slovakia   5,389,180 414 0.0% 
Slovenia   2,003,358 450,000 22.5% 
Spain   43,758,250 1,500,000 3.4% 
United Kingdom   60,425,786 11,298,163 18.7% 
Subtotal 389,331,526 23,458,465 6.0% 
                                                 
53 With the exception of Scotland, where the age of maturity is 16, but this has been disregarded in the 
analysis. 
 
EN 55   EN Table 1 – EU nationals res iding in third countries 
Country Population (2006) Citizens living outside 
the EU Citizens abroad / 
population 
EU27 total 493,007,893 29,705,296 6.0% 
Source: Eurostat (population figures), Member State aut horities (data or estimates on the number of nationals 
living outside the EU) 
The estimations of the number of wills  in the EU27 are based on information supplied by 
national registers of wills (registers of wills in 9 Member States have sent data or estimates), on survey data from the UK and Germany
54 concerning the proportion of adult 
population who draw up a will (36% and 25.8%, respectively) and Eurostat data on the 
number of adult population (18+).  
Available data show large differences across Member States concerning the share of adult 
population who has drawn up a will. The figures  range from approximately 36% in the 
UK (survey data) to as few as around 1.1% in  Hungary (estimates based on the number of 
wills registered55), their average being around 24%. Based on this figure and on Eurostat 
numbers on the number of adults ( 396,125,456 on January 1, 2006), around 97 million 
wills are estimated to exist in the EU today. 
Figures and estimates are provi ded by country in Table 2. 
 
                                                 
54 UK: a 2007 study by the National Consumer Council, interviewing 2,673 adults in England and 
Wales; Germany: a survey of 1,424 adults made by TNS Infratest in August 2007, commissioned 
by the Deutsches Forum für Erbrecht e.V.  
55 It should be noted that the proportion of wills not registered may be in fact much higher in Hungary 
than the 66% (arithmetic average of UK, IT, ES), thus the proportion of adult population with a 
will. 
 
EN 56   EN  
Table 2 – Number of wills 
Member State Total population 
('000), 2006 Population 18+ years 
('000), 2006 Total number of 
wills registered* Proportion of 
registered wills/ 
adult population Overall proportion 
of wills that are not 
registered Number of wills 
altogether 
(registered & 
unregistered)  Number of all wills / 
adult population 
UK 60,623 47,218 30,000 0.1% 99.8% 16,998,525 36%** 
FR 63,195 48,840 16,603,034 34% 0% 16,603,034 34% 
BE 10,548 8,332 2,440,000 29% 0% 2,440,000 29% 
PT 10,584 8,576 2,300,000 27% 0% 2,300,000 27% 
DE 82,376 67,881 11,490,027 17% 66% 17,513,192 25.8%** 
LT 3,394 2,684 191,934 7% 66% 558,075 21% 
IT 58,941 48,710 1,842,000 4% 77% 8,008,696 16% 
CY 773 592 29,442 5% 66% 85,607 14% 
ES 44,116 36,076 2,435,601 7% 20% 3,044,501 8% 
HU 10,071 8,151 30,000 0.4% 66% 87,229 1.1% 
Subtotal / 
Average 344,623 277,060 37,392,038 13% 45% 67,638,859 24% 
AT 8,282 6,658 898,593 13% 45% 1,625,475 24% 
BG 7,699 6,371 859,787 13% 45% 1,555,278 24% 
CZ 10,269 8,360 1,128,206 13% 45% 2,040,825 24% 
DK 5,437 4,217 569,111 13% 45% 1,029,472 24% 
EE 1,344 1,079 145,623 13% 45% 263,419 24% 
FI 5,266 4,152 560,338 13% 45% 1,013,601 24% 
GR 11,148 9,179 1,238,762 13% 45% 2,240,810 24% 
 
EN 57   EN Table 2 – Number of wills 
Member State Total population 
('000), 2006 Population 18+ years 
('000), 2006 Total number of 
wills registered* Proportion of 
registered wills/ 
adult population Overall proportion 
of wills that are not 
registered Number of wills 
altogether 
(registered & 
unregistered)  Number of all wills / 
adult population 
IE 4,262 3,173 428,238 13% 45% 774,644 24% 
LU 473 366 49,373 13% 45% 89,312 24% 
LV 2,288 1,860 251,008 13% 45% 454,051 24% 
MT 406 318 42,867 13% 45% 77,543 24% 
NL 16,346 12,752 1,721,070 13% 45% 3,113,261 24% 
PL 38,141 30,293 4,088,375 13% 45% 7,395,505 24% 
RO 21,588 17,271 2,330,837 13% 45% 4,216,276 24% 
SE 9,081 7,114 960,039 13% 45% 1,736,625 24% 
SI 2,007 1,649 222,513 13% 45% 402,506 24% 
SK 5,391 4,255 574,271 13% 45% 1,038,805 24% 
Subtotal / 
Average 149,429 119,065 16,069,010 13% 45% 29,067,406 24% 
Total EU27 494,052 396,125 53,461,048 13% 45% 96,706,265 24% 
Figures in bold  indicate data obtained from national registers of wills, Eurostat  or surveys. Figures not in bold are derived figures. Figures  in italics are GHK estimates based 
on available data (averages) or qualitative information. 
* Reference year 2007 or 2008; ** 2007 survey results 
 
EN 58   EN While the estimates show that around 76% of  the EU population had not drawn up a will, 
available information suggests that the ratio of  intestate deceases  is actually much lower 
than that. This is explained by the fact that  the propensity of citizens to draw up a will 
strongly increases with their ag e. The ratio of deceased citizen s who had a will is therefore 
much higher (in 2006, 85.1% of all deceased in the EU27 were at least 60 years old, and 
79.6% were at least 65 years old at the time of death). 
The German survey showed that 48.1% of  citizens above 60 ha d drawn up a will (as 
compared to the average for th e total adult populati on; 25.8%). The respec tive figure in the 
UK study was 70% of 65+ year olds in England and Wales (as compared to 36% for the adult 
population). These numbers have been used as a proxy indicator for th e proportion of deaths 
that are not intestate. Also, estimates made by the Spanish re gister of wills showed that 
around 70-75% of all successions in Spain are ba sed on a will, while somewhat surprisingly, 
the estimates put the proportion of adult populati on in Spain who have a will to as few as 8% 
only (this is, however, swiftly increasing as the number of new wills registered per annum is high: it exceeded 600,000 in 2007).  
The weighted average of the three above figur es (with estimated num ber of successions per 
annum, i.e. the number of deceased individuals aged 18+ years as weights) is 60.4%, which 
has been used as an estimation for the proportion of successions within the EU27 that are not 
intestate
56. The corresponding number of wills that are executed per annum is around 2.8 
million (2,839,385), and the number of inte state successions is around 1.9 million 
(1,863,901). An additional 42,000 minors die per annu m, for whom it has been assumed that 
no succession procedure is launched. 
2. Estimated number of cross-bo rder successions within the EU 
Legal professionals estimated the proportion of cross-border successions to be between 1% 
and 25% of all successions-rela ted cases, 12.5% on average. Extr apolating this result to all 
successions within the EU27 would arrive at  a number of about 588,000 cases (587,911) per 
year.  
 
Table 3 – Estimations of international successions 
Country of respondent UK1 UK2 SE ES HU LV LT Average 
Proportion of successions 
with cross-border 
elements 25% 15% 25% 10% 10% 1% 1-2% 12.5% 
 
This figure may, however, be overestimating th e actual numbers, as th e legal professionals 
asked were likely to have some  international contacts and cl ientele, and si nce rich, big 
                                                 
56 Data were received from Italy (58,000 wills ’published’ per annum) and the United Kingdom (22,303 
successions in 2007 where a will was available) whic h are not consistent with the estimations made, 
however, these data were also found to be in conflict with the proportion of adults who had drawn up a 
will and therefore they were disregarded. 
 
EN 59   EN countries with a higher propensit y to invest abroad were ove r-represented in the sample. 
Other approaches were therefore necessary  to validate or refine these results. 
Successions with cross-border elements may mostly occur because the deceased:  
• Held a foreign nationality, or  
• Held property abroad.  
Successions of foreign na tionals, foreign wills  
Statistical data on the citizenship of deceased residents  of EU Member States are not 
available. However, the proportion of fore ign nationals amongst the deceased can be 
estimated by using, as a proxy indicator, the pr oportion of foreign population above 60 years; 
the age group accounting for most (85.1%) of d eceases in the EU27 (the  national statistics 
forwarded to Eurostat include i ndividuals who reside permanently  in the given Member State, 
irrespective of their nationality). 
The proportion of population with foreign citizens hip has been increasing in the EU over the 
last decades. In 2007, around 28.9 million of the EU Member State inhabitants (5.8% of the total population) were non-nationa ls. The majority of them were  citizens of another Member 
State (3.8%), but around 10.2 million (2.1%) held citizenship of a third country
57. 
This population with foreign citizenship is still relative young. Am ongst above-60-year-olds 
their proportion is only 2.7% (based on Eurostat data available for 14 Me mber States). It can 
therefore be assumed that the number of success ions concerning foreign citizens deceased in 
EU Member States, which are thus likely to involve cross-border elements, is about 125,000 
(124,816), 2.7% of all deceased adults.  
                                                 
57 I.e. - in case of multiple citizenship – that they did not hold citizenship of the Member State they 
resided in nor of another EU Member State. 
 
EN 60   EN  
Table 4 – Proportion of foreign citizens in the Member States 
Foreigners Geographical coverage /  
Share of population Total 
population Nationals 
Total EU27 Third 
countries 
EU27 
Total (in ‘000), 2007 495,127 466,213 28,914 18,754 10,159 
As % of total population 100.0% 94.2% 5.8% 3.8% 2.1% 
14 Member States58 
As % of total population  100.0% 94.3% 5.7% 2.0% 3.7% 
Population above 60 years 100.0% 97.3% 2.7% 1.3% 1.3% 
Population below 60 years 100.0% 93.5% 6.5% 2.2% 4.3% 
 
As regards future developments, a significan t upward trend is expected. The proportion of 
foreign nationals is around 6.5% for the below- 60-year-old cohort. A share of these foreign 
nationals may move back to their country of ci tizenship at a later ag e, but the number of 
foreign nationals deceasing in the EU is in any case expected to rise in the next decades. 
Data on the number of ‘foreign wills’  are only available from three Member States and show 
marked differences. The figures from Italy and Spain suggest that foreign nationals do not 
tend to draw up wills and register them in the Member States they reside in. Only 0.11% of 
registered wills were drawn up by foreign nationals. However, the register of wills in Cyprus reported that over 50% of all wi lls registered are those of fo reign nationals. The weighted 
average of the figures is 0.46%, whilst the weight ed average of foreign wills within new wills 
registered per annum is 0.33%. Extrapolating th is to the EU27, a (very) broad estimate of 
about 246,000 foreign wills registered is obt ained, and about 7,100 new foreign wills per 
annum. Also, registers of wills reported an increase in the number of foreign wills. 
 
                                                 
58 Member States for which age brea kdown was available, representing 53.4% of the total population of 
the EU27. 
 
EN 61   EN  
Table 5 – Number and proportion of foreign wills 
Member State Total 
number of 
wills 
registered Number of 
foreign 
wills 
registered 
in the 
country Foreign 
wills/stock 
of wills (%) Number of 
new wills 
registered 
per annum Number of 
foreign 
wills 
registered 
in country 
per annum New 
foreign 
wills/total 
new wills 
(%) 
IT 1,842,000 1,997 0.11% 26,030 100 0.38% 
ES 2,435,601 2,639 0.11% 608,902 600 0.10% 
CY 29,442 14,979 50.9% 1,500 1,400 93.3% 
Average of 3 
Member States 4,307,043 19,615 0.46% 636,432 2,100 0.33% 
EU27 (estimate) 53,461,048 245,921 0.46% 2,161,034 7,131 0.33% 
 
The proportion of wills that involve a cross-border element  is likely to be higher than the 
proportion of cross-border successions in genera l since the population drawing up wills is on 
average more wealthy than the part of th e population who do not make wills, and these 
citizens’ successions are theref ore more likely to involve inte rnational elements. Using the 
average of estimates made by legal professiona ls concerning the proportion of cross-border 
successions of all successions (12.5%), of the 97 million wills drawn up, around 12 million 
(12,088,000) wills can be estimated to involve a cross-border element. These wills may not 
have had an international element when they were drawn up, but only first after they were 
made (as the testator moved, opened an account and/or acquired property abroad). 
Foreign property  
Foreign property includes figures on portfolio investme nts and housing that were obtained 
from national statistic offices a nd central banks. While it was not possible to take full stock of 
financial assets and othe r property that EU citize ns have abroad, it was clear that the trend is 
significantly increasing.  
For example, the Swedish Tax Authority repo rted that the number of immovable property 
abroad declared in tax statements increased in just two years (from 2004 to 2006) from 2,344 
to 3,624 (by 54,6%), while its value increased from 1.64 bn SEK (177 million euro) to 2.99 
bn SEK (327 million euro), i.e. by 82.3%. The actual figures are expected to be even higher, as this information is supplied to the Swedis h Tax Authority by residents on a voluntary basis 
only. 
Based on the above it can be estimated that though successions involving cross-border 
elements is likely to be somewhat less than the on average 12.5% indicated by legal 
practitioners (it can be estimated that in 2006 around 9-10% of all su ccessions, corresponding 
to around 450,000 successions, involved cross-bor der elements), the trend is clearly 
increasing. This follows from two main reasons: 
 
EN 62   EN • The proportion of inhabitants with foreign citizenship was relatively low amongst the 
elderly (2.7% in the age group above 60 in 14 Member States  in 2007 for which data was 
available), but their proportion is much hi gher in the younger genera tions (6.5% for below-
60-year-olds), and inhabitants with forei gn citizenship are more likely to trigger 
successions with a cross-borde r dimension. The proportion of non-nationals is continuing 
to grow in the future as a result of con tinued immigration from th ird countries and the 
increasing significance of relocations within th e EU, e.g. because of job prospects or cross-
border marriages and partnerships. 
• The proportion of EU citizens who own proper ty abroad is increasing rapidly. This 
involves mostly financial assets (such as sh ares, bonds, bank accounts)  and real estates. 
With increased liberalisation of the movement of capital in the internal market and with third countries and increased wealth (in the EU  and globally), the share of EU citizens who 
have such foreign assets and the number of th ird-country nationals who have assets in the 
EU will continue to rise. 
The assumption that the number of cross-border  successions would increase is also supported 
by legal professionals; all profes sionals who commented on this reported that this was the 
case (be it a slight or significant increase). 
Certain Member States and regions are already, and will be in the future, more affected by 
cross-border successions than others. These ar e in particular those countries where the 
population has a higher proportion of foreign nationals and has a higher level of income 
(which usually correlates with an incr eased level of investments abroad).  
On the basis of the proportion of non-nationals in  the various EU Member  States and level of 
income (GDP/capita in Purchasing Power Standa rd (PPS)), ratings have been made for the 
EU27 in order to get an indica tion of what countries are lik ely to be more affected by 
international successions than others. It must, however, be emphasised that this rating does 
not take into account the extent to which citizens actually have movable and immovable 
property abroad as such data were not available by country. 
 
EN 63   EN  
Table 6 – Proportion of non-nationals and level of income by Member State 
Country Proportion of 
non-nationals, 
2007 Score 1* GDP/capita in 
PPS Score 2* Total score** 
Austria 10.0% xxx 31,600 xxx 6 
Belgium 8.8% xxx 29,700 xxx 6 
Ireland 10.5% xxx 37,100 xxx 6 
Luxembourg  41.6% xxx 68,900 xxx 6 
Cyprus 15.2% xxx 23,200 xx 5 
Denmark 5.1% xx 30,300 xxx 5 
Germany 8.8% xxx 28,100 xx 5 
Netherlands 4.2% xx 32,900 xxx 5 
Spain 10.4% xxx 26,500 xx 5 
Sweden 5.4% xx 31,300 xxx 5 
United Kingdom 6.0% xx 29,100 xxx 5 
Estonia 17.6% xxx 17,600 x 4 
Finland 2.3% x 29,000 xxx 4 
France 5.8% xx 27,600 xx 4 
Greece 7.9% xx 24,100 xx 4 
Italy 5.0% xx 25,200 xx 4 
Latvia 19.0% xxx 14,400 x 4 
Malta 3.4% xx 19,200 xx 4 
Czech Republic 2.9% x 20,200 xx 3 
Portugal 4.1% xx 18,600 x 3 
Slovenia 2.7% x 22,600 xx 3 
Bulgaria 0.3% x 9,500 x 2 
Hungary 1.7% x 15,800 x 2 
Lithuania 1.2% x 15,200 x 2 
Poland 0.1% x 13,300 x 2 
Romania 0.1% x 10,100 x 2 
Slovakia 0.6% x 17,000 x 2 
Source: Eurostat *x – bottom tertile; xx – centre tertile; xxx – top tertile **Sum of Score 1 and 2 
 
EN 64   EN In addition, some countries are particularly frequented by foreign investors (for relocation, 
second homes or financial investment targets) such as France, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus or 
Greece. As concerns the difficulties linked to domestic property of non-nationals, these 
countries are especially affected. Also, in cer tain border regions where cross-border contacts 
are strong (such as e.g. between Belgium and France, Austria and Hungary), holding some property in the neighbouring c ountry is more frequent. 
3.  Estimated number of successions in which the competent authority applies foreign 
law (including the law of third countries) 
Legal practitioners from the Member States refe rred to the number of such cases to be very 
small, but could not quantify it. 
4. Estimated proportion of cases wh ere the law of third countries  is not applied due to the 
application of the “ord re public exception” 
Interviewees from the Czech Republic and United Kingdom (Scotland) reported that the 
exception was generally not used in succession-re lated cases. In Germany several judgments 
have been published by appellate courts in wh ich the application of Islamic succession law 
has been prohibited as it has been considered as  violating the German ‘o rdre public’ as far as 
the intestate shares of heirs were  dependent on religion or gender. 
5. Approximate amount of succes sions in the EU in euro 
Estimates as regards the value of successions have been made based on accessible studies, 
statistics and surveys, as well as estima tions made by legal professionals. Information 
obtained, however, greatly varies across coun tries and even across figures for one single 
country, as reflected in Table 2.7. 
In the United Kingdom
59, only 40,300 successions out of ca. 571,300 deaths in total (7%) 
surpassed in value the nil-band threshol d of £240,000 (approximately 345,500 euro) in the 
budgetary year 2003-2004, with a total value of £23,110 million. In 291,000 cases, the value of the estate was below £5,000. Ba sed on these figures, the averag e value of successions can 
be set at around £75-80,000 (108- 115,000 euro). An estimation ma de by a legal professional 
was £50,000 (72,000 euro) – which may in fact be close to the median of successions. 
According to the socio-economic panel survey of  2002 by the German research institute DIW, 
the average value of successions in Ge rmany was ca. 102,000 euro in 1990 and 129,700 in 
1996. Extrapolating trends, the average value of successions may in 2007 reach 242,000 euro 
(corresponding to a total value of ca. 200 bn euro). The research company Empirica has 
estimated the average value of successions to be around 180,000 in 2005. 
 
                                                 
59 ‘Inland Revenue - Inheritance Tax’, a report by the National Audit Office, 2004. 
 
EN 65   EN  
Table 7 – Estimated average value of successions by country 
Country Estimated average 
value of successions Source 
United Kingdom, 2004 108,000 NAO study, GHK calculations 
United Kingdom, 2008 72,000 Estimation by a legal professional 
Germany, 1990 102,000 Socio-economic panel survey by DIW 
Germany, 1996 129,700 Socio-economic panel survey by DIW 
Germany, 2005 180,000 Survey by Empirica60 
Germany, 2007 242,000 Socio-economic panel survey by DIW 
Spain, 2008 400,000 Estimation by a legal professional 
 
Calculating with an average of  the more recent survey resu lts (176,667), this  is about 5.5 
times the gross national income  per capita of the countries concerned (Germany and the UK, 
30,000 and 33,800, respectively in 2007, according to Eu rostat data). As the gross national 
income was 24,800 euro for the EU27, one can estim ate the average value of successions to 
be around 137,000 euro, ca. 646 billion euro  in total, 5.9% of the EU27 GDP. 
This proportion will, however, con tinue to rise in the future – to a lesser extent because of 
demographic reasons (the more populous post- war cohorts will reach the age 65-70 in the 
next ten years; Eurostat demogr aphic projections forecast a 5% increase in deaths for 2018 in 
the EU27, as compared to 2008, from 4,969,000 to 5,235,000), but mainly because of the increase in net wealth accumulated by the population. 
Statistics by the German Cent ral Bank (Deutsche B undesbank) show a 20.6% increase in net 
wealth per capita from 1993 to 200 3 (net of inflation), an incr ease that may be even more 
steep in other Member States. Financial assets  have had the lion’s share in the increase 
(although the credit crisis will have had some impact on this). 
                                                
 
60 „ Vermögensbildung in Deutschland: Immobilienerbschaften“ , Empirica Forschung und Beratung, 2005. 
 
EN 66   EN  
Table 8 – Evolution of assets and lia bilities per capita in Germany, 1993-
2003 (in euro) 
Type of assets/liabilities 1993 
 2003 Growth rate 
(adjusted for 
inflation) 
Real estate property 38,149 48,768 14.0% 
Other investments 7,960 9,002 0.9% 
Financial assets 29,856 47,483 41.9% 
Other assets, consumable 
goods 8,810 11,850 20.0% 
Gross wealth 84,787 117,103 23.2% 
Liabilities -12,075 -18,792 38.8% 
Net wealth 72,711 98,311 20.6% 
Source: Deutsche Bundesbank 
However, the increase of net wealth was not eq ually distributed across generations. The eldest 
generations who are usually the te stators in current-time successi ons only had a small share in 
this wealth accumulation. Their estates are not as  large as those of the following generations 
will be. 
Estimates in Table 2.8 already show that the valu e of estates significantly  increased over time. 
In Germany, according to a study by Empirica fr om 2005, average real household wealth (i.e. 
discounting or inflation) has almo st doubled in the last 25 years,  and the ratio of households 
with a property rose by 10 percentage points (b y ca. 20 percentage points for above-50-year-
olds). Whilst the average net wealth for hous eholds with an over-69-year-old head was 
119,803 euro in 2003, the corresponding figure for the 59-69 year age group was already 173,165, which is 44.5% higher. This wealth gap does also exist and can be even wider in other Member States. 
One can thus expect that the average value of successions will rise significantly in real terms 
in the next ten years, maybe by around 45%  (from 137,000 to some 199,000 euro), whilst 
their total value – accounting for the overall incr ease in the number of deceases – may rise by 
perhaps 50% (from 646 billion to some 969 billion euro per annum, at 2007 prices). 
Generally, the studies and legal practitioners cons ulted to date have indicated that the average 
value of cross-border successions  have a higher value than purely ‘national’  successions. 
One legal practitioner estimated its value to be around twice as high as national successions. 
The bulk of successions involve a very small es tate of some thousand euro only, which are 
unlikely to include property ab road (although other cross-border elements, e.g. the heirs being 
non-nationals, are possible). As for the UK,  successions below £5,000 (7,197 euro) accounted 
for 50.9% of all cases in 2003/2004. In Austria,  according to information from the Federal 
Ministry of Finance, two thirds of successions c oncerned an estate of le ss than 7,300 euro. In 
 
EN 67   EN Germany, the value of 28% of all estates wa s below 13,000 euro. Excluding the bottom half 
of successions that are probabl y not cross-border, an estima tion of around twice the average 
value for the remaining half of successions can  be used for calculations (i.e. 274,000 euro). 
Calculating with only 450,000 cros s-border cases (around 9.5% of all), this would sum up to 
123.3 billion euro.  
These estates are liable to problems. Even if re solved in a reasonable manner the costs of legal 
fees might amount to from 2% (2.466 bn euro) to  as much as 5% of the total value of 
international successions (6.165 bn euro), accord ing to legal professi onals interviewed. An 
average of 3% (3.699 bn euro) of the value of estates can be considered realistic. 
In the past decades, successions involving property abroad was a characteristic only 
concerning the affluent testator, whereas t oday financial investme nts and even property 
purchases abroad are not restricted any more to the wealthiest citizens. The gap in the value of 
the average cross-border and purely national suc cessions has probably star ted to narrow a bit, 
and will continue to narrow as cross-border property w ill be much more frequent. Despite this 
narrowing, the aggregated value of cross-borde r successions will rise by more than the 
previously estimated 50% (because of the in creased proportion of cross-border successions). 
6. Approximate number of legal professiona ls involved and the turnover which cross-
border successions represent for these professionals 
The number of notaries public has been obtaine d from six Member States only. The number 
of inhabitants per notary is, however, in a rela tively narrow range (10,762 on average). If this 
proportion was applicable to the 21 Member  States where this  institution exists61, the total 
number of notaries would be somewhere around 38,000.  
Table 9 – Number of notaries public in the EU, 2008  
Country Number of notaries public Population (2006) Population per 
notary 
Czech Republic 451 10,251,079 22,730 
Germany 8513 82,062,249* 9369 
Latvia 123 2,294,590 18,655 
Lithuania 265 3,403,284 12,843 
Romania 1,824 21,610,213 11,848 
Slovenia 125 2,003,358 16,027 
6 Member States 
total 11,301 121,624,773 10,762 
EU21** 37,899  407,875,883  10,762  
* Population in 2009 
** EU27 minus the UK, Ireland, Cyprus, Sweden, Denmark and Finland 
                                                 
61 EU-27 minus the UK, Ireland, Cyprus, Sweden, Denmark and Finland 
 
EN 68   EN Information on the numbers of other legal profe ssionals involved (lawye rs, judges etc.) have 
not been obtained. The same is valid with regard to the income of international successions for these groups of professionals; information has not been obtained.  
As for the six Member States where notar ies public are not empl oyed, solicitors (or 
‘advocates’ or ‘lawyers’) are engaged in settling successions
62. Based on data obtained 
through desk-based research on th e number of solicitors, it can be estimated that there are 
about 190,000 solicitors or equi valent in the six Members States concerned, about 130,000 of 
them being active. Most of them (existing da ta from England and Wales show that about 
80%) work in private practices. That would correspond to about 100,000. The rest are in-door 
lawyers. Many of the solicitors in private prac tices would occasionally deal with successions, 
though estimates have not been received. 
 
Table 10 – Number of solicitors in the 6 Member States concerned, 2008  
Number of solicitors/lawyers 
(2007) Country / 
Region 
On the roll Active Population (2006) Population per 
solicitor/lawyer 
England and 
Wales 131,347 89,045 (2002) 52,919,979 (2004) 403 
Scotland 11,958 8,609 (2000) 5,067,900 (2004) 424 
Northern Ireland 2,441  1,706,475 (2004) 699 
Ireland 11,241  4,209,019 374 
Cyprus 1,000  766,414 766 
Sweden 4,442 3,971 9,047,752 2,037 
4 Member States 
total 162,429 111,724* 73,717,539 454 
EU6** 187,580* 129,023* 85,132,010 454 
Source: Law Societies, Bar Associations * GHK calcul ation **UK, Ireland, Cyprus, Sweden, Denmark and Finland 
                                                 
62 When brought to court, successions would then also involve barristers / practicing advocates of course. 
 
EN 69   EN ANNEX 3 – Financial costs and benefi ts of the preferred policy option  
The preferred policy opti on would lead to the following financial costs: 
• At EU level : Costs for administrative work to pr oduce the necessary legislation at EU 
level. This is estimated to be the equivale nt of one Commission o fficial during one year. 
• At national level : Training of legal professionals (e.g. la wyers, judges, notaries, solicitors) 
and judicial cooperation. It is reasonable to assume that th ese costs would be less than 
0.5% of the legal costs associated with probl ematic international su ccessions. These costs 
would be ‘one off’ as the Regulation and re lated practice would rapidly become the norm 
and legal professionals regularly need to ab sorb and learn the consequences of new law.63 
Specific elements of the preferred op tion may also incur initial costs: 
• Jurisdiction rules.  Financial costs for the Member States would also arise in making the 
necessary changes of national le gislation with regard to the harmonised jurisdiction rules, 
e.g. legislation indicating what court/authorit y would handle the case, and enforcement. 
These costs would need to be borne by the Member  States. It is reasonable to assume that 
the costs for the legislation would be very sm all as it would be tec hnical in character, non-
contentious and necessary.  
• Applicable law.  Financial costs to the administration for the introduction of the new rules 
would be low, i.e. comparable to those for the introduction of the Rome I and II 
Regulations.  
• Certificate. The Member States that currently do not have a certificate would need new 
legislation to identify what body should issue the certificate and to institute procedure. 
There would also be a small administrative cost in issuing the certificate. It is reasonable to 
estimate the costs of a certificat e at around € 60 assuming that identity checks  similar to 
those required for obtaining a passport (or marriage certificate)  are required, but that there 
would be no special technical re quirements for the certificate itself. This would most likely 
be offset by a fee. 
• Establishment of interconnected national registers of wills.  
– For those countries that curre ntly do not have register s of wills, the option would 
result in establishment costs  for creating registers of wills and running them. Such 
costs will only be relevant for a few countri es; first, registers of wills already exist 
in several Member States64, and second, the establishmen t of a register of wills 
would be voluntary. 
                                                 
63 Professional services companies tend to invest circa 2% of turnover in training per annum. There would 
be a case for EU funding of some training on the consequences of the Regulation. However, the 
implications would be clear and the appropriate legal professionals would need to be informed as much 
as trained. Much of the costs of any training should be met by the legal professionals themselves. 
64 Registers of wills have been established in nineteen Member States (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, 
Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxem bourg, the Netherlands, 
Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Roma nia), however, not all of th ese are ‘official’ (e.g. 
the register in Sweden is indepe ndent). Decentralised registers of wills are in place in three Member 
States (Germany, Poland, United Kingdom - England and Wales; probate register); registers may not 
 
EN 70   EN – Registers of wills in some Member States  would be encouraged to move from a 
paper-based system to an electronic system  in order to ensure the effective and 
efficient functioning of the interconnected system.65  
– Other changes to existing registers  (including electronic re gisters) may also be 
necessary in order to allow for interconnection .  
– Total annual costs  for running a register of wills currently range from € 2,700 for 
Hungary to € 3.5 million for France.66 
• Information campaigns  would be organised at a nationa l level to inform citizens about 
the existence of registers of wills and the rule s on wills. Overall, costs for the information 
campaign are estimated to be € 50,000,000 across the EU (estimates ar e based on 10 euro 
per death per annum), borne at the national level. Some of these costs would be recouped 
from testators who register wills and through f ees paid for searches for wills (this assumes 
that fees will be charged for both, as the current registers do). 
There would also be impacts on the level of fina ncial costs as a consequence of the use of 
habitual residence instead of nationality as the connecting factor in  combination with the 
possibility for the testator to make a limited choice of law.  
In many EU Member States, nationality is curr ently used as a connecting factor. In these 
countries, the use of habitual residence will lead to additio nal costs in relation to the 
application of the law of third countries. Ho wever, on the other hand, the use of habitual 
residence will also result in substantial costs sa vings in those countries that currently have 
nationality as connecting factor. For example,  there are many Turkish nationals who have 
their habitual residence in Germany. With nationality as connecting factor, Turkish succession law would at present be applied. With the ne w rules, German law would be applied. Both 
these costs and savings would, however, not be  certain due to the introduction of a limited 
choice of law, which would mean that the law of  the nationality would still be applied if the 
testator chose it. 
Furthermore, the introduction of a unitary succession system at EU level would result in cost 
savings in those Member States which presently adhere to the split system (where immovable property is governed by the law at its locat ion), because the court would apply only one 
succession law. 
In sum, the introduction of th e unitary succession system and of habitual residence as 
dominant connecting factor as well as the ad mission of a limited choice of law would tend to 
decrease costs; however, savings wo uld vary between Member States. 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
cover the entire country. Two Member States (Bulga ria and Latvia) are in th e process of creating a 
register of wills. In two Member States (Ireland and Finland) no register of wills has been established 
and is not in the process of being established. No in formation on the existence of a register of wills has 
been identified for Malta. 
65 Information on whether the regist ers are electronic or paper-based ha s been identified for thirteen 
Member States. The majority of them (Austria, Belgium, Czech Re public, Estonia, France, Hungary, 
Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg and the Netherlands)  currently have an elect ronic register of wills. 
Cyprus, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Romania have paper-based registers. 
66 Belgium: € 236,000, Estonia: € 15,600, Lithuania: € 193,000 and Italy: € 50,000. Annual budgets for 
maintenance of registers of wills have been provided  by three Member States: Italy (€ 50,000), Belgium 
(€ 60,000) and France (€ 280,000). 
 
EN 71   EN ANNEX 4 – Economic effect on fees for legal professionals  
The potentially affected legal professionals are: 
• Those assisting testators in making wills.  Two elements of the preferred option are likely 
to increase the proportion of wills drawn up. Th e first is the possibility to make a limited 
choice of law, which would need to be indicated in a will. The introduction of a limited choice of law would naturally have the greates t impact in those countries that currently do 
not allow a choice of law (Austria, Cyprus, France, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Luxemburg, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Sl ovenia, Spain, Sweden and Czech Republic)
67. 
The second element that may lead to a minor increase in the proportion of wills is the national information campaigns relating to regi stering wills. These two elements are likely 
to have the effect of increasing the business and income for legal pr ofessionals assisting 
testators making wills.  
• Those charging for certifi cates of inheritance.  Where heirs previously used to need several 
certificates, but under the prefe rred option would only need one  European certificate, the 
legal professionals issuing cer tificates could loose some bus iness and revenue. In those 
countries which currently do not issue cert ificates, the introduc tion of a European 
certificate would however lead to new business opportunities. These effects would concern 
cross-border successions only as the proposed le gislation would not contain obligations to 
issue a European certif icate for purely national succession s. However, for public notaries, 
overall revenues would not nece ssarily be reduced. In many c ountries, the fees  they would 
charge would be fixed (or propor tional to the estate).  The market of public notaries is not 
necessarily a competitive one. 
• Those charging for se arching for wills.  By implementing the pr eferred option, it is 
expected that the system of identifying wills would become more efficient. While the fees 
charged to clients for these activities may de crease, this might be associated with a 
substantial time and cost reductions for the pr ofessionals involved. This could increase the 
margins on such work as currently this of ten involves considerable resource intensive 
work. 
• Legal professionals invol ved in difficult cases.  By far the most significant effects (most of 
the potential 1.3 billion euro savings in legal costs) woul d be on legal professionals 
involved in difficult cases. This includes fees to legal professionals acting on behalf of the 
various parties (be it in- or out-of-court procedur es), the costs of courts and court officials 
(that may be paid for by the ‘public purse’), an d the costs of ‘parallel’ proceedings. Here, 
there is a clear potential for f ee reductions for clients, and thus revenue foregone for legal 
professionals. However, these effects are like ly to be twofold. Firs t, a reduction in the 
volume of work, second, an incr ease in the ‘quality’ of the wo rk which could be associated 
with improved financial returns and efficienc y. The effects should not therefore be seen as 
a disbenefit. 
Aggregating the above effects, the maximum re venue foregone for legal professionals would 
be in the order of around 1.3 billion euro per annum, corresponding to the annual average 
employment of 10,800 FTE. However, this would be  offset by potential increases in work to 
                                                
 
67 Information is unavailable for Hungary, Malta and Northern Ireland. 
 
EN 72   EN assist those making wills and in improvements in  the quality of work due to reductions in 
legal uncertainty and complexities in iden tifying wills and the bona fide of heirs. 
It has been estimated in the external study that the tax reve nue in 2005 for the EU27 from 
inheritance tax was around 31.0 bil lion euro (this compares with the estimated total value of 
estates of 646 billion euro in  2005, 5.9% of the EU27 GDP). I nheritance tax was estimated to 
be 0.28% of EU27 GDP in the same year. Table 5.1 in Annex 5 indicate s the total tax from 
inheritance and gifts for eight EU  countries. These figures have been used to extrapolate to 
the EU27. 
 
EN 73   EN ANNEX 5 – Impact of the prefer red option on inheritance tax  
 
Table 5.1 – State revenues from inheritance tax, 2005  
 DE FR UK NL ES DK AT SE* Total EU27** 
Total revenues 4.1 8.9 4.7 1.7 2.3 0.4 0.2 0.1 22.4 31.0 
as % of GDP 0.18 0.52 0.26 0.34 0.25 0.20 0.06 0.04 0.28 0.28 
Source: OECD *Inheritance tax abolished in 2004 **Extrapolated figure for the EU27 
Rates of inheritance tax vary markedly between Member States. Marginal rates range from nil 
to 80%. The latter maximum occurs in Belgiu m Wallonie and Brussels, for heirs not closely 
related with the testator, for inheritance above  €250,000. The variation in effective tax rates is 
also considerable. Table 2 indica tes the effective tax rates in EU  countries for four examples 
(estates worth either 100,000 or 500,000 euro left  to either spouse and/or children (assuming 
two heirs) or heirs apart from close relatives ). The smaller examples of 100,000 euro reflect 
estimated average (median) size of  estates in the EU average.  
Seven EU countries do not have inheritance tax. Tax rate for heirs apart from close relatives 
are almost always higher. There are wide variations in effectiv e tax rates for each of the four 
examples. For the example of spouses and chil dren inheriting 50,000 euro each, effective tax 
rates range from 0 to 11.3%. For the example of spouses and childre n inheriting 250,000 euro 
each, effective tax rates range from 0 to 15.1%. For the example of heirs apart from close 
relatives inheriting 50,000 euro each, effective tax rates range from 0 to 46.3%. Finally, for 
the example of heirs apart from close rela tives inheriting 250,000 euro each, effective tax 
rates range from 0 to 71.3%.  
 
Table 5.2 – Effective tax rates applicable in selected Member States (for two categories of 
heirs and for two sample bequests), special tax deductions not accounted for 
Spouse and children (closest 
family) Heirs apart from close 
relatives** Member State 
€50,000 €250,000 €50,000 €250,000 
Austria (as of 2008) 
Cyprus 
Estonia 
Latvia 
Portugal 
Slovakia 
Sweden No inheritance tax 
Belgium (Flanders) 3% 7.8% 45% 57% 
Belgium (Wallonie) 4.3% 10.7% 46.3% 71.3% 
Belgium (Brussels) 3% 10.3% 40% 62.5% 
Bulgaria - 0.3% - 2.4% 
 
EN 74   EN Czech Republic 1.1% 1.5% 7.7% 12.4% 
Denmark 15% estate tax (nil for surviving 
spouses) 36.25% (15% estate tax and an 
additional 25% inheritance tax) 
Finland 11.3% 15.1% 33.9% 45.2% 
France - 8.9% (spouse) 
10.9% (child) - 48% 
Germany - - (spouse) 
1.3% (child) 15.2% 21.3% 
Greece - - 18% 28.4% 
Hungary 2.5% 7.2% 8% 14.8% 
Ireland - - 10.1% 18% 
Italy - - 8% 8% 
Lithuania - - 5% 10% 
Luxembourg - - 6% 13.5% 
Malta (no inheritance tax but transfer 
duty) 5% 5% 5% 5% 
Netherlands  
(plus 6% transfer duty) - (spouse) 
7.1% (child) - (spouse) 
14.2% (child) 43.8% 52.8% 
Poland 6.3% 6.9% 18.8% 19.8% 
Romania 0.6% 0.5% 0.6% 0.5% 
Slovenia - - 12 – 39% 
Spain 0.3%  
(possibly 
exempted) 12.8% 9.9% 
(surcharges 
possible) 17.1% 
(surcharges 
possible) 
United Kingdom (estate is subject to inheritance tax) - 8.8% - 8.8% 
Ranges 0 to 11.3% 0 to 15.1% 0 to 46.3% 0 to 71.3% 
* Heirs who are not close relatives (i.e. heirs except spouses, children, descendents of children, 
parents, siblings, nephews/nieces, in-laws)  
Note on table: For the purpose of this report, the figures have been de rived by aggregating the 
different tax rates applicable to different bands68, accounting for basic tax exemptions and nil-
bands but not accounting for special tax deduction possibilities as for example in Belgium, or tax savings from e.g. family trust arrangements. The latter can be very  significant in certain 
cases. Also, holdings in companies or immovable property may be subject to reduced tax rates 
(e.g. Greece). 
There are few potential effects of the pr eferred option on inheritance tax paid. 
Citizens may choose law on the basi s of nationality or move ha bitual residence which would 
enable them to bequest their estates to heirs other than close family members. The effective 
tax rate to be paid by these ‘o ther’ categories of heirs (not s pouses, descendents, parents) is 
usually higher. Thus inheritance tax receipts might increase. However, such an effect could 
only accrue to those ‘choosing’ En gland and Wales law. The scale of this effect is anticipated 
to be very low.  
                                                
 
68 Source of raw data http://www.globalpropertyguide.com  
 
EN 75   EN A large proportion of typical estates are made up of immova ble assets. Inheritance tax 
(transfer duty) paid on immovables will continue to paid in the country in which they are 
located. The preferred option will only ha ve very minor effects on this tax.  
As a result of these effects it is unlikely that there would be large changes in inheritance tax 
paid in the EU. There might, however, be so me, small changes on certain national budgets, 
either increases or decreases.   
 
EN 76   EN ANNEX 6 – Potential monitoring  and evaluation indicators  
Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators of the preferred option  
Main Policy Objectives Potential indicators Sources of information 
General objectives 
To allow citizens to efficiently plan 
and to organise their succession in 
advance in a cross border context  The numbers of wills made and  
The number of instances when wills include a 
choice of law 
The numbers of wills registered 
The legal costs involved a nd time taken to resolve 
‘international’ successions 
The incidences of citizens apparently using 
‘habitual residence’ to avoid the implications of 
reserved portion obligations Source: national authorities and legal 
professional bodies 
 
 
 
NB. This indicator would be of value in 
assessing whether the preferred option 
led to adverse ‘side effects’ 
To increase the likelihood that the rights of potential heirs, persons 
formally or otherwise related to the 
deceased, private and public creditors 
etc. are being fulfilled in an efficient 
way The numbers of wills contested by heirs 
The legal costs involved a nd time taken to resolve 
‘international’ successions 
 Source: national authorities and legal 
professional bodies 
NB. Reductions in typical legal costs 
absolutely and as a proportion of the 
value of legacies would point to the 
achievement of this objective. It is 
reasonable to assume that high legal 
costs are a barrier to the exercising of 
rights. 
Specific objectives 
To achieve a situation where parallel proceedings do not occur and where 
different substantive laws are not 
applied to the same international 
succession The incidence of parallel proceedings  Legal bodies and individual legal 
professionals 
To provide a (limited) choice of law for the testator The numbers of wills made and the number of 
instances when these include a choice of law Consultations of citizens and legal 
practitioners 
To ensure the recognition of:  
Judgements, other decisions and 
authentic acts / deeds on international 
successions 
The powers of 
administrators/executors  
The status as an heir  
The instances of judgements and other decisions not 
being recognised  
The incidence of the powers of 
administrators/executors being not recognised 
The numbers of certificates granted to heirs 
The number of certificates not recognised 
transnationally.  
The costs and time delays resulting from instances 
of non-recognition  
Member States judicial authorities could 
be asked to provide such information 
periodically 
To increase the accessibility of 
information on the existence of wills The number of Member States having register s Member States could be requested to 
provide this information on an annual 
 
EN 77   EN Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators of the preferred option  
Main Policy Objectives Potential indicators Sources of information 
abroad The number of Member States having electronic 
registers 
The number of registers that are interconnected 
The number of wills registered 
The time taken and accuracy of ‘international’ 
sources of wills 
The numbers of will made (as a proportion of the 
adult population) basis. 
Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators of the magnitude of international successions and wills 
Indicator Specific input data Comments  Source 
i. Number of wills registered in 
the country  
ii. Number of wills existing in the 
country that are not registered  
iii. Number of new wills 
made/registered in the country per annum (taking account of – 
i.e. discounting – updates and 
revocations) iv. Some wills are not registered 
even in countries where a 
central register exists  
v. Individuals may have several wills in different countries 
vi. Specification needed of what 
the registered numbers include 
(wills of MS citizens only, 
several versions of wills of one 
person, etc.) Figures on the number 
of successions and wills 
in the EU 
xii. Number of successions in the 
country per annum (separately for intestate successions and 
for successions where will is 
available)  
xiii. Proportion of intestate 
deceases of all deceases in the 
country 
xiv. Proportion of successions 
launched in case of intestate 
deceases xv. Number of wills may be 
estimated by using proportion of intestate deceases and 
statistics on the number of 
deceased persons per annum 
xvi. Number of intestate 
successions may be estimated by using proportion of 
successions launched, 
estimates on number of wills and statistics on the number of deceased persons per annum 
xvii. The estimates on the proportion of successions launched could be based on separate 
assumptions by age group (e.g. 
infants usually do not possess property, therefore there is no need for succession) vii. Number of deceased by 
MS per annum by age 
group, trends (Eurostat) 
viii. Studies, reports, hearings, 
etc.: e.g. data or estimates on the number of wills or 
proportion of intestate 
deaths. 
ix. Consultations: 
x. Authorities managing the 
central wills register (if exists, like ES, FR) 
xi. Relevant professional 
bodies  
xviii. Number of foreign 
nationals having the country as 
his/her habitual residence 
xix. Number of citizens having 
another country as his/here 
habitual residence xx. The length/intention of stay is 
also relevant for the determination of ‘habitual 
residence’ (is it the citizen’s 
centre of vital interests?) 
xxi. Account will have to be taken of 
temporary workers and third 
country nationals who might 
acquire citizenship later Number of cross-border 
successions within the 
EU as meaning involving: 
(a) a deceased who 
lived in a Member 
State different from 
its State of origin, 
or  
(b) a succession xxx. Number of deceased citizens xxxiii. A proportion of the 
deceased may not have had xxii. Population by age group 
and citizenship/country of 
birth (Eurostat) 
xxiii. Number of EU 
citizens living in a state 
different from their own, by 
age group (Eurostat) 
xxiv. Number of foreign 
nationals living in EU 
Member States, by age 
 
EN 78   EN Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators of the preferred option  
Main Policy Objectives Potential indicators Sources of information 
abroad per annum 
xxxi. Number of deceased 
foreign nationals (both EU and third country nationals) in the country per annum 
xxxii. Proportion of deceased 
foreign nationals/citizens abroad who resided in the given country their habitual residence in the 
country concerned; this will have to be taken into consideration group (Eurostat) 
xxv. Number of international 
marriages and partnerships, both with EU 
or third country national, 
including same sex partnerships (Eurostat and available studies) 
xxvi. Studies, reports, etc.: 
e.g. figures on foreign nationals deceased in 
Finland have been already 
identified 
xxvii. National statistics 
Consultations: 
xxviii. Authorities operating 
national registers of citizenship and/or foreign nationals 
xxix. Tax authorities 
(foreign nationals paying tax in the country, tax-paying nationals living abroad) involving properties 
(e.g. bank accounts 
or immovable property) 
disseminated in 
more than one Member State; 
xxxiv. Number of successions 
involving cross-border elements 
per annum (application of law of 
different countries), EU/third 
countries separately 
xxxv. Proportion of deaths of 
foreign nationals in the country 
that involves succession in the country (existence of some 
connecting factor, national 
jurisdiction and/or application of national law), EU/third countries separately 
xxxvi. Proportion of deaths of 
citizens in a foreign country that 
involves succession (national jurisdiction and/or application of 
national law), EU/third countries 
separately 
xxxvii. Value and type of property 
involved in cross-border succession cases 
xxxviii. Proportion of succession-
related tax revenues linked to 
cross-border successions xxxix. All figures or estimates on 
cross-border successions 
would preferably be broken 
down to the different countries 
concerned 
xl. A breakdown of property 
involved according to different 
types is needed (immovables, financial assets and liabilities, etc.)  
xli. Trends in the total value of property abroad/foreign property in the country can be used to extrapolate results to 
Member States without specific 
data on value of cross-border successions; ultimately, most 
property abroad will undergo 
some form of succession xlii. Tax revenue from 
inheritance tax, stamp 
duties or other state 
revenues in connection with succession (national financial accounts) 
xliii. Value of immovable/other property (bank accounts, capital share, movables) 
held in MSs by other 
nationals (studies, central banks, land registers, tax 
authorities, national 
statistics, etc.) 
xliv. Value of immovable/other 
property (bank accounts, capital share, movables, 
etc.) held by nationals of 
MSs abroad (studies, central banks, tax 
authorities, national 
statistics, etc.) 
xlv. Studies, reports, etc. 
Consultations 
xlvi. Professional bodies (to be 
identified) 
xlvii. Tax authorities (on 
the value and breakdown of property involved) 
The number of 
successions in which xlviii. Number or proportion of 
successions where the xlix. In case proportion is only given, the number of successions can Consultations: 
 
EN 79   EN Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators of the preferred option  
Main Policy Objectives Potential indicators Sources of information 
the competent authority 
(e.g. court, 
administrator or notary) applies laws of other EU 
Member States.  competent authority applies 
laws of other EU Member States (in its entirety or elements) be estimated on the basis of all 
cross-border successions, or extrapolated using other MSs’ results 
l. Professionals bodies  
The number of 
successions in which 
the competent authority (e.g. court, 
administrator or notary) 
applies laws of third countries. li. Number or proportion of 
successions where the 
competent authority applies 
laws of third countries (in its 
entirety or elements),  lii. In case proportion is only given, 
the number of successions will 
be estimated on the basis of all 
cross-border successions, or extrapolated using other MSs’ results Consultations: 
liii. Professional bodies (to be 
identified) 
The value/amount of all 
these successions in 
the EU (in euro); liv. Total value of cross-border 
successions (if possible, broken 
down to successions in which the competent authority applies laws of other EU/third countries) 
lv. Average value of cross-border successions (if possible, broken down to successions in which 
the competent authority applies 
laws of other EU/third 
countries) 
lvi. Average value of successions 
in general per MS lvii. Total value may be estimated 
by multiplying average value of 
cross-border  successions by the estimated number of such 
successions 
lviii. If average value is not 
available, extrapolation is 
possible using the average value of successions in general 
(though this is probably a 
significant underestimation) 
lix. For countries where the value 
of successions in general is not 
available, the average wealth 
per capita figures may be used 
to extrapolate Average wealth per capita 
(studies, central banks, 
national statistics, etc.) 
Consultations: 
lx. Professional bodies (to be 
identified) 
The number of cases 
where foreign law is not 
applied due to an opt 
out on the basis of 
‘ordre public’ 
concerning: 
(a) Other EU Member 
States; and,  
(b) Third countries. lxi. Number or proportion of 
successions where the law of another Member State is not applied due to an opt out on the basis of ‘ordre public’  
lxii. Number or proportion of successions where the law of third countries is not applied du 
to an opt out on the basis of 
‘ordre public’ lxiii. In case proportion is only given, 
the number of successions can be estimated on the basis of all cross-border successions, or 
extrapolated using other MSs’ 
results Consultations: 
lxiv. Professional bodies  
The number of legal 
professionals involved 
by Member States and 
the turnover which 
cross-border successions represent 
for these professionals 
(by type of group of professionals).  lxv. Total number of legal 
professionals in the country concerned (notaries public, 
solicitors, judges in civil courts, 
etc.) 
lxvi. Number or proportion of legal 
professionals dealing 
regularly/predominantly with 
cross-border successions 
lxvii. Number or proportion of 
legal professionals dealing occasionally with cross-border successions 
lxviii. Average turnover of a 
legal professional of the professions concerned (working days per annum for judges) 
lxix. Significance of cross-border successions in terms of time lxx. Some legal professionals may just very occasionally deal with cross-border successions, this needs to be taken into account lxxi. National registers of legal 
professionals concerned 
Consultations: 
lxxii. Professional bodies  
lxxiii. Professionals dealing 
with cross-border 
successions 
 
EN 80   EN Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators of the preferred option  
Main Policy Objectives Potential indicators Sources of information 
and/or revenue for legal 
professionals (separately for those dealing regularly or only 
occasionally with cross-border 
successions)