EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 16.3.2011 
SEC(2011) 327 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT  
 
 
Accompanying document to the  
  
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CO MMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMI TTEE OF THE REGIONS 
 
Bringing legal clarity to property rights for international couples 
  
Proposal for a  
 
COUNCIL REGULATION 
 
on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in 
matters of matrimonial property regimes   
 
and the 
  
Proposal for a  
 
COUNCIL REGULATION  
 
on jurisdiction, applicable law and th e recognition and enforcement of decisions 
regarding  the  property consequences of registered partnerships 
  
{COM(2011) 125 final} 
{COM(2011) 126 final} {COM(2011) 127 final} 
{SEC(2011) 328 final}  
EN 2   EN Disclaimer: This report commits only th e Commission's services involved in its 
preparation and does not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the 
Commission.  
EN 3   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOC UMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT 
Accompanying document to the Proposal for a Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law 
and the recognition and enforcement of deci sions in matters of matrimonial property 
regimes   and the Proposal for a Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the 
recognition and enforcement of decisions re garding  the property consequences of 
registered partnerships........................................................................................................ ........ 1 
1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 8 2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES... 9 2.1. Political mandate ......................................................................................................... .9  
2.2. Organisation and timing ............................................................................................... 9 3. PROBLEM DEFINITION FOR MARRIED COUPLES .......................................... 11 3.1. The basic problem and its causes ............................................................................... 11 3.2. Who is affected?......................................................................................................... 1 2 
3.3. The Scope of the problem .......................................................................................... 12 4. PROBLEM DEFINITION FO R UNMARRIED COUPLES..................................... 13 
4.1. The basic problem and its causes ............................................................................... 13 4.2. Who is affected?......................................................................................................... 1 4 
4.3. The scope of the problem ........................................................................................... 14 5. IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS........................................................................................ 15 5.1. Problem 1 - Problems relating to the de termination of which court and body is 
competent to handle the case...................................................................................... 15 
A. It is difficult for couples to pred ict which courts will handle litigation on 
matrimonial property.................................................................................................. 15 
B. Competence of different non-judicial authorities to  handle cases concerning 
matrimonial property regimes. ................................................................................... 15 
C. Difficulties because of the relations hip between jurisdiction on matrimonial 
matters and other rules ............................................................................................... 15 
5.2. Problem 2 - Problems relating to the applicable law.................................................. 16 
A. Conflicting laws are applicable to property regimes .................................................. 16 
B. Unexpected and unintended consequences related to a change in the connecting 
factor concerning matrimoni al property regimes ....................................................... 17 
EN 4   EN C. Differences in the ability to choose th e applicable law and, when a choice is 
possible, between what laws a choice is  allowed in cases with transnational 
elements...................................................................................................................... 1 7 
D. Difficulties because of relationships be tween applicable laws on property regimes 
and other rules. ........................................................................................................... 18 
5.3. Problem 3 - Lack of automatic recogn ition and enforcement of judgments in 
property regimes......................................................................................................... 18 
5.4. Problem 4 – Inadequate information for third parties on the ex istence of property 
regimes ....................................................................................................................... 1 9 
6. NEED FOR ACTION AT EU LE VEL FOR MARRIED COUPLES AND 
REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS ............................................................................. 20 
6.1. Baseline scenario - how would the situat ion evolve, all things being equal? ............ 20 
6.2. Legal framework in place........................................................................................... 21 6.3. Does the EU have the power to act?........................................................................... 21 A. Treaty base ................................................................................................................. 21 
B. Necessity test (Subsidiarity)....................................................................................... 22 7. OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION OF POLICY OPTIONS ................................ 23 8. DISCARDED POLICY OPTIONS............................................................................ 24 9. RETAINED POLICY OPTIONS............................................................................... 26 9.1. Policy Option 1:.......................................................................................................... 26 
9.2. Policy Option 2:.......................................................................................................... 26 
9.3. Policy Option 3:.......................................................................................................... 26 
9.4. Policy Option 4:.......................................................................................................... 27 
9.5. Policy Option 5:.......................................................................................................... 28 
9.6. Policy Option 6:.......................................................................................................... 28 
9.7. Policy Option 7:.......................................................................................................... 29 
10. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS OF POLICY OPTIONS........................................ 29 
10.1. Policy Option 1: Status quo........................................................................................ 29 10.2. Policy Option 2: Targeted provision of in formation to raise citizens’ awareness 
that the property regime may not be the same in other Member States and that 
they can register their regime ..................................................................................... 30 
10.3. Policy option 3: Harmonisation of jurisd iction rules and intr oduction of rules on 
automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments, decisions and deeds. ............ 31 
10.4. Policy option 4: Harmonisation of conflict of law rules. ........................................... 32 
EN 5   EN 10.5. Policy Option 5: Uniform optional Europ ean proforma for a marriage contract....... 33 
10.6. Policy Option 6: Harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules, and 
introduction of rules on automatic rec ognition and enforcement of judgments......... 34 
10.7. Policy Option 7(a): Creation of a webpa ge on existing registers of property 
regimes and national rules.......................................................................................... 34 
10.8. Policy Option 7(b): Creation of a data base/knowledge management system on 
existing registers of matrimonial prope rty regimes and national rules. ..................... 35 
10.9. Policy option 7(c): Commission Recomm endation on the establishment of 
interconnected national registers of pr operty regimes and the organisation of 
information campaigns............................................................................................... 35 
10.10. Policy option 7(d): Compulso ry establishment of interc onnected national registers 
of property regimes. ................................................................................................... 36 
11. COMPARISON OF THE POLICY OPTIONS.......................................................... 36 12. PREFERRED POLICY OPTION .............................................................................. 40 12.1. The preferred option’s achievement of the policy objectives .................................... 40 12.2. Economic impacts ...................................................................................................... 42 12.2.1. Impact on the legal professions.................................................................................. 42 12.2.2. Impact on different social groups an d impact on existing inequalities ...................... 43 
12.2.3. Impact on taxation..................................................................................................... . 43 
12.3. Sensitive elements, potential draw – backs and risks................................................. 43 12.4. Fundamental rights, proportiona lity and EU added value.......................................... 44 
12.4.1. Fundamental rights..................................................................................................... 44 
12.4.2. Proportionality........................................................................................................ .... 44 
12.4.3. European added value ................................................................................................ 44 13. MONITORING AND EVALUATION...................................................................... 45 
ANNEX I – Glossary............................................................................................................. ... 46 
ANNEX II – Information on applicable law and co mpetent jurisdiction in Member States ... 48 
1.MARRIED COUPLES.......................................................................................................... 48 2. REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS........................................................................................ 55 ANNEX III – Note on Costs / Benefits of policy options........................................................ 57 
1. Note on Costs / Benefits of policy options................................................................. 57 
EN 6   EN 2. Table 1– The estimated costs of problems for married couples................................. 59 
3. Table 2 – The estimated costs of proble ms affecting registered partnerships............ 60 
4. Table 3: Policy Option 6: - Detailed asse ssment of costs savings compared to the 
current situation.......................................................................................................... 62 
5. Table 4 – Policy options concerning legi slative differences between the Member 
States: for married couples and B.1 coupl es in registered partnerships:.................... 63 
6. Table 5 – Policy options concerning regi sters for matrimonial property regimes 
(married couples) and Patrimonial prope rty regimes (couples in registered 
partnerships). .............................................................................................................. 64 
ANNEX IV – Data on marriages: International marriages in EU............................................ 66 
1. Number of marriages in th e EU Member States (2007)............................................. 66 
2. Proportion of international marriages in  the EU (2000 to 2007; 12 countries).......... 67 
3. Numbers of different types of inte rnational marriages in EU in 2007....................... 68 
4. Number of national and internationa l marriages in the EU (2000 to 2007; 20 
countries).................................................................................................................... 6 8 
ANNEX V – Data on divorces: divorces in EU in 2007.......................................................... 70 
1. Divorces in the EU Me mber States (2007) ................................................................ 70 
2. Proportion of national and internationa l divorces in the EU (2000 to 2007; 15 
countries).................................................................................................................... 7 1 
3. International divorces in 2007.................................................................................... 71 4. Number of divorces and internationa l divorces in the EU (2000 to 2007; 16 
countries).................................................................................................................... 7 2 
ANNEX VI – Data on regist ered partnerships ......................................................................... 73 
1. Magnitude of international registered partnerships and international property 
regimes of registered partnerships.............................................................................. 73 
2. Number of new civil / registered  partnerships by year (trends)................................. 74 
3. Number of new PACS (French regi stered partnerships) in France............................ 74 
4. The stock of registered partne rship in Finland (2002-2008):..................................... 75 
5. Number of new registered partne rships in Finland (2002-2008): .............................. 75 
6. Number of dissolutions of national and in ternational registered partnerships, and 
the reasons for these ................................................................................................... 75 
7. Separations of registered part nerships in Finland (2001-2008) ................................. 76 
EN 7   EN 8. Separations of international registered  partnerships by country group in Finland 
(2004-2008)................................................................................................................ 76 
EN 8   EN 1. INTRODUCTION 
For the European Union it is of essential impor tance to ensure that citizens can move freely 
between all Member States, that they can liv e there, create a family and acquire property 
without any inconvenience or uncertainty. Fr eedom of movement a nd of residence are 
fundamental freedoms under European Union law (Article 45 of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union; he reinafter: the Charte r), and any obstacles 
and hindrances should be tackled. It is also e ssential to ensure access to justice and respect 
of fundamental rights, in partic ular the right to property (Artic le 17), equality before the 
law (Article 20) and the principle of non-discrimination (Article 21). 
More and more citizens in Europe move across national borders to study,  to work, to live. 
This leads to an increased number of internatio nal couples or couples with an international 
dimension: spouses of different nationalities, couples living in a Member State of which 
they are not nationals, buying or  owning assets in different Member States and sometimes 
they divorce or die in a country other than the one of their origin. The basic problem is that 
it is very difficult for people to know which c ourts have jurisdiction, and which laws are 
applicable, to their personal situation and the si tuation of their propert y. As a result, they 
face unintended, and disadvantageous, consequen ces not only in the daily management of 
their assets, but also when the couple separa tes, or when a member of the couple dies. 
In 2007 in EU, 13% of all marriages cel ebrated in EU were international1 (307,158), and in 
the same year approximately 500,000 internat ional marriages were  dissolved through 
divorce or death. 
It is estimated that over 460 millions euro is at stake each year when international married 
couples separate, through divorce or death (see Annex III). As the future initiatives of the 
Commission would concern both married and unmarried couples, other forms of union are 
analysed later in this report. 
Such initiatives should not only concern Euro pean couples living in Europe, but also 
couples where one or both part ies are third–country nationals liv ing on the terr itory of the 
EU, or European couples living in a third country. However, it has to be mentioned that in 
accordance with the Protocol on the positio n of Denmark annexed to the Treaties, 
Denmark is not concerned by the future initiatives of the Union. 
The study undertaken for those in itiatives show that  international coupl es, or couples who 
own property in other Member States than the one of their origin, face many problems 
related to rules which apply to the couples' assets2.  
The causes of existing problems are complex a nd the national laws on property matter vary 
greatly between the different Member States – some are based on the principle of separate 
property of the spouses' assets (e.g. Austria), whilst others are based on the principle of 
community of property (e.g. France, Italy, Spai n). However, even between the community 
property regimes there are significant differences  as to the property included. Moreover, in 
                                                 
1 For a definition of international couples and marriages, see annex I 
2 For married couples, the notion of  "Matrimonial property regimes"  is used, which means the rules 
which apply to the spouses' assets and which de fine the financial relations between spouses and 
between the spouses and third parties (in particular creditors) – see annex I 
EN 9   EN case there are several countries involved (e.g international c ouples acquiring property in 
another Member State), several co urts might have jurisdiction, a nd this could lead to a risk 
of conflicting law and judicial decisions. In this  context, parties could have difficulties in 
enforcing a decision rendered in a State in th e one in which, for example, a property is 
located. All these differences make it difficult fo r EU citizens to dispose of their properties, 
and could make things more complicated than expected, additional costs, lengthening of proceedings. 
Europeans expect a clear set of  the rules to know which court is competent to deal with 
their case and which law should be applicable in  the daily management of their assets and 
at the moment of the partition of their assets (because of death, divorce,  separation). This is 
a cross–border problem which affects a larg e and growing proportion of citizens in the 
European Union. Those actions concern internat ional private law, and not substantive laws. 
Member States and stakeholders have theref ore urged actions at Eu ropean Union level. 
This impact assessment considers options for taking such actions. 
2. PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONS ULTATION OF INTERESTED 
PARTIES 
2.1. Political mandate  
The Stockholm programme aims for a Europe of citizens were everybody can benefit from 
the common area of justice, freedom and secu rity, and called for the principle of mutual 
recognition  to "be extended to fields that are not yet  covered but essential to everyday life, 
e.g. <…> matrimonial property rights and the property consequences of the separation of 
couples ". 
Much progress has already been made towards the creation of a genuine European Area of 
Civil Justice, with common rules setting out which courts have jurisdiction in cross border civil and family law cases
3. In addition, European Union Regulations provide which law 
should apply to cross-border cases4. However, the question of what happens when a couple 
separates in a cross-border situation is st ill governed entirely by national law, and a 
multitude of different regimes apply in the various Member States. This is usually referred to as "matrimonial property regimes"
5 and is a field where many Europeans face problems. 
2.2. Organisation and timing 
To support the preparation of this impact assessment, the Commi ssion commissioned an 
external study6, which was finished in March 2010. To  guide the drawing up of this study, 
an inter-services steering group was set up w ith the departments most concerned, and two 
meetings took place, in October and December 2009. 
                                                 
3 Regulation (EC) N°44/2001 OJ L 12, 16//01/2001, Regulation (EC) N°2201/2003 OJ L 338, 
23/12/2003 
4 Regulation (EC) N°593/2008, OJ L 177, 04/07/2008, Regulation (EC) N° 864/2007, OJ L 199 
31/07/2007  
5 For the purpose of this report, "matrimonial pr operty regimes" will be used only for married 
couples, and "patrimonial aspects of unions…" will be used for unmarried couples. 
6 By EPEC, Impact assessment study on Community instruments concerning matrimonial property 
regimes and property of unmarried couples with translational elements. 
EN 10   EN In 2003 the ASSER-UCL Consortium was commissioned for a study on matrimonial 
property regimes and the propert y of unmarried couples in pr ivate international law and 
internal law. National reports  were prepared for each of the EU15 Member States and it 
has informed the outline of current problems. This study is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice _home/doc_centre/civil/studies/d oc/regimes/report_regimes_030
703_fr.pdf  
Since the study confirmed the existence of practical problems, in 2006 the European 
Commission adopted a Green Pape r on conflict of laws in ma tters concerning matrimonial 
property regimes7, including the question of jurisdic tion and mutual recognition. 
Approximately 40 responses were received from  Ministries, regional and local authorities, 
NGOs, legal professions and community inst itutions. Responses were received from 
stakeholders in a total of fifteen Member States. 
Following a call for proposals, on 19 May 2008 the Commission set up an expert group to 
assist it in its work on a future legislative proposal on matrimonial property regimes, called 
PRM-III, which is composed of experts ac ting independently of the Member States, 
including several observer bodies8. This Expert Group has examined the whole range of 
issues at stake, such as conflict of laws, ju risdiction rules, recogni tion and enforcement of 
decisions, registration and public ity of matrimonial property re gimes, civil partnerships 
and a optional European regime. Five meeti ngs were arranged by the Commission in the 
period 2008 to 2010. 
A public hearing was organised on 28 September 2009: 99 participants, from the Member 
States (governments and Courts), member of the expert group as well as academics, 
lawyers, notaries and member of civil societ y attended to discuss the usefulness of a 
European instrument on matrimonial property regimes and the consequences in terms of 
property rights of the sepa ration of unmarried couples. 
In addition, in the framework of the st udy done for the Commission in 2009 and 2010, the 
contractor contacted every Member State an d organization of lega l professionals, Bar 
associations, and Citizens Advice Bureau to colle ct information on the legal situation in the 
27 EU Member States, to identify problems faced by citizens and to assess and compare 
policy options. National registers of property regimes, national Statistics Offices and tax 
Authorities were also consulted for this study. 
Moreover, the European Commission organise d on 23 March 2010 an informal meeting 
with representatives of Member States, for wh ich were in particular presented the progress 
of the preparation of this report, the main lines, and to obtain their comments. 
This impact assessment report was presented to the Impact Assessment Board on 2nd June 
2010. This report was completed with additional information, to be in accordance with the 
recommendation of the Impact Assessment Board. 
De facto unions 
                                                 
7 COM(2006)400, http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=fr&type_doc=COMfi
nal&an_doc=2006&nu_doc=400  
8 CNUE (conseil des notariats de l'Union européenne), CCBE (conseil des barreaux européens), 
Hague conférence, Council of Europe, CRE (Colegio de Registradores de Espana). 
EN 11   EN Only eight Member States have specific rules for de facto  unions (for a definition of de 
facto unions, see on Annex I), and practically no conflict of law rules have been codified in 
the Member States so far for de facto unions. It was impossible to co llect precise data and 
figures on the number of de facto unions  in the 27 EU member States.  
Legal professionals questioned a bout current problems for de facto unions referred to the 
absence of substantive law rules,  but not to the lack of jurisdiction rules and conflict of law 
rules (the area where the EU  has competence to act).  
Citizens who live together withou t being married or in a regi stered partnership may have 
made an active choice not to have their prope rty relations governed by a substantive law; 
in most countries, if those citizens wish to have their property relationships governed by a 
substantive law, they could choose to ge t married or register a partnership. 
The vast majority of experts consider that an  EU instrument will not provide appropriate 
answers to the problems faced by de facto unions. It is considered that EU level action on 
de facto unions is premature and cannot be justif ied at present. In the future, if substantive 
law is introduced across the EU, it may be rele vant for the Commission to  revisit this issue. 
3. PROBLEM DEFINITION FOR MARRIED COUPLES 
3.1. The basic problem and its causes  
The starting point for the assessment of curre nt problems is the legal differences between 
Member States in relation to property re gimes for married couples. Although European 
Union rules exist on jurisdiction and applicable law in civil and commercial law, and in 
some areas of family law, no such laws currently exist in the field of matrimonial property regimes, or in the field of property rights of  unmarried couples. The subject is therefore 
governed by national law and bilatera l agreements between countries.  
The concept of matrimonial property regime is  used in all the Member States, with the 
exception of common law countries. Most of th e continental European jurisdictions use 
this concept, and distinguish between a lega l matrimonial property regime (set of rules 
which apply in case of lack of choice of spouses) and optional regimes based on pre- or post- nuptial agreements (‘marriage contracts’, in which spouses can, to a certain extent, 
choose rules which will apply to their marriages). Accord ing to which matrimonial 
property law applies, rules will be different, and assets will be considered as common or individual property. Indeed, in  most countries the legal matrimonial property regime is 
based on the principle of "community property" (all or part of the movable and immovable 
property held or acquired by one spouse is transformed into common property of both 
spouses), with some differences between countri es (the entire property of both spouses is 
held in common, or only acquisitions of s pouses after the marriage…). On the opposite 
side, the system of separate property exists, which has traditionally been the basis of marriages in the Common law countries. Most community property regimes are restricted 
to property acquired after the ma rriage, but some of them incl ude the whole property of the 
spouses (e.g. the Netherlands). Furtherm ore, the common law countries do not know 
matrimonial property at all. The same diversity of rules exists in private international law: 
EN 12   EN some Member States appl y the law of the common nationality of the spouses9, others 
prefer the domicile10 or the common residence of the spouses11. Moreover, whilst most of 
the Member States apply one and the same law to questions of matrimonial property, 
irrespective of the location of such propert y, others prefer a system of splitting the 
applicable law and applying the lex rei sitae  on movable property be longing to the spouses. 
The preparatory work gave a particular at tention to take into consideration the 
characteristics of national laws of each Member State12, in particular of the common law 
States (in which the concept of matrimonial pr operty regime does not exist in itself).  
3.2. Who is affected? 
Those affected are "International couples", who may be defined as  those who live in a 
Member State other than the one of which they  are nationals, where th e spouses come from 
different Member States, or who have assets in a number of Member States13. When the 
couple is split, whether through divorce, sepa ration or death, couples face great problems 
resolving how their assets shoul d be dealt with – which courts  are competent (questions of 
jurisdiction), which law is appl icable? If the couple, or one of them, have debts, then 
creditors need to know against whom they can proceed, which property they can seize, and 
this will depend upon the type of patrimonial property regime applicable to the couple.  
3.3. The Scope of the problem 
In 2007 there were 2, 400, 000 new marriages (s ee Annex IV) in the European Union of 
which approximately 310 000 (13%) were intern ational. In the same year there were 
1, 047, 427 divorces (see Annex V), of which also 13% (137 000) had an international 
element (number and proportion of new internat ional divorces steady increase since 2000). 
It is estimated that the number of married  couples abroad getting divorced was 28 000 and 
married couples with assets abroad 8 000. Moreover, in the same year approx. 2.4 million marriages were dissolved through death, of which approximately 390 000 were estimated 
to be international. Furthermore, ar ound 87 000 dissolution of matrimonial property 
regimes of married couples living abroad  occurred in 2007 through death and 25 000 
liquidations of property regimes of married c ouples with assets abroad. Hence, the total 
number of dissolutions of matr imonial property regimes havi ng an international dimension 
because of death in 2007 was around 500 000. All in all, in 2007 more than 637 000 international marriages split through divorce or  death, and in all these cases matrimonial 
property had to be divided up. These numbers do not include dissoluti ons of matrimonial 
property regimes for other reasons, such as se paration and changes of matrimonial property 
regimes. 
For those entering marriage the problem ma y be one of lack of awareness that 
complications might arise in the future and it is  estimated (see Annex III) that the costs that 
could arise for these couples would be  in the order of 318 million euro. 
                                                
 
9 For example, Art. 14 I, 15 I German EGBGB; §§ 18, 19 I Austrian IPRG; Art. 14 Nr. 1, 15 Greek 
ZGB; Art. 17 § 1 Polish IPRG; Art.  9 II, III Spanish Código civil. 
10 For example, United Kingdom, Ireland. 
11 For example, Art. 51 Nr. 1 Belg ian IPRG; Art. 13 I Latvian ZGB. 
12 a table collecting pieces of in formation on the differences on choice of law and choices of 
jurisdiction in national legislation of EU Member States is provided in Annex II. 
13 A more complete definition of "international married couples", including non-EU nationals living in 
the EU, is provided in annex I 
EN 13   EN For those already married the problem may be due  to one spouse (aware or not of their lack 
of rights) wishing to dispos e of property without the cons ent of their partner. Such 
circumstances will cause a problem for the thir d party potential purchaser and an estimated 
notional cost would be in the order of 160 million euro. 
For those international marriages  divorcing the estimated cost that could be addressed by 
the policy options is 205 million euro. 
The problems arising when international marri ages are dissolved through the death of a 
partner are similar to those arising through di vorce; the estimated notional cost that could 
be addressed by the policy options is 257 million euro.  
In total the order of magnitude of the costs to  international married c ouples of the problems 
that could arise while liquida ting the matrimonial property is estimated to be 1.15 billion 
euro per annum (see Annex IV). 
In addition, property may also have been ac quired by married couples living in a Member 
State other than their country of origin. The estimated value of the problem per annum that 
may result from these matters is 135 m illion euro per annum (see Annex III).  
Additionally, married couples (international and not) coul d acquire, for leisure or 
investment purposes, a property in a Member St ate other than their country of habitual 
residence, and it may lead to the problems w ith the total costs of 72 million euro (see 
Annex III) for marriages with property (either  communal or separate) held in different 
Member States.  
4. PROBLEM DEFINITION FOR UNMARRIED COUPLES  
4.1. The basic problem and its causes 
The causes of current problems for registered partnerships are basically the same as for 
married couples in terms of diff erences between jurisdiction rules,  conflict of law rules etc. 
in the Member States. However, there are so me important additional challenges because 
the concept of registered partnerships in itsel f exists only in 14 Member States: Austria, the 
Netherlands, France, Hungary, United Ki ngdom, Czech Republic, Denmark, Slovenia, 
Finland, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg a nd Ireland (in Sweden, it was possible to 
register partnerships from 1994 until same-sex marriages were allowed in 2009), and not all Member States have substantive laws on this matter, and even fewer have adopted 
jurisdiction rules and conflict of law rules. As  a consequence, the issue of the recognition 
of the concept of registered partnership w ould need to be tackled, while the notion of 
marriage exists in all Member States. 
Furthermore, it is not possible to simply a dopt the jurisdiction and applicable law rules 
developed for matrimonial property regimes: a future regulation on pa trimonial aspects of 
registered partnerships could not determine th e court which has jurisdiction if it is in a 
State that does not recognise registered partnership, or to determine that the applicable law if the law of a country that does not recognise registered partnership. Besides, contrary to 
matrimonial property regimes, decisions on the dissolution on registered partnerships 
cannot be recognised under Re gulation N°2201/2003: consequen tly, it cannot be planned 
that the court which has jurisdiction to deal w ith the "divorce" of a registered partnership 
EN 14   EN under that Regulation has its ju risdiction extended to patrimoni al aspects of the dissolution 
of this partnership. 
4.2. Who is affected? 
Those affected are "International couples", who may be defined as  those who live in a 
Member State other than the one of which th ey are nationals, where the partners come 
from different Member States, or who ha ve assets in a number of Member States14. When 
the couple is split, whether through separati on or death, couples face great problems 
resolving how their assets shoul d be dealt with – which courts  are competent (questions of 
jurisdiction), which law is appl icable? If the couple, or one of them, have debts, then 
creditors need to know against whom they can proceed, which property they can seize, and 
this will depend upon the patrimonial aspects of the registered partnership applicable to the 
couple. 
4.3. The scope of the problem 
In 2007 there were approximately 211,000 new regist ered partnerships in the EU, of which 
over 41,000 had an ‘international dimension’ with regard to  their matrimonial property 
(total of international regist ered partnerships, registered partnerships living abroad or 
having property abroad). It is  difficult to compare the number of registered partnerships, 
because it is a more recent concept than  marriage. However, these numbers are 
significantly increasing. Of these 8500 (4%) end in separation and 1,266 (0.6%) end in 
death per annum (see Annex VI). 
Indeed, it has to be pointed out that the con cept of registered partnership is a recent one, 
appeared in 1989, which already ex ists in 13 Member States. Statistics show that the 
number of registered partnerships increases regularly, and the number of liquidations of 
patrimonial property (including those having an international dimension) due to the 
separation of partners, or of the death of the one  of them, should increase in the same way. 
The average value of property regimes with a transnational element is indicated to be 
noticeably higher than for purely national propert y regimes. Besides, all the practitioners 
indicated that the proportion of  property regimes of registered partnerships with cross-
border elements is steadily increasing. 
The magnitude of the costs to international couples in registered partnerships relating to 
the problems that could be addressed by the policy options is estimated to be 17 million euro per annum could not be compared with sums for international marriages, but it could 
be estimated at several millions of euro each year. Moreover, this figure is expected to 
increase with the increasing number of register ed partnerships and th e number of Member 
States which provide internal ru les on registered partnerships. 
                                                
 
14 A more complete definition of "international married couples", including non-EU nationals living in 
the EU, is provided in annex I 
EN 15   EN 5. IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS 
5.1. Problem 1 - Problems relating to the determination of which court and body 
is competent to handle the case 
A. It is difficult for couples to predict which courts will handle litigation on 
matrimonial property. 
Due to different national rules at the time of th e dissolution of patrimonial assets it is often 
not clear which Member State is competent to  handle the case. It might happen that the 
case can be brought to court in  different Member States a nd consequently one couple can 
have two parallel court proceedings and two decisions, which might conflict. The costs of 
several proceedings must also be taken into account. 
This is further complicated by the fact th at some countries' national laws cover both 
movable and immovable property, whereas othe rs have a split system where movable and 
immovable property is covered in the count ry where it is physically situated. 
If one member of the couple is  aware of this they might ru sh to the court in a Member 
State where more favourable la w for him/her would be applied.  This rush to court, or 
"forum shopping ", significantly decreases legal certaint y for the other spouse or partner, as 
indicated in the example below: 
Citizens rush to court as they know th at they will have more advantages if the 
liquidation is done in one Mem ber State rather than another. This is particularly the 
case between France and the United Kingdom as the latter is known to generally be 
more favourable to the most vulnerable pa rty (normally the wife) whereas the former 
is normally more favourable to husbands. 
 B. Competence of different non-judicial authorities to handle cases concerning 
matrimonial property regimes. 
In different Member States non-judicial auth orities are competent to handle matrimonial 
property regimes. In 21 of the 27 EU Member States exists the body of notaries: public 
officers who establish and certify acts and cont racts. They are not always competent to 
liquidate matrimonial property regimes in othe r countries and citizens often have to deal 
with liquidation including i mmovable property in different  Member States. In this 
situation, problems arise incl uding having additional costs a nd time delays and citizens 
having to rely on different non-judicial authorities in different Member States. 
C. Difficulties because of the relationshi p between jurisdiction on matrimonial 
matters and other rules  
When different courts are competent for divorce, succession and matrimonial property 
liquidation, citizens face differe nt proceedings in different jurisdictions, which may apply 
different national laws. These proceedings  may lead to different, and sometimes 
conflicting, results. The costs of having differe nt proceedings in different Member States 
are high.  
EN 16   EN 5.2. Problem 2 - Problems relating to the applicable law  
A. Conflicting laws are app licable to property regimes . 
If proceedings are started in several countr ies at the same time, the outcome will be 
uncertain because of the differences between Member States’ property regimes, especially 
because some Member States have a system  of common property while others consider 
property to be separate. Connec ting factors are factors in na tional laws, or international 
conventions, to determine which law should be applied (as an example, habitual residence 
of the spouse/partner, common nationality…). At the moment each Member State uses its 
own conflict of law rules, under which different  connecting factors (c ommon nationality or 
domicile/habitual residence of the spouses /partners, physical lo cation of immovable 
property etc.) determine which law should be ap plicable to the dissolution of the property 
regime. This may result in negative c onsequence for the spouses/partners: 
Example: the movable property of a German coupl e living permanently in England is 
governed by German law according to Ge rman conflict of law rules (common 
nationality), whereas it is governed by Englis h law under English conflict of law rules 
(domicile). As a consequence, conflicting judgments of German and English courts on 
the liquidation of the matrimonial regime ar e possible, and may lead to problems with 
regard to the recognitio n of these judgments.  
Even if the same connecting factor is used in the Member States concerned the respective 
conflict of law rules refer to different moments in time: 
Example: A Hungarian husband and his Greek wife ma rried in Greece and lived there 
for three years after the marriage, then mo ved to Hungary where the marriage failed 
after a further two years. In this case th e liquidation of the matrimonial regime was 
governed by Greek substantive law under the Greek conflict of law rule (common 
habitual residence of the spouses at the tim e of marriage), whereas it is governed by 
Hungarian substantive law under the Hungarian conflict of law rule (common habitual 
residence of the spouses at the time of divorce).  
For registered partners, legal uncertainty is  extremely high because most of the Member 
States have not even developed a ny codified conflict of law rules. 
Example: If a same sex couple living in France involved a French national or the 
couple was habitually resident in France, they could register a French PACS (civil 
partnership) and upon death the survivor was exempt from French succession duty. 
Similarly, a French PACS is recognised in England as a Civil Partnership and the 
surviving partner is exempt fr om UK inheritance tax. However, if same-sex couple (both 
UK citizens), who concluded a civil partnership in the UK, moved to France, their 
partnership was not recognised for tax purposes and upon death the survivor had to pay 
60% tax on the French assets, with the result that he had to sell his home. France 
modified its law in 2009 to solve this issue.  
 
EN 17   EN B. Unexpected and unintended consequences related to a change in the 
connecting factor concerning ma trimonial property regimes  
In some countries the law applicable to  the matrimonial prope rty regime changes 
automatically following actions by the spouses (for example, moving to another country) 
without them being notified. This may lead to  unexpected and unintended consequences as 
a law other than the one expected may be ap plied, in which the prov isions may be very 
different to the expectations of the spouses: 
Example:  an English couple living in France for ten years, without making any choice of 
law, automatically becomes s ubject to the legal regime in France. The couple was not 
aware of the automatic change of the appl icable law. The consequences of this 
modification are considerable as there are many differences in the substantive laws of the 
two countries.  
 
Example: in France the principle of mutability applie s. At present, there is a problem of 
legal uncertainty for inter national couples or couples moving abroad. The couples are 
usually unaware that a change in their habitual  residence will affect the law applicable to 
their property regime. Unmarried couples are also sometimes unaware that some Member 
States do not recognise their form of union and that when moving abroad their partnership 
may not be recognised under the law of their new country, leading to significant 
complications. 
Legal uncertainty arising from the mutability principle is therefore higher for unmarried 
couples than for married couples.   
 
C. Differences in the ability to choose th e applicable law and, when a choice is 
possible, between what laws a choice is allowed in cases with transnational elements 
As mentioned above, members of a couple can d ecide to choose which rules will apply to 
their property regimes by agreement ("marriag e contracts", for married couples). When 
spouses/partners are aware of the differences of  conflict of law rules governing property in 
the Member States in which their properties are situated and they are also aware of the resulting problems, they may wish to get ar ound this by drawing up a marital contract and 
choosing a single law applicable to all their as sets irrespective of the countries in which 
movable or immovable properties are situated. Choice of law seems to be possible in most, 
but not all Member States. Furthermore, the limits set up by the Member States are very 
different. Therefore, the choice of law made by the spouses/partners may be recognised in 
one Member State, but not in another Member  State where property is  located, leading to 
the choice not being respected.  
Example : English law is unclear as to whether it is possible to choose different laws for 
different assets. The choice of French law for French real estate is valid in France; 
however, there is no case law or any other indi cation / guidance as to whether it is valid 
in England and Wales as well.  
 
EN 18   EN D. Difficulties because of relationships between applicable laws on property 
regimes and other rules. 
It might be problematic when both the ap plicable law on prope rty regimes and the 
applicable law on succession provide rules to se cure cover the surviving spouse/partner, or 
when both of the laws assume that the surv iving spouse/partner will  be properly under the 
other regime, thus potentially l eaving the spouse/partner without any share in th e estate of 
the deceased, contrary to the desire/will of the deceased. 
In case of a split system in which the a pplicable law for immovable property ( lex rei sitae ) 
might be different from the law for movabl e property (domicile or nationality of the 
spouses/partners) additional problems result sin ce both laws might have to be taken into 
consideration to reach an equitable solution.  
5.3. Problem 3 - Lack of automatic recognit ion and enforcement of judgments in 
property regimes  
The recognition and enforcement of judgments on property matters is regulated either by 
bilateral Conventions/Treatie s between certain Member States or by the national 
procedural law of the Member States. Wher eas foreign judgments on property regimes are 
automatically recognised in some Member  States (Austria, Czech Republic, Greece, 
Germany, Hungary, Italy, Sweden), recognition is  granted in special proceedings by court 
(‘exequatur’) in other Member States (Bel gium, France, Lithuania, Luxembourg and the 
Netherlands). 
The lack of automatic recognition and the va riety of different documents required in 
different Member States causes problems for in ternational couples – time delays and incurs 
higher expenses than for cases where this is not necessary: 
Example:  A Spanish citizen married a man with a double nationality: Dutch and 
German. The couple married in Düsseldor f (Germany) in 1965. Their matrimonial 
property was (automatically) governed by a community regime; both spouses were aware 
of this. For cultural and practical purposes , the Spanish wife changed her nationality, 
after marriage, from Spanish to Dutch and th e couple moved to the Netherlands. They 
owned property both in Germany and in Spain.   
At the time of the divorce, bot h parties had their habitual resi dence in the Netherlands and 
were of Dutch nationality, and therefore the proceedings took place in the Netherlands. 
During the divorce proceedings, the parties agreed that the husband would keep the 
property in the Germany whilst the wife woul d keep the property in Spain, an agreement 
that was formalised by a letter written and signed by th e husband confirming that he 
passed on the ownership rights of the Spanish pr operty to his ex-wife. However, before the 
conclusion of the divorce th e wife had to move back to Spai n for health reasons and 
established her habitual residence there. This had unintended consequences when she 
decided, a year after the divorce, to name thei r children as the legal owners of the property 
in Spain. As she started the pr ocedures for the transfer of pr operty rights, she discovered Example : one member of a Swedish couple owned an apartment in Portugal. According to 
Swedish succession law the ownership should have been transferred to the widow but there 
was a risk that the Portuguese authorities would not accept the ruling so the ownership 
was never transferred.  
EN 19   EN that she needed her husband’s consent to do so because she was married under the 
community of property regime and the letter drafted by her ex-husband (which would have 
been sufficient to transfer pr operty under Dutch law) was not  recognised in Spain. As she 
was now under Spanish law, to confirm that she was the owner of the property she needed 
either a notarial act or the permission of  her ex-husband to give the property to their 
children. 
The case is coming to an end after twenty yea rs of legal proceedings and fees after her ex-
husband agreed to sign before a notary a docum ent transferring prope rty ownership rights 
to the children. 
On the recognition of judgments concerning prope rty aspects of registered partnerships, in 
some Member States (in particular, Latvia  and Slovakia) judgeme nts concerning property 
of unmarried couples are not recognised and th erefore not enforced. On the other hand, few 
Member States (in particular, Austria, Czech Republic, Malta, Poland, Lithuania and 
Romania) affirmed that the general rules on recognition and enforcement for registered 
partnerships are the same as thos e described for married couples.  
5.4. Problem 4 – Inadequate information fo r third parties on the existence of 
property regimes  
At present only 3 Member States have a centr al register of marriage contracts, 12 Member 
States have decentralised regi sters and 4 countries do not have  registers. Consequently, it 
may be difficult or impossible to access information on exis ting property regimes abroad, 
which in turn brings about ot her negative effects for citizen s (costs, time delays etc.). 
Problems experienced by third parties wishin g to buy property or land from a couple will 
persist. It is difficult for third parties to know whether th e spouse or partner selling the 
property is autonomous i.e. if there is se paration of property one  can sell the property 
without the consent of the other. 
When a spouse enters into a contract with a third party, or borrows money from a bank, it 
is important for the third party or for the creditor to know what's going on if this spouse 
become insolvent: they need to be aware on the existence, or not, of a marriage contract; 
and to know which law would a pply on property assets of th e couple. If common property 
exists, creditors have recourse  against that and the private capital of both spouses. On the 
other hand, if the spouses or partners have c hosen a separate property regime, each spouse 
is only liable for the debts which he or she has contracted, while hi s or her creditor only 
has recourse against his or her own capital. So there are more citizens then only the 
spouses and partners, who ar e interested in gathering information about existing 
matrimonial property regimes as well as the matr imonial property regime of the couple in 
question (common or separate property). 
Example : as no national register of marriage contracts and matrimonial regimes is 
currently in place in France, third parties hav e to go through a long procedure in order to 
access this information. Third parties can acces s information on the matrimonial property 
regime chosen by the spouses by checking  the birth certificate  of one the spouses 
(subsequent a special authorisation). 
Furthermore, extracts of birth certificates c annot be accessed by everyone. According to a 
decree, only the person concerned, his/her spou se, parents children, legal representative 
or a person with a special authorisation can ac cess this information. A prosecutor can also 
EN 20   EN ask to access this personal inform ation in the frame of a proceeding.   
 
Example : according to a French lawyer, at presen t it is not possible to access information 
about the regime applicable to the property of  a registered partnership as no national 
register has been established in France. Th e Convention (PACS contract) drafted between 
the partners is kept by the partners themselves  or by a notary (in case the convention as 
been drafted before the latter – however this  constitutes only a minority of the cases). 
Creditors and other third parties therefor e cannot know the financial arrangements 
between the members of the couple.  
6. NEED FOR ACTION AT EU LEVEL FOR MARRIED COUPLES AND 
REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS 
6.1. Baseline scenario - how would the situation evolve, all things being equal? 
European citizens face problems related to pr operty regimes at several circumstances: 
when couples get married, for one or both s pouses and for third parties when one spouse 
dispose an asset where it is communal, when married couples divorce and when one of the 
spouses die. Considering that marriages, pa rtnerships, divorces and separation will 
continue, the problems which are indicated no w will not disappear as citizens will keep 
facing them not only in these important time  of their life, but also in their daily 
management of assets. 
As already mentioned under point 3.3, the total costs that could aris e while liquidating the 
matrimonial property are estimated to be 1.15 billion euro per annum. Although there is a 
slight decrease in the number  of international marriages and fairly stable trend in 
international divorces, the indicated costs are lik ely to remain the same. The costs affecting 
the dissolution of registered partnership are estimated to be more then 17 millions. Those 
costs correspond to the absence of Europe in matrimonial proper ty regimes and for 
property effects of registered  partnership. The costs are link e.g. to the matrimonial/ 
patrimonial property regime differences and most of these costs accrue as fees to lawyers.  
The scale of the problems related to registered  partnerships is sma ll compared with those 
related to marriages with international elemen ts. However unlike the latter, the scale of the 
problem related to registered pa rtnership is likely to increase in the future. This is because 
of the growing number of registered partnershi ps and particularly international registered 
partnership on one hand, and the increasing numbe r of property acquisitions by EU citizens 
in other EU Member States on the other. Be sides, it should be considered that, since 1989, 
12 Member States (plus Sweden) have adopted specific rules on registered partnerships. 
Furthermore, at national level Lithuania, Es tonia and Ireland are exam ining the possibility 
to introduce legislation allowi ng registered partnerships. The number of registered 
partnerships is increasing, and consequently difficulties linked with their dissolution due to 
separation or death will increase in the future. 
Not taking any new action at EU level does not necessarily mean there will be no 
improvement in the situation. Assuming that  the Commission's proposal on successions 
and wills which is currently being negotiate d will be adopted, this should improve the 
situation when couples are split by the deat h of one member of the couple, by providing 
greater legal certainty. 
EN 21   EN Considering the problems citizens face, if no action is taken at the European Union 
level, the legal uncertainty will remain for the future and international couples as well 
as married couples owning property in diff erent Member States will have to face the 
above mentioned problems. 
6.2. Legal framework in place 
Matters concerning the right of property arising out of matr imonial property regimes and 
property of registered partners hips are excluded from the sc ope of the existing European 
Union instruments on mutual r ecognition and enforcement.  
Spouses (regardless of their na tionality) of EU nationals have  the right to move anywhere 
in the European Union with thei r spouse under Council Directive 2004/38/EC15. However, 
the rights of registered partners are more lim ited, and if they are not EU citizens they only 
have rights as family members if the host Memb er State treats registered partnerships as 
marriage. 
There are currently vast differences between Member States’ international conflict rules on 
matrimonial regimes, with very little inte rnational cooperation. Only  few member States 
provide specific rules on conf lict of law for registered pa rtnerships in their national 
legislation. 
In this field two main international multilate ral instruments exist: the Hague Convention of 
17 July 1905 relating to conflicts  of laws with regard to the effects of marriage on the 
rights and duties of the spouses in their pers onal relationship and wi th regard to their 
estates, and the Hague Convention of 14 Marc h 1978 on the law applicable to matrimonial 
property regimes. However, these Conventions , which concern only married couples, have 
only been ratified by 3 Member States. 
An ICCS (International Commission on Ci vil Status) Convention of 2007 on the 
recognition of registered partnerships s hould also be mentioned, and a number of 
multilateral and bilateral agreements exist, but they do not resolve all the problems. 
These Conventions are examined bello w in the part on discarded options. 
6.3. Does the EU have the power to act? 
A. Treaty base  
Article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union is the legal base for 
judicial cooperation in  civil matters following the entry in to force of the Lisbon Treaty. It 
provides that the European Parliament and th e Council shall adopt measures, particularly 
when necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market, aimed at ensuring [inter alia]: 
                                                
 
15 Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right 
of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 
68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 
93/96/EEC, OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77–123  
EN 22   EN • the mutual recognition and enforcement betw een Member States of judgments and of 
decisions in extrajudicial cases  
• the compatibility of the rules applicable in  the Member States concerning conflict of 
laws and of jurisdiction 
• effective access to justice  
• the elimination of obstacles to  the proper functioning of civi l proceedings, if necessary 
by promoting the compatibility of the rules on civil procedure appli cable in the Member 
States 
Article 81(3) of the TFEU makes it clear that when such measures concern family law, the 
Council shall act unanimously after c onsulting the European Parliament. 
B. Necessity test (Subsidiarity)  
The problems identified above show  clearly that we are dealing with transnational or cross-
border situations which by their very nature can not be properly dealt with at the level of 
the individual Member States. EU level actio n in the closely relate d fields of divorce, 
parental responsibility and civil and comm ercial litigation have made a clear and 
significant contribution to help ing citizens solve cross borde r legal problems related to 
their day to day lives. The Commission's pr oposal on wills and successions is a further 
example of the added value of  action at EU level in term s of solving problems due to 
incompatibilities of the Member States' legal systems. Actions on property regimes for married couples and registered partners woul d help solve a large number of problems for 
citizens but would not interfere in purely domes tic scenarios, thus going no further than is 
necessary. 
It has to be kept in mi nd that the future Union Instruments would not involve 
harmonisation of the substantive laws on prope rty relations between spouses or between 
citizens who have regist ered a partnership, which is outsi de the scope of the Commission’s 
competences.  
EN 23   EN  
7. OBJECTIVES AND DESCRIPTION OF POLICY OPTIONS 
The overall objective of the Proposals is to  contribute to the creation of a genuine 
European area of civil justice in  the field of matrimonial proper ty regime and in the field of 
patrimonial aspects of registered partnerships.  
The general and specific objectives are summarised in the following table: 
General and specific objectives 
General objectives Specific objectives 
To prevent the occurrence of parallel proceedings and of the 
application of different substant ive laws to the property of a 
married or unmarried couple. 
To ensure spouses and partners ar e able to choose, as far as is 
appropriate, the rules and legal provisions applicable to their situation. 
To facilitate the recognition and enforcement of judgements 
and other decisions re lating to international property regimes 
of married and unmarried couples. 
To make it possible for parties of a couple to bring all legal 
matters relating to their case (as a result of separation or death which brings about the liquidation of the matrimonial regime) before the same court. 
To ensure that spouses and pa rtners know, where they have 
not chosen an applicable law, which law will be applicable in the event of liquidation of the property regime. 
To ensure compatibility with ot her proposed EU rules (e.g. in 
relation to successions and wills  and, for married couples, 
applicable law in divorce proceedings). To remove the remaining 
restrictions on citizens 
exercising their rights in the European judicial area through the extension of mutual recognition to matrimonial property rights and the property consequences of the separation of couples. 
To increase access to information on matrimonial and 
property regimes. 
 
The Study carried out by the contractor (EPEC Consortium) proposed 10 policy options, 
and analysed separately married couples, registered partnership, and problems on the 
information on property regimes of spouses and partners. For the purpose of this report, the 
most relevant 7 policy options have  been indentified and analysed. 
EN 24   EN 8. DISCARDED POLICY OPTIONS  
It was not possible or relevant to assess in detail all theoretical policy options, or all 
different combinations of elements (e.g. diffe rent connecting factors,  choice of law etc). 
Certain policy options have therefore been disc arded after an initial evaluation, as follows: 
- Harmonisation of jurisdiction rules : Simply harmonizing jurisd iction rules without a 
parallel harmonization of the rules on recogni tion and enforcement of judgments does not 
make sense, because harmonization of jurisdic tion rules is only a means to facilitate the 
mutual recognition and enforcement of judgm ents between the Member States. On the 
basis of harmonized jurisdicti on rules there is no need for control of jurisdiction by the 
courts in the State where r ecognition and/or enforcement is sought. For this reason, all 
existing EU regulations on intern ational civil procedure law (Bru ssels I, Brussels II a) as 
well as Regulation (EC) No. 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on maintenance matters16 
combine both aspects. 
- Introduction of rules on automatic recognitio n and enforcement of judgments and other 
decisions : automatic recognition and enforcement of  judgments of other Member States 
requires harmonization of jurisdic tion rules. Both aspects are so  closely connected that an 
EU instrument on matters of matrimonial prop erty regimes necessarily has to combine both 
elements (as explained above relating to th e option on "harmonizati on of jurisdiction 
rules"). 
                                                 
16 Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 D ecember 2008 on jurisdic tion, applicable law, 
recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance 
obligations: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:007:0001:0079:EN:PDF   Policy options that address problems caused by national legislative differences concerning 
property regimes for married couples and regi stered partnerships with transnational 
elements: 
Policy Option 1: Status quo 
Policy Option 2: Provision of targeted informa tion provision to raise citizens’ awareness 
that patrimonial property regimes may not be the same in other Member States 
Policy Option 3: Harmonisation of jurisdiction rules and introduction of rules on automatic 
recognition and enforcement of judgments 
Policy Option 4: Harmonisati on of conflict of law rules 
Policy Option 5: Uniform optional Europ ean proforma for marriage contracts 
Policy Option 6: Harmonisation of conflict of  law rules and jurisdiction rules, and 
introduction of rules on automatic rec ognition and enforcement of judgments  
Policy Option 7: Provision of information for third parties on the existence of property 
regimes of married couples and coup les in registered partnerships  
EN 25   EN -Mutual recognition of the choice of law made by spouses/partners: not the Member States 
allow the choice of app licable law in this field. Introduc ing the principle of freedom of 
choice results to establish already a comm on rule. However, when no choice is made, 
common rules are still needed, to ensure a complete and c oherent system. If only the 
choice of the applicable law is introduced w ithout any harmonisation of the relevant rules 
in the absence of such choice, national rule s will continue to apply in this area, and 
therefore legal security and coherence will not  be ensured. For the Member States which 
know the possibility of choi ce, there must be common rules to determine common 
connecting factors. Otherwise, the strongest part could impose the choice of the law which 
is the most advantageous on the detriment the weaker part. 
- Ratification by the EU and its Member States  of the Hague Convention of 17 July 1905 
relating to conflicts of laws with regard to the effects of marriage on the rights and duties 
of the spouses in their personal relati onship and with regard to their estates : this 
Convention17 (which concerns only married couples) establishes rules with regard to the 
effects (personal and financial) of marriage. In pract ice, the Convention has principally lost 
its significance; because only a small number of countries are bound by it (it applies in 
Italy, Portugal and Romania). Furthermore, b ecause its rules include the choice of law of 
the nationality of th e husband, this internat ional Convention is in  conflict with the 
fundamental principle of equality of the s pouses making it impractical to apply in full18.  
- Ratification by the EU and its Member States  of the Hague Convention of 14 March 1978 
on the Law Applicable to Matrimonial Propert y Regimes (which concerns only married 
couples):  this Convention is restri cted to the determination of the law applicable to 
matrimonial property regimes. The Convention doe s not cover the questions of jurisdiction 
and of recognition/enforcement of judgments. The conflict of law rules of the Convention 
are based on a (limited) choice of  the applicable law, but if th e spouses have not chosen the 
law applicable, their matrimonial property regi me is governed by the internal law of the 
State in which they both establish their first habitual residence. However, this Convention 
provides a rule of automatic change of app licable law, without the spouses necessarily 
being aware of it. Consequen tly, the result of liquidation of  matrimonial property regime 
might be unpredictable and surp rising, providing very little le gal security. This might be 
the reason that in more than 30 years only three States (the Netherlands, Luxemburg, 
France) have ratified the Convention. 
- A particular option which was analysed with respect to registered partnerships is 
accession of the EU and Memb er States to the ICCS Con vention on the recognition of 
registered partnerships, opened for signature on 5 September 2007 , but this only provides 
rules on recognition of the no tion of partnership (which would be helpful for the 
preliminary question of the recognition in itself of the registered partnership), but does not 
include rules on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement. Moreover, this 
Convention has not been ratified by any Member  State. Consequentl y, the ratification of 
the ICCS convention by all Member States could not solve problem s met by couples in a 
registered partnership, although it might be a helpful first step.  
                                                 
17 http://hcch.e-vision.nl/index_en.php?act=text.display&tid=17   
18 EJN refers to Portugal, where, as a consequence, the law which normally governs the effects of 
marriage is the one designated under conflict of laws rules in the Portuguese Civil Code. 
http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/applicable_law/applicable_law_por_en.htm   
EN 26   EN - With regard to the non-legislative opti ons, alternatives considered include : 
benchmarking, training of legal professiona ls, codes of conduct, the adoption of a 
Communication or an action programme and the exchange of good practice. However, 
none of these alternatives seem to generate ma ny benefits for the ach ievement of the policy 
objectives on their own. Therefore, they have been discarded as such, but may be borne in 
mind later on as flanking measures for legislative options. 
9. RETAINED POLICY OPTIONS 
9.1. Policy Option 1:  
Status quo : under this option there would be no ne w common EU (legislative) action in 
the area of property regimes, although the pr esent situation would follow its natural 
development at national, EU and international level.  
9.2. Policy Option 2:   
Targeted information provision to raise ci tizens’ awareness that rules on property 
regime may not be the same in other Member States : information would be distributed 
to citizens who are about to ge t married or enter into a regi stered partnership that the 
property regime may change in case of a mo ve or acquisition of property abroad. For 
example, short information leaflets could be prepared and distributed at the time citizens 
register to get married (or to enter into a partnership) , or when they undertake 
administrative steps in relation to a move to  another Member State. The leaflets would 
contain some limited generic information concer ning that the fact that  their property may 
be subject to different rights an d constraints. The leaflet would need to be translated to all 
EU languages. The text would be common for all EU countries. 
9.3. Policy Option 3:  
Harmonisation of jurisdiction rules and introduction of rules on automatic 
recognition and enforcement of judgments . This option would imply EU legislation 
establishing harmonised jurisdiction rules and rules on automatic recognition and 
enforcement of judgments and other decisi ons. Although it is a "hea vier" instrument, a 
Regulation would be more appr opriate than a Directive be cause only a Regulation would 
apply identically in all the Member States, which is essential if there is to be a 
harmonisation of rules. 
Harmonisation of jurisdiction rules 
Special rules on jurisdiction with regard to  the dissolution of th e matrimonial regime.  The 
dissolution of the property regime often coinci des with the dissolution of the marriage or 
partnership due to divorce /sep aration or death. The special ru le would imply an extension 
of the jurisdiction of the court dealing w ith this divorce (according to Regulation 
N°2201/2003) or with the succession (accordin g to the proposed Regulation on succession 
and wills) to have also jurisdiction with rega rd to the dissolution of the property regime. 
General rule on jurisdiction:  In other cases, jurisdiction would be determined on the basis 
of a hierarchy of connecting factors. The fo llowing criteria (in line with those criteria 
already existing in the other Regul ations in this field) should be considered: the spouses’ or 
EN 27   EN partners' common habitual residence; the last ha bitual residence of the spouses or partners 
if one of them still reside s there; the habitual re sidence of the respondent. 
Rules on residual jurisdiction and on lis pendens  would be introduced (on the basis of 
those already existing in the othe r Regulations in this field). 
Rules on automatic recognition and enforc ement of judgments, other decisions and 
authentic acts/deeds 
Rules concerning the automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments and other 
decisions would be introduced.  The general rule would be  automatic recognition of 
judgments and other decisions  given in one Member State in matters of matrimonial 
property regimes in all other Member States. Th is means that no review as to the substance 
of a decision would be made, and no speci al procedure of recognition is required. 
Common grounds for refusing to recognise fore ign judgments and other decisions would 
be introduced,  on the basis of those alrea dy existing in other Regulat ions still existing (ex: 
judgment manifestly contra ry to the public policy). 
9.4. Policy Option 4:  
Harmonisation of conflict of law rules   
Under this option, there would be  EU legislative action in term s of adoption of harmonised 
conflict-of-law rules on property regimes.  As explained above, the only appropriate 
instrument would be a Regulation. 
A (limited) choice of law would be introduced , but restricted to laws which are 
sufficiently connected with the property regime of the spouses  or partners. This choice of 
law could be limited to the following laws: (i) Law of the habitual residence of either spouse or partner; (ii) Law of the nationality of either spous e or partner. It should be 
possible to make a choice of law at any time during their marriage or partnership and they 
should also be free to change a choice of law made at an ea rlier stage. It has to be 
considered that the extent of the choice of law could not be the same for married couples 
and couples in a registered pa rtnership. Indeed, partners coul d not choose as applicable law 
to their partnership the law of a State that do es not provide rules on re gistered partnerships 
in its national legislation. 
If no choice of law was made, a system based on a hierarchy of connecting factors  would 
be applicable: (i) Common or first habitual residence of the spouses or partners; (ii) 
Common nationality of the spouses or part ners; (iii) Other close connection of the 
matrimonial regime to the law of a State. Th e definition of habitual residence would follow 
that of the ECJ ("permanent and usual centre of interests of a person chosen by the person 
with the intention to live ther e permanently"). For the same reason as mentioned above, the 
list of connecting factors that a pplied in case of lack of choice  of law could not be the same 
for registered partnerships. 
A unitary system would be established,  i.e. all property, both movable and immovable 
property, wherever it is situated woul d be subject to a single law.  
Principle of immutability.  The conflict of law rule in pr operty matters should be based on 
the principle of immutability of the property regime. This means that the legal framework 
EN 28   EN of the property regime of the spouses wi ll remain unchanged during the marriage or 
partnership. In particular there will be no au tomatic change of the property regime on the 
ground that a relevant conn ecting factor has changed. 
Renvoi (system by which the applicable law provi des that in fact another national law 
should apply to the case) is not accepted, and rules would be universally applicable ( i.e. 
the conflict of law rules would apply also in rela tion to third countries). 
The scope of the rules : positive definition of the concept supplemented by a  list of 
matters that are expressly excluded . In order to have a common definition, because the 
scope of matrimonial property law is defined ve ry differently in the national laws of the 
Member States, and the concept of matrimonial  property law in the sense of continental 
law is not even known to the common law count ries, it would be defi ned in a positive way. 
9.5. Policy Option 5: 
Uniform optional European proforma for marriage contracts  
The main features of this model are as follows: 
– The form of the agreement is an instru ment drawn up by a notary in accordance 
with his/her local law. 
– The agreement contains the following typi cal clauses: (i) on the choice of the 
property regime (of a certain national law) , (ii) on the choice of the applicable 
law, (iii) on the information clauses for th ird parties about the general rules of the 
property regime chosen by the spouses or partners (who is the owner of which property, what are the responsibilities of  the spouses or partners for debts 
incurred, and the effects of regime c hosen for and against third parties).  
A proposal for a uniform optional European pr oforma for marriage contracts was drafted 
by notaries from different European countries
19. This draft regime, of which some parts 
would need to be adapted to the specifics of the national situation, includes an outline of 
provisions as well as guidance for notaries/other legal professionals that  would assist with 
the drawing up of the regime. 
This proposal is not a European matrimonial regime in the sense there no harmonisation of 
substantive matrimonial property law, but onl y the introduction of a optional model form 
for ante- and postnuptial agreements ("marriage contracts"). 
9.6. Policy Option 6:  
Harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules, and introduction of 
rules on automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments 
This option, which would imply EU legislativ e action in the form of a Regulation, would 
combine options 4 (on harmonisation of conflic t of law rules on international property 
regimes) and 3 (jurisdiction rules and rule s on automatic recognition and enforcement of 
judgments). 
                                                 
19 The experts were from the following countries: Germany, England and Wales, Austria, Spain, 
France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands , Poland, Romania and Switzerland.  
EN 29   EN 9.7. Policy Option 7:  
Provision of information on property regimes of married couples and registered 
partnerships 
This option could be achieved in  a number of different ways: 
• Creation of a webpage of existing registers of matrimonial property regimes, property 
regime aspects of registered partnerships and national rules 
• Creation of a database/knowledge manage ment system on existing registers of 
matrimonial property regimes, property regime  aspects of register ed partnerships and 
national rules 
• Commission Recommendation on (i) the esta blishment of national registers of 
matrimonial property regimes a nd property regime aspects of  registered partnerships; 
and, (ii) interconnected nationa l registers; and, (iii) the organisation of information 
campaigns on these 
• Compulsory establishment of interconnected  national registers of  matrimonial property 
regimes and property regime aspect s of registered partnerships.  
10. ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS OF POLICY OPTIONS  
10.1. Policy Option 1: Status quo. 
(i) Objectives to achieve: This option would not meet the objectives indicated above. The 
Member States are unlikely to streamline their national rules (both with regard to jurisdiction rules and conflict of law rules) – they may make changes to their national legal 
systems on their own initiative, but it is unlikely that these will be made with a view to 
harmonize the country’s rules with those of other EU Member Stat es. In particular, 
variations between national systems in term s of (i) community property and separate 
property, as well as (ii) unita ry systems and systems of separate conflict of law rules for 
movable and immovable property are likely to re main. On the contrary, it is possible that 
the existing problems are likely to become aggravated in view of current trends of citizens – moving to another country, ge tting married with citizens fr om other countries, having 
assets in other countries. In summary, this option does not imply any positive effects for citizens or third parties and pr oblems would become worse.  
(ii) Fundamental rights:  Maintaining the status quo  would mean that the fundamental 
right to property according to Article 17 of the Charter, which also protects the right of the 
spouse or partner to propert y acquired during the marriage /partnership in case of 
dissolution of the marriage/partnerships, w ould not be fully ensured because different 
jurisdictions or laws may apply to the same  property which would incur long proceedings 
to determine which court will handle the case or which law will apply, thus significantly delaying access to property. Furthermore, the fundamental rights in Articles 20, 21 and 23 
of the Charter (equality before the law, non- discrimination and equality between men and 
women) would not be fully ensured when, in  the case of divorce or separation, one party 
can rush to a court that may be  more favorable to him/her.  
EN 30   EN (iii) Social effects:  The problems experienced by the w eaker party in the couple during 
separation proceedings are also likely to re main as the spouse or  partner in a better 
financial situation may hire a legal professi onal for advice and consequently rush to the 
court where they are most likely to get the mo st favorable financial outcome for their case. 
(iv) Financial costs:  This option itself would not imply any financial costs to the EU or 
other public authorities.  
(v) Economic effects:  The problems experienced by ec onomically disadvantaged are 
likely to remain as legal professionals will be able to charge more for increasing numbers of complicated cases due to links to two or  more countries. Time delays and costs, 
including reduction of the va lue of assets will become worse than at present. 
10.2. Policy Option 2: Targeted provision of information to raise citizens’ 
awareness that the property regime may not be the same in other Member States and that they can register their regime 
(i) Objectives to achieve:  This option would have some  limited positive impacts with 
regards to achieving the objectives. Firstly, it could to a very limited extent prevent the 
occurrence of parallel proceedi ngs and the application of different substantive laws, if the 
information provided would lead to that a hi gher proportion of couples  take precautionary 
measures, e.g. in the form of a marriage or pa rtnership contract and choice of applicable 
law. Although this option would not introduc e any rules concerning the ability for the 
citizens to choose the law applicable to their pr operty, as citizens are made aware that their 
property regime may change if they move to another Member State, they may be more 
inclined to seek advice and take necessary  steps to ensure that  this does not have 
significant negative conseque nces in the future.  
However, it is also possible that despite being aw are, couples decide that it is not necessary 
or desirable for them to take precautionary m easures, or they may not agree on what law to 
choose. Furthermore, given the vast differen ces between national legal systems it is also 
possible that measures taken in the contra ct may not be valid in the place where 
proceedings are being handled or that a choi ce of law is not possible. An information 
campaign would raise awareness am ongst spouses and partners that  it is important for them 
to be aware of their property regime, and that they have the possibility to register their 
property regime and may therefor e encourage them to do so.  
(ii) Fundamental rights:  This option would have a positive impact on Article 17 of the 
Charter (right to property). U pon being informed of the possi ble consequences of moving 
to another country on their property regime, a couple can decide to draw up a marriage 
contract, or a partnership contra ct. This would therefore ensure that the parties have agreed 
on the measures to be taken in relation to th eir property in the event of divorce or death, 
thus respecting both parties’ ri ght to property. Furt hermore, this option would also have a 
positive impact on third parties wishing to pu rchase the property from the couple as a 
contract would clarify who is entitled to sell and under what conditions. However, this 
would be only marginal impact as such meas ures may not be taken despite awareness of 
potential problems, or that the measures are not valid.  
(iii) Social effects:  There would be minor improvements co mpared to the present situation. 
In particular costs for legal advice and assistan ce could slightly decrea se in case adequate 
EN 31   EN precautionary measures (choice of law) were taken to reduce the likelihood of problems 
and if these measures are recognised by th e Member State handling the proceedings.  
(iv) Financial costs:  The costs related to producing the information leaflets would amount 
to 2 million euro per year including drafti ng, amendments, translation and distribution 
costs.   
(v) Economic effects:  it is estimated that this option would lead to maximum 4% savings 
of the estimated costs, which a new initiative should address.  
10.3. Policy option 3: Harmonisation of jurisd iction rules and introduction of rules 
on automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments, decisions and deeds.  
(i) Objectives to achieve:  This option would have a limited positive impact; however it 
would have some advantages compared to th e current situation. The rules of jurisdiction 
would be harmonized and rules on lis pendens  would be introduced, thus the couples 
would be able to avoid pa rallel court proceedings.  It would also increase legal certainty. 
Problems with regard to the r ecognition of decisions would be  greatly reduced. This means 
that the citizens no longer w ould have to go to courts in different countries and go through 
the same procedures already finalized in a nother country. However as the applicable law 
rules would be not harmonized, the lack of cl arity for the spouses with regard to the 
applicable law questions would remain unresolved.  
(ii) Fundamental rights:  This option would have an impact on Article 17 (right to 
property) of the European Charter of Fundame ntal Rights. By extending the jurisdiction of 
the court dealing with this separation/divorce or with the succession to have also jurisdiction with regard to the liquidation of the matrimonial pr operty regime, and by 
introducing lis pendens rules and rules on automatic recognition and enforcement of 
decisions, this option would re duce the costs to parties in terms of time delays and 
administrative procedures (in terms of parallel proceedings and ensuring that the decision 
is recognised and enforced). The reduction of such costs would therefore allow both 
parties, both weak and strong, to have a righ t to access their property. This would also 
contribute to respecting the equality before  the law (Article 20, European Charter of 
Fundamental Rights). However, the possibility that the stronger party seeks legal advice, 
and consequently ‘chooses’ the court that woul d be most favourable to him/her (by rushing 
to court), remains.  
(iii) Social impacts:  This option would result in costs savings for the citizens because of 
the prevention of parallel proceedings. Savings  would also be incurred because of the 
facilitation of recognition and enforcement of  decisions throughout th e EU. However, this 
option does not address problems faced by the w eaker party: the wealthier one may take 
advantage of legal advice and rush to court in order to seize the court with the most 
advantageous outcome for him/her.  
(iv) Financial costs:  Financial costs for administra tion would be very low for the 
introduction of new jurisdiction rules.  
(v) Economic impacts:  This option would lead to cost savings for Member States, which 
are estimated by the study to represent a maxi mum of 2% of the costs currently pertaining 
to the problems addressed by the policy options. 
EN 32   EN 10.4. Policy option 4: Harmonisation of conflict of law rules.  
(i) Objectives to achieve:  Although this option would not fully achieve the objectives, it 
would have some advantages compared to  the current situation. This option would 
introduce harmonised conflict of law rules ba sed on a hierarchy of connecting factors. 
Several jurisdictions could still handle the ca se (i.e. the problem of  parallel proceedings 
would remain), but they would apply the same conflict of law rules and, as a result, they 
should also apply the same substantive law on property regimes. This policy option would 
introduce harmonised rules on a limited choice of  law for the spouses or partners. As a 
result, in those cases where a choice was made , there would be increased certainty as to 
what law will be applied to the property regi me thus increasing the predictability of the 
outcome of the proceedings. It would also impl y great benefits in terms of eliminating the 
impetus to rush to court and thereby prevent forum shopping . This option would also 
introduce the principle of immutability and a unitary system, whereby all matrimonial 
property (both movable and immovable) and wherev er it is situated would be subject to a 
single law. This would greatly improve legal ce rtainty for the parties that have not made a 
choice as the hierarchy of connecting factors w ould ensure legal certainty with regard to 
the applicable law. This option would contri bute to ensuring compatibility with other 
(proposed) EU rules in relation.  
(ii) Fundamental rights: This option would have an im pact on Article 17 (right to 
property) of the European Charter of Fundame ntal Rights, while th is option would reduce 
the costs to parties in terms of time delays and administrativ e procedures. The reduction of 
such costs would therefore allow the partie s, both weak and str ong, better rights to 
property, consequently contributing to respect the equality between men and women (Article 23 of the European Ch arter of Fundamental Rights).  However as this option does 
not include any rules on recognition and enforc ement, in case problems arise in relation to 
the recognition of a decision the proceedings  may nevertheless be delayed. This would 
have slightly negative consequences on the right  to property as it would take longer for the 
parties to access their property in terms of time delays.  
(iii) Social effects: There would be costs reductions for ci tizens in terms of reduced legal 
fees (in particular in those cases when the s pouses or partners made a choice of law). Also 
it would be benefits for economically disadvant aged persons as the simplification of the 
proceedings through harmonisation of conflict of law rules will eliminate the reason for 
rush to court (forum shopping) by the wea lthier spouses or part ners. Moreover, costs 
would also be reduced as legal professionals would not need to look into other countries’ 
conflict of law rules and since no renvoi  would be necessary (which would save time and 
money). However, there would st ill be costs e.g. due  to the lack of a doption of automatic 
rules on recognition and enforcement.  
(iv) Financial costs:  Financial costs for administration would be very low for the 
introduction of new rules.  
(v) Economic effects:  This option would lead to some limited cost savings. These savings 
are estimated to be maximum 12% (by EPEC) of the costs currentl y pertaining to the 
problems addressed by the policy options.  
EN 33   EN 10.5. Policy Option 5: Uniform optional European proforma for a marriage 
contract  
As a preliminary remark, it has to be noted that this assumption has been developed only 
for married couples, by taking into account the existing rules in Europe in matrimonial 
property regimes. 
(i) Objectives to achieve:  the introduction of Uniform op tional European proforma for a 
marriage contract would ensure that where pe ople have opted to draw up such a contract, 
its format and content would be recognised throughout the EU. For the citizens drawing up 
such contract would be reminded that th ey can use the possibility, offered by the 
harmonisation of conflict of law rules, to choose the law applicable to their matrimonial property regime. As the Uniform optional Europ ean proforma for a marriage contract also 
includes the possibility to amend the contract  if a couple moves to another Member State 
and in case they are aware that they can chan ge the law applicable to their matrimonial 
property regime, they could take the necessary st eps to choose the law that would facilitate 
proceedings the most in situations of divorce or death.  
(ii) Fundamental rights:  this option would have an impact o Article 17 (right of 
property). By allowing parties to choose the applicable law, this option would reduce the 
costs to parties in terms of time delays a nd administrative proced ures. The reduction of 
such costs would therefore allow the partie s, both weak and str ong, to better access to 
property. This would also contribute to re specting the equality between men and women 
(article 23).  
(iii) Social impacts:  the introduction of the Uniform optional European proforma for a 
marriage contract would increase legal certainty  in that it would increase the number of 
citizens who draw up a marriage contract, choose a law and amend it when necessary. This option would also greatly benef it third parties, since the prof orma foresees that additional 
information clauses be included informing third parties in relation to matrimonial property 
regime of the spouses
20.  
(iv) Financial costs:  This option would cause costs for administrative work to produce the 
necessary legislation at EU level. This is estimated to be the equivalent of one FTE Commission official during one year. To ensu re judicial cooperation training of legal 
professionals in the Member St ates also would be required.  
(v) Economic effects:  This option would lead to some limited cost savings. These savings 
are estimated to be maximum 17 % of the costs currently pertaining to the problems addressed by the policy options. Nevertheless , this option has been developed only for 
married couples, and a vast majo rity of experts consider that  such a proposal is immature, 
because of big differences that still exis ts between legislation of Member States. 
                                                
 
20 The Proforma foresees that third parties should be informed in relation to: who is the owner of the 
property; what are the powers of the spouses with regard to the administration of the property; the 
responsibility of the spouses for debts incurred; and the effects of the chosen regime for and against 
third parties. 
EN 34   EN 10.6. Policy Option 6: Harmonisation of conflic t of law rules and jurisdiction rules, 
and introduction of rules on automa tic recognition and enforcement of 
judgments 
Harmonised conflict of law rules would ensure, as far as possible, that the same law is 
applied throughout the EU on a same case.  They would also help preventing the occurrence 
of forum shopping as there would no longer be a n eed to rush to the court which could lead 
to the most favourable outcome for one of the parties. 
Moreover, the introduction of the rules on jurisdiction and lis pendens provision  in 
combination with rules on recognition and enfo rcement of judgments would significantly 
reduce the possibility of para llel and conflicting proceedings or of lack of proceedings. 
This set of rules would lead to very fe w possibilities for parallel proceedings.  
There is a minor risk that despite harmonised conflict of law rules different laws might be 
applied by the courts of the Member States (for  instance due to a different interpretation of 
habitual residence). It is expected, however, that legal certainty woul d increase in the long 
term (e.g. through case law and rulings by the ECJ). 
This policy option would introduce harmonised conflict of law rules entailing a limited 
choice of law for the spouses. As a result, in those cases where a choice was made, there 
would be increased certainty as to what law will be applied to the matrimonial property 
regime thus increasing the predictability of the outcome of the proceedings. 
This option would also introduce rules on automatic recognition and enforcement of 
judgments, decisions and deeds, thus increasi ng the likelihood that the choice made by the 
spouses is recognised and applied in all Member States. This would contribute to 
overcoming problems related to non-recognition of foreign decisions relating to property 
regimes of married couples and registered partners. 
For Policy Option 7, "Provision of info rmation on property regimes of married 
couples and registered partnerships", sev eral sub-options have been envisaged. 
As a preliminary remark, the idea to create a central EU register of matrimonial property 
regimes and property regime aspects for regist ered partnership has been discarded, because 
of its costs, and because since it would not be  compulsory to register property regimes, 
uncertainties as to whether a such a regime exists will remain with the existing difference between systems of registration. 
10.7. Policy Option 7(a): Creation of a webpage  on existing registers of property 
regimes and national rules 
Access to information would be slightly impr oved for legal professionals and third parties 
desiring to determine the property regime applying to the property or land they are about to 
purchase. However, there would still be Member States where such registers have not been established, and in the other Member States ther e is not always an obligation for couples to 
register any document indicating which property regime applies.  Cost reductions would be 
particularly significant for international marriages when one spouse disposing of property 
under community property regime, and for intern ational registered pa rtnerships and more 
especially regarding problem s occurring at separation. Impacts on differe nt social and 
economic groups : costs for legal advice and assistan ce could slightly decrease if it 
becomes easier to access information, but the im pact of this option would only be limited. 
EN 35   EN Considering Fundamental Rights , it would have a minor positiv e impact on Article 17 
(right to property): if information is easier to  access for legal professi onals and citizens, by 
speeding time delays in finding the correct information, and accessing their property much 
faster. Social impacts: costs for legal advice and assistance  could slightly decrease if it 
becomes easier to access information, but the imp act of this option woul d be very limited. 
Financial costs : this option would lead to costs related to the establishment of the 
webpage. These costs are estimated at 5000 euro (and very low maintenance costs). 
10.8. Policy Option 7(b): Creation of a da tabase/knowledge management system 
on existing registers of matrimonial property regimes and national rules. 
As in the previous case, access to informa tion would be slightly improved for legal 
professionals and third parties.  In addition, this option would provide a more user-friendly 
information tool which would allow citizen s to access information by typing key words 
concerning their case. This option however , significantly relies on the ability and 
willingness of Member States’ authorities to up date information regularly; if this is not 
done there is a risk that the information provi ded in the database may be incorrect. For the 
same reasons as those mentioned in the previous policy option, the extent of the 
information they contain would remain limited. Fundamental Rights, social impacts, 
economic and financial impacts  would be the same that those in the previous sub-option. 
Costs : this option would lead to costs related to  the establishment of  a database/knowledge 
management system. The estimated annual co sts are 200 000 euro in cluding translation 
costs (and annual technical maintenance). 
10.9. Policy option 7(c): Commission Recomme ndation on the establishment of 
interconnected national registers of pr operty regimes and the organisation of 
information campaigns.  
This option would increase access to information on property regimes. However, even 
though registration of property regimes would be encouraged, registration would still not 
be compulsory. This means that although re gisters would be avai lable in a higher 
proportion of EU Member Stat es, a confirmation that no property regime has been 
registered does not mean necessarily that no property regimes exist.  
Fundamental rights : the right of property (a rticle 17) is promoted if property regimes are 
identified at a higher degree. When exchangi ng information between registers, it would be 
necessary to ensure the pr otection of personal data. 
Financial costs : Overall, costs of implementing the Recommendation are estimated to be 
50 million euro across the EU (borne and organi sed at national level). Some of these costs 
would be regained from couples  who register their property regimes and through fees paid 
for searches for property regimes.  
Social impacts : the option would trigger some benef its for (i) ordinary citizens and 
economic actors (by increasing protection of third parties), (ii) the spouses and partners (by 
increasing indirectly their knowledge of the property regi mes), and (iii) the legal 
professionals involved in the liquidation of  the property regime (this option would 
facilitate their access of information about property regimes). However, the Recommendation would not impose any obliga tion on Member States. Besides, the 
recommendation would also include registra tion of property regimes of registered 
partnerships. However, it was generally empha sised that this option would only apply to 
EN 36   EN countries that recognise pa rtnerships and since it is not (and should not be) made 
compulsory to establish such register, this option would only have a very limited impact on 
access to information concerning property regimes of registered partnerships.  
10.10.  Policy option 7(d): Compulsory establ ishment of interconnected national 
registers of property regimes.  
All Member States would be required to esta blish a national register  of property regimes 
and property regime aspects of  registered partnerships, wh ich would be responsible for 
storing data concerning the ex istence of all the property regimes. The national registers 
would be interconnected, (through a system similar to the one developed concerning the 
interconnection of national registers of wills).  
Compared to the previous option, this polic y option would increase access to information 
on matrimonial property regimes to  a greater extent. This would reduce costs for legal fees 
and time delays as information on the prope rty regime would be quickly and easily 
available. However, it would not be compulsory to register  property regimes. This option 
could lead to reduction of costs, particular ly significant for international marriages and 
international registered partnerships.  
Social impacts : these would be the same th an in the previous option.  
Financial costs : Considering the costs of maintenance and registers, the initial costs vary 
greatly between Member States (from 26,000 to  600,000 euro). This option could lead to 
reduction of costs, particularly significant for international marriages and registered partnerships. Regarding impacts on different  social and economic groups , they would 
be the same than in the previous option. On the same way, and as in  the previous option, 
more citizens may register their property regi mes and it would be easier to gain access to 
these whilst liquidating the property. The pos itive benefits are primarily reduced time 
delays and costs. 
On the basis of the assessments made in term s of the achievement of objectives, and cost 
estimations made, the preferred option on information on property regimes is the  
creation of a webpage on existing regist ers of matrimonial property regimes and 
national rules . Although some of the other policy options achieve th e objectives to a 
slightly higher extent, the predictable co sts for those outweigh the limited additional 
benefits. 
11. COMPARISON OF THE POLICY OPTIONS 
Policy Option 1: Status quo . This option would not meet the objectives, and variations 
between national systems are likely to remain. The situation would wors en in view of the 
trends of EU citizens’ increasing internati onal connections; negativ e economic effects are 
likely to become aggravated for citizens. 
Policy Option 2: Targeted information provisi on to raise citizens’ awareness that the 
matrimonial property regime may not be the same in other Member States.  This 
option would not solve any of the current probl ems as the existing legal differences would 
remain, implying that it woul d only benefit those citizens that made an active choice 
because of the information received. Benefits would be very limited and dependent on how 
EN 37   EN well the information is distri buted and the willingness of th e spouses/partners to take 
additional steps to protect themselves  against potential future problems. 
Policy Option 3: Harmonisation of jurisdic tion rules and introduction of rules on 
automatic recognition and enforcement of judgements, other decisions and deeds.  
This option would prevent several jurisdictions  from handling the sa me case in parallel, 
offer citizens a possibility to bring all legal matters relating to their case before the same court, and would also lead to cost reduc tions as there would be less problems of non-
recognition. However, the lack of harmonisatio n of conflict of law rules could be abused 
by the wealthier spouse/partner and lead to  forum shopping as difference laws (with 
different outcomes) could be appl ied in different Member States. 
Policy Option 4: Harmonisation of conflict of law rules.  There would be increased legal 
certainty with regard to the applicable law and thereby the outcome of the liquidation of the patrimonial property. This reduces probl ems of forum shopping. There would be costs 
reductions for citizens in terms of reduced legal fees, in particular in those cases when the 
spouses/partners have made a choice of law. However, parallel proceedings would still be 
a possibility. Furthermore, there would stil l be costs due to non-recognition, legal 
uncertainty would still be a problem due to the lack of harmonised jurisdiction rules and 
the lack of recognition and enforcement of decisions. 
Policy Option 5: Uniform optional Euro pean proforma for a marriage contract.  This 
option could reduce problems in terms of time delays and costs since it would prompt the 
spouses to make a choice of la w and reduce the likelihood that a decisi on is not recognised. 
It will also reduce costs for legal fees as the same conflict of law rules will be applied 
across the Union and increase legal certaint y. However, the drawing up of a marriage 
contract is sometimes costly, and the benefits  of the marriage contract would only benefit 
those that make an active choice  to draw up such. Besides, it  could be only envisaged for 
married couples, and could not solve the problems faced by couples in registered 
partnership. 
Policy Option 6: Harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules, and 
introduction of rules on automatic recognition and enforcement of judgements.  This 
option is more advantageous than the previous  options as it is combining the three main 
legal elements at disposal to handle interna tional property regimes (jurisdiction rules, 
conflict of law rules and rules on recogniti on and enforcement). Harmonised jurisdiction 
rules in combination with conflict of law rules and rules on recognition and enforcement 
would significantly reduce the scope for parall el and conflicting proceedings or lack of 
proceedings. Furthermore, the introduction of special rules of jurisdiction would ensure 
that spouses/partners can bring all matters relating to their case in front of one court. 
Predictability of the outcome of the liquida tion of the patrimonial property would be 
greatly improved in those cases a choice of law was made. The choice is likely to be 
recognised in other Member States due to the rules on automatic recognition and enforcement. However, also in cases wher e no choice was made, the harmonised conflict 
of law rules would imply that all jurisdictions across the EU should apply the same law to 
the case. 
Policy Option 7:  regarding to the achievements of obj ectives of each sub-options, and cost 
estimations made, the preferred sub-option on information on property regimes  is the 
creation of a webpage on existing regist ers of matrimonial property regimes and 
national rules . Although some of the other policy options achieve th e objectives to a 
EN 38   EN slightly higher extent, the predictable co sts for those outweigh the limited additional 
benefits. 
On the basis of the assessments of the polic y options, the preferred policy option amongst 
policy options is Policy Option 6 completed by Policy Option 7a. Indeed , this option would 
address current, as well as poten tial, problems. It will lead to  the greatest cost reductions, 
whilst at the same time only imply minimal establishment and implementation costs. 
 
EN 39   EN Effectiveness of options against policy objectives 
 Prevent parallel 
proceedings and 
application of 
different substantive 
laws Ensure choice of 
applicable rules 
and legal 
provisions  Facilitate the 
recognition and 
enforcement of 
judgements and other 
decisions Facilitate 
bringing all legal 
matters before 
the same court Ensure spouses and 
partners know 
applicable law in 
case of liquidation Ensure 
compatibility with 
other proposed EU 
rules  Increase access to 
information on 
property regimes 
Option 1 no effect no effect no effect no effect no eff ect no effect no effect 
Option 2 limited effect limited effect no effect no ef fect limited effect no effect positive effect 
Option 3 positive effect no effect positive effect positive effect no effect positive effect no effect 
Option 4 positive effect positive effect no effect no ef fect positive effect no effect no effect 
Option 5 no effect positive effect no effect no eff ect positive effect limited effect no effect 
Option 6 positive effect positive effect positive effect positive effect positive effect positive effect no effect 
Option 7 no effect limited effect no effect no ef fect positive effect no effect positive effect 
 
 
EN 40   EN 12. PREFERRED POLICY OPTION 
This section describes the preferred policy option  and the expected impacts of the preferred 
policy option. 
The harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules, the introduction of rules 
on automatic recognition and enforcement of ju dgments, other decisions and deeds and the 
creation of a webpage on existing registers of  property regimes and national rules. 
This option would involve EU level action in the form of: 
• The adoption of two Regulations (there could be one Regulation or two, one dealing with 
married couples, the other with registered pa rtnerships) on the harmoni sation of conflict of 
law rules and jurisdic tion rules and the introduction of ru les on automatic recognition and 
the enforcement of judgments, other decisions and deeds; and, 
• The creation of a webpage  on existing registers of matr imonial property regimes and 
national rules. 
Why two Regulations? As mentioned in the problem defi nition, couples in registered 
partnerships face some specific difficulties beca use partnerships do not exist in all Member 
States. As a result jurisdiction rules and rules on app licable laws cannot be the same as those 
for marriages. Indeed, the applicable law should not be the law of a Member State which does 
not recognise registered partnerships. Additiona lly, the competent court should be in such a 
Member State. To put together all the differe nt rules that apply to matrimonial property 
regimes and property regime aspects of register ed partnerships would lead to an extremely 
long and complicated instrument, which w ould be very difficult to understand and 
implement. Furthermore, in view of the outco me of the consultation with Member States, 
which revealed that whilst there is a genera l agreement in favour of including registered 
partnerships, the majority of count ry representatives did not believe  that it this was feasible in 
a single instrument, and given the different scale of the problems for married couples and 
couples in registered partners hips, two separate instruments would be more practical and 
more feasible politically. 
12.1. The preferred option’s achiev ement of the policy objectives 
As indicated in the assessment of the indivi dual policy options, this option would address the 
following identified problems better that any other of the options: 
• Parallel proceedings and application of diffe rent substantive laws to the same property 
regime; 
• Insufficient (limited) choice of law for the s pouses and the acceptance of this in other EU 
Member States; 
• Non-recognition and enforcement of judgme nts, other decisions and deeds on the 
liquidation of property regimes; 
• The possibility to bring all legal matters relating to one case before the same court; 
 
EN 41   EN • The ability of the spouses or partners to know, where no applicable law was chosen, which 
law will be applicable in the event of liquidation of their property regime;  
• Compatibility with other proposed EU rule s in relation to succession and wills and 
applicable law in di vorce proceedings; and, 
• The limited availability and access to information on property regimes. 
Considering all the described positive impacts of the preferred option, it has to be outlined 
that only having an EU wide property regime  where all countries have the same rules 
(including substantive law) w ould reduce the problems furthe r than the preferred option. 
Such an EU wide matrimonial property regime w ould be politically and culturally unfeasible.  
The introduction of rules on jurisdiction with regard to the liquidatio n of property regimes 
would extend the jurisdiction of the court dea ling with a divorce or with a succession to 
matters also relating to the liquidation of the property regime. This would give greater legal 
certainty to citizens as the jurisdiction handlin g the divorce or succession would also deal 
with the liquidation of the property regime.  
The harmonised jurisdiction rules would lead to very few possibilities for parallel 
proceedings, and would increase legal certa inty for couples. The introduction of the lis 
pendens  provision in combination with rules on  recognition and enforcement of judgments 
(as described below) would si gnificantly reduce the possibility of parallel and conflicting 
proceedings.  
Moreover, the harmonised conflict of  law rules would ensure, as far as possible, that the same 
law is applied throughout the EU with regard to the same case. The conflict of law rules 
would also help in preventi ng the occurrence of forum shoppi ng as there would no longer be 
a need to rush to the court which could lead to the most favourable outcome for one of the 
parties (normally the wealthier party with access to legal advice) . There is a minor risk that, 
despite harmonised conflict of law rules, different  laws might be applied by the courts of the 
Member States21 or that the same law might be applied in  a slightly different way in case it is 
applied as a foreign law. It is expected, howev er, that legal certainty would increase in the 
long term (e.g. through case la w and rulings by the ECJ). 
The introduction of rules on a limited choice of  law for the spouses would increase legal 
certainty, when a choice of law has been made, in relation to the law that will apply to the 
property regime in case of e.g. divorce, separation or death.  
Problems in relation to recogniti on of judgments, decisions and deeds are likely to be almost 
completely eliminated. This means that citi zens no longer would have to experience time 
delays through the national exe quatur procedure, go to courts in different countries, and go 
through the same procedures as those already finalised in another country (resulting in 
additional costs). This would also increase the predictability of the outcome of the 
proceedings. 
Problems concerning citizens who have not made  a choice of law would also be addressed 
through the introduction of a system based on a hi erarchy of connecting factors that would be 
                                                 
21 As an example, due to different interpretation of habitual residence. 
 
EN 42   EN applicable to property regimes and would be co mmon to all Member States. Furthermore, the 
principle of immutability and a unitary system  would be included, thus ensuring that the law 
applicable to the matrimonial property regime  does not change when the spouses move to 
another Member State and applies to all assets. 
Under the preferred option, there would be increased access to information on property 
regimes in other Member Stat es through the creatio n of a webpage. This webpage would 
provide contact details on existing registers an d would also facilitate access to information 
concerning national legislation on property regimes. More sp ecifically, this option would 
provide third parties with better access to info rmation on the property regime applying to the 
property or land they are about to purchase. 
Overall the preferred option w ould increase the likelihood that the rights of each spouse or 
partner, private and public cred itors etc. would be respected in an efficient way. The option 
would also lead to an increased  likelihood that the initial choices  of the spouses would not be 
affected by any decision to move to, or acquire property, in another country. 
12.2. Economic impacts 
According to the EPEC Consortium, who ca rried out the impact assessment study, the 
preferred policy option could lead  to cost reductions of up to an estimated maximum 32% of 
the costs currently pertaining due to the problems addressed, i.e.  0.4 billion euro (25% of 1.1 
billion euro)22.  
Financial costs: the preferred policy option would lead to the following financial costs: 
At EU level this preferred policy option would lead to  the costs for administrative work to 
produce the necessary legislation at EU level. At national level  costs would occur while 
establishing the necessary additional national rules (e.g. regarding the jurisdiction of applicable law rules), also in training of legal professionals (e.g. lawyers, judges, notaries, 
solicitors) and judicial coopera tion. Both – EU and the Member States – would have 
additional costs for information campaign, pr esenting the new legi slative element.  
12.2.1. Impact on the legal professions 
The implications of simplifying the law (and re ducing legal costs) would be reduction in the 
fees for legal professionals. The limited choice of law for the spouses and partners in the 
preferred option is likel y to increase the proportion of ma rriage contracts and partnerships 
contracts drawn up, thus it would l ead to the extent of the work for legal professionals. By far 
the most significant effects would be on legal professionals involved in difficult cases. Here, 
there is a clear potential for fee reductions fo r clients, and thus re venue foregone for legal 
professionals. However, these effects are likely to be twofold. First, a reduction in the volume 
of work, second, an increase in the ‘quality’ of the work whic h could be associated with 
improved financial returns and efficiency. Howeve r legal professions are always a subject to 
                                                
 
22 The creation of a webpage on existing registers of matrimonial property regimes and national rules 
would lead to approx. 1.5% costs reduction of 1.1 billion euro. The remainder of costs saving would be an outcome of harmonization of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules, and introduction of rules on 
automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments, other decisions and authentic acts/deeds.  
 
EN 43   EN market changes and the magnitude of those associ ated with the preferred option is likely to be 
small and gradual.  
12.2.2. Impact on different social groups and impact on existing inequalities 
There would be benefits for economically disadva ntaged citizens as the simplification of the 
proceedings through harmonisation of conflict of law rules will decrease the legal fees; 
normally different laws will not be applied by the courts of different Member States. Furthermore, the ability to choose the applicab le law would also greatly reduce the chances 
that the wealthier party in th e couple rushes to court (i.e. forum shopping) where the outcome 
of the proceedings is more li kely to be in his/her favour. 
12.2.3. Impact on taxation 
The preferred option would be tax neutral, in so far as the futu re Regulations would not result 
in any changes to the Member States' national legislation on taxation (tax base, allowances 
and tax rates). 
12.3. Sensitive elements, potential draw – backs and risks 
Potential draw-backs and risks include: 
• The use of habitual residence as primary connecting factor. 
• The extent to which citizens take advantage of  the possibility to make a choice of law. 
All options assessed have assumed that common  habitual residence  would apply as the 
primary connecting factor rather than common  nationality . Habitual residence seems to be a 
more natural and appropriate c onnecting factor in cross-border  matrimonial property regimes, 
it is an autonomous concept in private international law which is detached from all national legal systems. It is accepted within the fr amework of the Hague Conference on private 
international law by almost all countries in the world.  
With regard to the extent to which citizens take advantage of the possibility to make a 
choice of law , this will impact on the benefits and level of costs reductions the 
implementation of the preferred option will lead  to. The more citizens who choose law (and 
make a marriage contract), the greater the benefi ts will be. At present the tradition of drawing 
up a marriage contract varies between Member States, thus the proportion of citizens who 
take the possibility to make a choice of law (in a marriage contract) may therefore vary 
between Member States. It is likely that th e proportion would increa se in the long term. 
This decision is based on the balance between the need to ensure legal certainty on the one 
hand (in such a case transfer of jurisdiction an d choice of jurisdiction would not be included 
in the content of the preferred option) and flex ibility to take account of  the closest connection 
of the parties in individual case s. It is also related to the co nsistency between the content of 
this proposal and other related le gislation. As previously menti oned, the extent of choice of 
law for partners in registered partnerships could not be the same that for married couples. 
 
EN 44   EN 12.4. Fundamental rights, proportionality and EU added value 
12.4.1. Fundamental rights The preferred policy option re spects fundamental rights an d observes the principles 
recognised in the Charter of F undamental Rights of the Europ ean Union and in particular 
Article 21 - non-discrimina tion, Article 7 - respect for private and family life, Article 9 - right 
to marry and right to found a famil y, Article 17 – right to property.  
Furthermore, the proposals aim at increasing lega l certainty, access to justice as foreseen in 
Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. In particular, they 
will be beneficial for the exercise of the right of free movement and of residence by European citizens.  
12.4.2. Proportionality 
The present proposal respects the principle of proportionality, as it concerns EU Instruments 
on property regimes only for married couples and registered partnerships  with international 
elements, i.e. only cases with cross-border elem ents are concerned. It  would not harmonise 
substantive laws; it would merely aim to achie ve a situation where pa rallel proceedings do 
not occur and where different s ubstantive laws are not applied to the same liquidation of 
matrimonial property. Thus, in this sense, the policy option would be adopted to ensure ‘the 
smooth co-existence’ of different national su bstantive laws. For this purpose the policy 
option would imply changes to national legal systems in term s of harmonised jurisdiction 
rules, harmonised conflict of law rules, in troduction of a limited choice of law and rules on 
recognition and enforcement of judg ments, decisions and deeds.  
The adoption of Regulations in corporating these elements w ould imply more changes in 
some Member States than others (most countri es for example already provide the possibility 
for spouses to choose law, alt hough the limits for making this c hoice may be different or no 
limits exist). However, in order to address the problems and achieve the objectives, such 
changes are necessary. Indeed, EU level legislative action is necessary; as outlined in the 
assessments of the individual policy options an d comparison of these assessments, Member 
States would not be able to address the problems individually or multilaterally (they are unlikely to harmonise or otherwise improve thei r national rules to facilitate international 
successions without EU level action). 
12.4.3. European added value 
The preferred option has the potential to promote trust in the internal market. The 
problems addressed by the preferred policy option are in part a consequence of the internal market. At the same time if the current proble ms are not solved, trust in the EU internal 
market and the EU area of fr eedom, security and justice wit hout internal borders may be 
damaged. By ensuring more efficient handling of the liquidation of matrimonial property 
regimes with international elements, the pref erred option would prom ote trust in and the 
operation of the internal market. 
 
EN 45   EN 13. MONITORING AND EVALUATION 
In order to monitor the effectiv e implementation of the Regulations as well as the success of 
the webpage, regular evaluation and reporting by the Commission will take place. In this 
respect, the proposed Regulations will include a requirement on Member  States to provide 
information on the application of the Regulations  and of all the measures taken by them to 
improve their application. Furt hermore, the European Judi cial Network for civil and 
commercial matters could play an important role to strengthen the cooperation between 
Member States when applying the Regulations. 
When evaluating the effective implementation of  the Regulations, following indicators can be 
taken into account: 
– the number of possible parallel proceedings concerning the same case could allow to 
determine if the objective of prevention of the occurrence of  parallel proceedings has 
been fulfilled, 
– information on the number of couples who made a choice of law for their property 
rights would allow to evaluate if the ri ght to choose the law has been used, 
Furthermore, for statistical purposes it could be very useful to receive information by 
Member State on the number of international ma rriages/registered partne rships, international 
divorces, separations and successions. 
The Commission will also monitor the webpage on existing registers of property regimes and 
national rules to assess its effective use. 
 
EN 46   EN ANNEX I – Glossary  
International jurisdiction : Competence of the courts in a particular country to judge an 
international dispute. 
Conflict of laws : Situation in which two or more national laws may be applicable to 
relationships (facts, contracts, family relationships, etc.) that are connected with more than 
one State. The conflict rules determine which co untry’s domestic law is best placed to govern 
the legal relationship in question. 
Marriage contract (or pre-nuptial agreement) : Contract concluded pr ior to the celebration 
of the marriage with a view to organising property relationships between the spouses. 
Exequatur : Procedure allowing a court judgment, an  arbitration award, a notarial act or a 
legal settlement given or ordered in one State to be enforced on the territory of another State. 
Forum : Court having jurisdiction in, or dealing with, a dispute. 
Matrimonial property regime : Matrimonial property rights of the spouses. Matrimonial 
property regimes are the sets of legal rules re lating to the spouses' fi nancial relationships 
resulting from their marriage, both with each othe r and with third parties, in particular their 
creditors. 
Registered partnership : Partnership of two people who live as a couple and have registered 
their union with a public authority established by the law of their Member State of residence. 
For the purposes of the Green Pa per, this category will also include relationships within 
unmarried couples bound by a “reg istered contract” along the lin es of the French “pacs”. 
De facto union / Non-marital cohabitation (living together) : Situation in which two people 
live together on a stable and continuous basis w ithout this relationship being registered with 
an authority. 
"International marriages " include marriages between: 
• One national of the country and one national of  (i) another EU country or (ii) a third 
country 
• Two EU nationals from other EU countries 
• Two nationals from third countries 
• One EU national from another EU Member St ate and one national from a third country. 
• Two EU nationals livin g in a third country 
• Two EU nationals having a ssets in a third country 
Could also be considered as "international married couples", couples which acquire or are 
owners of a property in a Member Stat e other than their country of origin. 
"International divorces " include divorce between:  
 
EN 47   EN • One national of the country and one national of  (i) another EU country or (ii) a third 
country 
• Two EU nationals from other EU countries 
• Two nationals from third countries 
• One EU national from another EU Member St ate and one national from a third country 
• Two EU nationals livin g in a third country 
• Two EU nationals having a ssets in a third country 
Could also be considered as "internationa l divorce"; the divorce of a couple who own 
property in a Member State other than their country of origin. 
International registered partnerships " include registered partnership between: 
• One national of the country and one national of  (i) another EU country or (ii) a third 
country 
• Two EU nationals from other EU countries 
• Two nationals from third countries 
• One EU national from another Member  State and a third country national 
Partners do not have the nationality  of the place where they register 
lis pendens : a pending lawsuit; a dispute or matter which is the subject of ongoing or pending 
litigation 
renvoi  rule: the process by which a court adopts the rules of a foreign jurisdiction with 
respect to any conflict of laws that arises. In some instances, the rules of the foreign state might refer the court back to the law of the forum where the case is being heard, or might 
refer the court to the law of another jurisdiction. 
 
EN 48   EN ANNEX II – Information on applicable law a nd competent jurisdiction in Member States  
1. MARRIED COUPLES  
Choice of law Connecting factors Choice of jurisdiction (forum) Connecting factors 
Country 
No Yes  
(info on limitation of choice 
provided if possible) Connecting factors in hierarchical 
order, if known. No Yes 
(info on limitation of choice 
provided if possible) Connecting factors in hierarchical order, 
if known. 
Austria  √ Common nationality 
Habitual residence of the 
spouses at the time of the conclusion of the marriage 
 √ Specific rules on matrimonial regimes 
Domicile or residence  Nationality in non-
contentious cases 
(Order unknown) 
Belgium    
 √ Domicile or residence  
Nationality 
(Order unknown)  
Czech Republic √  Nationality of the spouses 
Lex fori Habitual residence of the 
spouses   Domicile or residence 
Nationality 
 
EN 49   EN 1. MARRIED COUPLES  
Choice of law Connecting factors Choice of jurisdiction (forum) Connecting factors 
Country 
No Yes  
(info on limitation of choice 
provided if possible) Connecting factors in hierarchical 
order, if known. No Yes 
(info on limitation of choice 
provided if possible) Connecting factors in hierarchical order, 
if known. 
Denmark     √ Specific rules on matrimonial 
regimes 
Domicile or residence  Nationality 
(Order unknown)  
Estonia  √ 
(no further information 
has been obtained 
concerning whether this 
is free or limited)  Common residence 
Nationality of the spouses Last common residence Closest connection 
  Domicile or residence Nationality 
Finland  √ 
Limited choice    √ Competence based on the domicile 
or residence  
France  √ 
Limited choice   √ Domicile or residence  
Nationality 
 
EN 50   EN 1. MARRIED COUPLES  
Choice of law Connecting factors Choice of jurisdiction (forum) Connecting factors 
Country 
No Yes  
(info on limitation of choice 
provided if possible) Connecting factors in hierarchical 
order, if known. No Yes 
(info on limitation of choice 
provided if possible) Connecting factors in hierarchical order, 
if known. 
(Order unknown)  
Germany  √ 
Limited choice  Common nationality 
Habitual residence when the 
marriage was celebrated  √ Specific rules on matrimonial Domicile or residence  
Nationality 
(Order unknown)  
Greece    
  Specific rules on matrimonial 
regimes 
Domicile or residence  Nationality 
(Order unknown)  
Hungary √  The joint personal law of 
the spouses at the time of the marriage 
The last joint personal law  Last common habitual   Specific rules on matrimonial 
regimes 
Competence based on the 
domicile or residence  
(Order unknown)  
 
EN 51   EN 1. MARRIED COUPLES  
Choice of law Connecting factors Choice of jurisdiction (forum) Connecting factors 
Country 
No Yes  
(info on limitation of choice 
provided if possible) Connecting factors in hierarchical 
order, if known. No Yes 
(info on limitation of choice 
provided if possible) Connecting factors in hierarchical order, 
if known. 
residence 
Lex fori 
Italy  √ 
Limited choice   
 √ Domicile or residence 
Ireland  √   √ Domicile or residence  
Latvia   Lex fori   Domicile or residence  
Lithuania  √ 
(no further information 
has been obtained 
concerning whether this 
is free or limited)  Domicile 
Common citizenship Place where the marriage 
was celebrated 
(Order unknown)    Domicile or residence  
Nationality 
(Order unknown)  
Luxembourg    
  Domicile or residence  
Nationality 
(Order unknown)  
 
EN 52   EN 1. MARRIED COUPLES  
Choice of law Connecting factors Choice of jurisdiction (forum) Connecting factors 
Country 
No Yes  
(info on limitation of choice 
provided if possible) Connecting factors in hierarchical 
order, if known. No Yes 
(info on limitation of choice 
provided if possible) Connecting factors in hierarchical order, 
if known. 
Malta   Nationality 
  Domicile or residence  
(Order unknown)  
Netherlands     √ Domicile or residence 
Poland √  Common nationality 
Common habitual residence 
of the spouses 
Lex fori   Domicile or residence  
Portugal  √ 
Limited choice   
   
Romania  √ 
Limited choice  Common nationality 
Common habitual residence 
of the spouses 
Closest connection   Domicile or residence  
Romania   Common ha bitual residence    
 
EN 53   EN 1. MARRIED COUPLES  
Choice of law Connecting factors Choice of jurisdiction (forum) Connecting factors 
Country 
No Yes  
(info on limitation of choice 
provided if possible) Connecting factors in hierarchical 
order, if known. No Yes 
(info on limitation of choice 
provided if possible) Connecting factors in hierarchical order, 
if known. 
New Civil code 
to be adopted of the spouses 
Common nationality  Place where the marriage 
was celebrated 
Slovenia   Common nationality or 
citizenship 
Common habitual residence 
of the spouses 
Closest connection   Nationality Domicile or residence 
Spain   √ 
Limited choice   
 √ Specific rules on matrimonial 
regimes 
Competence based on the 
domicile or residence  
Competence based on 
nationality 
(Order unknown)  
 
EN 54   EN 1. MARRIED COUPLES  
Choice of law Connecting factors Choice of jurisdiction (forum) Connecting factors 
Country 
No Yes  
(info on limitation of choice 
provided if possible) Connecting factors in hierarchical 
order, if known. No Yes 
(info on limitation of choice 
provided if possible) Connecting factors in hierarchical order, 
if known. 
Slovakia √      
Sweden  √ 
Limited choice   
 √ Specific rules on matrimonial 
regimes 
Domicile or residence  Nationality 
(Order unknown)  
UK  √ 
(England and Scotland)Lex fori 
 √ Domicile or residence  
 
EN 55   EN 2. REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS  
Choice of law Connecting factors Choice of jurisdiction (forum) Connecting factors 
Country 
No Yes  
(info on limitation of 
choice provided if 
possible) Connecting factors in hierarchical order, 
if known. No Yes 
(info on limitation of choice 
provided if possible) Connecting factors in hierarchical order, if 
known. 
Austria       
Belgium   Habitual residence    
Czech Republic √  Place where the property is 
situated 
  The rules concerning property 
issues would apply concerning the 
liquidation of property of registered 
partnerships and therefore Czech 
courts would be competent for 
proceedings concerning immovable 
property located in Czech Republic. 
Denmark       
Finland       
France       
Germany   Specific rules have been 
developed for registered 
partnerships. 
The general and patrimonial 
effects and the dissolution of a registered partnership is 
governed by the substantive law   Brussels I Regulation; which gives 
the competence to the court of the 
domicile of the defendant. Moreover, 
German family law gives 
international competence to German courts when the partner is a German 
national, if his/her habitual residence 
is in Germany and if the partnership 
 
EN 56   EN 2. REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS  
Choice of law Connecting factors Choice of jurisdiction (forum) Connecting factors 
Country 
No Yes  
(info on limitation of 
choice provided if 
possible) Connecting factors in hierarchical order, 
if known. No Yes 
(info on limitation of choice 
provided if possible) Connecting factors in hierarchical order, if 
known. 
of the place of registration. was registered before a German 
authority. 
Hungary       
Luxembourg       
Netherlands   The law of the State where the 
partnership was registered.    
Portugal       
Slovenia       
Sweden  √ 
Limited choice  The same rules apply to registered 
partnerships as for married 
couples  
√ Competence based on the 
domicile or residence  
Competence based on 
nationality 
(Order unknown) 
UK       
 
 
EN 57   EN  
ANNEX III – Note on Costs / Benefits of policy options  
1. NOTE ON COSTS / BENEFITS OF POLICY OPTIONS  
The purpose of this note is to clarify the basis for the estimations of the benefits that 
would be brought about by the policy options considered in the Impact Assessment Study. 
These benefits have been expressed in mone tary terms because this may assist in the 
Commission’s Impact Assessment process. Howe ver, estimating such monetary values is 
difficult because the nature of current pr oblems are varied and the problems occur 
alongside other issues that need to be a ddressed by married coup les and registered 
partnerships when forming a union, duri ng the union and when unions are dissolved 
through divorce or death. 
 The estimates come from the "Impact As sessment Study on Community Instruments 
concerning matrimonial property regimes a nd property of unmarried couples with 
transnational elements", commissioned by Di rectorate-General Justice, Freedom and 
Security of the European Commission. It was conducted by the European Policy 
Evaluation Consortium, and the work wa s led by one of the EPEC partners, GHK 
Consulting. External expertise was pr ovided by Prof. Dr. Rainer Hausmann. The 
methodology used is more fully explained in thei r report, referenced at  footnote 6, and is 
summarised here with the aim of highlighti ng strengths and weakne sses. Fieldwork took 
place from August 2009 to March 2010. Data and assumptions used in the estimates were chiefly based on stakeholder consultation (e .g. questionnaires to statistical and tax 
authorities and legal professionals across EU-2 7, interviews in case study countries) and 
desk-based research (e.g. Eu rostat and legal studies). 
The approach to estimating the benefits ha s been similar for both married couples and 
registered partnerships and was as follows: 
1. To identify the types and estimate the numbers of couples affected. There are 
three types: international c ouples (couples made up of citizens from two different 
countries), couples living abroad a nd couples having property abroad. The 
evidential basis for these quantitative estimates is good. Eurostat and national 
statistical offices' data pr ovides the number of new ma rriages and divorces per 
annum both in total and indicates around 13%  have an interna tional element with 
limited adjustment (see Annex IV and V) . This 13% proportion has been applied 
to data on the stock of marriages to estimate "international couples". Data on 
citizens living abroad and number of second homes owned has been used to 
estimate numbers of 'married couples living abroad' and 'married couples with 
assets abroad'.   
2. To identify the problems that might occur in the current situation at different 
stages of the “couples’ evol ution”: getting married (or registering a partnership); 
 
EN 58   EN during a marriage (or registered partnershi p); and, at the dissolution of a marriage 
(or registered partnership)  through divorce/separation or death. The nature of 
these problems is clear, however, they vary considerably between individual 
couples and combinations of matrimonial/patrimonial property regimes. 
3. To estimate the incidence of the key events that might trigger problems 
(marriages or partnerships being regist ered, and the dissoluti on of marriages or 
registered partnerships th rough divorce/separation or de ath). The evidential basis 
for these quantitative estimates is good. Data is available on new international divorces and marriages with limited adju stment, see step 1 above. The proportion 
with an international element, 13%, wa s applied to an estimate of the total 
number of dissolutions of  marriage through death each year to predict 
dissolutions of interna tional marriage via death.
23 
4. To estimate the incidence of problems for different types of c ouples at different 
stages. Unfortunately these estimates are poorly informed by evidence. There are no surveys of the different types of couples  that could inform these estimates and 
lawyers and other professi onals who may deal with the problems are not well 
placed to provide estimates. However, the assumptions used in the study are 
consistent with the observations made by stakeholders consulted during the study. 
These  assumptions are di scussed further below. 
5. To estimate the average costs of the probl ems due to variations in matrimonial 
property regimes that are encountered for different types of c ouples at different 
stages of their unions. The difficulty with  such estimates is, as stressed above, 
apportioning costs to the problems in the current situation due to 
matrimonial/patrimonial property regime differences, as opposed to other costs 
incurred as a result of drawing up a marriage contract, dealing with property 
transactions during unions and the dissolution of unions. However, the estimates of average costs used are relatively conservative and re flect the time that should 
                                                
 
23 The EPEC study found that "Of the estimated  3.0 million marriages in the EU that end 
each year through the death of one partne r, around 390K (13%) are international 
marriages". It says "Eurostat data have been  exploited in order to obtain an estimated 
aggregate figure on the number of married peopl e who died in one year in the EU27. More 
precisely, in 2007 the tota l number of EU27 populati on was 495,305,424 and the crude 
marriage rate in the EU27 4.87. In other word s, 48.7% of the total EU population (circa 
241,213,741) was married in 2007. In  order to estimate the number of dissolutions of 
marriages through the death of one spouse, th e following logic has b een applied: in 2007 
the total number of the EU27 popul ation was 495,305,424. The same year, 4,783,670 
persons died. The ratio of the number of pe ople who died in 2007 to the population of the 
same year is 0.97%. This resu lt is confirmed by 2008 figures. Applying this ratio to the 
total number of persons who were married suggests that 2,363,895 people who died in 
2007 were married. It can therefore be estim ated that approximately this number of 
marriages were dissolved through death."    
 
 
EN 59   EN be needed to clarify the issues involved related to matrimonial/patrimonial 
property regimes to the satisfaction of interested parties. These  assumptions are  discussed further below. 
6. To calculate the total costs by multiplying the types couples affected at different 
the stages of the unions per annum by the estimated incidence per annum of 
problems and the estimated average co sts of the problems. The resulting 
monetary values are, in effect, the costs of non-Europe in matrimonial or 
patrimonial property regimes. That is the estimated costs for problems that are due to the current different legal provisions  in the Member States. Most of these 
costs would accrue as fees to lawyers. If all EU countries shared the same matrimonial/patrimonial property re gime no such costs would occur. 
The results of applying these steps to married couples and those in registered partnerships 
are shown in Table 1 and Table 2 respectively. Thus the tables indicate the scale of the 
problems that could be addressed by the polic y options in monetary terms. As stressed 
above, these problems stem from variations in matrimonial/patrimonial property regimes 
across the EU. 
2. T
ABLE 1– THE ESTIMATED COSTS OF PROBLEMS FOR MARRIED COUPLES  
Type of marriage 
affected by MPR issuesThe stock of 
marriagesNew 
marriages 
per annumDissolutions 
through 
divorces per 
annum Dissolutions 
through death 
per annumProportion 
of problem 
cases per 
annumCost per 
problem, €Estimated 
cost per 
annum, €
310,000 50% 50 7,750,000
310,000 50% 2,000 310,000,000
16,000,000 1% 1,000 160,000,000
137,000 50% 3,000 205,500,000
390,000 33% 2,000 257,400,000
Sub total 940,650,000
3,500,000 1% 1,000 35,000,000
28,000 50% 3,000 42,000,000
87,500 33% 2,000 57,750,000
Sub total 134,750,000
1,000,000 1% 1,000 10,000,000
8,000 50% 3,000 12,000,000
25,000 33% 2,000 16,500,000
Sub total 38,500,000
TOTAL 1,113,900,000International 
marriages
Married couples 
living abroad
Married couples 
with assets 
abroad
 
 
EN 60   EN 3. T ABLE 2 – THE ESTIMATED COSTS OF PROBLEMS AFFECTING REGISTERED 
PARTNERSHIPS  
Type of 
partnership affected by MPR issuesThe stock of 
partnershipNew 
partnerships 
per annumDissolutions 
through 
separations 
per annum Dissolutions 
through death 
per annumProportion 
of problem 
cases per 
annumCost per 
problem, €Estimated 
cost per 
annum, €
13,000 50% 50 325,000
13,000 50% 2,000 13,000,000
36,000 1% 1,000 360,000
2,100 50% 3,000 3,150,000
211 33% 2,000 139,260
Sub total 16,974,260
2,800 1% 1,000 28,000
112 50% 3,000 168,000
3 33% 2,000 1,848
Sub total 197,848
2,500 1% 1,000 25,000
100 50% 3,000 150,000
3 33% 2,000 1,650
Sub total 176,650
TOTAL 17,348,758International 
registered / civil partnerships
Civil partners 
living abroad
Civil partners with 
assets abroad
 
The most crucial assumptions  underpinning these estimates c oncern; the incidence of the 
problem (Step 4) and the aver age cost of the problem (Step 5). The arguments in support 
of these assumptions are as follows: 
• For those entering an ‘international’ union  the problem may be  one of lack of 
awareness that complications might arise in the future. The costs of increasing 
this awareness are likely to be low (a matter of say 50 euro per couple) and this cost can be used as a proxy for th e cost of the problem. However, if, for 
example, the prospective spouses of the ‘international union’ already have 
significant assets and wish them to rema in separate then significant costs may 
be incurred in creating a marriage contract . It is reasonable to assume that 50% 
of all international unions nevertheless need the benefit of the clarity of such a 
contract and that this would cost on  average 2,000 euro. The remaining 50% 
experience only a problem of  lack of awareness.  
• For those already in a union  the problem may be due to one spouse (aware or 
not of their lack of rights) wishing to  dispose of property without the consent 
of their partner. Such circumstances w ill cause a problem for the third party 
potential purchaser. There may also, be other ‘daily management’ problems including the problem of lack of knowledge of matrimonial/patrimonial 
property regimes amongst interested partie s. It is reasonable to assume that 
such problems occur in just 1% of international unions per annum and each 
problem has a notional cost of 1,000 euro. 
• For those international unions diss olved through divorce or separation , 
problems could arise because: the differe nces in legislati on between Member 
States might lead to parallel proceed ings; dealing with the assets may be 
overly complex; and, decisions made by one court may not be accepted in 
another. The costs of the problem could accrue to courts, the spouses and third 
 
EN 61   EN parties. As divorce settlements may be  contested this could add further 
complications. It is reasonable to assu me that such problems might occur in 
50% of international divor ces per annum and that th e average cost is 3,000 
euro.  
• For those international unions dissol ved through the death of a partner , the 
problems are similar to those arising through divorce or separation. However, 
it is reasonable to assume that the av erage costs are lower, say 2,000 euro per 
case and that problems will only arise in a minority (say 33%) of cases where the value of the assets  are relatively high.  
7. To estimate the proportion of the problems in the current situ ation that may be 
eliminated by the policy options. This process involved the consideration of the likely effects of the policy options on the different types of problems that affect 
different unions at different stages. Table 3 provides an example of the estimates 
that have been made of benefits (ie reduc tions in costs) that would accrue if a 
specific policy option would be adopted – in this case Policy Option 6. Similar 
tables have been prepared for all of the policy options concerning legal differences between the Member States. Th e effects have then been aggregated 
for each policy option as part of the co mparative assessment of policy options. 
The aggregated estimates for each policy option are shown in Tables 4 and 5. As none of the policy options involve the creation of a single matrimonial or 
patrimonial property regime in the EU th en some problems w ill remain. In the 
case of Policy Option 6, the process has led to an estimate that 68% of the problem would remain. 
This process is systematic and transparent. Of course the judgements concerning the 
reductions in the problems that could occur ar e open to question. Howe ver, the details of 
the individual policy options do allow for more certain judgements of the relative effects 
of each option on each component problem.  
The process used is whilst logical and transp arent open to challenge . In particular the 
estimates of the total costs in the current s ituation are sensitive to the assumptions on the 
incidence of problems which are the least well informed. However, these assumptions are conservative. Also, the following remarks can be  made which contribute to the robustness 
of the analysis: 
• There are a very large numb er of unions affected or potentially affected by the 
current variations in matrimonial and patrimonial property regimes.  
• The problems are widespread and various.  
• The estimated scale of benefits that c ould accrue through re ducing the costs of 
problems in the current situation considerably outweigh the costs of the 
preferred policy option. 
The policy options have also been carefu lly assessed against their contribution to 
achieving the policy objectives and other crit eria (feasibility, acceptability etc.). The 
 
EN 62   EN estimates of monetary benefits should be seen  as a complement to th e other aspects of the 
assessment process. 
4. TABLE 3: POLICY OPTION 6: - DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF COSTS SAVINGS COMPARED TO THE 
CURRENT SITUATION  
Type of marriages 
affected by MPR 
issues  Specification of type of costs Costs of current problems 
(million euro) Costs savings (proportion & million 
euro): estimates based on analysis of 
the content of the policy option 
(million euro) 
Unawareness of potential problems 7.8 45% 3.5 
Costs for marriage contract / choice of 
law 310 
10% 31 
One spouse disposing of property under 
community property regime 160 
15% 24 
Problems at divorce 205.5 50% 102.8 International 
Marriages 
Problems at death 257.4 50% 128.7 
Sub-total   940.7   289.9 
One spouse disposing of property under 
community property regime 35 
15% 5.3 
Problems at divorce 42 50% 21 Married couples living 
abroad 
Problems at death 57.8 50% 28.9 
Sub-total   134.8   55.1 
One spouse disposing of property under 
community property regime 10 
15% 1.5 
Problems at divorce 12 50% 6 Married couples with 
assets abroad 
Problems at death 16,5 50% 8.3 
Sub-total   38.5   15.8 
Ex-ante total costs   1,113.9 100% 1,113.9 
Total reduction 
achieved by the P.O.     
32% 360.8 
Cost that the P.O. 
could not address     
68% 753.1 
 
 
EN 63   EN 5. TABLE 4 – POLICY OPTIONS CONCERNING LEGISLATIVE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES : FOR MARRIED COUPLES 
AND B.1 COUPLES IN REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS : 
Estimated reductions of costs (i.e. benefits) pert aining to current problems for each policy option  
Total reduction achieved 
by the PO Total reduction achieved 
by the PO Policy options concerning married 
couples 
Costs reductions 
(i.e. benefits); 
million euro % Cost that the PO could 
not address 
(million euro) Policy options concerning 
registered partnerships 
Costs 
reductions (i.e. 
benefits); 
million euro  Cost that the PO could 
not address 
(million euro) 
Current costs (euro) 1,114 1,114 Current costs (euro) 17.3 17.3 
Policy Option.1: Status quo 0 0% 1,114 Policy Option 1: Status quo 0 0% 17.3 
Policy Option A.2: Targeted information 
provision 46 4% 1,068 Policy Option .2: Targeted 
information provision 0.4 3% 16.9 
Policy Option 3: Jurisdiction rules and 
recognition 18 2% 1,096 Policy Option 3: Jurisdiction rules 
and recognition 0.2 1% 17.1 
Policy Option 4: Conflict of law (C-O-L) 
rules 135 12% 979 Policy Option 4: Conflict of law 
(C-O-L) rules 1.0 6% 16.3 
Policy Option 5 Uniform option 
marriage proforma 185 17% 929 Policy Option 6 : C-O-L rules and 
jurisdiction rules 3.3 19% 14.0 
Policy Option 6: Jurisdiction rules and 
recognition plus C-O-L rules 361 32% 753     
        
        
 
EN 64   EN  
6. TABLE 5 – POLICY OPTIONS CONCERNING REGISTERS FOR MATRIMONIAL 
PROPERTY REGIMES (MARRIED COUPLES ) AND PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY 
REGIMES (COUPLES IN REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS ). 
Estimated reductions of costs (i.e. bene fits) pertaining to current problems 
for each policy option  
Married couples  Registered partnerships  
Total costs reductions 
(benefits); million euro Total costs reductions 
(benefits); million euro Policy options  
 
Costs 
reduced % Cost that the 
PO could not 
address 
Costs 
reduced % Cost that the 
PO could not 
address 
Current costs (euro) 1,114 17.3 
Policy Option 7a: 
Webpage 16 1.5% 1,098 0.06  0.34% 17.3 
Policy Option 7b: 
Database 16 1.5% 1,098 0.06 0.34% 17.3 
Policy Option 7c: 
Information campaign 10 0.9% 1,104 0.05 0.27% 17.3 
Policy Option 7d: 
Compulsory 
establishment of national registers that are 
interconnectedPolicy 
Option A/B.2.5: EC Recommendation on 
interconnected national 
registers & info campaigns 2824 2.5%2.2% 1,0861,090 0.10.1 0.61%0.57% 17.217.2 
       
       
       
 
 
EN 65   EN •  
 
EN 66   EN  
ANNEX IV – Data on marriages: International marriages in EU  
1. N UMBER OF MARRIAGES IN THE EU MEMBER STATES (2007) 
Austria 35,996 1% 27,689 1% 8,295 3%
Belgium 45,561 2% 35,110 2% 10,451 3%
Bulgar ia 29,640 1% 27,227 1% 2,413 1%
Czech Republic 57,157 2% 52,188 2% 4,969 2%
Cyprus 13,422 1% 3,532 0% 9,890 3%
De nm ar k 36,576 2% 30,821 1% 5,753 2%
Es t o n ia 7,022 0% 4,536 0% 2,486 1%
Finland 29,497 1% 27,050 1% 2,447 1%
France 273,833 11% 228,864 11% 44,969 15%
Germany 368,922 15% 318,082 15% 50,840 17%
Greece 61,377 3% 53,952 3% 7,425 2%
Hungar y 40,842 2% 38,990 2% 1,852 1%
Ireland 22,544 1% 19,096 1% 3,448 1%
Italy 250,360 10% 215,801 10% 34,559 11%
Latvia 15,486 1% 14,579 1% 907 0%
Lithuania 23,065 1% 20,339 1% 2,726 1%
Luxembourg 1,969 0% 837 0% 1,132 0%
Malta 2,479 0% 1,582 0% 881 0%
Ne the r lands 72,485 3% 61,848 3% 10,637 3%
Poland 248,777 10% 244,732 12% 4,045 1%
Portugal 46,329 2% 39,648 2% 6,681 2%
Rom ania 189,240 8% 183,803 9% 5,437 2%
Slovakia 27,437 1% 23,778 1% 3,659 1%
Slovenia 6,373 0% 5,299 0% 946 0%
Spain 208,057 9% 173,834 8% 34,223 11%
Sweden 47,898 2% 38,043 2% 9,855 3%
UK 268,386 11% 232,154 11% 36,232 12%
Total 2,430,730 100% 2,123,414 87% 307,158 13%
Source and notes:
Eurostat; International marriages and divorces in the Member States and National Statistical Offices
*International marriages include "unknow n marriages" for: AT (12), DK (2), Malta (16), Slovenia (128). 2007 data for the UK has been estimated from the total number of new  marriages for the period 2000-2006
2007 data on new  international marriages for Ireland has been estimated by using 2006 census on marriagesNationalMarriages in 2007
Total marriages International 
 
 
EN 67   EN 2. P ROPORTION OF INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGES IN THE EU (2000  TO 2007;  12 
COUNTRIES )24 
88.3%87.1%86.1% 85.2% 85.0% 85.3% 85.6% 86.5%11.7%12.9% 13.9%14.8% 15.0% 14.7% 14.4% 13.5%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
National Total International Total
 
                                                 
24 These are: Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Repub lic, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, 
Luxembourg, Malta, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain.  
 
EN 68   EN 3. N UMBERS OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGES IN EU IN 
2007.   
Austria 8,295 100% 2,858 34% 3,664 44% 1,746 21% 27 0%
Belgium 10,451 100% 3,217 31% 4,908 47% 2,202 21% 72 1%
Bulgaria 2,413 100% 973 40% 1,417 59% 6 0% 17 1%
Czech Republic 4,969 100% 2,658 53% 2,127 43% 184 4% 0 0%
Cyprus 9,890 100% 72 1% 1,090 11% 7,554 76% 647 7%
De nm ar k 5,753 100% 1,004 17% 1,459 25% 1,792 31% 1,498 26%
E stonia 2,486 100% 159 6% 620 25% 800 32% 907 36%
Finland 2,447 100% 706 29% 1,210 49% 500 20% 31 1%
France 44,969 100% 7,629 17% 29,004 64% 8,311 18% 25 0%
Germ any 50,840 100% 17,747 35% 25,794 51% 7,299 14% 0 0%
Greece 7,425 100% 1,638 22% 2,497 34% 3,273 44% 17 0%
Hungary 1,852 100% 1,046 56% 678 37% 123 7% 5 0%
Ireland 3,448 100% 1,142 33% 1,081 31% 790 23% 435 13%
Italy 34,559 100% 8,640 25% 15,552 45% 8,699 25% 1,668 5%
Latvia 907 100% 242 27% 630 69% 24 3% 11 1%
Lithuania 2,726 100% 1,001 37% 1,683 62% 23 1% 19 1%
Luxembourg 1,132 100% 409 36% 166 15% 557 49% 0 0%
Malta 881 100% 88 10% 185 21% 588 67% 20 2%
Ne the r lands 10,637 100% 2,421 23% 2,753 26% 1,557 15% 3,906 37%
Poland 4,045 100% 1,639 41% 2,317 57% 85 2% 4 0%
Portugal 6,681 100% 576 9% 5,101 76% 1,003 15% 1 0%
Rom ania 5,437 100% 1,884 35% 3,323 61% 0 0% 230 4%
Slovakia 3,659 100% 2,653 73% 1,004 27% 2 0% 0 0%
Slovenia 946 100% 133 14% 802 85% 11 1% 0 0%
Spain 34,223 100% 5,219 15% 20,835 61% 8,169 24% 0 0%
Sw eden 9,855 100% 1,965 20% 2,610 26% 2,153 22% 3,127 32%
UK 36,232 100% 12,681 35% 16,304 45% 7,246 20% 0 0%
Total 307,158 100% 80,400 26% 148,814 48% 64,697 21% 12,667 4%
Notes and source:
National statistical offices and Eurostat
Data for IE have been estimated according to 2006 census
Data for IT have been estimated basing on marriage statistics w ith national / international breakdow n
Data for the UK have been calculated from 2006 aggregate data + information from ONS and by applying the average ratio for inte rnational marriagesInternational Marriages in 2007
Total 
international 
marriagesMarriages between 
a national and 
another E U27 
nationalMarriages between a 
national and a third 
country nationalMarriages 
between foreign 
nationalsOther/unknown 
international 
marriages
 
4. N UMBER OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL MARRIAGES IN THE EU (2000  TO 
2007;  20 COUNTRIES ) 
1,852,717
1,757,7641,766,193
1,747,0651,763,786
1,759,1301,741,5781,782,414216,995226,950246,077258,351 264,947258,702
250,510241,224
050,000100,000150,000200,000250,000300,000
1,680,0001,700,0001,720,0001,740,0001,760,0001,780,0001,800,0001,820,0001,840,0001,860,0001,880,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007International marriagesTotal marriages
Total International Total
 
 
EN 69   EN Note: The left axis of the graph provides th e figures for the tota l number of marriages, 
while the figures relating to the number of  international marriages are provided on the 
secondary axis. 
 
EN 70   EN ANNEX V – Data on divorces : divorces in EU in 2007  
1. D IVORCES IN THE EU MEMBER STATES (2007) 
Austria 20,516 2% 15,390 2% 5,111 4%
Belgium 29,881 3% 24,546 3% 5,535 4%
Bulgaria 16,347 2% 15,656 2% 691 1%
Czech Republic 31,129 3% 28,978 3% 2,151 2%
Cyprus 1,648 0% 954 0% 694 1%
De nm ar k 14,066 1% 11,728 1% 2,337 2%
Es t o n ia 3,809 0% 2,483 0% 1,311 1%
Finland 13,224 1% 11,819 1% 1,405 1%
France 152,954 15% 132,611 15% 20,343 15%
Germany 187,072 18% 152,972 17% 34,100 25%
Greece 13,500 1% 11,678 1% 1,823 1%
Hungar y 25,160 2% 24,649 3% 511 0%
Ireland 3,684 0% 2,689 0% 995 1%
Italy 49,003 5% 47,536 5% 3,133 2%
Latvia 7,403 1% 6,418 1% 985 1%
Lithuania 11,336 1% 10,579 1% 753 1%
Luxembourg 1,106 0% 574 0% 532 0%
Malta 00 % 0 0 % 0 0 %
Ne the r lands 31,983 3% 26,269 3% 5,714 4%
Poland 66,586 6% 57,730 6% 8,856 6%
Portugal 25,255 2% 23,915 3% 1,235 1%
Rom ania 36,308 3% 35,900 4% 408 0%
Slovakia 12,174 1% 11,918 1% 256 0%
Slovenia 2,617 0% 2,343 0% 269 0%
Spain 125,777 12% 111,472 12% 14,305 10%
Sw eden 20,669 2% 15,019 2% 5,650 4%
UK 144,220 14% 124,750 14% 19,470 14%
Total 1,047,427 100% 910,577 87% 136,850 13%
Source and notes:
Eurostat; International marriages and divorces in the Member States and National Statistical Offices
2007 data on new  international marriages for Ireland has been estimated by using 2006 census Data for FR, GR, LV, PL and the UK have been estimated by using 13.5% for international divorces13.5% is the average share of international divorces in total for the period 2003-2006Divorces in 2007
Total divorces National International
 
 
EN 71   EN 2. P ROPORTION OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL DIVORCES IN THE EU (2000  
TO 2007;  15 COUNTRIES ). 
88.6% 88.4% 88.3% 88.0% 87.5% 87.1% 86.6% 86.7%11.4% 11.6% 11.7% 12.0% 12.5% 12.9% 13.4% 13.3%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
National Total International Total
 
3. I NTERNATIONAL DIVORCES IN 2007 
Austria 5,111 100% 1,226 24% 3,224 63% 613 12% 48 1%
Bulgaria 691 100% 199 29% 492 71% 0 0% 0 0%
Czech Republic 2,151 100% 694 32% 1,344 62% 113 5% 0 0%
Cyprus 694 100% 170 24% 95 14% 160 23% 148 21%
De nm ar k 2,337 100% 493 21% 1,038 44% 628 27% 178 8%
E stonia 1,311 100% 44 3% 290 22% 503 38% 474 36%
Finland 1,405 100% 271 19% 711 51% 271 19% 152 11%
Germ any 34,100 100% 1,328 4% 3,463 10% 7,965 23% 21,344 63%
Hungary 511 100% 298 58% 186 36% 25 5% 2 0%
Lithuania 753 100% 192 25% 459 61% 24 3% 78 10%
Luxembourg 532 100% 172 32% 69 13% 291 55% 0 0%
Malta 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Netherlands 5,714 100% 736 13% 1,518 27% 890 16% 2,570 45%
Portugal 1,235 100% 204 17% 839 68% 177 14% 15 1%
Rom ania 408 100% 181 44% 168 41% 9 2% 50 12%
Slovakia 256 100% 139 54% 112 44% 5 2% 0 0%
Slovenia 269 100% 15 6% 136 51% 0 0% 118 44%
Sweden 5,650 100% 724 13% 2,411 43% 1,389 25% 1,126 20%
Total 63,128 7,086 16,555 13,063 26,303
Notes and source:
National statistical offices and Eurostat
* Member States for w hich there is no breakdow n data available are excluded. 
These countries are: Belgium, France, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Spain and the UK.  Total 
international 
divorcesD ivorces between 
a national and 
another E U27 
nationalD ivorces between a 
national and a third 
country nationalD ivorces 
between foreign 
nationalsOther/unknown 
international 
divorcesInternational Divorces in 2007
 
 
EN 72   EN 4. N UMBER OF DIVORCES AND INTERNATIONAL DIVORCES IN THE EU (2000  TO 
2007;  16 COUNTRIES ) 
493,419506,532522,698531,461537,145
522,621
513,528516,86456,18158,90661,05563,87967,27567,579
69,01668,851
010,00020,00030,00040,00050,00060,00070,00080,000
470,000480,000490,000500,000510,000520,000530,000540,000550,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007International divorcesTotal divorces
Total International Total
 
 
EN 73   EN  
ANNEX VI – Data on registered partnerships  
1. M AGNITUDE OF INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS AND 
INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY REGIMES OF REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS  
This table indicates the number of registrati on of new civil / regist ered partnerships for 
seven countries (of the eleven countries in wh ich such partnerships existed by the end of 
2009) for the period 2000-2009. 
Number of civil / registered partnerships  
Country 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 
Denmark         6,433 6,900 
Finland   446 190 186 200 191 213 249  
France 15,935 15,435 20,588 25,819 33,147 52,800 64,271 95,708 141,099  
Netherlands 2,922 3,377 8,321 10,119 11, 156 11,307 10,801 10,550 10,93925  
Slovenia26       8 8 2  
Sweden 1,788 2,066 2,408 2,803 3,259 3,730 4,188 4,649 5,294  
UK      3,906 32,212 17,456 14,338  
 
                                                 
25 In order to find an aggregate data for 2008, this figure has been extrapolated by using the data 
2003-2007. 
26 Although both same-sex and opposite-sex civil / registered partnership exist in Slovenia, data for 
Slovenia covers same-sex civil partnership only. 
 
EN 74   EN 2. NUMBER OF NEW CIVIL / REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS BY YEAR (TRENDS ) 
020,00040,00060,00080,000100,000120,000140,000160,000
02,0004,0006,0008,00010,00012,000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Finland Netherlands Sweden France
 
Note: The plot line for France is on the seconda ry axis, while for other countries the plot 
lines are on the primary axis.  
3. N UMBER OF NEW PACS  (FRENCH REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS ) IN FRANCE  
year Total man-
man Woman-
woman Man-
woman Non 
determined Dissolutions 
1999 6 139     7  
2000 22 108     620  2001 19 410     1 859  
2002 24 979     3 143  
2003 31 161     5 229  2004 39 576     6 935  
2005 59 837     8 595  
2006 76 680     9 470  
2007 101 045 3 665 2 485 94 797 98 22 553  
2008 144 730 4 742 3 399 136 582 7 23 299  
 
 
EN 75   EN 4. T HE STOCK OF REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP IN FINLAND (2002-2008): 
365488 608 734 835 950 1,0953458 74 94 113 139 149
80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%100%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Number of national registered partnerships
Number of international registered partnerships
 
5. N UMBER OF NEW REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS IN FINLAND (2002-2008): 
399
155 152 163149166203
47 35 34 37 42 47 46446
190 186200 191213249
0100200300400500
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008New national registered partnerships
New international registered partnerships
New registered partnerships
 
6. N UMBER OF DISSOLUTIONS OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED 
PARTNERSHIPS , AND THE REASONS FOR THESE  
As with married couples, data have b een collected concerning the dissolution of 
registered partnerships thr ough separation, death and regime alterations, leading to a 
division of property.  
Separation: Data have been collected from Eurostat , national statistics offices and legal 
professionals. Relevant data have been co llected only for Finla nd. Tables 3.4 and 3.5 
present data on the separation of registered pa rtnerships in Finland (with a country group 
breakdown). According to these figures, while  the total number of separations increased 
 
EN 76   EN sharply in 2007 to then dimi nish again in 2008, there has been a steady increase in the 
proportion of international dissolutions.  
7. S EPARATIONS OF REGISTERED PARTNERSHIPS IN FINLAND (2001-2008) 
2001 :: :: ::
2002 :: :: 2 1 0 0 %
2003 :: :: 7 1 0 0 %
2004 19 83% 4 17% 23 100%
2005 23 74% 8 26% 31 100%
2006 23 77% 7 23% 30 100%
2007 54 81% 13 19% 67 100%
2008 30 67% 15 33% 45 100%National International Total
 
International separations between Finnish nationals and non-EU nationals are more 
common than between Finnish nationals and other EU nationals. 
8. S EPARATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL REGI STERED PARTNERSHIPS BY COUNTRY 
GROUP IN FINLAND (2004-2008) 
Total
2004 0 0% 4 100% 0 0% 0 0% 4
2005 2 25% 5 63% 0 0% 1 13% 8
2006 0 0% 7 100% 0 0% 0 0% 7
2007 0 0% 12 92% 0 0% 1 8% 13
2008 4 27% 10 67% 0 0% 1 7% 15Between two 
non EU 
nationalsBetween 
nationals and 
EU nationalsBetween 
nationals and 
non EU 
nationalsBetween two 
other EU 
nationals