EN    EN EN 
 
EN 1   EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 14.10.2009 
SEC(2009) 411 final 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
Accompanying the  
Proposal for a 
 
REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 
 
on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognitio n and enforcement of decisions and authentic 
instruments in matters of successions and on the introduction of a European Certificate 
of Succession 
  
SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
 
  
{COM(2009) 154 final) 
{SEC(2009) 410}  
 
EN 2   EN 1. P ROCEDURAL ISSUES AND THE CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES  
The Impact Assessment has been prepared on  the basis of a Study (hereinafter "the 
external study")1 which was undertaken for the Commissi on by an external contractor with 
the input of the Inter-service Steering Group convened by the Director ate General Justice, 
Freedom and Security. Representatives of the Directorates-Generals Enterprise and 
Industry, Internal Market a nd Services and Taxation and Customs Union, as well as the 
Secretariat General and the Legal Serv ice of the Commission participated.  
The Impact Assessment was informed by a "Stu dy on Conflict of Law of Succession in the 
European Union", prepared by the Germ an Notary Institute in November 20022, which 
confirmed the existence of practical problems in  devolution of estates and drafting of wills 
in cross-border successions. It  was also informed by the analysis of the 60 responses3 to 
the Commission's Green Paper on Succession and wills  [COM(2005) 65] on March 1, 
20054. Finally it was informed by the work of an  expert group (PRM III/IV) set up by the 
Commission and made up of experts acting independently of the Member States, 
representing the different legal traditions of  the EU. A public hear ing on the applicable 
law on successions was held in 2006.  
2. PROBLEM  DEFINITION 
2.1. The causes of the current problems  
The outcome of international su ccessions in the EU often does not meet the expectations 
of those who die. In addition th e rights of (potential)  heirs, persons formally or otherwise 
related to the deceased, private and pub lic creditors, etc. are not fulfilled. 
Although their harmonisation remains outsi de the competence of the European 
Community, it is important to understand that the starting point for the problems currently 
faced by citizens are the national substantive rules on successions which diverge widely 
between the Member States. 
2.1.1. Divergences in national subs tantive rules on successions 
1. The shares that the family members inherit vary widely.  
                                                 
1 EPEC, Impact Assessment Study on Community Instruments on Successions and Wills, under 
framework contract No DG BUDG No BUDG06/PO/01/Lot no.2, ABAC 101908, available at the 
following website: […]. 
2 http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/civil/studies/doc_civil_studies_en.htm. 
3 Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justi ce_home/news/consultin g_public/successions/ 
news_contributions_successions_en.htm. 
4 Available at: http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l16017.htm. 
 
EN 3   EN 2. While all Member States recognize testam ents, some Member States accept more 
elaborate instruments to plan successions (e.g. j oint and reciprocal wills ) which  
are not recognised in all Member State.  
3. All Member States except for the UK (s pecifically, England and Wales) grant a 
compulsory share of the inheri tance to close family members , regardless of 
any testamentary dispositions by the deceased.  
4. The procedural rules governing su ccession differ among Member States. 
5. The rights of unmarried or same-sex partners vary widely between the 
Member States.  
2.1.2. Negative consequences faced by citizens Problem 1 - Difficulties for citizens to predict which country and body has 
competence to handle the succession. The authorities of two ore more Member States 
may accept to handle the same succession (posi tive conflict of jurisdiction) or none of 
them might accept to handle it (n egative conflict of jurisdicti on). Even once citizens have 
identified the Member State the authorities of which have competence, they often do not know which body is competent in this Member State (cour t, notary, public 
administration). 
Problem 2 - Conflicting laws app licable to the sa me succession.  In matters of private 
law, a court is not obliged to apply the law of its own country. Member States therefore 
have rules to decide the law of which country  should be applied to which case ("conflict of 
laws rules"). In matters of successions, thes e rules differ from one Member State to the 
other. Since the authorities of several Member States may be competent to deal with a given succession, they might co me to different results as  regards the question “what 
belongs to whom”. This situation creates le gal uncertainty, prevents efficient estate 
planning and the mutual recognition of  judgments between Member States. 
Problem 3 - Insufficient (limited) freed om of choice of law for the testator. When a 
citizen taking advantage of the Internal market  is aware of the diffe rences in substantive 
succession law and in the conflict of laws rule s, he/she may wish to get around this by 
drawing up a will and choosing a single law appli cable to his/her entire estate. However, 
most Member States do not yet allow a pers on to choose the law a pplicable to his/her 
succession
5.  
Problem 4 - Restricted recognition and enforcement of decisions and documents . A 
judgment given by a court in one country is no t automatically recognised and enforced in 
another country the courts of which may re nder a conflicting judgment on the same 
question. There is also a lack of recognition and enforcement of documents prepared by 
notaries and other authorities. 
                                                 
5 No choice of law admitted in  Austria, Cyprus, France, Greece,  Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slov enia, Spain, Sweden and Czech Republic. 
Information is unavailable for Hungary, Malta and Northern Ireland. 
 
EN 4   EN Problem 5 - Restricted recognition of the status as an heir or as an 
administrator/executor . Currently there are various types of evidence to prove the status 
as an heir or an administrator of a successi on in the Member States. Documents executed 
in one Member State are normally not automati cally recognised in other Member States. 
This gives rise to duplication of procedures  to prove one's status as an heir or 
administrator in the country where the property is situated and additional costs and time delays. 
Problem 6 – Difficulties identifying wills abroad. Even in purely national cases, it is not 
always easy for heirs to know whether the deceased had established a will. This question is even more problematic for citizens looking for a will abroad. This situation triggers severe time delays and greater cost, and uncertainty as to whether other heirs will step 
forward. 
2.2. Size of the problems 
It is difficult to assess the scope of the problems identified due to lack of relevant statistics 
and limited empirical data. The consultations show however that practical importance of 
the legal insecurity faced by citizens. 
Around 4.5 million people die each year in the EU. Assuming that the value of the average 
estate is about 137,000 euro (about 5.5 times the average per capita gross national 
income), then the total value of the esta tes per annum would be  646 billion euro.  
It can also be reasonably assumed that ar ound 9-10% of the total number of successions 
(ca. 450,000) involves an ‘inter national’ dimension. The average value of such estates 
would be around double the value of an averag e estate (i.e. 274,000 euro ), totalling some 
123.3 billion euro per annum. 
These estates are liable to problems. Even if resolved in a reasonable manner the costs of 
legal fees might be from 2% (2.466 bn. euro) to  as much as 5% of the total value of 
international successions (6.165 bn. euro). An average of 3% (3.699 bn. euro) of the value 
of estates can be considered realistic. Mo reover, the costs of delays, which may be 
measured in terms of years rather than mont hs, might be of the same order of magnitude. 
Addressing the problems could thus generate , as calculated by the external contractor, 
benefits to EU citizens of in the or der of some 4 bn. euro per annum.  
3. O
BJECTIVES  
The overall objective of the Proposal is to cont ribute to the creation of a genuine European 
area of civil justice in the field of successions. 
The general, specific and operational objectives  are summarised in the following table: 
Overview of general, specific and operational objectives 
 
EN 5   EN General objectives Specific objectives Operational objectives 
To achieve a situation where parallel 
proceedings do not occu r and where different 
substantive laws are not applied to the same international succession To adopt common rules on jurisdiction 
To adopt common rules on applicable law 
To provide a (limited) choice of law for the 
testator To introduce harmonised rules providing a 
limited choice of law to the testator 
To ensure the recognition of rights, relevant acts and decisions regarding successions. To harmonise rules on the recognition and 
enforcement of judgments, other decisions and 
authentic acts / deeds  
To ensure recognition of the powers of 
administrators/executors  
To ensure recognition of the status as an heir  y To allow citizens to 
efficiently plan and to 
organise their succession in advance in a cross border 
context 
y To increase the likelihood 
that the rights of potential 
heirs, persons formally or 
otherwise related to the deceased, private and public 
creditors etc. are respected in 
an efficient way 
To increase the accessibility of information on 
the existence of  wills abroad To create a European system for registering 
wills and obtaining information on the 
existence of wills abroad. 
4. P OLICY OPTIONS  
4.1. Description of the policy options 
The policy options have been split into two diffe rent sets, in order to take account of the 
different options to be cons idered (see table below). 
Definition of policy options that address proble ms caused by national legislative differences 
concerning successions with transnational elements (Policy Option A) 
No common EU level action 
y Policy Option A.1: Status quo 
EU legislative action 
y Policy Option A.2: Harmonisation of jurisd iction rules and introduction of rules on 
automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments, other decisions and authentic 
acts/deeds 
y Policy Option A.3: Harmonisation of conflict of law rules 
y Policy Option A.4: Harmonisation of conf lict of law rules and introduction of a 
European Certificate of Heir and Executor / Administrator in transnational successions 
y Policy Option A.5: Harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules 
y Policy Option A.6: Harmonisation of conflic t of law rules and jurisdiction rules, and 
introduction of rules on automatic recogn ition and enforcement of judgments, other 
decisions and authentic acts/deeds (A.2 plus A.3) 
 
EN 6   EN y Policy Option A.7: Harmonisation of conflic t of law rules and jurisdiction rules, and 
introduction of rules on automatic recogn ition and enforcement of judgments, other 
decisions and authentic acts/deeds, and introduction of a Certificate of Heir and 
Executor / Administrator in transna tional successions (A.2 plus A.4) 
Non-legislative action 
y Policy Option A.8: Establishment of a da tabase / knowledge management system on 
conflict of laws, jurisdiction rules and competent bodies 
y Policy Option A.9: EU wide informati on campaign on succession (legislation and 
existing / forth-coming instruments)  
 
Definition of policy options that address prob lems of identifying wills abroad (Policy 
Option B) 
No common EU level action 
y Policy Option B.1: Status quo 
EU level action (legislation and funding) 
y Policy option B.2: Commission Recomme ndation on the establishment of 
interconnected national registers of w ills and organisation of information 
campaigns.  
y Policy option B.3 Compulsory establ ishment of interconnected national 
registers of wills.  
y Policy option B.4 Establishment of a central EU Register of wills.  
Non-legislative action 
y Policy Option B.5: Creation of a webpage on existing registers of wills and 
national rules. 
y Policy Option B.6: National information campaigns on wills (legislation and 
existing / forth-coming instruments) 
4.2. Comparison of the options 
Table 1 provides a comparison of the ‘ra tings’ of the nine A policy options.  
Table 2 compares the ratings of the six B policy options. The policy options are categorised according to  their potential to meet the objectives 
defined above in section 5, with ten checkmarks (
√√√√√√√√√√ ) indicating that an option fully 
meets all objectives. 
 
EN 7   EN Table 1 – Comparison of ratings of policy options A  
Objective/costs Policy Option 
A.1 
(Status quo) Policy Option 
A.2 
(Jurisdiction 
rules & 
recognition) Policy Option 
A.3 
(C-O-L rules) Policy Option 
A.4 
(C-O-L rules & 
certificate) Policy Option 
A.5 
(C-O-L rules & 
jurisdiction 
rules) Policy Option 
A.6 
(A.2 plus A.3) Policy Option 
A.7 
(A.2 plus A.4) Policy Option 
A.8 
(Database)  Policy Option 
A.9 
(National 
information 
campaigns) 
To achieve a situation where parallel 
proceedings do not occur and where different substantive laws are not applied to the same 
international succession  0 √√ √√√√  √√√√√√  √√√√√√√  √√√√√√√√  √√√√√√√√√√  √ √ 
To provide a (limited) choice of law for the 
testator 0 0 √√√√√  √√√√√√  √√√√√  √√√√√√√√√  √√√√√√√√√√  0 0 
To ensure the recognition of:  
(i) Judgments, other decisions and 
authentic acts / deeds on 
international successions; 
(ii) The powers of 
administrators/executors; and, 
(iii) The status as an heir 0 √√√√√  √√ √√√√√√  √√√ √√√√√√√√  √√√√√√√√√√  0 0 
To increase the accessibility of information on 
the existence of  wills abroad 0 0 – – – – – 0 0 
Total score: 0 7 11 18 10 25 30 1 1 
Economic effects Present: 4 bn 
euro/year; 
potential doubling of costs in 10 years. Costs savings: 
Max 10% Costs savings: 
Max 15% Costs savings: 
Max 15% Costs savings: 
Max 15% Costs savings: 
Max 20% Costs savings: 
Max 30% Costs savings: 
Insignificant Costs savings: 
Insignificant 
 
 
EN 8   EN Table 2 – Comparison of ratings of policy options B  
Objective/costs Policy Option B.1 
(Status quo) Policy Option B.2 
(EC Recommendation 
on interconnected 
national registers & info 
campaigns) Policy Option B.3 
(Compulsory 
establishment of 
national registers of 
wills that are 
interconnected) Policy Option B.4 
(EU central register of 
wills) Policy Option B.5 
(Webpage on national 
registers of wills and 
national rules) Policy Option B.6 
(National information 
campaigns) 
To achieve a situation where parallel proceedings do 
not occur and where different substantive laws are not 
applied to the same international succession  0 √√ √√√ √√√√  √ √ 
To provide a (limited) choice of law for the testator 0 0 0 0 0 0 
To ensure the recognition of:  
(i) Judgments, other decisions and 
authentic acts / deeds on international 
successions; 
(ii) The powers of administrators 
/executors; and, 
(iii) The status as an heir  0 √ √ √ 0 0 
To increase the accessibility  of information on the 
existence of wills abroad 0 √√ √√√ √√√√  √ √ 
Total score 0 5 7 9 2 2 
Economic effects Present: 4 bn euro/year; 
potential doubling of 
costs in 10 years. Costs savings:  
Max 1-2% Costs savings: 
Max 1-2% Costs savings: 
Max 2% Costs savings:  
Insignificant Costs savings:  
Insignificant 
 
EN 9   EN 4.3. The preferred option 
In the light of the assessment in Table 1 and 2 the preferred option is a combination of Policy 
options A7 and B.2. The first would address curre nt problems as well as possible and lead to 
the greatest cost reductions (maximum 30%). Ind eed, it is in effect the most ambitious option 
and so therefore represents further developmen t of the options identified in terms of the 
challenges that it is designed to address. Although Policy option B.2 does not receive the 
highest rating, it is the preferred option on the basi s that the identification of wills is primarily 
a national problem and is likely to remain such  even in the long term and because it is not 
compulsory to register wills (w hich means that the register can only confirm that no will was 
registered, not that no will exists). This analysis is confirmed by stakeholders. 
4.4. The potential scale and nature of impacts of the preferred option 
The preferred policy options would eliminate th e potential for conflicts  of jurisdiction. It 
would allow for a faster finalisation of the succession, as the competent authorities would no 
longer have to deal with potenti ally contradictory national rules to identify the substantive law 
governing the question of who inherits. The introduction a limited c hoice of law for the 
testator would allow citizens to  better plan their succession  
The recognition of the status of an heir or  the powers of executors/administrators and 
decisions would be ensured. As a consequence, legal fees and time delays would be reduced. 
The Commission Recommendation would speed up Me mber States' creation of registers of 
wills that are compatible and interoperable, f acilitating the identification of wills in other 
Member States. Information campaigns could lead a higher number of citizens to draw up 
wills and register them, speeding up the succession proceedings, and thereby lead to less delay and decreased legal costs. However, the positive impact of the register may be limited because there would be no ob ligation to register wills. 
Overall, the preferred option w ould increase the likelihood th at the rights of all persons 
involved in the succession would be fulf illed in an effective and efficient way. 
The preferred policy option resp ects the fundamental rights of  the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union.  
4.5. The costs of the preferred option 
In summary, the preferred option could lead to cost reductions of up to  an estimated 32% of 
the costs of € 4 bn. caused by the current problems, i.e. € 1.3 billion. 
The process of adoption and implementati on of the preferred option would create financial 
costs both at the EU level and at national level,  mainly costs for administrative work to 
produce the necessary legislation, the costs for es tablishing and running a register of wills and 
for information campaigns.  
Although the preferred option th rough harmonisation of appli cable law would result in a 
reduction of fees for legal professionals , it would nevertheless also increase their turnover in 
view of the rise in value of legacies and the increasing number s of international cases. In 
addition, the new rules will improve predictability for citizens. It is likely that more of them 
will wish to organise their succession in adva nce, therefore using the services of legal 
 
EN 10   EN professionals. Within the legal profession, as with every other professional service, there are 
always market changes, and the magnitude of those associated with the preferred option is 
likely to be small and gradual6.  
Since rules on taxation are expr essly excluded from the scope of the proposed Regulation, the 
preferred option would be  tax neutral. It would therefore not entail any changes to the 
Member States' national legislation on inheritance taxation.  This is because the rules 
determining which Member State is competent to collect inheritance taxes on a given succession (resulting, in general, from bilateral conventions), are totally independent from 
those rules determining the civi l law governing this succession. 
The preferred option would potentially have  indirect implications on the amount of 
inheritance tax revenue collected by a given Member Stat e (e.g. for a bank account, if, under 
the law applicable today the heir  is a person living in Member  State A, whereas, under the law 
applicable under the future Regulation, the heir is located in Member State B, Member State 
A will not longer be able to collect inherita nce taxes). However, these effects would be 
marginal and indirect. 
The proposed Regulation does not contribute to reducing the complex ities of tax systems 
applicable to internat ional successions and to preventing citizens of being subject to double 
taxation. Indeed, it is clearly impossible, for le gal and political reasons, to modify the existing 
regime in the framework of the present Regula tion. Inheritances in a cross-border context can 
then give rise to mismatches between nati onal taxation regimes which can result in double 
taxation or discrimination. The Commission inte nds to bring forward a communication to 
address these issues during 2010. 
4.6. EU added value 
The preferred option would genera te significant EU added value. It has the potential to 
promote trust in the internal market and facilitate mobility of EU citizens. The problems addressed are in part a consequenc e of the internal market, if th ey are not solved, the trust in 
the EU internal market and the EU area of fr eedom, security and justice without internal 
borders may be damaged. Cross-border successi ons are both more costly and time-consuming 
for citizens than national successions. The pref erred option would facili tate the life of the 
modern and mobile EU citizen. 
5. M
ONITORING AND EVALUTION  
In order to monitor the effec tive implementation of the Regulat ion as well as the success of 
the Recommendation on the creation of interconnected registers of wills and the information 
campaigns, regular evaluation a nd reporting by the Comm ission will take place. The external 
study contains many useful suggestions on pot ential monitoring and evaluation instruments 
and concrete indicators that will be taken into consideration by the Commission. 
                                                 
6 See also Annex 4 for more information.