Commission staff working document accompanying the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and authentic instruments in matters of successions and on the introduction of a European Certificate of Inheritance Impact Assessment {COM(2009) 154 final) {SEC(2009) 411}
Date: 2009-10-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European judicial area, approximation of laws, area of freedom, security and justice, impact study, inheritance, law of succession, mutual recognition principle

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 14.10.2009 
SEC(2009) 410 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying the  

Proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL 

on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and authentic 
instruments in matters of successions and on the introduction of a European Certificate 
of Inheritance 

Impact Assessment 

{COM(2009) 154 final) 
{SEC(2009) 411} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

3. 

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 5 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES....................... 5 

Legal basis, political mandate and existing instruments ........................................ 5 

Organisation and timing............................................................................................ 6 

Consultation and expertise ........................................................................................ 6 

PROBLEM DEFINITION................................................................................................. 8 

3.1. 

The causes of the current problems (the drivers).................................................... 8 

3.1.1.  Divergences in national substantive rules on successions ........................................... 9 

3.1.2.  Problem 1 - Problems relating to the determination of which country and body is 

competent to handle the case...................................................................................... 10 

3.1.3.  Problem 2 – Conflicting laws applicable to the same succession in different 

Member States............................................................................................................ 11 

3.1.4.  Problem 3 - Insufficient (limited) freedom of choice of law for the testator ............. 13 

3.1.5.  Problem 4 - Restricted recognition* and enforcement* of judgments, non-

contentious decisions and notarial deeds* ................................................................. 13 

3.1.6.  Problem 5 - Restricted recognition of the status as an heir or as an 

administrator/executor................................................................................................ 14 

3.1.7.  Problem 6 – Difficulties identifying wills abroad...................................................... 14 

3.2. 

Negative consequences faced by Union citizens (the problem) ............................ 15 

3.2.1.  An intended or expected heir may fail to inherit, or an unintended or unexpected 

person may inherit...................................................................................................... 15 

3.2.2.  Shares of the inheritance may be different to what was intended or expected .......... 16 

3.2.3.  Heirs may face long delays in obtaining their inheritance ......................................... 16 

3.2.4. 

International aspects lead to significant increase in costs .......................................... 17 

3.2.5.  Planning of international succession is difficult ........................................................ 18 

3.3. 

Scope of the problem................................................................................................ 18 

4. 

NEED FOR ACTION AT EU LEVEL ............................................................................. 19 

4.1. 

How would the problem evolve, all things being equal?....................................... 20 

EN 

ii 

   EN 

 
4.2. 

4.3. 

5. 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

Legal framework in place ........................................................................................ 20 

Does the EU have the power to act? ....................................................................... 21 

OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................... 22 

DESCRIPTION OF POLICY OPTIONS........................................................................... 23 

Definition of policy options...................................................................................... 23 

Description of policy options ................................................................................... 25 

6.2.1.  Policy options A addressing problems caused by national legislative differences 

concerning successions with transnational elements ................................................. 25 

6.2.2.  Policy options B addressing problems of identifying wills abroad............................ 27 

6.3. 

6.4. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

8. 

8.1. 

9. 

9.1. 

9.2. 

9.3. 

Discarded policy options.......................................................................................... 28 

Alternative elements which could have formed part of policy options A ........... 28 

ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS ............................................. 31 

Impact of the Policy Options addressing problems caused by national 
legislative differences concerning successions with transnational elements 
(Policy Options A) .................................................................................................... 31 

Impact of the policy options that that address problems of identifying wills 
abroad (Policy options B) ........................................................................................ 38 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS ........................................................................................ 41 

Comparison of policy options and justification of choosing the preferred 
option ......................................................................................................................... 41 

THE PREFERRED OPTION .......................................................................................... 44 

The preferred option and its effects........................................................................ 44 

The preferred option’s achievement of the objectives .......................................... 44 

Economic impacts..................................................................................................... 46 

9.3.1.  Financial costs and benefits........................................................................................ 46 

9.3.2. 

Impact on the legal profession ................................................................................... 46 

9.3.3. 

Impact on taxation...................................................................................................... 47 

9.4. 

9.5. 

Potential draw-backs/risks and sensitive elements ............................................... 47 

Fundamental Rights, EU added value and proportionality ................................. 48 

9.5.1.  Fundamental rights..................................................................................................... 48 

9.5.2.  Proportionality............................................................................................................ 48 

EN 

iii 

   EN 

9.5.3.  European added value ................................................................................................ 48 

10. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION............................................................................... 49 

ANNEX 1 - GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................ 50 

ANNEX 2 - THE MAGNITUDE OF INTERNATIONAL SUCCESSIONS AND WILLS ....................... 53 

ANNEX 3 – FINANCIAL COSTS AND BENEFITS OF THE PREFERRED POLICY OPTION............. 69 

ANNEX 4 – ECONOMIC EFFECT ON FEES FOR LEGAL PROFESSIONALS................................. 71 

ANNEX 5 – IMPACT OF THE PREFERRED OPTION ON INHERITANCE TAX.............................. 73 

EN 

iv 

   EN 

Lead DG: 

Justice, Freedom and Security 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

More  and  more  European  citizens  take  advantage  of  the  Internal  market,  live  in  another 
Member State and have family members or own property (houses, bank accounts) in more 
than one Member State. Upon their death, their potential heirs often face great difficulty, 
long delays and high legal costs in trying to obtain their inheritance. Worse, many rightful 
heirs, particularly the most vulnerable, do not receive all of their inheritance.  The process 
is protracted, expensive and stressful.   

The causes of this problem are complex. Succession law varies considerably between the 
Member  States.  National  legal  systems  are  often  in  conflict  with  one  another,  which 
results in multiple legal proceedings taking place in more than one Member State for the 
same succession. Judgments, the powers of administrators or executors of wills, and status 
as an heir in one Member State are often not recognised in others. In addition, unless the 
testator registers his will, or at least informs his potential heirs, notary or legal practitioner 
that he has made a will, there is no obvious means for potential heirs to find out whether 
the testator made a will before his or her death.   

This is a cross-border problem which affects a large and growing proportion of citizens in 
the European Union. Member States and stakeholders have therefore urged action at EU 
level to address it.  

2. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

2.1. 

Legal basis, political mandate and existing instruments 

At  its  meeting  of  15  and  16  October  1999  in  Tampere  (Finland),  the  European  Council 
called for the development of a genuine European Area of Justice in which individuals and 
businesses  should  not  be  prevented  or  discouraged  from  exercising  their  rights  by  the 
incompatibility or complexity of legal and administrative systems in the Member States.  

Although much progress has been made towards the creation of a genuine European Area 
of Civil Justice*1, successions have not, so far, been covered in this progress. In particular, 
they  are  excluded  from  the  most  important  legal  instrument  in  the  field  of  civil  judicial 
cooperation,  the  Regulation  on  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
judgments in civil and commercial matters (so-called "Brussels I" Regulation)2.  

The  adoption  of  a  European  instrument  relating  to  successions  was  already  among  the 
priorities of the Vienna Action Plan adopted by the Council and the Commission in 19983. 
The Programme of measures for implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of 

1 
2 
3 

Legal terms marked by "*" are explained in the glossary contained in Annex 1.  
Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000, OJ C 12, 15.1.2001. 
OJ C 19, 23.1.1999.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

                                                 
decisions in civil and commercial matters4 adopted by the Council and the Commission at 
the end of 2000 provides for an instrument to be drafted on succession. Finally, the Hague 
Programme  adopted  by  the  European  Council  of  4-5  November  2004  called  on  the 
Commission  to  present  a  Green  Paper  on  succession  covering  a  range  of  issues  – 
applicable  law,  jurisdiction  and  recognition  and  administrative  measures  (certificates  of 
inheritance, registration of wills).5 

2.2. 

Organisation and timing 

The Commission's Work Programme for 20086 included the adoption of a proposal for a 
regulation on successions and wills7 as a priority initiative. A road map was prepared for 
this strategic initiative. 

The  Commission  commissioned  an  external  study  (hereinafter  "the  external  study")  to 
support  the  preparation  of  the  Impact  Assessment.8  The  problems,  objectives  and  policy 
options assessed were based on the outcome of the consultations and the expertise brought 
together  by  the  Commission  to  prepare  the  present  initiative  (see  point  2.3  hereafter)  as 
well as contributions from the contractor.  

This report also incorporates comments submitted during two meetings of the inter-service 
steering  group  on  September  9  and  December  9  2008  at  which  representatives  of  the 
Directorates-Generals Enterprise and Industry, Internal Market and Services and Taxation 
and  Customs  Union,  as  well  as  the  Secretariat  General  and  the  Legal  Service  of  the 
Commission participated.  

This  Impact  Assessment  was  reviewed  by  the  Impact  Assessment  Board  (IAB).  The 
recommendations  for  improvements  have  been  accommodated  in  this  revised  version  of 
the report. In particular, the following changes were made: (i) additional explanations on 
the  reasons  why  other  alternative  elements  have  been  discarded;  (ii)  clarification  on  the 
cross-linkages  with  the  taxation  of  successions;  (iii)  reference  to  methodology  on  the 
evaluation of the instruments including indicators. 

2.3. 

Consultation and expertise 

To better understand the status quo, the Commission commissionned a "Study on Conflict 
of  Law  of  Succession  in  the  European  Union",  prepared  by  the  Deutsches  Notarinstitut 
(German Notary Institute) in November 20029. 

4 
5 
6 
7 

8 

9 

OJ C 12, 15.1.2001. 
See Presidency conclusions, Brussels European Council, 4 and 5 November 2004. 
http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/programmes/docs/clwp2008_en.pdf. 
Although  the  Commission  proposal  for  a  Regulation  will  be  entitled  "successions  upon  death" 
instead of "successions and wills", the question of wills will be addressed in this proposal. From a 
legal perspective it is obvious that wills are part of succession law. 
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: […]. 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/civil/studies/doc_civil_studies_en.htm. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

                                                 
Since this study confirmed the existence of practical problems in devolution of estates and 
drafting  of  wills  in  cross-border  successions,  the  Commission  decided  to  launch  an  in-
depth  reflection  and  debate  with  all  relevant  stakeholders  on  the  architecture  of  a  future 
Community  initiative.  It  therefore  presented  a  Green  Paper  on  Succession  and  wills 
(COM(2005)65 final) on March 1, 2005,10 launching a public debate on successions with 
an international dimension.  

The  Commission  received  approximately  60  written  contributions  from  Member  States, 
non-governmental  organisations,  academia,  bars  and  law  societies.  All  contributions, 
including the opinions by the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of Regions have been published on the JLS website11.  

Following  a  call  for  proposal,  the  Commission  set  up  an  expert  group  (PRM  III/IV) 
composed  of  experts  acting  independently  of  the  Member  States,  including  several 
notaries, and representing the different legal traditions of the EU to assist the Commission 
in its work on a future legislative proposal on successions. Seven meetings of the Expert 
Group  took  place  between  2006  and  2008,  and  a  public  hearing  on  the  question  of  the 
applicable  law  on  succession  was  held  on  16  November  2006.  In  addition,  the 
Commission consulted national experts on a preliminary draft proposal for a regulation on 
successions upon death between June and November 2008. 

10 
11 

Available at: http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l16017.htm. 
Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/successions/ 
news_contributions_successions_en.htm. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

                                                 
3. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

The following figure outlines the current problems and factors influencing these problems 
prepared  on  the  basis  of  available  information  from  desk  research  and  stakeholder 
consultations. The different elements are developed further in the following sections.  

Figure 1 - Outline of problems and factors influencing them 

Consequences  of current problems for deceased  and heirs: time delays and costs

Outcome of transnational successions do not meet 
the expectations and objectives of those who die.

Outcome not consistent with rights of (potential) heirs, 
persons formally or otherwise related to the deceased, 
private and public creditors etc. 

Causes of problems  for deceased

- Conflicting national legal systems;
- It is not possible to make a (limited) choice of law in all MS;
- Non-recognition;
- Inaccessibility of information on existence of wills abroad.

Causes of problems  for heirs

- Conflicting national legal systems;
- No choice of law by the deceased;
- Non-recognition;
- Inaccessibility of information on existence of wills abroad.

Institutional factors affecting current problems

Factors outside the 
EC competence

Factors which the EC can influence

Different  
substantive 
laws, e.g. 
rules on 
reserved 
portion

Different bodies 
handling and 
deciding on 
international 
successions

- Different jurisdiction rules;
- Different conflict of law rules;
- Insufficient (limited) choice of law for the testator;
- Restrictions to the recognition of wills, joint wills and 
succession agreements;
- Restrictions to the recognition and enforcement of 
judgments, other decisions and deeds on international 
successions;
- Restrictions to the recognition and enforcement of the 
status as an heir and administrator / executor; and,
- Difficulties identifying wills in other EU Member States.

Actions  by citizens 
impacting  on the 
magnitude  of cross-
border successions 
& wills

Acquisition of 
immovable / 
movable 
property in 
another country 
than that of 
nationality or 
habitual 
residence

Societal trends, 
for example:
- Increased 
movement of 
persons
- International 
marriages, 
divorces
- Same-sex 
partnerships

3.1. 

The causes of the current problems (the drivers) 

The outcome of international successions in the EU often does not meet the expectations 
and  objectives  of  those  who  die.  In  addition  the  rights  of  (potential)  heirs,  persons 
formally  or  otherwise  related  to  the  deceased,  private  and  public  creditors,  etc.  are  not 
being fulfilled. 

This initiative aims to address the problems and factors behind this situation. The starting 
point for outlining the problems currently faced by citizens are the national substantive* 
rules on successions which diverge widely between the Member States. Some of the most 
significant problems in the area of successions are caused by those divergences in national 
substantive  rules,  the  most  important  of  which  will  be  briefly  outlined  in  the  following 
section.  While  their  harmonisation  remains  outside  the  competence  of  the  European 
Community, it is nevertheless important to have an understanding of these differences and 
what this entails for citizens.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
3.1.1.  Divergences in national substantive rules on successions 

Some  of  the  main  differences  between  substantive  rules  which  have  given  rise  to 
difficulties for the citizens are as follows: 

1.  If  a  person  dies  intestate*,  i.e.  without  a  will,  the  inheritance  is  divided  according  to 
substantive* succession rules. The shares that the family members inherit vary widely, 
depending on which national law is applied to the succession. In particular the division of 
the  inheritance  between  a  spouse  and  children  is  handled  very  differently.  For  example, 
while  English  law  in  practice  leads  to  the  spouse  receiving  the  majority  if  not  all  of  the 
inheritance,  French  law  in  some  cases  grants  the  spouse  merely  a  quarter  of  the 
inheritance, with the remaining three quarters inherited by the children of the deceased. 

2. All Member States recognize testaments. Some Member States furthermore provide for 
more  elaborate  instruments  to  plan  successions,  namely  joint  and  reciprocal  wills*  as 
well as succession agreements*.12 A joint and reciprocal will, unlike a testament that can 
be revoked or modified at any point in time, cannot be unilaterally changed and can bind 
the surviving spouse even after the death of the partner. Similarly, a succession agreement, 
which can be concluded between a testator and any third party, can limit a testator's right 
to  modify  his  or  her  last  will  after  the  conclusion  of  the  agreement.  As  many  Member 
States, especially the Romance legal orders, place particular emphasis on the free will of 
the testator, reciprocal wills or succession agreements may not be recognized. 

3.  All  Member  States  except  for  the  UK  (specifically,  England  and  Wales)  grant  a 
compulsory  share  of  the  inheritance  to  close  family  members,  regardless  of  any 
testamentary dispositions by the deceased. This share, the "statutory reserve", can amount 
to  between  25  and  100%  of  the  inheritance,  depending  on  the  applicable  law  and  the 
number of remaining family members, and also varies widely between the Member States. 

4. The procedural rules governing succession are very different between Member States. 
While in some Member States all possessions of the deceased become the property of his 
or her heirs automatically upon death, in other Member States the estate is managed by an 
administrator and transferred to the heirs after their shares have been established and any 
inheritance tax has been paid. 

5. The rights of unmarried or same-sex partners, as compared to those of spouses, vary 
widely between the Member States. While England, the Netherlands, Spain and Germany 
treat  a  registered  same-sex  partner  like  a  spouse  in  most  respects,  other  Member  States 
that do not provide for same-sex marriage or registered partnerships as a consequence do 
not  have  any  rules  granting  a  share  of  the  inheritance  to  the  registered  partner.  Even  in 
some  Member  States  that  have  a  registered  partnership,  the  inheritance  rights  of  a 
registered  partner  are  non-existent  or  very  limited  in  scope.  For  example,  the  surviving 

12 

Joint and reciprocal wills are accepted in, e.g., Denmark, Sweden, the UK, Germany, Austria and 
Lithuania  (in  the  last  three  states,  between  spouses  only).  Succession  agreements  exist  only  in 
Austria,  Germany,  Denmark  and  the  UK.  Some  other  Member  States  provide  for  alternative 
solutions, e.g. a contractual promise of a gift between spouses in case of death (France, Belgium, 
Portugal, the Netherlands and Luxemburg). 

EN 

9 

   EN 

                                                 
partner of a French PACS is entitled by law only to a habitation right as regards a home 
shared with the deceased partner. 

Given  these  differences,  it  is  evident  that  the  results  of  a  succession  vary  widely, 
depending  on  which  national  law  is  applied.  As  mentioned  above,  these  results  can  also 
diverge from the expectations of the deceased and the heirs.  

To  address  these  issues,  the  Member  States  have  set  up  their  own  rules  to  define  the 
competence  of  their  authorities  and  the  applicable  law  in  international  succession  cases. 
However, as these rules also vary widely from Member State to Member State and have 
not always been adapted to the mobile life style of European citizens taking advantage of 
the Internal market, they create further problems for those citizens, in particular due to the 
lack of predictability of the applicable law (problem 2). Consequently, citizens suffer from 
a very low level of legal certainty. 

3.1.2.  Problem 1 - Problems relating to the determination of which country and body is 

competent to handle the case 

Difficulties  for  citizens  to  predict  which  country  has  competence  to  handle  the 
international jurisdiction and positive and negative conflicts of jurisdiction. Citizens 
have difficulties predicting which Member State's authorities are competent to handle an 
international  succession.  The  authorities  of  two  ore  more  Member  States  may  accept  to 
handle the same succession (positive conflict of jurisdiction*) or, on the other hand, none 
of them might accept to handle it (negative conflict of jurisdiction*). 

This situation mainly occurs due to the fact that the Member States have adopted widely 
varying  criteria  for  determining  the  competence  of  their  courts  in  an  international 
succession.  Many  take  the  last  habitual  residence  of  the  deceased  as  connecting  factor, 
others  the  nationality  of  the  testator.13  But  other  connecting  factors  exist:  in  cases  of 
contentious  litigation  (e.g.  because  of  a  dispute  among  potential  heirs),  the  habitual 
residence of the parties, the location of the property or the nationality of the parties may be 
used. Some Member States even allow a choice of jurisdiction by the parties in case of a 
dispute between (potential) heirs. 

Beside different connecting factors, there are other rules on international procedure which 
differ among Member States, thus increasing the risk of positive or negative conflicts of 
jurisdiction:  e.g.  the  power  of  courts/judges  to  declare  themselves  incompetent  (i.e.  not 
having  jurisdiction)  on  their  own  motion  or  on  request  of  the  parties,  including  the  UK 
mechanism of forum non conveniens* or the rules on lispendence*. 

These different rules lead to a situation where the competent bodies of different countries 
may accept to decide on the same succession and even on the same question, which may 

13 

Nationality as a connecting factor is used in the laws of Austria, Germany, Spain, Greece, Hungary, 
Italy,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania  (for  movable  property),  Slovenia,  Sweden  and  the  Czech 
Republic.  Habitual  residence  is  used  in  Belgium  (movables),  Bulgaria  (movables),  Cyprus 
(movables),  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  France  (movables),  Luxembourg  (movables),  Ireland, 
Lithuania, the Netherlands and the UK (England and Wales; Scotland: for movables only). 

EN 

10 

   EN 

                                                 
lead  to  contradictory  decisions,  even  more  since  each  of  the  courts  may  then  apply  a 
different law (see 3.1.3). This diversity also favours the phenomenon of forum shopping* : 
parties  involved  in  an  international  succession  case  may  try  to  bring  their  claims  before 
the courts of a certain Member State, because they will apply substantive succession law 
which is particularly favourable for them. 

Difficulties for citizens to predict which body or court will handle the case. Even once 
citizens  have  identified  the  Member  State  the  authorities  of  which  have  competence  to 
handle the succession, they often do not know which body is competent in this Member 
State. In many Member States, the majority of successions are settled outside the courts, 
sometimes with the support of public bodies or certain legal professions (mainly notaries); 
courts are involved only in complex or contentious successions. In other Member States, 
the courts always have to be involved. Furthermore, in some countries, only one court is 
competent,  whereas  in  other  countries  the  plaintiff  has  an  option  to  choose  between 
several  courts.  This  makes  it  difficult  for  citizens  to  predict  what  body  or  court  will 
actually handle their case.  

3.1.3.  Problem  2  –  Conflicting  laws  applicable  to  the  same  succession  in  different 

Member States 

It must be borne in mind that, in matters of private law, a court is not obliged to apply the 
law of its  own country; it may also  apply the rules of law  of another country.14 For this 
reason, Member States have adopted their own rules to decide which law of which country 
should be applied to which case, called conflict of laws rules*.  

At  present,  the  Member  States  have  different  conflict  of  laws  rules  in  matters  of 
successions. Since the authorities of several Member States may be competent to deal with 
a  given  succession  (see  point  3.1.2),  these  authorities  might  come  to  different  results  as 
regards  the  question  “what  belongs  to  whom”,  which  is  not  only  a  major  factor  of  legal 
uncertainty,  but  has  serious  consequences  on  the  estate  planning  and  the  mutual 
recognition of judgments between Member States. 

The main existing discrepancies between the conflict of laws rules of the Member States 
are the following. 

Different connecting factors in the conflict of laws rules. The connecting factors used 
in  the  conflict  of  laws  rules  of  the  Member  States  to  determine  the  law  applicable  to 
succession are quite different. In particular, there is a striking difference between Member 
States which apply the law of the last habitual residence of the deceased and others who 
follow the principle of nationality.15  

14 

15 

For  example,  for  the  succession  of  a  national  of  Member  State  A  living  in  Member  State  B,  the 
courts of Member State B might conclude that the succession is governed by the substantive laws of 
Member  State  A.  The  application  of  a  foreign  law  may  be  problematic  itself.  However,  this 
problem is not specific to successions. 
For a list of which Member State uses which connecting factor, please see n. 13 above. Even if two 
Member States apply the same rules to determine the applicable law, they can nevertheless come to 
a different result because of their respective solutions on renvoi (situation in which the conflict of 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
Example:  a  French  citizen  whose  last  habitual  residence  was  in  Germany  dies,  leaving  movable 
property (e.g. bank accounts, shares) in both countries. The authorities of both Germany and France 
would have competence to handle the case (cf. point 3.1.2). Applying their own national conflict of 
laws rules, the German authorities would apply French succession law to identify the heirs, whereas 
the  French  authorities  would  apply  the  German  rules.  As  a  further  consequence,  conflicting 
judgments will be given by French and German courts with regard to the succession of the same 
deceased  person,  and  recognition  will  be  denied  to  the  French  judgment  in  Germany  as  being  in 
contradiction to the German judgment, and vice versa. 

Distinction  between  unitary  systems  and  systems  of  separate  conflict  rules  for 
movable  and  immovable  property.  Seventeen  Member  States  have  unitary  systems 
where all succession property (i.e. both movable and immovable property) wherever it is 
located, is subject to a single law (e.g. the Austrian succession law determines the heirs of 
both  the  bank  account  in  Luxembourg  and  the  house  in  Granada).  Ten  Member  States 
have systems where movable and immovable goods can be subject to different laws if they 
are  located  in  different  countries.  According  to  this  system,  immovable  property  is 
governed by the law of the country where it is located, whereas movables are subject to 
the  general  connecting  factor  (mainly  nationality  or  last  habitual  residence).  The 
application of the law of the country in which the immovable property is located makes it 
easier  to  transfer  ownership  of  the  property,  but  makes  it  more  difficult  to  organise 
succession of the entire estate and to draft wills.16 

Example:  An  Italian  citizen  dies  in  England,  leaving  a  house  there.  English  courts  will  apply 
English succession law (law of the place of location). Italian courts would apply Italian succession 
law to the whole estate including the house in England.  

Difference in the treatment of the administration* and the distribution* of the estate.  
Further  difficulties  arise  from  the  fact  that  the  administration  of  the  estate  is  part  of 
succession  law  in  civil  law  countries,  governed  by  the  law  applicable  to  the  succession, 
whereas it is part of the national procedural law in common law countries.  

Different  scope  of  application  of  the  conflict  of  laws  rules  relating  to  successions  in 
the Member State. The fact that the delimitation between succession law on the one hand 
and other laws (family law, property law, company law) is drawn in a different way in the 
Member  States  also  makes  it  difficult  to  know  which  law  is  applicable,  and  can  lead  to 
contradictory decisions.  

Examples: The law of the last country of residence (Member State A) provides that the surviving 
spouse  automatically  becomes  life  tenant  of  all  property  owned  by  her  husband,  including  the 
holiday residence in Member State B, whereas the law of Member State B stipulates that such a life 
tenancy  can  only  be  arranged  by  a  written  contract.  As  a  consequence,  the  spouse  will  have 
difficulties enforcing her rights in Member State B.   

16 

laws rules of Member State A call for the application of the law of country B. The conflict of laws 
rules of Member State B, however, provide for the application of the law of Member State A or of a 
third State). 
In addition, the distinction between movable property and immovable property is not the same in all 
Member States, which can lead to the application of different laws for a given property even among 
those  Member  States  which  have  the  split  system,  when  it  is  qualified  as  being  movable  in  one 
Member State and as being immovable in another Member State. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                   
3.1.4.  Problem 3 - Insufficient (limited) freedom of choice of law for the testator 

When  a  citizen  taking  advantage  of  the  Internal  market  is  aware  of  the  differences  in 
substantive succession law and in the conflict of laws rules in the Member States and is 
also aware of the resulting problems, he/she may wish to get around this by drawing up a 
will  and  choosing  a  single  law  applicable  to  his/her  entire  estate  irrespective  of  the 
location  of  the  property.  However,  most  Member  States  do  not  yet  allow  the  future 
deceased to choose the law applicable to his/her succession17. Those Member States which 
give a choice also introduce limitations, varying from one country to the other, as regards 
in  particular  the  laws  which  may  be  chosen  (in  general,  law  of  habitual  residence  or  of 
nationality,  in  one  Member  State  the  law  of  the  matrimonial  property  regime)18,  the 
property for which such choice is allowed (movable or immovable property) and the form 
of the choice. 

Due to these limitations, in practice, no Member States allows citizens to choose a single 
law governing the whole succession. This may cause particular problems for those citizens 
that take advantage of their freedom of movement in the EU. When such persons make a 
will and then change their country of residence, they are often unaware that this change 
may mean that their will no longer has the expected effects, since it may become subject 
to  a  different  law.  But  even  when  these  citizens  are  aware  of  this  fact,  they  have  no 
possibility  to  avoid  these  consequences  by  choosing  the  law  of  their  former  habitual 
residence  as  governing their succession. The only alternative is to draw up a will which 
satisfies the requirements of all Member States concerned, which is nearly impossible in 
practice.  

3.1.5.  Problem  4  -  Restricted  recognition*  and  enforcement*  of  judgments,  non-

contentious decisions and notarial deeds* 

A judgment given by a court in one country is not automatically recognised and enforced 
in  another  country  the  courts  of  which  may  render  a  conflicting  judgment  on  the  same 
question. Although the mutual recognition of judgments within the EU is a cornerstone of 
the  objective  to  create  a  genuine  European  area  of  civil  justice,  succession  matters  are 
expressly  excluded  from  the  scope  of  the  instruments  adopted  so  far,  in  particular  the 
Brussels I Regulation. This question is therefore regulated either by bilateral conventions 
or by the national procedural laws of the Member States. As a consequence, there are still 
grounds for non-recognition of judgments and non-contentious decisions given in another 
Member  State.  In  certain  Member  States,  notaries  or  other  authorities  prepare  deeds  to 
determine the order of succession and to provide for the administration of the estate. There 
is currently a lack of provision for the recognition and enforcement of such deeds. 

17 

18 

No  choice  of  law  admitted  in  Austria,  Cyprus,  France,  Greece,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovakia,  Slovenia,  Spain,  Sweden  and  Czech  Republic. 
Information is unavailable for Hungary, Malta and Northern Ireland. 
Although Belgium grants a limited choice, this choice is not valid if the result is to deprive one of 
the heirs of his/her rights to a reserved portion to which he/she would be entitled according to the 
succession law normally applicable.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

                                                 
3.1.6.  Problem  5  -  Restricted  recognition  of  the  status  as  an  heir  or  as  an 

administrator/executor 

Lack of automatic recognition of certificates on the status as an heir. Currently there 
are  various  types  of  evidence  to  prove  the  status  as  an  heir  in  the  Member  States. 
Documents concerning one's status of an heir executed in one Member State are at present 
normally  not  automatically  recognised  in  other  Member  States.  This  gives  rise  to 
duplication of procedures to prove one's status as an heir in the country where the property 
is  situated  and  additional  costs  and  time  delays;  often  heirs  are  required  to  initiate  new 
proceedings  to  obtain  a  document  attesting  their  status  as  heir,  when  in  fact  such  a 
document  has  already  been  issued  in  another  Member  State.  For  example,  Luxembourg 
banks  are  often  faced  with  the  question  of  the  legal  value  of  a  German  Erbschein  or  a 
French acte de notoriété; in case of non-recognition, the heirs are required to initiate new 
proceedings before a Luxembourg court to obtain a second proof of their status. 

Lack of automatic recognition of the status as administrator/executor with the power 
to dispose of the estate. The designation of an administrator of the succession or of the 
executor of a will is either optional or compulsory, depending on the law of the Member 
State in question. In a few Member States (United Kingdom and Ireland) it is compulsory 
to appoint an administrator or executor to handle matters of succession. In the majority of 
Member States this is merely an option and it is upon the moment of the death of a person 
that the heirs become owners of the deceased's property. The problems faced by citizens 
are  twofold:  (i)  citizens  of  those  Member  States  where  heirs  become  owners  of  the 
property upon the death of a person see their rights to administer the property refused in 
those  Member  States  which  require  the  intervention  of  an  administrator  or  executor;  (ii) 
administrators appointed under the rules of one Member State see their rights refused in a 
Member State where the property is located.  

3.1.7.  Problem 6 – Difficulties identifying wills abroad 

Even  in  cases  which  are  purely  internal  to  one  Member  State,  it  is  not  always  easy  for 
heirs  to  know  whether  the  deceased  had  established  a  testament,  especially  in  those 
Member  States  which  authorize  handwritten  wills  with  no  requirements  as  regards 
registration. This question is even more problematic for citizens looking for a will abroad: 
in ideal cases, the testator warns his relatives or notary that he/she drafted a will in another 
country. If this is not the case, the heirs and the professionals involved have to investigate 
if  the  testator  has  a  will  in  one  of  the  countries  with  which  he  was  connected.  This 
situation  causes  extra  work  for  the  legal  professionals  and  triggers  severe  time  delays, 
uncertainty as to whether wills exist that may change the completion of the succession of 
the deceased, whether other heirs will step forward, etc. The procedures become extended 
and complex which in turn results in greater costs. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

3.2. 

Negative consequences faced by Union citizens (the problem)19 

As outlined above in section 3.1, there is a risk that the outcome of successions with an 
international element does not match the legitimate expectations of the deceased and the 
heirs.  In  particular,  the  divergent  rules  may  result  in  the  following  issues  that  will  be 
addressed in more detail in the following sections: 

•  a person who was not expected or intended to inherit the estate may do so; conversely, 

a person who was intended or expected to inherit may fail to do so; 

•  the shares of the estate can deviate in size from what was intended or expected; 

•  heirs face long delays in obtaining their inheritance; 

•  heirs face significantly higher costs; and 

•  EU citizens face difficulties in attempting to plan their succession. 

We  have  been  unable  to  collect  hard  data  as  regards  the  extent  of  these  problems; 
however,  each  of  these  problems,  the  importance  of  which  was  confirmed  by  the 
stakeholders  interviewed  for  the  preparation  of  the  external  study,  is  illustrated  by  a 
concrete example in the following section. Further details on all examples by practitioners 
cited in this section may be found in Annex 8 of the external report. 

3.2.1.  An intended or expected heir may fail to inherit, or an unintended or unexpected 

person may inherit 

Under the present rules, there is a high risk that an intended or expected heir may fail to 
inherit or that an unintended or unexpected person may inherit. The practical result can be 
unfair, e.g. when it leads to discrimination among siblings. 

Example: A Spanish father living in Spain owns two houses of equal value, one located in London, 
the other in Spain. He made a will, leaving the first house to his son, the second to his daughter. 
Upon his death, the two houses are treated separately, the succession of the first being subject to 
English law, the succession of the second to Spanish law. Under Spanish law, which provides for 
an equal statutory reserve for all children of the deceased, the son could claim a share in the house 
in Spain. Since English law does not provide for such statutory reserve, the daughter would not be 
allowed  to  do  the  same  for  the  house  in  London.  As  a  consequence,  brother  and  sister  could  be 
treated in an unfair manner although their father had wanted to treat them equally. 

In addition, sometimes the problem of failing to inherit despite legitimate expectations is 
faced by children because the ability of minors to own property varies from Member State 
to Member State. 

legitimate 
Registered  partners 
expectations  achieved  in  situations  in  which  they  do  not  receive  a  share  of  the 

in  particular  suffer  from  not  seeing 

their 

19 

While this report focuses on EU citizens, the benefits of any measures taken would extend to any 
foreign resident in a Member State. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

                                                 
estate because their partnership is not recognized by the national law applicable to 
the succession. Accordingly, that law will not provide for rights of inheritance for 
the registered partner. 

Similar cases were cited in particular by English, German and Dutch practitioners. 

A particular issue arises in relation to the English substantive law of succession, which, as 
mentioned  above,  does  not  provide  a  statutory  share  to  close  family  members  of  the 
deceased. In case of an Englishman who has made important gifts during his lifetime (gift 
intra vivos*), the change of applicable law following the move to another Member State 
can lead to unexpected results.  

Example: An Englishman has invested most of his wealth in a collection of modern art paintings, 
which  he  gives  away  to  a  museum.  Shortly  thereafter,  he  moves  to  France,  where  he  eventually 
marries a French woman, and the couple have two children who are also French citizens. When the 
father  passes  away  years  later,  the  children  under  the  applicable  French  law  of  succession  are 
entitled  to  a  statutory  share  of  the  inheritance,  which  in  this  example  would  amount  to  ⅔  of  the 
estate. For the purposes of calculating the value of that share, the value of the estate of the deceased 
including all gifts made during his lifetime is calculated. Assuming that the value of the collection 
of paintings amounts to ½ of the estate's total value, the statutory share cannot be satisfied by the 
remaining assets in the estate. In this case, the children can bring a so-called "claim for reduction" 
against the museum, forcing it to pay the remaining 1/6 of the estate to complete the statutory share 
of the children. 

3.2.2. 

Shares of the inheritance may be different to what was intended or expected 

The share of the inheritance can be smaller or larger than was originally expected.  

Example:  A  Lithuanian  couple  has  drawn  up  a  joint  and  reciprocal  will,  naming  the  surviving 
spouse as the heir to the entire estate and the couple's three children as the heirs of that surviving 
spouse.  If  that  couple  e.g.  owns  a  vacation  home  in  France,  the  French  courts  will  refuse  to 
recognize  the  surviving  spouse  as  the  heir  as  they  do  not  accept  joint  and  reciprocal  wills. 
Accordingly, French rules will apply. The surviving spouse receives – at his or her choice – either 
¼ of the estate or the usufruct of the entire estate. The rest of the estate goes to the children. 

Problems can also arise due to the fact that the protection of the surviving spouse can be 
governed either by family law or by succession law, or by a combination of the two. Since 
almost  all  conflict  of  laws  rules  differentiate  between  family  law  and  succession  law,  it 
may  be  that  different  national  substantive  rules  apply  to  questions  of  family  law  and 
questions  of  succession  law.  Depending  on  the  combination,  this  can  lead  either  to  an 
unintended decrease (the spouse is protected neither by succession nor by family law) or 
increase (the spouse is protected by both succession and family law) in the spouse's share 
of  the  estate.  Examples  of  such  cases  were  cited  by  Swedish,  Dutch  and  Spanish 
practitioners. 

3.2.3.  Heirs may face long delays in obtaining their inheritance 

When  the  deceased  owned  property  in  another  Member  State,  heirs  are  faced  with  two 
main problems. First, they have to prove to the authorities in the second Member State that 
they are the rightful heirs, which may be difficult in particular if a joint and reciprocal will 

EN 

16 

   EN 

not  recognized  by  the  second  Member  State.  Secondly,  they  have  to  find  out  about  and 
follow the correct procedures to transfer ownership of the property from the deceased to 
themselves,  e.g.  effecting  the  necessary  changes  in  the  land  register.  An  English 
practitioner  cited  the  example  of  a  client  who  had  to  wait  two  years  to  settle  her 
inheritance. The non-recognition of decisions and other acts also frequently leads to long 
delays, as reported by several practitioners. Similarly, the failure to recognize the authority 
of  an  administrator/executor  causes  delays.  One  practitioner  cited  the  example  of  a 
Spanish bank which did not recognise the powers of a Swedish administrator/executor; it 
took three years before it was possible to access the account. 

The legal uncertainty  can also lead to an increased risk of dispute amongst the potential 
heirs. In the case of contentious procedures, practitioners estimate that it may take up to 10 
years or more to settle the inheritance, depending on the efficacy of the relevant national 
legal system. 

3.2.4. 

International aspects lead to significant increase in costs 

Successions with international aspects also tend to be much more costly, in particular due 
to  the  legal  uncertainty  faced  by  the  heirs.  As  the  national  rules  on  jurisdiction  and  the 
applicable law diverge, it can be difficult to establish which Member State's authorities are 
competent  to  handle  the  succession  and  which  national  law  applies.  Depending  on  the 
national  competence  rules,  the  authorities  in  several  Member  States  might  consider 
themselves to be competent (positive conflict of jurisdiction) or, conversely, no Member 
State's  authorities  may  find  themselves  competent  (negative  conflict  of  jurisdiction). 
Furthermore,  some  Member  States'  conflict  of  laws  rules  provide  for  the  application  of 
different national laws depending on the location of the estate ("scission"* of the estate). 

Accordingly,  in  cross-border  cases,  legal  professionals  estimate  that  costs  are  twice  or 
three times as high as in national cases due to the necessity to seek advice from lawyers, 
notaries  and  tax  advisers  in  more  than  one  country.  Costs  also  increase  compared  to 
national  successions  due  to  additional  court  costs,  witnesses,  expert  opinions,  etc.  An 
English practitioner estimates that, while the costs of a purely national succession might 
amount to 2% of the estate, a transnational succession would cost the heirs approximately 
5%  of  the  estate.20  A  German  practitioner  cited  an  example  involving  property  in  Spain 
which cost the heirs € 10,000 more than it would have absent the international element. 

These problems are especially difficult for persons with limited financial means, since the 
legal  procedures  need  to  be  financed  in  advance  of  acquiring  the  estate,  which,  as  seen 
above, may take many years. An English legal practitioner estimated that the legal fees for 
a  complicated  succession  may  start  at  20,000  Euros.  Such  an  upfront  investment  can  be 
difficult  to  finance  and  can  deter  potential  heirs  from  even  pursuing  their  rights  to  the 
inheritance. 

20 

For more information, see Annex 8 of the external study. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

                                                 
3.2.5.  Planning of international succession is difficult 

As explained in section 3.1.4, the divergent national substantive and conflict of laws rules 
pose a challenge for a Union citizen attempting to plan his or her succession in advance, if 
that succession contains an international element. As most national legal systems currently 
do  not  offer  any  possibility  of  choosing  the  law  applicable  to  the  succession,  the 
applicable law often cannot be determined in advance. Furthermore, legal professionals in 
England and Germany cited examples of succession plans that had been voided by a later 
change in habitual residence of the citizen. 

3.3. 

Scope of the problem  

According to the external study, around 4.5 million people die each year in the EU. For 
successions without an international dimension, it is assumed that the value of the average 
estate  is  about  € 137,000.  Accordingly,  the  total  value  of  the  estates  per  annum  would 
amount to € 646 bn. 

This study currently estimates that about 1 in 10 (that is, about 450,000) successions in the 
EU have an international dimension. This international dimension, as outlined above, can 
arise for example due to the existence of movable or immovable property of the deceased 
in another Member State, due to the deceased's having a nationality other than that of the 
Member State in which he or she was resident or simply due to the fact that the potential 
heir lives in another Member State than the last habitual residence of the deceased.  

The  likelihood  of  an  international  element  to  the  succession  rises  with  the  value  of  the 
estate.  A  wealthy  person  is  more  likely  to  have  e.g.  an  account  or  a  second  home  in 
another Member State. It is therefore estimated that the average value of estates with an 
international dimension would amount to around double the value of an average estate (i.e. 
€ 274,000), totalling approximately € 123.3 bn euro per annum. 

These estates are liable to problems. Even if resolved in a reasonable manner, the costs of 
legal  fees  according  to  estimates  by  practitioners  might  amount  to  between  2%  (€ 2.466 
bn) and 5% of the total value of international successions (€ 6.165 bn). An average of 3% 
(€ 3.699  bn)  of  the  value  of  estates  can  be  considered  realistic.  Moreover,  the  costs  of 
delays, which may be measured in terms of years rather than months, might be of the same 
order  of  magnitude.  Addressing  the  problems  giving  rise  to  the  need  for  legal  advice 
beyond  the  flat  rate  norm  for  a  ‘straightforward’  national  will  and  the  associated  delays 
could thus generate benefits to EU citizens in the order of € 4 bn per annum.  

The  heirs  are  not  only  faced  with  legal  uncertainty,  increased  costs  and  time  delays. 
Depending  on  the  financial  situation  of  a  potential  heir  and  the  value  of  the  expected 
shares, the succession may prove to be altogether too costly for the heir. Practitioners cited 
examples  of  heirs  who  were  forced  to  renounce  rights  to  a  succession  because  their 
enforcement  in  a  foreign  Member  State  would  have  been  too  expensive.  The 
complications  arising  out  of  such  an  international  connection  add  to  the  distress  already 
experienced by many heirs in dealing with the succession of a loved one. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

The magnitude of the problem is very likely going to increase in the future, as the number 
of EU citizens taking advantage of the internal market and the mobility it affords is on the 
rise continuously. As is evidenced by Eurostat data, while the number of foreign residents 
stagnates in a few Member States, it increases continuously in others:21 

Figure 2 – Residents from other Member States in selected EU countries 

Foreign residents in selected EU countries

5.000.000

4.500.000

4.000.000

3.500.000

3.000.000

2.500.000

2.000.000

1.500.000

1.000.000

500.000

s
t
n
e
d
i
s
e
r

n
g
i
e
r
o
f

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

0
1996

Spain

Italy

Portugal

UK

Czech Republic

2001

Year

2007

Further arguments explaining why the magnitude of the problem is likely to increase over 
the next years are set out in Annex 2. 

4. 

  NEED FOR ACTION AT EU LEVEL  

The  problems  outlined  above  are  due  to  the  cross-border  nature  of  succession.  National 
law alone can therefore not solve the problems, and action at Community level is needed. 
In the absence of such action, there are a number of factors that might lead to an increase 
in the scale of the problem. 

21 

Source: Eurostat statistic "Population par citoyenneté". 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
4.1. 

 How would the problem evolve, all things being equal? 

Given the increased numbers of international marriages, the growing numbers of complex 
extended  and  same  sex  family  relations  and  the  rising  propensity  of  estates  to  include 
immovable and movable property located in more than one Member State, the costs to EU 
citizens  would  probably  increase  beyond  the  estimated  4  bn  euro  per  annum  without 
policy changes. Indeed, in view of these developments, a doubling of costs within a period 
of  ten  years  is  not  unlikely,  particularly  as  there  has  been  a  marked  recent  increase  in 
foreign property ownership within the EU that is unlikely to level off. Furthermore it has 
been reported that the incidence of wills being contested has increased, partly because the 
value of individual successions has increased, leading to greater costs and delays for heirs.  

However,  other  developments  also  need  to  be  taken  into  account  with  regard  to  the 
evolution  of  the  problem.  It  is  by  no  means  certain  that  there  will  be  an  increase  in  the 
value  of  estates  in  successions;  indeed  there  are  several  tendencies  that  could  reduce  it. 
Firstly,  people  are  living  longer  and  staying  active  until  a  much  later  age.  There  is 
evidence  that  the  ‘baby  boom’  generation  who  have  enjoyed  high  incomes  and 
accumulated wealth may choose to consume it during their retirement years and give less 
priority to leaving a legacy to their heirs. Secondly, the elderly often incur high health care 
costs in the years shortly before their death that may, depending of course on the insurance 
and social security arrangements applying, diminish their wealth. Thirdly, individuals may 
choose, for tax, altruism or other reasons to give away (parts of) their wealth during their 
lifetime.  

Taking  into  account  these  trends  and  the  forecasts  as  regards  the  scope  of  the  problem 
(section 3.3 and Annex 2), in balance it can be expected that problems will get worse at 
least  in  the  short  term;  it  is  reasonable  to  estimate  that  the  costs  of  international 
successions will double within a period of ten years. 

4.2. 

Legal framework in place  

As already mentioned, successions are excluded from all instruments adopted so far at EU 
level  in  matters  of  civil  judicial  cooperation.  The  problems  outlined  above  are  also 
unlikely to be eliminated by a concerted action of the Member States, e.g. by means of an 
international convention. Although there have been three Hague Conventions on questions 
of succession alone, only the first one of 1961, which harmonises the conflict of laws rules 
relating to the form of testamentary dispositions, has been widely ratified by the Member 
States22.  Another  convention,  dealing  with  the  problem  of  the  administration  of  the 
succession, of 1973, was ratified only by a few Member States,23 and a convention on the 

22 

23 

Hague  Convention  of  5  October  1961  on  the  Conflict  of  Laws  Relating  to  the  From  of 
Testamentary Dispositions, in force in the following Member States: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, 
Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Germany,  Greece,  Ireland, Italy,  Luxembourg, the  Netherlands,  Poland, 
Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, UK. 
Hague Convention of 2 October 1973 Concerning the International Administration of the Estates of 
Deceased Persons; in force in the following Member States: Czech Republic, Italy, Luxembourg, 
Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia, UK. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

                                                 
law  applicable  to  the  successions  of  1989  has  never  entered  into  force  due  to  an 
insufficient number of ratifications by the contracting States24. 

However,  national  and  international  action  has  begun  with  a  view  to  alleviating  the 
problem  of  identifying  wills  in  other  countries.  In  1972,  the  members  of  the  Council  of 
Europe signed the  Basel Convention on the  establishment  of  a  scheme  of  registration  of 
wills.25 In the past few years, those Member States that previously did not have a register 
of wills have begun to create such registers. 22 Member States presently have registers of 
wills at a national or regional level, and two (Bulgaria and Latvia) are in the process of 
establishing registers.26 In order to facilitate the exchange of information on the existence 
of  wills,  a  system  for  connecting  registers  of  wills  has  been  developed  by  the  European 
Network  of  Registers  of  Wills  Association  (ENRWA).  ENRWA  was  started  by  the 
Slovenian, French and Belgian notary associations in 2005 and is open to all states able to 
respect  the  Basel  Convention  principles  and  certain  other  requirements.  The  following 
Member States have joined the network to date: Romania, the Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, 
Bulgaria  and  Latvia.  Moreover,  the  following  additional  countries  have  expressed  their 
intentions  to  join  the  ENRWA:  Austria,  Greece,  Luxembourg,  Hungary,  Poland,  the 
Czech Republic and Slovakia. They will likely become members during the first semester 
of  2009.  The  notary  associations  of  Estonia,  Germany  and  Spain  are  also  considering 
joining  the  ENRWA  but,  due  to  national  particularities,  are  still  in  the  process  of 
investigating the modalities. 

Two other key factors influence the success of this trend: the first is the extent to which 
wills are actually registered. The second factor is whether information from these registers 
can be obtained efficiently, quickly and at low cost. Ideally, every will would be registered 
and the registers would be interlinked, allowing a quick search via e.g. a search form. At 
the  moment,  the  ENRWA  requires  its  members  to  nominate  a  contact  point  in  their 
respective state to deal with inquiries regarding wills. Beyond this contact person system, 
no connection between the registers exists at this point in time. 

4.3. 

Does the EU have the power to act? 

Treaty base. Since the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty, the competence of the 
European  Community  to  act  in  the  area  of  conflict  of  laws  rules  is  governed  by  Article 
61(c)  of  the  EC  Treaty.  Under  Article  67  EC,  as  amended  by  the  Treaty  of  Nice,  the 
Regulation is to be adopted in accordance with the co-decision procedure of Article 251 
EC. Article 65(b) furthermore provides: “Measures in the field of judicial cooperation in 
civil matters having cross-border implications, to be taken in accordance with Article 67 
and in so far as necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market, shall include: 
…  promoting  the  compatibility  of  the  rules  applicable  in  the  Member  States  concerning 
the conflict of laws and of jurisdiction”.  

24 

25 
26 

Hague  Convention  of  1  August  1989  on  the  Law  Applicable  to  Succession  to  the  Estates  of 
Deceased Persons; this Convention has never entered into force. 
Available at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/077.htm. 
No information available for Malta. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

                                                 
As outlined above, it is evident that the differences in the conflict of laws and jurisdiction 
rules  create  significant  obstacles  to  the  free  movement  of  persons  and  the  freedom  of 
establishment.  They  also  impede  the  full  enjoyment  of  the  citizens'  right  to  private 
property,  which  according  to  the  established  case  law  of  the  European  Court  of  Justice 
(ECJ)  forms  an  integral  part  of  the  fundamental  rights  safeguarded  by  the  Court.27 
Accordingly, there is a need for action at Community level. 

Title IV of the EC Treaty, which is the basis for the matters covered by this proposal, does 
not  apply  to  Denmark  by  reason  of  the  Protocol  applicable  to  it.  Nor  does  it  apply  to 
Ireland and the United Kingdom, unless those countries exercise their right to opt into this 
initiative as provided by the Protocol annexed to the Treaty.  

Necessity  test  (subsidiarity).  The  solution  to  the  problems  outlined  above  cannot  be 
adequately  attained  by  the  Member  States  alone,  which  cannot  lay  down  uniform 
Community rules, and can therefore, by reason of its effects throughout the Community, 
be better achieved by action at Community level.  

As outlined above in Section 4.2, it is also unlikely that a concerted action by the Member 
States  would  make  Community  action  unnecessary,  as  evidenced  by  the  failed  Hague 
Conventions. Accordingly, Community action is required. 

The Community can take measures in accordance with the subsidiarity principle set out in 
Article 5 of the Treaty. The measures respect the proportionality principle set out in that 
Article,  by  increasing  certainty  in  the  law  without  requiring  harmonisation  of  the 
substantive  rules  of  domestic  law.  They  therefore  go  no  further  than  necessary.  Purely 
national successions are not affected by this initiative. 

Point  6  of  the  Protocol  on  the  application  of  the  principles  of  subsidiarity  and 
proportionality provides that “Other things being equal, directives should be preferred to 
regulations..”. For this proposal, however, the Regulation would seem to be preferable as 
its provisions lay down uniform rules on the applicable law that are detailed, precise and 
unconditional  and  require  no  measures  for  their  transposal  into  domestic  law.  If  the 
Member States enjoyed some room for manoeuvre in transposing, the uncertainty as to the 
law which the aim is to abolish would be restored (see Section 6.3). Regulations have, in 
the  vast  majority  of  cases,  been  the  preferred  instrument  for  mutual  recognition  in  civil 
law. 

5. 

OBJECTIVES 

The overall objective of the Proposal is to contribute to the creation of a genuine European 
area of civil justice in the field of successions upon death. 

The general, specific and operational objectives are summarised in the following table: 

27 

ECJ,  Judgment  of  3  December  1998,  Case  C-368/96  –  Generics  (UK),  ECR  1998  I-07967; 
Judgment of 28 April 1998, Case C-200/96 – Metronome Musik, ECR 1998 I-01953. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

                                                 
Overview of general, specific and operational objectives 

General objectives 

Specific objectives 

Operational objectives 

•  To  allow  citizens  to  efficiently  plan 
and  to  organise  their  succession  in 
advance in a cross border context  

•  To  increase  the  likelihood  that  the 
rights  of  potential  heirs,  persons 
formally  or  otherwise  related  to  the 
deceased,  private  and  public  creditors 
etc. are respected in an efficient way 

To  achieve  a 
situation  where  parallel 
proceedings  do  not  occur  and  where  different 
substantive  laws  are  not  applied  to  the  same 
international succession 

To adopt common rules on jurisdiction 

To adopt common rules on applicable law 

To  provide  a  (limited)  choice  of  law  for  the 
testator 

To  introduce  harmonised  rules  providing  a 
limited choice of law to the testator 

To  ensure  the  recognition  of  rights,  relevant 
acts and decisions regarding successions. 

To  harmonise  rules  on  the  recognition  and 
enforcement of judgments, other decisions and 
authentic acts / deeds  

To ensure recognition of the powers of 
administrators/executors  

To ensure recognition of the status as an heir  

To increase the accessibility of information on 
the existence of wills abroad 

To  create  a  European  system  for  registering 
wills  and  obtaining 
the 
existence of wills abroad. 

information  on 

6. 

DESCRIPTION OF POLICY OPTIONS 

6.1. 

Definition of policy options 

The policy options have been split into the following two different sets, in order to take 
account of the different options to be considered (see table below):  

•  Policy  options  A:  Options  that  address  problems  caused  by  national  legislative 
differences  concerning  devolution  of  succession  with  transnational  elements  (nine 
different options have been identified); and, 

•  Policy  options  B:  Options  that  address  problems  of  identifying  wills  abroad  (six 

different options have been identified). 

The preferred option can combine options from both of these sets. 

Definition of policy options that address problems caused by national legislative differences 
concerning successions with transnational elements (Policy Options A) 

No common EU level action 

•  Policy Option A.1: Status quo 

EU legislative action 

•  Policy Option A.2: Harmonisation of jurisdiction rules and introduction of rules on automatic 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
recognition and enforcement of judgments, other decisions and authentic acts/deeds 

•  Policy Option A.3: Harmonisation of conflict of law rules 

•  Policy  Option  A.4:  Harmonisation  of  conflict  of  law  rules  and  introduction  of  a  European 

Certificate of Heir and Executor / Administrator in transnational successions 

•  Policy Option A.5: Harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules 

•  Policy  Option  A.6:  Harmonisation  of  conflict  of  law  rules  and  jurisdiction  rules,  and 
introduction of rules on automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments, other decisions 
and authentic acts/deeds (A.2 plus A.3) 

•  Policy  Option  A.7:  Harmonisation  of  conflict  of  law  rules  and  jurisdiction  rules,  and 
introduction of rules on automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments, other decisions 
and  authentic  acts/deeds,  and  introduction  of  a  Certificate  of  Heir  and  Executor  / 
Administrator in transnational successions (A.2 plus A.4) 

Non-legislative action 

•  Policy Option A.8: Establishment of a database / knowledge management system on conflict 

of laws, jurisdiction rules and competent bodies 

•  Policy Option A.9: EU wide information campaign on succession (legislation and existing / 

forth-coming instruments) 

Definition  of  policy  options  that  address  problems  of  identifying  wills  abroad  (Policy 
Options B) 

No common EU level action 

•  Policy Option B.1: Status quo 

EU level action (legislation and funding) 

•  Policy  option  B.2:  Commission  Recommendation  on 

the  establishment  of 
interconnected national registers of wills and organisation of information campaigns.  

•  Policy  option  B.3  Compulsory  establishment  of  interconnected  national  registers  of 

wills.  

•  Policy option B.4 Establishment of a central EU Register of Wills.  

Non-legislative action 

•  Policy Option B.5: Creation of a webpage on existing registers of wills and national 

rules. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
•  Policy Option B.6: National information campaigns on wills (legislation and existing 

/ forth-coming instruments) 

6.2. 

Description of policy options 

6.2.1.  Policy options A addressing problems caused by national legislative differences 

concerning successions with transnational elements 

Policy Option A.1 - Status quo. Under this policy option there would be no common EU 
legislative action.  

Policy Option A.2 - Harmonisation of jurisdiction rules and introduction of rules on 
automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments, other decisions and authentic 
acts/deeds.  This  option  would  imply  EU  legislative  action  in  terms  of  a  Regulation 
establishing  harmonised  rules  on  jurisdiction  and  recognition  and  enforcement  of 
judgments, other decisions and authentic acts/deeds. The Regulation would establish one 
unique head of jurisdiction, i.e. the court of the deceased's last habitual residence, which 
would  have  competence  for  the  whole  succession  (movable  and  immovable  property).28 
Like the Brussels I Regulation, this Regulation would also include rules on lis-pendence* 
and  other  procedural  rules.29  Following  the  example  of  the  Brussels  I  Regulation,  the 
instrument would introduce rules on recognition and enforcement. The general rule would 
be automatic recognition of judgments and other decisions given in one Member State in 
matters  of  successions  in  all  other  Member  States.  The  partial  or  total  refusal  would  be 
allowed  in  exceptional  cases  only30.  As  regards  enforcement,  the  general  rule  would  be 
that a judgment given in one Member State and enforceable in that Member State would 
be enforced in another Member State when, on the application of any interested party, it 
has been declared enforceable there (see Article 38 Brussels I Regulation). 

Policy  Option  A.3  -  Harmonisation  of  conflict  of  laws  rules  on  successions  upon 
death.  This option consists of adopting harmonised conflict of laws rules to ensure that 
the whole succession (movable and immovable property) is governed by a single law, the 
law of the deceased's last habitual residence. The testator would also be allowed to choose 
instead the law of his or her nationality. These rules could also lead to the application of 
the law of a third state. The applicable law would not only govern the determination of the 

28 

29 
30 

The  courts  of  the  Member  State  in  which  immovable  property  is  located  might  also  be  granted 
jurisdiction, not  to  rule  on  succession  as  such,  but  with regard  to  property  rights which  are often 
linked. 
E.g. a rule allowing the competent court to send the case before a more closely connected court. 
Article  34  Brussels  I  Regulation  and Article  22 of  Council  Regulation  (EC) No  2201/2003 of  27 
November  2003  concerning  jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in 
matrimonial  matters  and  the  matters  of  parental  responsibility  ("Brussels  II  bis")  contain  four 
grounds for refusing to recognise foreign judgments: (i) if such a judgment is manifestly contrary to 
the public policy of the Member State of recognition; (ii) in case of violation of the rights of the 
defending  party;  (iii)  if  it  is  irreconcilable  with  a  judgment  given  in  a  dispute  between  the  same 
parties in the Member State in which recognition is sought; (iv) if it is irreconcilable with an earlier 
judgment given in another State, provided that this earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary 
for its recognition in the Member State addressed. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

                                                 
heirs  and  their  respective  shares,  but  also  any  obligation  to  restore  or  account  for  gifts 
made during lifetime, the statutory share, administration and distribution of the estate. In 
practice,  this  would  mean  that  an  administrator  nominated  in  one  Member  State  would 
also be allowed to act in other Member States. 

Policy  Option  A.4  -  Harmonisation  of  conflict  of  laws  rules  and  introduction  of  a 
Certificate of Inheritance and Executor / Administrator in transnational successions.  
Under  this  option,  in  addition  to  the  establishment  of  harmonized  conflict  of  laws  rules 
(see  Policy  Option  A.3  above  for  description),  a  European  Certificate  of  Inheritance 
and/or  of  Administrator/Executor  would  be  introduced.  This  certificate,  which  would  be 
based on a harmonised form included with the legislative measure, would serve as proof 
of heirship and/or of the power of administration in all Member States, allowing the heir 
or administrator to manage and eventually distribute the estate. The Regulation would also 
specify  the  conditions  under  which  third  parties  can  rely  upon  the  content  of  the 
certificate. 

Policy Option A.5: Harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules. This 
option  consists  of  a  combination  of  Policy  Option  A.3  with  a  more  limited  version  of 
Policy Option A.2, namely, an establishment of one single head of jurisdiction at the last 
habitual  residence  of  the  deceased,  which  would  have  competence  for  the  entire 
succession. 

Policy Option A.6: Harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules, and 
introduction of rules on automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments, other 
decisions  and  authentic  acts/deeds.  This  option,  which  is  slightly  wider  in  scope  than 
Policy Option A.5, entails a combination of Policy Options A.2 and A.3 described above. 

Policy Option A.7: Harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules, and 
introduction of rules on automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments, other 
decisions  and  authentic  acts/deeds,  and  introduction  of  a  Certificate  of  Inheritance 
and  Executor  /  Administrator  in  transnational  successions.  This  option  represents  a 
further increase in scope, combining Policy Options A.2 and A.4 described above. 

Policy Option A.8: Establishment of a database / knowledge management system on 
conflict  of  law,  jurisdiction  rules  and  competent  bodies.  This  non-legislative  option 
would  entail  the  creation  and  maintenance  of  a  database  providing  information  on  the 
various national rules governing applicable law and jurisdiction, as well as on the relevant 
competent authorities in the Member States. Such a database would be accessible via the 
Internet and could be linked to from the European Judicial Network's website31 or the e-
Justice portal32. 

Policy  Option  A.9:  EU-wide  information  campaign  on  succession  (legislation  and 
existing/forthcoming instruments). This option, which is also non-legislative in nature, 
could  consist  of  a  combined  EU  and  national  initiative  to  inform  EU  citizens  of  the 

31 
32 

http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/. 
http://www.ejustice.eu.com/. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

                                                 
various  national  rules  governing  successions.  It  could  either  be  run  as  an  independent 
initiative or as part of a larger EU information campaign. 

6.2.2.  Policy options B addressing problems of identifying wills abroad 

Policy Option B.1 - Status quo. The Community could refrain from taking any action to 
facilitate identifying wills abroad. 

Policy  Option  B.2  -  Commission  Recommendation  on  the  establishment  of 
interconnected national registers of wills and organisation of information campaigns. 
This  option  would  entail  the  adoption  of  a  Recommendation  encouraging  the  Member 
States to establish national registers for wills where such a register does not yet exist, and 
to provide for a connection between the individual national registers for ease of obtaining 
information on the existence of a will in another Member State. This connection could be 
provided  via  the  European  Network  of  Registers  of  Wills  Association  (ENRWA) 
described above in Section 4.2. Concurrently, the Recommendation would encourage the 
Member States to run a publicity campaign informing the public about the existence of the 
registers and the benefits of registering wills would be conducted. 

Policy option B.3 - Compulsory establishment of interconnected national registers of 
wills.  Under  this  option,  the  EU  would  adopt  a  directive  requiring  all  Member  States  to 
establish national registers of wills and connect to the other registers, e.g. via the ENRWA 
system.  The  Community  could  furthermore  provide  funding  to  assist  transnational 
cooperation. 

Policy  option  B.4  -  Establishment  of  a  central  EU  Register  of  Wills.  The  EU  could 
create a central EU register by means of adopting a regulation. EU citizens would then be 
able to register their wills using a standard form available in all 23 official languages, e.g. 
via the Internet. An administrative office would have to be set up to manage the database 
and provide help to users. Information on the existence of a will would only be given upon 
proof of death of the person in question. 

Policy Option B.5 - Creation of a webpage on existing registers of wills and national 
rules. This is a non legislative action. The webpage would provide contact information for 
the  existing  registers  of  wills  as  well  as  information  on  national  rules  governing 
succession. It could be included in the e-Justice portal. 

Policy  Option  B.6  -  National  information  campaigns  on  wills  (legislation  and 
existing/forthcoming  instruments).  This  is  another  non  legislative  action  which  could 
either be adopted on its own merits to inform citizens about the current legal situation or 
in combination with other options. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

6.3. 

Discarded policy options 

Another option is the ratification of the 1989 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to 
Succession  to  the  Estates  of  Deceased  Persons,33  eventually  in  combination  with  other 
measures. However, this option was discarded since experts and stakeholders agree on the 
shortcomings of this Convention with regard to the harmonisation of the law applicable to 
an international succession. These shortcomings have led to the fact that, almost 20 years 
after  its  signature,  the  Convention  has  yet  not  entered  into  force.  It  results  from  the 
consultations  that Member  States do not intend to  ratify  it.  In  addition,  the flaws of this 
convention  cannot  be  remedied  by  combining  these  rules  with  other  measures,  such  as 
harmonisation of jurisdiction rules or rules on recognition and enforcement since Member 
States would not accept to tackle the latter without having harmonised rules on applicable 
law. Therefore this option has also been discarded. 

With regard to the policy options which imply EU legislative action, theoretically either a 
Regulation  or  a  Directive  is  possible.  For  this  proposal,  however,  the  Regulation  would 
seem preferable since its provisions lay down uniform rules on the applicable law that are 
detailed,  precise  and  unconditional  and  require  no  measures  for  their  transposition  into 
domestic law (see Section 4.3). If the Member States enjoyed some room for manoeuvre 
in transposing, the uncertainty as to the applicable law which the aim is to abolish would 
be restored and the defined objectives would not be met. The same solution is suggested 
with regard to the establishment of a European Register of wills if policy option B.4 on a 
European central register will be followed, because such Register should be based on the 
same  rules  in  all  Member  States.  By  contrast,  for  the  compulsory  establishment  of 
interconnected  national  registers  of  wills  (policy  option  B.3),  a  directive  would  be  the 
preferable legal instrument since Member States would be required to establish a national 
register.  

6.4. 

Alternative elements which could have formed part of policy options A 

As concerns the definition of policy options A, theoretically it would also be possible to 
assess  other  options.  Most  of  these  options  would  have  consisted  of  isolating  different 
elements  of  option  A  (e.g.  an  instrument  proposing  harmonisation  of  jurisdiction  rules 
only or the introduction of a European certificate as to successions only). The reasons why 
these  options  alone  do  not  solve  the  problems  faced  by  citizens  and  have,  as  a 
consequence, been discarded are outlined in the external study.   

The definition of the options overall involves a large number of rather specific elements. 
Details of such specific elements may be extremely important for the effects of legislation 
(compare e.g. the word ‘should’ to ‘may’). It was however decided to assess only "full" 
policy  options  that  already  combine  selected  elements,  in  particular  as  several  good 
sources of information on the ‘preferred’ alternative elements are available, i.e. the 2002 
Study,  the  Green  Paper  responses  and  the  work  of  the  Expert  Group.  The  individual 
relative  advantages  of  alternative  elements  are  not  assessed  since  this  would  not  only 
provide  an  artificial  picture  of  the  potential  impacts,  but  worse;  it  would  not  provide  a 

33 

Available at: http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=62. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

                                                 
correct picture of the results of adopting various individual elements. Furthermore, in view 
of  the  vast  number  of  theoretical  possibilities  to  combine  different  elements,  it  is  not 
practically feasible to assess all potential combinations of alternative elements. 

To  illustrate  these  challenges,  take  the  example  of  "habitual  residence"  as  the  unique 
connecting  factor  for  conflict  of  laws  rules,  which  can  be  combined  into  at  least  480 
‘realistic’ proposals.34 Furthermore, five of the total nine identified policy options include 
conflict  of  laws  rules,  i.e.  these  elements  can  also  be  combined  with  the  alternative 
elements  of  the  other  options  (jurisdiction  and  recognition,  European  Inheritance 
Certificate, etc.).  

Hence,  given  that  some  of  these  alternative  elements  are  very  sensitive  from  a  political 
point of view, the reasons for which they have been preferred to others, which have been 
discarded, need to be explained.35   

The use of habitual residence as a unique connecting factor rather than nationality. 
Habitual residence, favoured by the majority of stakeholders, corresponds to the practical 
needs  of  the  large  majority  of  successions:  in  general,  it  is  the  place  where  most  of  the 
assets, the heirs and the creditors are located. Should there be closer links to the country of 
nationality,  the  proposed  Regulation  provides  for  an  exception.  It  could  be  argued  that 
nationality would provide more legal certainty as it is easily ascertainable and that the use 
of habitual residence would allow for abuse of the system (citizens could change habitual 
residence in order to avoid the reserved portion). Hence, not only is the risk of abuse very 
limited  (there  is  only  one  Member  State  in  which  there  is  no  protection  in  the  form  of 
reserved portion), but there are several other reasons why nationality has been discarded: 
further rules would be needed in the more and more frequent cases of deceased having two 
or more nationalities; it is inappropriate if the deceased has settled in a Member State of 
which  he  is  not  a  national  and  has  lived  there  for  many  years;  it  is  not  in  line  with  the 
principles of the Internal market which aims at abolishing discriminations among citizens 
living in a same Member State. For all these reasons the trend in national legislation also 
tends towards replacing nationality by habitual residence.36   

Introducing  a  unitary  system  rather  than  a  system  of  separate  conflict  rules  for 
movable  and  immovable  property.  Although  ten  Member  States  have  a  system  where 

34 

35 
36 

Alternatives  that  could  have  been  considered  include,  amongst  others,  the  possibility  to  choose 
nationality instead of habitual residence as the unique connecting factor; to introduce a hierarchy of 
connecting factors in the order habitual residence, nationality, or the other way around. All of these 
alternative  elements  can  furthermore  be  combined  with  a  (limited)  choice  of  law,  which  would 
change  the  impacts  of  the  alternative  elements.  The  testator  could  e.g.  be  enabled  to  choose  the 
applicable law on the basis of habitual residence or nationality; or, additionally, of the matrimonial 
property regime. This choice of law could in turn be restricted to prevent decrease of the statutory 
reserve.  To  examine  all  these  options  would  have  meant  analysing  more  than  400  possible 
combinations. Please also see the external study for more detail on the discarded policy options. 
Section 7.7 further develops the advantages and drawbacks of the preferred alternative elements. 
Habitual  residence  is  used  by  the  Hague  Convention  and  at  least  12  Member  States:  Belgium 
(movables),  Bulgaria  (movables),  Cyprus  (movables),  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  France 
(movables), Luxembourg (movables), Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands and the UK (England and 
Wales; Scotland: for movables only). 

EN 

29 

   EN 

                                                 
movable  and  immovable  property  can  be  subject  to  different  laws  if  they  are  located  in 
different countries, this solution would perpetuate a situation where citizens would need to 
take  into  account  the  often  conflicting  rules  of  different  substantive  national  laws  on 
successions.  The  general  and  specific  policy  objectives  would  not  be  met.  This  view  is 
shared by the legal professionals consulted who unanimously reject a split system.37 

Providing for a (limited) choice of law for the testator. The protection of compulsory 
inheritance right for the benefits of close family members (in particular children) could be 
a reason for refusing any choice of law to the testator. However, this risk of abuse is very 
limited  given  that  such  compulsory  rights  are  known  by  all  Member  States  except  one, 
which  therefore  have  legislation  to  prevent  the  deceased  from  circumventing  those 
compulsory  inheritance  rights.38  To  the  opposite,  in  the  consultations  some  stakeholders 
wish  a  larger  choice  for  the  testator  (including,  for  example,  the  law  of  the  matrimonial 
property regime). However, this solution is not compatible with the solutions in place in 
the Member States where choice of law, if any, is very limited. A large choice would also 
increase the risk that the protection of compulsory inheritance rights is undermined. As a 
consequence, only a limited choice of law can realise the overall objectives of the present 
initiative.  

Inclusion  of  the  administration  of  a  succession  into  the  scope  of  the  future 
Regulation. In the consultations some Member States question any solution which would 
modify the regimes governing the administration of a succession, either because they fear 
the instrument might affect their regime of transfer of the estate's assets or because they 
want  to  safeguard  their  inheritance  tax  collection  schemes.  Yet,  the  instrument  will  not 
govern  property  rights  which  are  outside  the  scope  of  Community  competences.  In 
addition, the Commission proposal contains a specific rule to preserve national mandatory 
rules  relating  to  the  nomination  of  an  administrator  and  tax  collections  schemes.  As  a 
consequence,  the  limitation  of  the  scope  goes  far  beyond  the  legitimate  requests  of 
Member State and would prevent the present initiative to fulfil its objectives in respect of 
citizens who need to proof their status as an heir or as an administrator/executor in another 
Member State.  

37 

38 

See  Annex  17  of  the  external  study  "Legal  professionals'  views  on  alternative  elements  of  the 
policy options. 
Accordingly, if the future deceased gives away a large part of the estate as a gift to a third party, 
this  gift  could  potentially  be  subject  to  a  claim  for  reduction  in  very  exceptional  circumstances. 
Nevertheless,  one  Member  State  (United  Kingdom  for  England  and  Wales),  whose  law  does  not 
know such claims for reduction, has expressed concerns as regards the effects of an EU instrument 
on the validity of lifetime gifts made by the deceased. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

                                                 
7. 

ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS 

7.1. 

Impact  of  the  Policy  Options  addressing  problems  caused  by  national 
legislative  differences  concerning  successions  with  transnational  elements 
(Policy Options A)39 

Policy Option A.1 - Status quo. (i) Objectives to achieve: This option would not meet 
the  objectives  outlined  above.  Member  States  may  make  changes  to  their  national  legal 
systems  on  their  own  initiative,  but  it  is  unlikely  that  these  will  be  made  in  view  to 
streamline  the  country’s  rules  with  other  EU  Member  States’  rules  to  facilitate 
international succession. On the contrary, the situation would worsen in view of the trends 
of EU citizens’ increasing international connections; negative effects are likely to become 
aggravated  for  citizens.  More  serious  problems  could  in  the  long  term  reduce  citizens’ 
trust  in  the  EU  internal  market  and  European  citizenship.  (ii)  Fundamental  Rights: 
Maintaining the status quo would mean that the fundamental right to property according to 
Article 17 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 1 of Protocol 1 to 
the European Convention on Human Rights, which includes the right of heirs of property 
inherited from a deceased person on the basis of a will or intestate succession, is not fully 
operative with regard to property situated in another Member State. Even if the right of the 
heir to the estate has been acknowledged by the courts of the Member State in which the 
heir is habitually resident, this judgment may not help to enforce his right to property in 
another Member State. Furthermore the fundamental rights in Articles 20 and 21 (equality 
before  the  law,  non-discrimination)  would  not  be  fully  respected  if  the  status  quo  was 
maintained,  because  heirs  living  in  the  Member  State  where  certain  property  of  the 
deceased  person  is  situated  may  have  advantages  compared  to  heirs  living  abroad.  In 
particular,  discrimination  on  the  basis  of  nationality  of  the  different  heirs  is  possible  as 
jurisdiction  in  succession  matters  is  still,  in  the  domestic  law  of  many  Member  States, 
dependent on the nationality of the deceased or the heir. With regard to Article 24 on the 
rights of the child, the negative consequences of the status quo in cross-border successions 
(time delays, cost increases) are aggravated if minors are amongst the heirs, since they are 
unable to protect their legal interests themselves, but need to be represented by a guardian 
who  has  to  be  paid  in  addition  to  the  lawyers.  (iii)  Social  effects:  The  problems 
experienced by the economically disadvantaged and by children are likely to remain and 
even  become  more  severe  as  costs  are  likely  to  rise  in  view  of  increasing  international 
connections.  With  regard  to  the  present  problems  experienced  by  citizens  who  have 
concluded a civil/registered partnership in one Member State, the situation may improve 
as  their  status  and  rights  may  be  recognised  in  more  countries  than  at  present.  (iv) 
Financial cost: The option itself would not imply any financial costs to the EU or other 
public authorities. (v) Economic effects: Legal professionals will be able to charge more 
for increasingly complicated cases due to links to two or more countries. Time delays and 
costs, including reduction of the value of assets, will become worse. 

Policy Option A.2 - Harmonisation of jurisdiction rules and introduction of rules on 
automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments, other decisions and authentic 
acts/deeds.  (i)  Objectives  to  achieve:  Overall,  this  option  would  only  lead  to  limited 

39 

The external study contains a more detailed analysis of the impact of each policy option.   

EN 

31 

   EN 

                                                 
positive effects. Even though it is likely to reduce the number of problems, it is unlikely 
that Member States will accept that the State of the deceased's last habitual residence has 
exclusive  jurisdiction  as  regards  their  own  nationals  and  over  the  estate  located  in  their 
territory  without  harmonisation  of  the  applicable  law.  As  a  consequence,  several 
jurisdictions  would  still  be  competent  to  handle  the  case  at  the  same  time,  with  varying 
outcomes,  which  would  also  have  negative  effects  with  regard  to  the  recognition  of 
judgments. (ii) Fundamental Rights:  By reducing slightly the number of problems, thus 
creating  a  positive  economic  impact,  this  option  would  promote  fundamental  rights  to  a 
greater  extent  than  the  status  quo.  (iii)  Social  effects:  There  would  be  minor 
improvements compared to the present situation for economically disadvantaged persons 
and children as costs for legal advice and assistance could slightly decrease. (iv) Financial 
costs: Costs for administrative work to produce the necessary legislation at EU level and 
legislative  changes  at  national  level.  Effective  enforcement  would  require  some  minor 
expenditure  on  awareness  rising.  (v)  Economic  effects:  This  option  would  imply  some 
limited cost savings, estimated to a maximum of 5% of the costs currently pertaining due 
to the problems addressed. It would in particular lead to cost savings in those cases where 
only one Member State has jurisdiction. Costs would decrease for heirs as it would not be 
necessary to prove that they are indeed heirs by bringing proceedings in another Member 
State.  Furthermore,  the  option  would  also  lead  to  cost  reductions  in  Member  States 
requiring  exequatur*  of  foreign  decisions;  such  proceedings  would  no  longer  be 
necessary. Overall, the option would, however, not achieve the objectives. 

Policy Option A.3 - Harmonisation of conflict of law rules. (i) Objectives: The policy 
option would have some limited positive impacts with regard to achieving the objectives. 
Several  jurisdictions  could  still  handle  the  case  (i.e.  the  problem  of  parallel  proceedings 
would  remain),  but  they  would  all  apply  the  same  conflict  of  law  rules  and,  as  a  result, 
(normally)  the  same  substantive  succession  law  and  the  introduction  of  choice  of  law 
would  help  citizens  to  better  organise  their  succession.  However,  due  to  varying 
interpretation of the concept of habitual residence, different laws may still be applied by 
the courts of different Member States in the short term (which will be reduced in the long 
term  through  case  law/rulings  by  the  ECJ).40  Furthermore,  different  law  may  still  be 
applied to a succession due to different requirements to pleading and proof of foreign law. 
Finally, the same law may also  be applied slightly different in different countries due to 
difficulties  in  applying  foreign  law.  In  certain  cases  the  policy  option  may  help.  In 
particular, it may prevent the phenomenon of forum shopping (at present heirs may try to 
get the succession handled by a certain jurisdiction depending on what law the court will 
apply, i.e. depending on what law has the best outcome for them). But since there are no 
rules on recognition and enforcement, heirs may have to go through the same procedures 
in  another  Member  State.  Problems  due  to  lack  of  recognition  of  the  powers  of 
administrator's/ executors would remain, slowing down the administration and distribution 
of  the  estate.  (ii)  Fundamental  Rights:  With  increased  legal  certainty  and  a  lower  risk 
that the outcome of the succession differs among Member States, the enforcement of the 
rights of citizens in other Member States is improved.  Due to the introduction of a choice 

40 

A  reference  for  a  preliminary  ruling  is  already  pending  before  the  ECJ:  ECJ,  Case  C-523/07  – 
Applicant A – Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) lodged 
on 23 November 2007. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

                                                 
of law, a child may in some rare cases lose a reserved portion; this is not likely to happen 
very often in practice, depending on the extent to which the testator is allowed to choose 
the law applicable to his/her succession. (iii) Social effects:  The positive impact mainly 
consists of the increase in legal certainty and the resulting economic consequences. It may 
in  many  cases  help  to  avoid  litigation  between  family  members,  such  litigation  being  a 
particular strain for vulnerable parties and children. The positive economic effect of this 
option  for  those  citizens  who  have  entered  into  civil  partnerships  there  will  be  greater 
certainty  with  regard  to  the  outcome  in  terms  of  whether  the  rights  of  civil  partners  (as 
heirs)  are  recognised  or  not41.  (iv)  Financial  costs:  Financial  costs  for  administration 
would  be  very  low  for  the  introduction  of  new  rules.  The  introduction  of  the  unitary 
succession system and of habitual residence as dominant connecting factor as well as the 
admission  of  limited  choice  would  tend  to  decrease  costs  for  applying  foreign  law,  to  a 
differing  extent  in  different  Member  States.  (v)  Economic  effects:  Cost  savings  would 
amount  to  maximum  10%  due  to  decreased  legal  uncertainty.  There  would  be  cost 
reductions for citizens in terms of reduced legal fees, in particular in those cases when the 
deceased  made  a  choice  of  law.  Moreover,  costs  would  also  be  reduced  as  legal 
professionals would not need to look into other countries’ conflict of law rules. However, 
there  would  still  be  costs  due  to  non-recognition.  With  regard  to  increased  costs  for 
citizens,  in  those  countries  where  citizens  have  to  prove  foreign  law  (e.g.  in  the  United 
Kingdom) costs would be higher than at present when laws of other countries, in particular 
third countries, are applied (for example, if the deceased had his/her habitual residence in 
China,  Chinese  law  would  be  applied,  which  the  citizen  would  need  to  ‘prove’  unless  a 
choice of law of the nationality of the deceased had been made). 

Policy  Option  A.4  -  Harmonisation  of  conflict  of  law  rules  and  introduction  of  a 
Certificate of Inheritance and Executor / Administrator in transnational successions. 
(i) Objectives to achieve: Although this option would not fully achieve the objectives, it 
would have some advantages compared to the current situation. In addition to the positive 
impact  of  option  A.3,  the  key  benefits  of  this  option  are  that  it  would  reduce  current 
problems  in  terms  of  time  delays  and  costs  by  speeding  up  the  administration  and 
devolution of the estate if the executor/administrator is allowed to act in the entire EU, and 
the heirs obtain a certificate proving in all Member States that they are, indeed, the rightful 
heirs. However, if there is no harmonisation of jurisdiction rules there will still be parallel 
proceedings.  As  a  result,  certificates  may  be  issued  in  different  countries.  (ii) 
Fundamental rights and (iii) Social effects: Slightly improved compared to option A.3 
due to positive economic effects.42 (iv) Financial costs: In addition of those of option A.3, 
those  Member  States  that  currently  do  not  have  a  certificate  would  need  to  introduce  it. 
There  would  be  a  small  administrative  cost  for  issuing  the  certificate  in  those  Member 
States.  This  may  however,  be  offset  by  a  court  fee.  (v)  Economic  effects:  Cost  savings 
would amount to maximum 15% due to decreased legal uncertainty.  

Policy Option A.5 - Harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules. (i) 
Objectives to achieve: The same jurisdiction rules would be applied across all Member 
States,  which  would  create  some  increased  legal  certainty  with  regard  to  which  country 

41 
42 

Except if the "ordre public" clause is applied. 
See the external study for more detail. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

                                                 
will handle the case and the outcome thereof, in particular as conflict of law rules would 
also  be  harmonised.  Moreover,  if  jurisdiction  rules  are  harmonised,  there  will  be  less 
conflicting  proceedings.  However,  as  recognition  and  enforcement  is  still  based  on 
bilateral  agreements  or  on  national  law,  proceedings  may  still  take  place  in  different 
Member States. Furthermore, normally harmonisation of jurisdiction rules is only a means 
to  facilitate  the  national  recognition  and  enforcement  of  decisions  between  Member 
States;  none  of  the  existing  Conventions  or  Regulations  harmonise  jurisdiction  rules 
without  also  harmonising  recognition  and  enforcement  of  decisions.  (ii)  Fundamental 
rights and (iii) Social effects: Similar to options A.3., A.4 and A.5. (iv) Financial costs: 
Administrative costs more or less similar to the added costs of options A.2 plus A.3. (v) 
Economic  effects:  As  for  policy  option  A.4  cost  reductions  can  be  expected  to  be 
maximum 15%.  

Policy Option A.6 - Harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules, and 
introduction of rules on automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments, other 
decisions  and  authentic  acts/deeds  (A.2  plus  A.3).  (i)  Objectives  to  achieve:  This 
option is more advantageous than the previous options as it combines the three main legal 
elements used to handle international successions at present (jurisdiction rules, conflict of 
law  rules  and  rules  on  recognition  and  enforcement).  Harmonised  jurisdiction  rules  that 
provide exclusive jurisdiction to a Member State in combination with rules on recognition 
and  enforcement  would  significantly  reduce  the  scope  for  parallel  and  conflicting 
proceedings or lack of proceedings. Even if an exclusive jurisdiction of only one Member 
State would  not be introduced,  the harmonised jurisdiction rules would lead  to very  few 
possibilities  for  parallel  proceedings.  Predictability  of  the  outcome  of  the  international 
succession would be greatly improved in those cases where a choice of law was made by 
the deceased. The choice is likely to be recognised in other Member States due to the rules 
on automatic recognition and enforcement. This option would therefore be beneficial for 
heirs (and deceased/testators) in that the succession could be finalised faster, in particular 
in  those  cases  where  the  deceased  had  made  a  choice  of  law,  as  proceedings  may  be 
quicker. With regard to the disadvantages of the option, due to the lack of a certificate of 
administrator/executor  it  is  not  certain  that  an  administrator/executor  could  exercise 
his/her  powers  in  other  Member  States  under  this  option.  (ii)  Fundamental  rights  and 
(iii)  Social  effects:  Slightly  improved  compared  to  option  A.6.  (iv)  Financial  costs: 
Administrative costs more or less similar to option 1.5. (v) Economic effects: The option 
would lead to cost reductions of maximum 20% and would be a great improvement to the 
current situation in terms of achieving the objectives. 

Policy Option A.7 - Harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules, and 
introduction of rules on automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments, other 
decisions  and  authentic  acts/deeds,  and  introduction  of  a  Certificate  of  Inheritance 
and Executor / Administrator in transnational successions (A.2 plus A.4). On the basis 
of the assessment of the policy options, option A.7 is the preferred one as it would address 
most of the current problems and lead to the greatest cost reduction (maximum 30%). It is 
the  most  ambitious  policy  option  and,  correspondingly,  goes  furthest  in  terms  of  the 
challenges  it  is  designed  to  address.  The  following  table  presents  its  impact  in  a  more 
detailed manner than for the other options:   

EN 

34 

   EN 

Table - Summary assessment of Policy Option A.7 

Objective to be achieved/ 
problem addressed 

Anticipated 
impact 
effectiveness 
(rated from – to 
√√√√√√√√√√)43 

Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option necessary to 
achieve impact 

a 

achieve 

To 
situation 
where  parallel  proceedings 
do  not  occur  and  where  the 
is 
same  substantive 
entire 
the 
to 
applied 
international succession  

law 

This option would introduce harmonised jurisdiction rules and conflict of law 
rules, with habitual residence as the sole connecting factor. Apart from an EU 
wide succession system where all countries have the same substantive rules, 
this option best addresses the problems. 

√√√√√√√√√√ 

Harmonised jurisdiction rules that provide exclusive jurisdiction to a Member 
State  in  combination  with  harmonised  conflict  of  law  rules  and  rules  on 
recognition  and  enforcement  and  a  common  certificate  of  heir  (see  below) 
would significantly reduce the scope for parallel and conflicting proceedings 
or lack of proceedings. 

Despite  the  harmonised  conflict  of  law  rules,  challenges  may  arise  in 
achieving  a  unified  definition  of  "habitual  residence".  In  this  respect,  legal 
certainty would increase in the longer term (e.g. through case law/rulings by 
the ECJ). A reference for a preliminary ruling regarding the interpretation of 
the  concept  of  habitual  residence,  which  is  also  used  in  other  Community 
instruments, is currently pending before the ECJ.44 

To  provide  a 
(limited) 
choice of law for the testator 

√√√√√√√√√√ 

This option would provide the testator with a limited choice of the applicable 
law as part of the conflict of law rules, which would be recognised across the 
EU and would facilitate planning of the succession. Moreover, the succession 
would  be  finalised  faster,  as  proceedings  will  be  quicker  and  rules  will  be 
much clearer with regard to who is the heir (and proving this). 

To  ensure  the  recognition 
of:  

• 

Judgments, 
other 
decisions  and  authentic 
acts 
on 
international 
successions; 

deeds 

/ 

√√√√√√√√√√ 

•  The 

powers 

of 

administrators/ 
executors; and, 
•  The status as an heir 

To increase the accessibility 
of 
the 
information  on 
existence of wills abroad 

– 

This option would introduce rules on automatic recognition and enforcement 
of judgments, other decisions and authentic acts/deeds. It would also include 
the 
inheritance  and 
Executor/Administrator. 

introduction  of  a  European  Certificate  of 

to 

the 

regard 

recognition  of 

Problems  with 
the  powers  of 
executors/administrators and decisions would be solved. Problems in relation 
to  recognition  or  enforcement  of  judgments/decisions  concerning  the 
determination of the heirs are likely to be resolved. Moreover, the powers of 
executors/administrators would be recognised, thus facilitating administration 
and distribution, and legal fees and time delays would be reduced. 

This option would in particular be beneficial for the heirs as implementation 
and  administration  would  be  improved  (with  regard  to  the  proceedings  as 
well as the outcome of the proceedings).  

More citizens may draw up wills in order to take advantage of the possibility 
to  choose  the  applicable  law.  Despite  the  current  developments  in  the 
Member States which are establishing and interconnecting registers of wills, 
the  problems  in  relation  to  obtaining  information  on  the  existence  of  a  will 
abroad may therefore increase at least in the short term. 

Fundamental rights:  

Article 17 – Right to 
property 

Article 20 – Equality before 

Article 17 – Right to property: The right to property would be reinforced. First, testators would 
enjoy  a  greater  freedom  in  planning  their  succession  and  would  have  greater  security  that  their 
intentions  would  be  carried  out;  secondly,  by  introducing  a  faster  and  more  coordinated  process, 
heirs would receive their part of the succession more quickly, and cases of heirs having to give up 
rights to an inheritance due to legal complexity and pre-emptively high costs would be reduced if 

43 
44 

Maximum of 10 checkmarks indicates that the option fully meets the objective(s). 
ECJ, Case C-523/07 – Applicant A – Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-
oikeus (Finland) lodged on 23 November 2007. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table - Summary assessment of Policy Option A.7 

Objective to be achieved/ 
problem addressed 

the law 

Article 21 – Non-
discrimination  

Article 24 – The rights of 
the child 

Social effects 

Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option necessary to 
achieve impact 

Anticipated 
impact 
effectiveness 
(rated from – to 
√√√√√√√√√√)43 
not eliminated. 

Article  20  –  Equality  before  the  law:  The  measure  would  have  a  positive  impact  on  equality 
before the law, as the same law would be applied across the EU regardless of jurisdiction and forum 
shopping would be avoided. 

Article  21  –  Non-discrimination:  For  same-sex  couples,  the  measure  would  improve  the 
possibility to dispose of their property to the benefit of their partner regardless of where they have 
their habitual residence.  

Article 24 – The rights of the child: Children are typically involved in succession cases as heirs 
rather than deceased or testators. As a consequence, the measures under this option which improve 
the  legal  situation  of  heirs  would  have  at  the  same  time  positive  impacts  on  children.  The 
introduction of a right of the testator to choose the law applicable to his succession in cross-border 
cases may in some cases weaken the legal position of children even if such choice is very limited 
(nationality or habitual residence). For instance, a child being entitled to a reserved position of the 
estate  under  the  law  of  deceased’s  last  habitual  residence  (e.g.  French  law)  may  lose  such  a 
reserved  portion  if  the  testator  has  validly  opted  for  the  application  of  a  law  which  does  not 
recognise a reserved portion of children (e.g. English law). However, the negative impacts of such a 
limited choice of law on children would only occur in rare cases (most Member States recognise a 
reserved position of children of the deceased), and are outweighed by considerable positive effects 
in most cases (in particular increase of legal certainty, avoidance of legal disputes over conflict of 
law issues, costs savings etc.). Legal practitioners have confirmed that parents only very rarely give 
their children inheritance of a value which is lower than the reserved portion. 

Whether the option would lead to positive effects for a child of a non-married couple or of a same-
sex  couple  to  have  its  rights  in  cross-border  successions  recognised  in  other  Member  States  is 
doubtful,  since  preliminary  questions  concerning  who  qualifies  as  an  heir  (e.g.  spouse,  children, 
close relatives, etc.) are not included in the option. Subject to the case law of the European Court of 
Human Rights, the determination of who is a ‘child’ of the deceased (e.g. whether a child born out 
of wedlock is a ‘child’ of the deceased parent or whether the child of a same-sex couple is the child 
of  both  parents)  would  therefore  still  be  governed  by  the  national  conflict  of  law  rules  on  family 
law  of  the  jurisdiction  seized.  Harmonisation  of  substantive  family  law  would  be  required  to 
enforce the right of these children in Member States where such rights are not, or not to the same 
extent,  recognised  as  in  other  Member  States.  This  is,  however,  outside  the  Community's 
competence. 

There would be considerable benefits for economically disadvantaged persons and children as legal 
fees  would  be  lower  than  at  present.  The  positive  impacts  of  the  Regulation  on  the  situation  of 
children  mainly  consist  of  increased  legal  certainty  in  cross-border  successions  and  the  resulting 
economic  consequences  (decrease  of  costs,  enforcement  of  hereditary  rights  without  time  delays 
etc.). As a rule, this will also have a ‘social impact’ on children, because it may in many cases help 
to avoid litigation between family members, such litigation being a particular strain on children. 

The option would lead to positive effects for same-sex couples. The determination of who qualifies 
as an heir if the deceased dies intestate is left to the national substantive law and lies outside the 
Community's  power  to  act;  however,  a  same-sex  couple  would  be  free,  within  certain  limits,  to 
choose the law applicable to their succession and could thus in certain cases ensure the application 
of a law that recognizes the inheritance rights of the surviving partner.45 

Legislative effects 

Jurisdiction  rules,  recognition  and  enforcement  The  adoption  of  the  Regulation  would  lead  to 
changes  of  national  legislation  concerning  issues  not  indicated  in  the  Regulation  (e.g.  which 
court/authority  locally  would  need  to  handle  the  case,  what  type  of  court/authority  etc.).  The 
Regulation will also only establish the basic principles on recognition and enforcement of foreign 
decisions; the details of the enforcement procedure will be determined by the Member States but in 

45 

The proposal's impact on the rights of the children of such couples are mentioned under "Fundamental Rights". 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table - Summary assessment of Policy Option A.7 

Objective to be achieved/ 
problem addressed 

Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option necessary to 
achieve impact 

Anticipated 
impact 
effectiveness 
(rated from – to 
√√√√√√√√√√)43 
most cases will likely not differ from the procedures already in place today. 

Conflict of law rules. No national additional rules are normally necessary; the Regulation would be 
directly applicable in all Member States. Member States may have to modify or abolish a few rules 
in order to ensure a smooth integration of the Regulation into their national legal system. 

Certificate. For those countries who at present do not issue certificates of inheritance, this  would 
entail  some  legislative  changes  to  introduce  the  relevant  procedure;  for  those  Member  States  that 
already have certificates, the procedures  may have to be adapted slightly  to take into account the 
uniform EU format. 

Essential accompanying 
measures 

General.  Training  of  legal  professionals  (e.g.  lawyers,  judges,  notaries,  solicitors)  and  judicial 
cooperation. 

Certificate. Clear template for the certificate(s). It would need to be determined if there would be 
fixed  costs  for  obtaining  a  certificate  across  the  EU  (for  example,  a  fee  would  be  charged  rather 
than having to pay a proportion of the property, as currently is the case in e.g. Germany, where the 
certificate is used for taxation purposes). 

Financial costs 

General.  Costs  for  administrative  work  to  produce  the  necessary  legislation  at  EU  level.  This  is 
estimated to be the equivalent of one Full Time Equivalent Commission official during one year. 
Training of legal professionals to ensure judicial cooperation. 

Jurisdiction rules. Costs to establish the necessary additional changes of national legislation in the 
Member  States  with  regard  to  the  harmonised  jurisdiction  rules,  e.g.  what  court/authority  would 
need to handle the case, and enforcement. 

Applicable  law.  Financial  costs  for  administration  would  be  low  for  the  introduction  of  the  new 
rules; costs would be similar to the costs for the introduction of the Rome I and II Regulations. 

Certificate. The Member States that currently do not have a certificate would need new legislation 
to  identify  what  body  should  issue  the  certificate  and  what  proceedings  would  lead  to  it.  There 
would  also  be  a  small  administrative  cost  of  issuing  the  certificate  in  those  countries  that  do  not 
have a certificate at the moment. This may be weighed up by a court fee. 

Economic effects 

This option would lead to cost reductions of maximum 30% of the costs currently pertaining due to 
the problems addressed by the policy option. These cost savings would be a result of clearer rules 
on  which  jurisdiction  will  handle  the  case,  that  the  same  law  is  normally  applied  independent  of 
jurisdiction and that the outcome of the succession not only is the same across the EU, but also is 
recognised across the Union and that heirs can prove their rights. 

Benefits and advantages 

This option would solve most of the problems experienced at present, which can be solved without 
amending national substantive laws. 

Disadvantages and risks   The  political  feasibility  of  the  option;  it  is  the  most  far-reaching  option  of  those  identified  and 

therefore could potentially give rise to more political opposition than a less ambitious measure. 

Policy Option A.8: Establishment of a database / knowledge management system on 
conflict of law, jurisdiction rules and competent bodies. (i) Objectives to achieve: If 
citizens  are  more  aware  that  another  country  may  have  jurisdiction  over  (parts  of)  their 
succession  and  that  another  country’s  law  may  be  applied  with  different  outcomes  than 
expected,  they  would  be  (slightly)  better  prepared  and  may  e.g.  seek  legal  advice. 
However,  the  database  would  need  to  be  regularly  updated  and  translated,  and  not  all 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
citizens  have  access  to  Internet-based  systems  (in  particular  older  generations).  Benefits 
would  be  very  limited;  it  is  unlikely  that  they  would  outweigh  the  costs  for  establishing 
and  running  the  system.  In  particular,  the  option  would  not  solve  any  of  the  current 
problems due to legal differences; at its best it would only make citizens more aware of 
the consequences resulting from them. (ii) Fundamental rights: Insignificant impacts due 
to  very  limited  positive  effect  on  legal  certainty.  (iii)  Social  effects:  Economically 
disadvantaged citizens may be able to access information which they would otherwise not 
have  been  able  to  obtain  (due  to  high  costs  for  legal  advice).  However,  not  all  these 
citizens  are  likely  to  have  access  to  Internet-based  systems.  In  addition,  due  to  the 
technical  complexity  of  this  subject  matter,  it  is  likely  that  not  all  citizens  are  able  to 
understand the full impact of the different legal rules. (iv) Financial costs: Administrative 
costs for creating and regularly updating the knowledge management system. Little or no 
income from users. (v) Economic effects: Very limited positive impact due to reduction 
of costs for legal advice for those citizens involved in relatively simple cases. 

Policy  Option  A.9:  EU  wide  information  campaign  on  succession  (legislation  and 
existing / forth-coming instruments). (i) Objectives to achieve: As with policy option 
A.8, national information campaigns could at its best make citizens better aware that the 
outcome  of  their  succession  may  be  different  than  expected  if  they  have  property  in 
another  Member  State.  The  campaign  would  not  allow  citizens  to  check  the  outcome  of 
their specific case (which the database/knowledge management system would), but it may 
reach a wider audience than the database/knowledge management system. Also similar to 
option  A.8,  it  would  not  solve  any  of  the  current  problems  due  to  legal  differences;  it 
would only make citizens more aware of the consequences resulting from them. Benefits 
would  be  very  limited;  it  is  unlikely  that  they  would  outweigh  the  costs  for  establishing 
the and running the campaigns.(ii) Fundamental rights and (iii) Social effects: Similar to 
option  A.8.  (iv)  Financial  costs:  5,000,000  €  minimum,  depending  on  the  duration  and 
the media chosen. (v) Economic effects: Similar to option A.8. 

7.2. 

Impact of the policy options that that  address problems of identifying wills 
abroad (Policy options B) 

Policy Option B.1 - Status quo. (i) Objectives to achieve: Due to the ongoing trend of 
establishing  registers  of  wills  and  interconnecting  these,  it  is  likely  that  wills  could  be 
identified abroad more easily in the future than at present, which will have a small positive 
impact on the occurrence  of  parallel and conflicting  proceedings or lack of  proceedings. 
However, the positive impact will be very limited. First, even though most countries are 
currently  establishing  registers  of  wills,  most  benefits  will  not  be  experienced  until  the 
long  term  (since  wills  registered  now  may  not  be  executed  until  in  many  years  time). 
Second,  as  not  all  wills  are  registered,  even  the  possibility  to  check  whether  a  will  is 
registered  in  another  country  will  not  lead  to  legal  certainty  concerning  whether  a  will 
exists  or  not.  Finally,  stakeholder  consultations  have  pointed  to  current  problems  with 
regard to searching for wills in other countries; this is on the basis of names at present and 
there are problems e.g. with regard to names written in another alphabet and what name to 
search for (maiden name, name as married etc.). This may improve in the short term, but 
all  related  problems  are  unlikely  to  be  possible  to  solve  until  the  long  term.  (ii) 
Fundamental  rights:  If  wills  are  identified  to  a  higher  degree,  the  right  to  property  is 

EN 

38 

   EN 

promoted. This policy options includes exchanges information concerning the existence of 
wills  may  lead  to  issues  with  regard  to  the  protection  of  personal  data  (Article  8  of  the 
Charter). The European Network of Registers of Wills Association (ENRWA) is a notary-
based  system  set  up  in  2005  which  according  to  stakeholders  is  a  secure  repository  of 
personal data. Also with regard to the individual registers of wills, and exchanges of data 
outside  of  the  ENRWA  system,  according  to  the  individual  registers,  personal  data  is 
protected. (iii) Social effects: In practice, disadvantaged citizens who do not seek advice 
from  notaries  might  be  unaware  of  the  possibility  to  register  wills. (iv) Financial costs: 
There would be no financial costs to the EU of this option. The costs for establishing and 
maintaining registers of wills would continue to be borne at national or local level, or even 
at organisational level (notary organisations). Citizens would bear some of the costs, as the 
current systems are based on a fee for registering wills as well as searching for wills. The 
initial costs for setting up a register of wills vary greatly between Member States46. As far 
as  interconnection  costs  are  concerned,  the  Belgian  register  of  wills  indicated  that  the 
costs of the creation of interconnection with the French register amounted to 95,000 euro. 
(v)  Economic  effects:  The  positive  economic  effects  relative  to  the  problems  addressed 
will be extremely limited. The economic effects will mainly be experienced by individual 
citizens (time delays may be decreased, fees to legal professionals to identify wills abroad 
may be decreased, but in particular it would be less likely that the inheritance be given to 
the  ‘wrong’  heirs)  and  legal  professionals  (easier  searches  for  wills  abroad).  For  the 
general economy, it is not particularly relevant who the individual heir is; what is relevant 
is  if  undue  time  delays  with  regard  to  the  succession  can  be  avoided  (as  wills  would  be 
identifable faster than at present). 

Policy  option  B.2  –  Commission  Recommendation  on  the  establishment  of 
interconnected  national  registers  of  wills.  (i)  Objectives  to  achieve:  Similar  to  the 
status quo, if more Member States establish registers of wills which are interconnected, it 
is likely that wills can be identified abroad to a higher extent in the future than at present, 
which  will  have  a  small  positive  impact  on  the  occurrence  of  parallel  and  conflicting 
proceedings or lack of proceedings, as well as allowing citizens to know they may inherit. 
A Commission Recommendation may speed up the process of Member States establishing 
registers of wills that are compatible and may be interconnected. It may also lead to that 
some  Member  States  that  otherwise  would  not  have  established  a  register  will  do  so. 
Therefore, this option scores higher than status quo. However, even though registration of 
wills would be encouraged, this would still not be compulsory. This means that although 
registers would be available in a higher proportion of EU Member States, a confirmation 
that  no  will  has  been  registered  would  not  mean  that  no  will  exists.  (ii)  Fundamental 
rights  and  (iii)  Social  impacts:  Similar  to  option  B.1.  European  wide  information 
campaigns could make a larger group of citizens aware of the benefits of registering wills. 
(iv) Financial costs: Similar to option B.1 plus costs for administrative work to produce 
Recommendation.  (v)  Economic  effects:  This  option  would  lead  to  maximum  1-2% 
reduction of costs due to current problems. 

46 

See  Annex  3  for  more  detailed  figures  as  regards  the  costs  for  running  a  register  in  the  different 
Member States who have done so. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

                                                 
Policy option B.3 - Compulsory establishment of interconnected national registers of 
wills and organisation of information campaigns. (i) Objectives to achieve: Compared 
to the two previous options, under this option Member States would be obliged not only to 
create  registers  of  wills,  but  to  ensure  that they  are  compatible  with  registers  of  wills  in 
other  countries  and  could  be  interconnected.  If  more  wills  are  identified,  the  risk  of 
parallel  and  conflicting  proceedings  is  reduced.  However,  citizens  would  still  not  be 
obliged  to  register  their  wills,  which  reduces  the  positive  effects  of  the  option.  (ii) 
Fundamental rights and (iii) Social impacts: Similar to option B.1. On the other hand, if 
a will has been registered, reduced legal fees to legal professionals related to identifying a 
will may mean that economically disadvantaged groups may have improved possibilities 
to  access  their  (potential)  inheritance.  (iv)  Financial  costs:  Similar  to  option  B.1  plus 
costs  for  administrative  work  to  produce  a  Directive.  (v)  Economic  effects:  Similar  to 
policy option B.2, this option would also lead to maximum 1-2% reduction of costs due to 
current problems. 

Policy option B.4: Establishment of a central EU Register of Wills. (i) Objectives to 
achieve:  If  more  wills  are  identified,  the  risk  of  parallel  and  conflicting  proceedings  is 
reduced. However, positive impacts would not be much greater than the previous option 
B.3; both options would merely mean that it is possible to register wills across the EU. In 
the short term (and with great likelihood also in the long term), the register would need to 
co-exist  with  national  registers.  Indeed,  according  to  stakeholders  consulted,  registering 
and  identifying  wills  is  at  present  primarily  a  national  problem,  even  though  the 
proportion  of  wills  that  concern  cross-border  successions  is  likely  to  increase.  (ii) 
Fundamental rights and (iii) Social impacts: Similar to option B.4. (iv) Financial costs: 
The  establishment  of  a  central  register,  which  would  co-exist  with  national  registers, 
would amount to 120 million €. It can be assumed that the costs would be reimbursed by 
those  registering  and  requesting  information.  (v)  Economic  effects:  Similar  to  policy 
option  B.2,  this  option  would  also  lead  to  maximum  1-2%  reduction  of  costs  due  to 
current problems.  

Policy Option B.5 - Creation of a webpage on existing registers of wills and national 
rules.  (i)  Objectives  to  achieve:  The  option  may  lead  to  some  positive  impacts  in  that 
slightly more citizens may become aware that registers of wills exist, and it could facilitate 
the work of legal professionals. It would, however, not solve any problems. Indirectly, it 
could  potentially  promote  the  establishment  of  registers  in  those  countries  that  currently 
do not have any (as it would become obvious which countries have and which ones do not 
have registers), but positive impacts on reducing current problems can be expected to be 
insignificant.  The  option  may  at  the  best  be  used  as  an  information  tool  by  legal 
practitioners and may have some minor positive impacts on the awareness of citizens. (ii) 
Fundamental  rights  and  (iii)  Social  impact:  Those  citizens  who  are  currently  most 
likely to make wills (older citizens) may not have access to Internet. (iv) Financial costs: 
Costs for information campaigns at national level. (v) Economic effects: Insignificant. 

Policy Option B.6 - National information campaigns on wills (legislation and existing 
/  forth-coming  instruments).  (i)  Objectives  to  achieve:  This  policy  option  would  only 
lead to minor positive impacts as some citizens that would otherwise not have made and 
registered  a  will  are  likely  to  draw  up  and  register  a  will,  which  would  lead  to  a  minor 

EN 

40 

   EN 

reduction  of  parallel  and  conflicting  proceedings  (or  lack  of  proceedings).  It  would, 
however, not solve any problems. Furthermore, not all countries have registers of wills at 
present, which means that in some countries there would be no positive impacts at all. (ii) 
Fundamental rights and (iii) Social impact: Minor positive effects on some citizens that 
would  otherwise  not  have  made  a  registered  will.  (iv)  Financial  costs:  Costs  for 
information campaigns at national level. (v) Economic effects: Insignificant. 

8. 

COMPARING THE OPTIONS 

8.1. 

Comparison  of  policy  options  and  justification  of  choosing  the  preferred 
option 

Table  8.1  provides  a  comparison  of  the  ‘ratings’  of  the  nine  policy  options  A  (policy 
options  that  address  problems  caused  by  national  (legislative)  differences  concerning 
devolution of international successions) elaborated in section 6.2.1.  

Table  8.2  compares  the  ratings  of  the  six  policy  options  B  (policy  options  that  address 
problems of identifying wills abroad), elaborated in section 6.2.2. 

The  policy  options  are  categorised  according  to  their  potential  to  meet  the  objectives 
defined above in section 5, with ten checkmarks (√√√√√√√√√√) indicating that an option fully 
meets all objectives. 

As  regards  policy  options  A,  on  the  basis  of  the  assessments  of  the  policy  options,  the 
preferred  option  is  Policy  Option  A.7  as  it  would  address  current  problems  as 
effectively as possible and lead to the greatest cost reductions (maximum 30%).  

As  regards  policy  options  B,  on  the  basis  of  the  assessments  of  the  policy  options,  the 
preferred  option  is  Policy  Option  B.2  (Commission  Recommendation)  even  though  it 
does  not  receive  the  highest  rating.  In  comparison,  option  B.4  (EU  central  register  of 
wills),  which  received  the  highest  ranking,  would  be  significantly  more  costly  without 
providing substantially higher benefits. It takes account of the fact that the identification 
of wills is to a certain extent a national problem and is likely to remain such even in the 
long  term  (despite  the  trend  towards  citizens  having  increasing  cross-border  links).  This 
preference is also in line with the rating made by the stakeholders. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

Objective/costs 

Policy Option 
A.1 

Policy Option 
A.2 

Policy Option 
A.3 

Policy Option 
A.4 

Policy Option 
A.5 

Policy Option 
A.6 

Policy Option 
A.7 

Policy Option 
A.8 

Policy Option 
A.9 

Table 8.1 – Comparison of ratings of policy options A 

(Status quo) 

(Jurisdiction 
rules & 
recognition) 

(C-O-L rules) 

(C-O-L rules & 
certificate) 

(C-O-L rules & 
jurisdiction 
rules) 

(A.2 plus A.3) 

(A.2 plus A.4) 

(Database)  

√√ 

√√√√ 

√√√√√√ 

√√√√√√√ 

√√√√√√√√ 

√√√√√√√√√√ 

0 

√√√√√ 

√√√√√√ 

√√√√√ 

√√√√√√√√√ 

√√√√√√√√√√ 

√ 

0 

(National 
information 
campaigns) 

√ 

0 

√√√√√ 

√√ 

√√√√√√ 

√√√ 

√√√√√√√√ 

√√√√√√√√√√ 

0 

0 

0 

7 

– 

11 

– 

18 

– 

10 

– 

25 

– 

30 

0 

1 

0 

1 

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 

To  achieve  a  situation  where  parallel 
proceedings  do  not  occur  and  where 
different  substantive  laws  are  not  applied 
to the same international succession  

To provide a (limited) choice of law for the 
testator 

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 

To increase the accessibility of information 
on the existence of wills abroad 

Total score: 

Economic effects 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Present:  4  bn 
euro/year; 
potential 
doubling  of  costs 
in 10 years. 

EN 

42 

EN 

 
  
 
Objective/costs 

Policy Option B.1 

Policy Option B.2 

Policy Option B.3 

Policy Option B.4 

Policy Option B.5 

Policy Option B.6 

Table 8.2 – Comparison of ratings of policy options B 

(Status quo) 

(EC Recommendation 
on interconnected 
national registers & info 
campaigns) 

(Compulsory 
establishment of 
national registers of 
wills that are 
interconnected) 

(EU central register of 
wills) 

(Webpage on national 
registers of wills and 
national rules) 

(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  

To provide a (limited) choice of law for the testator 

To ensure the recognition of:  

i) 

ii) 

Judgments,  other  decisions  and  authentic 
acts / deeds on international successions; 

The  powers  of  administrators/executors; 
and, 

iii) 

The status as an heir 

To  increase  the  accessibility  of  information  on  the 
existence of wills abroad 

Total score 

Economic effects 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

√√ 

0 

√ 

√√ 

5 

√√√ 

√√√√ 

0 

√ 

√√√ 

7 

0 

√ 

√√√√ 

9 

√ 

0 

0 

√ 

2 

√ 

0 

0 

√ 

2 

Present: 4 bn euro/year; 
potential doubling of 
costs in 10 years. 

Costs savings:  

Costs savings: 

Costs savings: 

Costs savings:  

Costs savings:  

Max 1-2% 

Max 1-2% 

Max 2% 

Insignificant 

Insignificant 

EN 

43 

EN 

 
  
9. 

THE PREFERRED OPTION 

This  section  describes  the  preferred  option  and  the  expected  impacts  of  the  preferred 
policy option, which is a combination of policy options A.7 and B.2. 

9.1. 

The preferred option and its effects 

The preferred option is, in brief: 

The harmonisation of conflict of law rules and jurisdiction rules, the introduction 
of rules on automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments, other decisions 
and  authentic  acts/deeds,  the  introduction  of  a  European  Certificate  of 
transnational 
Inheritance 
successions  and  a  Commission  Recommendation  on  the  establishment  of 
interconnected  national  registers  of  wills  and  organisation  of  information 
campaigns. 

(including  Executor/Administrator  powers) 

in 

As outlined above, this option would involve EU action in the form of: 

•  The  adoption  of  a  Regulation  on  the  harmonisation  of  conflict  of  law  rules  and 
jurisdiction  rules,  the  introduction  of  rules  on  automatic  recognition  and  the 
enforcement of judgments, other decisions and authentic acts/deeds, the introduction of 
a Certificate of Heir and Executor / Administrator in transnational successions; and,  

•  The  issuing  of  a  Recommendation  on  the  establishment  of  interconnected  national 

registers of wills and organisation of information campaigns. 

The preferred option consists of the following elements: 

•  The harmonisation of jurisdiction rules; 

•  The  harmonisation  of  applicable  law  rules,  including  the  introduction  of  a  limited 

choice of law for the testator; 

•  Establishing  rules  on  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments,  other  decisions  and 

authentic acts/deeds; 

•  The creation of a European Certificate of heir and administrator/executor; and, 

•  The  adoption  of  a  Commission  Recommendation  on 

the  establishment  of 

interconnected registers of wills and the organisation of information campaigns. 

Further details of the preferred option's elements are outlined in the external study. 

9.2. 

The preferred option’s achievement of the objectives 

As indicated in the assessment of the individual policy options, this option addresses the 
problems as identified above better than any of the other options : 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
•  Risk of parallel proceedings and application of different substantive laws to the same 

international succession; 

•  Insufficient (limited) choice of law for the testator; 

•  Non-recognition of: 

–  Judgments,  other  decisions  and  authentic  acts/deeds  on 

international 

successions; 

–  powers of administrators/executors; and, 

–  heirship. 

•  Inaccessibility of information on the existence of wills abroad. 

Harmonised  jurisdiction  rules  that  provide  exclusive  jurisdiction  to  a  Member  State,  in 
combination  with  harmonised  conflict  of  law  rules  and  rules  on  recognition  and 
enforcement  and  a  common  certificate  of  inheritance,  would  eliminate  the  potential  for 
conflicts of jurisdiction. 

The introduction of unified conflict of law rules would allow for a faster finalisation of the 
succession, as the competent authorities would no longer have to deal with different and 
potentially  contradictory  national  conflict  of  law  rules  to  identify  the  substantive  law 
governing  the  question  of  who  inherits.  The  introduction  of  rules  on  a  limited  choice  of 
law  for  the  testator  would  allow  citizens  to  better  plan  and  organise  their  succession  in 
advance. 

Problems  with  regard  to  the  recognition  of  powers  of  executors/administrators  and 
decisions would be reduced. As these powers would be recognised abroad, legal fees and 
time  delays  would  be  reduced.  Problems  in  relation  to  recognition  or  enforcement  of 
judgments/decisions  concerning  the  determination  of  the  heirs  are  also  likely  to  be 
resolved. This, in combination with the recognition of powers of administrators/executors, 
means  that  implementation  and  administration  would  be  optimized  (with  regard  to  the 
procedures as well as their outcome). 

Furthermore, the Commission Recommendation may speed up Member States' creation of 
registers  of  wills  that  are  compatible  and  interoperable,  which  would  facilitate  the 
identification  of  wills  in  other  Member  States.  The  information  campaigns  could  lead  a 
higher  number  of  citizens  to  draw  up  wills  and  register  them  than  at  present.  As  a 
consequence, more wills would be registered and subsequently identified than at present. 
This  will  have  a  certain  positive  impact  in  terms  of  speeding  up  the  succession 
proceedings,  and  thereby  lead  to  less  delay  and  decreased  legal  costs.  However,  the 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
positive  impact  of  the  register  may  be  limited  because  there  would  be  no  obligation  to 
register wills.47 

Overall, the preferred option would increase the likelihood that the rights of the testator, 
potential  heirs  and  persons  formally  or  otherwise  related  to  the  deceased,  private  and 
public creditors etc. would be fulfilled in an effective and efficient way. The option would 
also increase the likelihood that the objectives of the future deceased/testator are met. 

The preferred policy option respects the fundamental rights of the Charter of Fundamental 
Rights of the European Union. 

9.3. 

Economic impacts 

In sum, 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.48 

9.3.1.  Financial costs and benefits 

The process of adoption and implementation of the preferred option would create financial 
costs both at the EU level and on the national level, mainly costs for administrative work 
to produce the necessary legislation at EU and at national level, the costs for establishing 
and running a register of wills and for information campaigns. For a detailed analysis of 
these costs and corresponding benefits of the preferred option, see the external study. 

9.3.2. 

Impact on the legal profession 

On  the  one  hand,  the  preferred  option,  through  its  harmonisation  of  the  applicable  law, 
would  result  in  a  reduction  of  fees  for  legal  professionals  who  would  charge  less  for 
complicated  cases.  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  value  of  legacies  and  the  number  of 
international  cases  increase  as  projected,  the  overall  volume  of  successions  work  would 
probably  also  increase.  As  indicated  above,  there  is  also  evidence  of  a  rising  number  of 
contested  cases.  In  addition,  the  new  rules  will  improve  predictability  for  citizens.  It  is 
likely that more of them will wish to organise their succession in advance, therefore using 
the  services  of  legal  professionals.  Within  the  legal  practice,  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 gradual.49  

47 

48 

49 

Accordingly, a confirmation from a register that no will has been registered would not mean that no 
will existed. There may also be problems searching for wills of citizens in other countries due to, 
for example, name changes or names in another alphabet. 
The  establishment  of  interconnected  national  registers  of  wills  and  the  related  information 
campaigns would contribute up to 2% of these costs reductions. The remainder of the costs savings 
would  be  a  result  of  clearer  rules  on  jurisdiction;  the  identical  applicable  law  regardless  of 
jurisdiction;  the  outcome  of  the  devolution  of  the  succession  not  only  being  identical,  but  also 
recognised across the EU; and of heirs being able to prove their rights. 
See also Annex 4 for more information. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
                                                 
9.3.3. 

Impact on taxation 

The preferred option would be tax neutral in so far as it would not entail any changes to 
the  Member  States'  national  legislation  on  inheritance  taxation,  which  are  expressly 
excluded from the scope of the proposed Regulation. This is because the rules determining 
which  Member  State  is  competent  to  collect  inheritance  taxes  on  a  given  succession  are 
totally independent from those rules determining the civil law governing this succession: 
the first will continue to result from national taxation law, including bilateral conventions 
on double taxation, whereas the latter will be harmonised by the future Regulation.  

Example:  Under  the  future  Regulation,  a  Dutch  couple  living  in  Spain and owing  a house  there, 
would  be  allowed  to  choose  Dutch  law  as  the  law  applicable  to  the  civil  aspects  of  their 
successions. However, since the future Regulation will not impact on the rules on inheritance taxes, 
the surviving spouse will, in principle, still be subject to Spanish inheritance taxes. 

Hence,  the  preferred  option  would  potentially  have  implications  on  the  amount  of 
inheritance tax revenues collected by a given Member State. For movable property (e.g. a 
bank account), if, under the law applicable under national rules, the heir is the son of the 
deceased  living  in  Member  State  A,  whereas,  under  the  law  applicable  under  the  future 
Regulation,  the  heir  is  a  charity  located  in  Member  State  B,  Member  State  A  will  not 
longer  be  able  to  collect  inheritance  taxes.  These  effects  would  accordingly  be  marginal 
and indirect (also see Annex 5). 

As  a  consequence,  the  proposed  Regulation  does  not  contribute  to  reducing  the 
complexities  of  tax  systems  applicable  to  successions  with  transnational  elements.  In 
particular,  it  does  not  prevent  citizens  who  take  full  advantage  of  the  Internal  market  of 
being  subject  to  double  taxation  or50  to  taxation  rules  which  do  not  fit  their  legitimate 
expectations. Indeed, it is clearly impossible, for legal and political reasons, to modify the 
existing regime in the frame of the present Regulation. 

9.4. 

Potential draw-backs/risks and sensitive elements 

Potential risks and politically sensitive elements include: 

•  The use of habitual residence as a unique connecting factor rather than nationality. 

•  The extent to which citizens take advantage of the possibility to make a choice of law 

and register wills. 

•  The inclusion of the administration of the succession in the scope of the instrument. 

•  The treatment of compulsory inheritance rights. 

•  The political feasibility of adopting a system of exclusive jurisdiction. 

50 

This section does not come back on the draw-backs and risks of those alternative elements which 
have already been developed in section 6.4. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
                                                 
•  To what extent registers of wills are established and interconnected. 

The extent to which citizens take advantage of the possibility to make a choice of law 
and register wills will impact the benefits and level of costs reductions. The more citizens 
choose the applicable law, make a will and register this, the greater the benefits will be. At 
present  the  tradition  of  drawing  up  wills  vary  between  Member  States;  whereas  it  is 
common  in  some  countries  (e.g.  United  Kingdom),  in  others  it  is  far  from  standard 
practice. The proportion of citizens who take the possibility to make a choice of law (in a 
will)  may  therefore  vary  between  Member  States.  It  is  likely  that  the  proportion  would 
increase in the long term. 

Adopting a system of exclusive jurisdiction may be problematic for some of the Member 
States  that  currently  have  a  split  system  based  partly  on  the  location  of  immovable 
property.51 However, their concerns relate mostly to their respective systems of land and 
other property registers, whose accuracy needs to be safeguarded. The preferred measure 
would not affect these systems; to acquire ownership of the property in question, the heir 
would still have to comply with any registry requirements of the Member State in which 
the property is situated. 

Finally, as concerns the establishment of interconnected national registers of wills and 
related  information  campaigns,  the  Recommendation  would  not  impose  any  legal 
obligations on Member States. The positive impacts on citizens are therefore not certain. 

9.5. 

Fundamental Rights, EU added value and proportionality 

9.5.1.  Fundamental rights 

See the description in the table above in Section 7 (Policy Option A.7). 

9.5.2.  Proportionality 

Measures taken have to be proportionate to the size and extent of the problems addressed. 
The  preferred  option  respects  the  proportionality  principle.  It  concerns  only  cases  with 
cross-border elements. It would not harmonise substantive laws, but merely aim to achieve 
a situation where parallel proceedings are avoided and different substantive laws are not 
applied  to  the  same  international  succession.  As  outlined  above,  benefits  and  savings 
largely  outweigh  its  costs  and  disadvantages.  Accordingly,  the  preferred  option  would 
ensure the harmonious co-existence of different national substantive laws. 

9.5.3.  European added value 

The preferred option has the potential to promote trust in the internal market and facilitate 
mobility  of  EU  citizens.  The  problems  addressed  by  the  preferred  option  are  in  part  a 
consequence of the internal market. At the same time, if they are not solved, the trust in 

51 

In their responses to the Green Paper, six Member States (FR, LU, IT, PL, UK and SK) indicated 
that a single forum in matters of succession should not be appointed. Four Member States (NL, ES, 
SE, LV) were in favour of the establishment of a single forum. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
                                                 
the EU internal market and the EU area of freedom, security and justice without internal 
borders  may  be  damaged.  Because  of  EU  citizens’  increasing  cross-border  links,  higher 
numbers  of  citizens  are  likely  to  be  affected  by  problems  in  the  future.  Cross-border 
successions  are  both  more  costly  and  time-consuming  for  citizens  than  national 
successions. Some transnational successions are never finalised due to complications. By 
ensuring  a  smoother  devolution  of  international  successions,  the  preferred  option  would 
facilitate the life of the modern and mobile EU citizen. 

10. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

In order to monitor the effective implementation of the Regulation as well as the success 
of  the  Recommendation  on  the  creation  of  interconnected  registers  of  wills  and  the 
information  campaigns,  regular  evaluation  and  reporting  by  the  Commission  will  take 
place. To fulfil these tasks, the Commission will prepare regular evaluation reports on the 
application of the Regulation, based on consultations of Member States and stakeholders. 
Regular  expert  meetings  will  also  take  place  to  discuss  implementation  problems  and 
exchange  best  practices  between  Member  States  in  the  framework  of  the  European 
Judicial Network. The Commission will also monitor the creation and the utilisation of the 
wills registers and the use of certificates of inheritance to track the success of the measures 
in  facilitating  the  life  of  the  Union  citizens.  The  external  study  contains  many  useful 
suggestions  on  potential  monitoring  and  evaluation  instruments  and  concrete  indicators 
that will be taken into consideration by the Commission. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX 1 - Glossary 

Term 

Definition 

Administration of a 
succession 

Civil justice / civil law 

Conflict of laws rules 

Deceased 

Deed 

Distribution of a succession 

Enforcement 

Exequatur 

Forum 

Forum non conveniens 

Intestate succession 

Depending on the national law, the succession may not pass 
directly  into  the  ownership  of  the  heirs,  but  first  be 
administered  by  a  heir  or  a  third  party.  The  Administrator 
inheritance  before 
frequently  pays  all 
distributing  it  or  manages  the  estate  while  the  question  of 
who has which rights to the inheritance is solved. 

taxes  on 

the 

that  governs 

the  relationships  between  private 
Law 
individuals, as opposed to the relationship between the State 
and  the  individual  (also  used  as  a  term  for  the  continental 
legal orders, as opposed to common law). 

A set of rules that govern which national → substantive law 
is  applied  to  a  given  situation.  They  frequently  use  broad 
categories 
“Divorce”, 
“Contracts” etc.). See Rome I and Rome II for examples. 

(“Succession”, 

“Marriage”, 

Person whose death occasions the succession. 

Formal document recording a legal fact or act, authenticated 
by a public authority such as a notary. 

The  act  of  transferring  ownership  of  individual  items  of  a 
succession to the heirs and legatees. 

The  act  of  a  judicial  authority  by  which  a  judgment  or 
administrative  order  is  put  into  practice  (e.g.  a  judgment 
ordering  a  debtor  to  pay  100  euros  may  be  enforced  by 
attaching the requisite sum in a bank account of the debtor’s 
and then disbursing it to the creditor). 

Procedure which is formally required in certain countries for 
recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment. 

A judicial body, e.g. court. 

[Latin,  ‘inconvenient  forum’.]  This  doctrine  is  employed 
when  the  court  chosen  by  the  plaintiff  (the  party  suing)  is 
inconvenient  for  witnesses  or  poses  an  undue  hardship  on 
the  defendants,  who  must  petition  the  court  for  an  order 
transferring the case to a more convenient court. 

Succession  in  the  absence  of  a  will.  The  heirs  are 
determined by the rules of law. 

Intestacy 

The quality of being or dying having made no valid will 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
 
Term 

Definition 

Gifts inter vivos 

[Latin, ‘between the living’.] transfer between living persons 
(also: transaction inter vivos). 

International jurisdiction 

Power of the courts in a particular country to try a case. 

Jurisdiction 

- positive conflict of j. 

- negative conflict of j. 

Legatee 

lex rei sitae 

Lispendence 

Reciprocal wills 

Recognition 

Scission 

Substantive rules of law 

The power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law, 
usually exercised by a court or another authority. A positive 
conflict  of  jurisdiction  arises  when  more  than  one  court  or 
authority  has  jurisdiction  by  virtue  of  its  laws;  a  negative 
conflict  of  jurisdiction  arises  when  no  court  or  authority 
deems  itself  competent  for  an  issue.  These  conflicts  can 
international 
to  non-harmonized  rules  on 
occur  due 
jurisdiction. 

Beneficiary  of  a  testamentary  disposition  (who  might  not 
have  inherited  anything  by  virtue  of  the  application  of  the 
default  legal  rules  on  succession  in  the  absence  of  a 
testament, e.g. a friend, a housekeeper etc.). 

[Latin]  The  law  of  the  state  in  which  an  item  (often 
immovable property) is located. 

[Latin,  ‘pending  suit’]  Situation  in  which  at  the  moment 
when  one  court  or  authority  is  seized,  another  court  or 
authority is already in the process of examining a dispute. 

Wills made by two or more persons in the same document, 
either  for  the  benefit  of  a  third  party  or  for  their  mutual 
benefit. They are forbidden in some Member States because 
they  can  limit  the  testators’  testamentary  freedom  by 
binding them to the agreement. 

The act of accepting a judgment or other act of sovereignty 
of  another  state  as  if  it  had  been  issued  by  an  authority  of 
one’s own state. 

Situation  in  which  the  succession  is  not  governed  by  one 
and the same set of → substantive rules, but where one part 
of  the  succession  is  governed  by  the  law  of  one  state  and 
another part by the law of another state. This situation arises 
frequently  with  respect  to  immovable  property  (apartments 
etc.),  where  the  current  conflict  of  law  rules  call  for  the 
application of the → lex rei sitae. 

The legal rules governing the substance of the matter, i.e. in 
this  context  the  questions  of  who  inherits,  how  the 
succession is divided up, etc., as opposed to e.g. the conflict 
of  law  rules,  which  govern  the  technical  question  of  which 
state’s set of substantive rules is applied. 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
Term 

Definition 

Succession agreements 

Agreements  made  before  death  relating  to  one  or  more 
future successions, usually in exchange for a service or good 
provided by a third party who in turn will receive a share of 
the succession. Often used in planning SME transfers to the 
next generation. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX 2 - The magnitude of international successions and wills 

To  assess  the  general  current  situation,  especially  the  scale  of  successions  with  cross-
border elements and scale of legal activity dealing with successions, estimates have been 
made of the following (as far as possible): 

•  The number of successions and wills in the EU; 

•  The  number  of  cross-border  successions  within  the  EU  involving  (a)  a  deceased  who 
lived  in  a  Member  State  different  from  his/her  its  state  of  origin  or  (b)  a  succession 
involving  properties  (e.g.  bank  accounts  or  immovable  property)  distributed  in  more 
than one Member State; 

•  The number of successions in which the competent authority (e.g. court, administrator 

or notary) applies laws of other EU Member States.  

•  The number of successions in which the competent authority (e.g. court, administrator 

or notary) applies laws of third countries. 

•  The value/amount of all these successions in the EU (in euro); 

•  The  number  of  cases  where  foreign  law  is  not  applied  on  the  basis  of  ‘ordre  public’ 

concerning (a) other EU Member States; and, (b) third countries. 

•  The number of legal professionals involved by Member States and the turnover which 
cross-border successions represent for these professionals (by group of professionals).  

The estimates are based on statistical data, results from relevant surveys and information 
obtained from national authorities, professional bodies and individual legal professionals. 
While  efforts  have  been  made  to  substantiate  the  estimates  with  data  from  as  many 
countries as possible in order to maximise its robustness and soundness, useful data were 
received  only  from  a  limited  number  of  Member  States.  Estimates  have  been  made  on 
available information. It is clearly outlined what data have informed what estimations. 

1. Estimated number of successions and wills in the EU 

Exact  data  on  the  overall  number  of  successions  were  not  given  by  the  stakeholders 
contacted. However, it was estimated by survey respondents that this number comes very 
close to the number of all deceased adults in the given Member State. In case of death, a 
succession  procedure  is  launched  if  the  deceased  owned  or  is  assumed  to  have  owned 
property, which applies to almost all adults. 

According  to  Eurostat  figures,  the  total  number  of  persons  deceased  in  200652  was 
4,744,852 persons in the EU27 (see Table 2.2 for individual country figures). The number 
of  successions  launched  in  the  EU  can  be  estimated  to  correspond  to  the  number  of 

52 

2005 for the UK and 2004 for Italy. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
                                                 
deceased persons who were aged 18 or more at the point of their death (the age of majority 
is  18  in  the  Member  States  of  the  European  Union53),  which  was  4,703,286  in  2006 
(99.1% of all deceased).   

The succession procedure of the deceased covered by Eurostat statistics is not necessary 
launched in the EU, as the main connecting factor of the deceased might have connected 
him/her  to  a  third  country.  Accordingly,  successions  of  deceased  EU  nationals  who 
resided  in  third  countries  (and  thus  not  appearing  in  the  mortality  statistics)  might  be 
launched in the EU.  

An estimated 29 million citizens (corresponding to 6% of the EU population in 2006) are 
currently  living  outside  the  borders  of  the  EU.  This  indicator,  however,  strongly 
overestimates  the  number  of  deaths  abroad  where  a  succession  would  nevertheless  be 
launched in the EU. Many of these citizens work or live abroad only temporarily and may 
return to their country of origin at a later stage.  

Table 1 – EU nationals residing in third countries 

Population (2006) 

Citizens living outside 
the EU 

Citizens abroad / 
population 

Country 

Austria  

Estonia   

Finland   

France   

Ireland   

Italy   

8,265,925 

1,344,684 

5,255,580 

62,998,773 

450,000 

27,000 

85,000 

778,654 

Germany   

82,437,995 

1,000,000 

4,209,019 

1,700,000 

40.4% 

58,751,711 

1,727,234 

Netherlands   

16,334,210 

700,000 

Poland   

Slovakia   

Slovenia   

Spain   

38,157,055 

3,742,000 

5,389,180 

2,003,358 

414 

450,000 

43,758,250 

1,500,000 

United Kingdom   

60,425,786 

11,298,163 

Subtotal 

389,331,526 

23,458,465 

5.4% 

2.0% 

1.6% 

1.2% 

1.2% 

2.9% 

4.3% 

9.8% 

0.0% 

22.5% 

3.4% 

18.7% 

6.0% 

53 

With the exception of Scotland, where the age of maturity is 16, but this has been disregarded in the 
analysis. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 1 – EU nationals residing in third countries 

Country 

Population (2006) 

Citizens living outside 
the EU 

Citizens abroad / 
population 

EU27 total 

493,007,893 

29,705,296 

6.0% 

Source: Eurostat (population figures), Member State authorities (data or estimates on the number of nationals 
living outside the EU) 

The estimations of the number of wills in the EU27 are based on information supplied by 
national  registers  of  wills  (registers  of  wills  in  9  Member  States  have  sent  data  or 
estimates), on survey data from the UK and Germany54 concerning the proportion of adult 
population  who  draw  up  a  will  (36%  and  25.8%,  respectively)  and  Eurostat  data  on  the 
number of adult population (18+).  

Available data show large differences across Member States concerning the share of adult 
population  who  has  drawn  up  a  will.  The  figures  range  from  approximately  36%  in  the 
UK (survey data) to as few as around 1.1% in Hungary (estimates based on the number of 
wills registered55), their average being around 24%. Based on this figure and on Eurostat 
numbers  on  the  number  of  adults  (396,125,456  on  January  1,  2006),  around  97  million 
wills are estimated to exist in the EU today. 

Figures and estimates are provided by country in Table 2. 

54 

55 

UK:  a  2007  study  by  the  National  Consumer  Council,  interviewing  2,673  adults  in  England  and 
Wales; Germany: a survey of 1,424 adults made by TNS Infratest in August 2007, commissioned 
by the Deutsches Forum für Erbrecht e.V.  
It should be noted that the proportion of wills not registered may be in fact much higher in Hungary 
than  the  66%  (arithmetic  average  of  UK,  IT,  ES),  thus  the  proportion  of  adult  population  with  a 
will. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Member State 

Total population 
('000), 2006 

Population 18+ years 
('000), 2006 

Total number of 
wills registered* 

Proportion of 
registered wills/ 
adult population 

Overall proportion 
of wills that are not 
registered 

Number of wills 
altogether 

(registered & 
unregistered)  

Number of all wills / 
adult population 

Table 2 – Number of wills 

UK 

FR 

BE 

PT 

DE 

LT 

IT 

CY 

ES 

HU 

60,623 

63,195 

10,548 

10,584 

82,376 

3,394 

58,941 

773 

44,116 

10,071 

47,218 

48,840 

8,332 

8,576 

67,881 

2,684 

48,710 

592 

36,076 

8,151 

Subtotal / 
Average 

344,623 

277,060 

8,282 

7,699 

10,269 

5,437 

1,344 

5,266 

11,148 

6,658 

6,371 

8,360 

4,217 

1,079 

4,152 

9,179 

AT 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

EE 

FI 

GR 

EN 

30,000 

16,603,034 

2,440,000 

2,300,000 

11,490,027 

191,934 

1,842,000 

29,442 

2,435,601 

0.1% 

34% 

29% 

27% 

17% 

7% 

4% 

5% 

7% 

30,000 

0.4% 

37,392,038 

898,593 

859,787 

1,128,206 

569,111 

145,623 

560,338 

1,238,762 

13% 

13% 

13% 

13% 

13% 

13% 

13% 

13% 

56 

99.8% 

0% 

0% 

0% 

66% 

66% 

77% 

66% 

20% 

66% 

45% 

45% 

45% 

45% 

45% 

45% 

45% 

45% 

16,998,525 

16,603,034 

2,440,000 

2,300,000 

36%** 

34% 

29% 

27% 

17,513,192 

25.8%** 

558,075 

8,008,696 

85,607 

3,044,501 

87,229 

67,638,859 

1,625,475 

1,555,278 

2,040,825 

1,029,472 

263,419 

1,013,601 

2,240,810 

21% 

16% 

14% 

8% 

1.1% 

24% 

24% 

24% 

24% 

24% 

24% 

24% 

24% 

EN 

 
  
 
Member State 

Total population 
('000), 2006 

Population 18+ years 
('000), 2006 

Total number of 
wills registered* 

Proportion of 
registered wills/ 
adult population 

Overall proportion 
of wills that are not 
registered 

Number of wills 
altogether 

(registered & 
unregistered)  

Number of all wills / 
adult population 

Table 2 – Number of wills 

IE 

LU 

LV 

MT 

NL 

PL 

RO 

SE 

SI 

SK 

Subtotal / 
Average 

Total EU27 

4,262 

473 

2,288 

406 

16,346 

38,141 

21,588 

9,081 

2,007 

5,391 

149,429 

494,052 

3,173 

366 

1,860 

318 

12,752 

30,293 

17,271 

7,114 

1,649 

4,255 

119,065 

396,125 

428,238 

49,373 

251,008 

42,867 

1,721,070 

4,088,375 

2,330,837 

960,039 

222,513 

574,271 

16,069,010 

53,461,048 

13% 

13% 

13% 

13% 

13% 

13% 

13% 

13% 

13% 

13% 

13% 

13% 

45% 

45% 

45% 

45% 

45% 

45% 

45% 

45% 

45% 

45% 

45% 

45% 

774,644 

89,312 

454,051 

77,543 

3,113,261 

7,395,505 

4,216,276 

1,736,625 

402,506 

1,038,805 

29,067,406 

96,706,265 

24% 

24% 

24% 

24% 

24% 

24% 

24% 

24% 

24% 

24% 

24% 

24% 

Figures in bold indicate data obtained from national registers of wills, Eurostat or surveys. Figures not in bold are derived figures. Figures in italics are GHK estimates based 
on available data (averages) or qualitative information. 

* Reference year 2007 or 2008; ** 2007 survey results 

EN 

57 

EN 

 
  
While  the  estimates  show  that  around  76%  of  the  EU  population  had  not  drawn  up  a  will, 
available  information  suggests  that  the  ratio  of  intestate  deceases  is  actually  much  lower 
than  that.  This  is  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  propensity  of  citizens  to  draw  up  a  will 
strongly  increases  with  their  age.  The  ratio  of  deceased  citizens  who  had  a  will  is  therefore 
much  higher  (in  2006,  85.1%  of  all  deceased  in  the  EU27  were  at  least  60  years  old,  and 
79.6% were at least 65 years old at the time of death). 

The  German  survey  showed  that  48.1%  of  citizens  above  60  had  drawn  up  a  will  (as 
compared to the average for the total  adult population; 25.8%).  The  respective  figure in the 
UK study was 70% of 65+ year olds in England and Wales (as compared to 36% for the adult 
population). These numbers have been used as a proxy indicator for the proportion of deaths 
that  are  not  intestate.  Also,  estimates  made  by  the  Spanish  register  of  wills  showed  that 
around 70-75% of all successions in Spain are based on a will, while somewhat surprisingly, 
the estimates put the proportion of adult population in Spain who have a will to as few as 8% 
only (this is, however, swiftly increasing as the number of new wills registered per annum is 
high: it exceeded 600,000 in 2007).  

The weighted average of the three above figures (with estimated number of successions per 
annum, i.e. the number of deceased individuals aged 18+ years as weights) is 60.4%, which 
has been used as an estimation for the proportion of successions within the EU27 that are not 
intestate56.  The  corresponding  number  of  wills  that  are  executed  per  annum  is  around  2.8 
million  (2,839,385),  and  the  number  of  intestate  successions  is  around  1.9  million 
(1,863,901). An additional 42,000 minors die per annum, for whom it has been assumed that 
no succession procedure is launched. 

2. Estimated number of cross-border successions within the EU 

Legal  professionals  estimated  the  proportion  of  cross-border  successions  to  be  between  1% 
and  25%  of  all  successions-related  cases,  12.5%  on  average.  Extrapolating  this  result  to  all 
successions within the EU27 would arrive at a number of about 588,000 cases (587,911) per 
year.  

Table 3 – Estimations of international successions 

Country of respondent 

UK1 

UK2 

SE 

ES 

HU 

LV 

LT 

Average 

Proportion of successions 
with cross-border 
elements 

25% 

15% 

25% 

10% 

10% 

1% 

1-2% 

12.5% 

This  figure  may,  however,  be  overestimating  the  actual  numbers,  as  the  legal  professionals 
asked  were  likely  to  have  some  international  contacts  and  clientele,  and  since  rich,  big 

56 

Data were received from Italy (58,000 wills ’published’ per annum) and the United Kingdom (22,303 
successions  in  2007  where  a  will  was  available)  which  are  not  consistent  with  the  estimations  made, 
however, these data were also found to be in conflict with the proportion of adults who had drawn up a 
will and therefore they were disregarded. 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
countries  with  a  higher  propensity  to  invest  abroad  were  over-represented  in  the  sample. 
Other approaches were therefore necessary to validate or refine these results. 

Successions with cross-border elements may mostly occur because the deceased:  

•  Held a foreign nationality, or  

•  Held property abroad.  

Successions of foreign nationals, foreign wills 

Statistical  data  on  the  citizenship  of  deceased  residents  of  EU  Member  States  are  not 
available.  However,  the  proportion  of  foreign  nationals  amongst  the  deceased  can  be 
estimated by using, as a proxy indicator, the proportion of foreign population above 60 years; 
the  age  group  accounting  for  most  (85.1%)  of  deceases  in  the  EU27  (the  national  statistics 
forwarded to Eurostat include individuals who reside permanently in the given Member State, 
irrespective of their nationality). 

The proportion of population with foreign citizenship has been increasing in the EU over the 
last decades. In 2007, around 28.9 million of the EU Member State inhabitants (5.8% of the 
total population) were non-nationals. The majority of them were citizens of another Member 
State (3.8%), but around 10.2 million (2.1%) held citizenship of a third country57. 

This population with foreign citizenship is still relative young. Amongst above-60-year-olds 
their proportion is only 2.7% (based on Eurostat data available for 14 Member States). It can 
therefore be assumed that the number of successions concerning foreign citizens deceased in 
EU Member States, which are thus likely to involve cross-border elements, is about 125,000 
(124,816), 2.7% of all deceased adults.  

57 

I.e.  -  in  case  of  multiple  citizenship  –  that  they  did  not  hold  citizenship  of  the  Member  State  they 
resided in nor of another EU Member State. 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 4 – Proportion of foreign citizens in the Member States 

Geographical coverage /  

Share of population 

Total 
population 

Nationals 

Foreigners 

Total 

EU27 

Third 
countries 

EU27 

Total (in ‘000), 2007 

495,127 

466,213 

28,914 

18,754 

10,159 

As % of total population 

100.0% 

94.2% 

5.8% 

3.8% 

2.1% 

14 Member States58 

As % of total population 

100.0% 

94.3% 

Population above 60 years 

100.0% 

97.3% 

Population below 60 years 

100.0% 

93.5% 

5.7% 

2.7% 

6.5% 

2.0% 

1.3% 

2.2% 

3.7% 

1.3% 

4.3% 

As  regards  future  developments,  a  significant  upward  trend  is  expected.  The  proportion  of 
foreign nationals is around 6.5%  for the below-60-year-old cohort. A share of these foreign 
nationals  may  move  back  to  their  country  of  citizenship  at  a  later  age,  but  the  number  of 
foreign nationals deceasing in the EU is in any case expected to rise in the next decades. 

Data on the number of ‘foreign wills’ are only available from three Member States and show 
marked  differences.  The  figures  from  Italy  and  Spain  suggest  that  foreign  nationals  do  not 
tend to draw up wills and register them in the Member States they reside in. Only 0.11% of 
registered wills were drawn up by foreign nationals. However, the register of wills in Cyprus 
reported  that  over  50%  of  all  wills  registered  are  those  of  foreign  nationals.  The  weighted 
average of the figures is 0.46%, whilst the weighted average of foreign wills within new wills 
registered  per  annum  is  0.33%.  Extrapolating  this  to  the  EU27,  a  (very)  broad  estimate  of 
about  246,000  foreign  wills  registered  is  obtained,  and  about  7,100  new  foreign  wills  per 
annum. Also, registers of wills reported an increase in the number of foreign wills. 

58 

Member States for which age breakdown was available, representing 53.4% of the total population of 
the EU27. 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 5 – Number and proportion of foreign wills 

Total 
number of 
wills 
registered 

Number of 
foreign 
wills 
registered 
in the 
country 

Foreign 
wills/stock 
of wills (%) 

Number of 
new wills 
registered 
per annum 

1,842,000 

1,997 

0.11% 

26,030 

2,435,601 

2,639 

0.11% 

608,902 

Number of 
foreign 
wills 
registered 
in country 
per annum 

New 
foreign 
wills/total 
new wills 
(%) 

100 

600 

0.38% 

0.10% 

29,442 

14,979 

50.9% 

1,500 

1,400 

93.3% 

4,307,043 

19,615 

0.46% 

636,432 

2,100 

0.33% 

Member State 

IT 

ES 

CY 

Average of 3 
Member States 

EU27 (estimate) 

53,461,048 

245,921 

0.46% 

2,161,034 

7,131 

0.33% 

The proportion of wills that involve  a cross-border element is likely to be higher than the 
proportion of cross-border successions in general since the population drawing up wills is on 
average  more  wealthy  than  the  part  of  the  population  who  do  not  make  wills,  and  these 
citizens’  successions  are  therefore  more  likely  to  involve  international  elements.  Using  the 
average  of  estimates  made  by  legal  professionals  concerning  the  proportion  of  cross-border 
successions of all successions (12.5%), of the 97 million wills drawn up, around 12 million 
(12,088,000) wills can be  estimated  to  involve a cross-border  element.  These  wills  may  not 
have  had  an  international  element  when  they  were  drawn  up,  but  only  first  after  they  were 
made (as the testator moved, opened an account and/or acquired property abroad). 

Foreign property 

Foreign property includes figures on portfolio investments and housing that were obtained 
from national statistic offices and central banks. While it was not possible to take full stock of 
financial assets and other property that EU citizens have abroad, it was clear that the trend is 
significantly increasing.  

For  example,  the  Swedish  Tax  Authority  reported  that  the  number  of  immovable  property 
abroad declared in tax statements increased in just two years (from 2004 to 2006) from 2,344 
to 3,624 (by 54,6%), while its value increased from 1.64 bn SEK (177 million euro) to 2.99 
bn SEK (327 million euro), i.e. by 82.3%. The actual figures are expected to be even higher, 
as this information is supplied to the Swedish Tax Authority by residents on a voluntary basis 
only. 

Based  on  the  above  it  can  be  estimated  that  though  successions  involving  cross-border 
elements  is  likely  to  be  somewhat  less  than  the  on  average  12.5%  indicated  by  legal 
practitioners (it can be estimated that in 2006 around 9-10% of all successions, corresponding 
to  around  450,000  successions,  involved  cross-border  elements),  the  trend  is  clearly 
increasing. This follows from two main reasons: 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
 
•  The  proportion  of  inhabitants  with  foreign  citizenship  was  relatively  low  amongst  the 
elderly (2.7% in the age group above 60 in 14 Member States in 2007 for which data was 
available), but their proportion is much higher in the younger generations (6.5% for below-
60-year-olds),  and  inhabitants  with  foreign  citizenship  are  more  likely  to  trigger 
successions with a cross-border dimension. The proportion of non-nationals is continuing 
to  grow  in  the  future  as  a  result  of  continued  immigration  from  third  countries  and  the 
increasing significance of relocations within the EU, e.g. because of job prospects or cross-
border marriages and partnerships. 

•  The  proportion  of  EU  citizens  who  own  property  abroad  is  increasing  rapidly.  This 
involves  mostly  financial  assets  (such  as  shares,  bonds,  bank  accounts)  and  real  estates. 
With  increased  liberalisation  of  the  movement  of  capital  in  the  internal  market  and  with 
third countries and increased wealth (in the EU and globally), the share of EU citizens who 
have such foreign assets and the number of third-country nationals who have assets in the 
EU will continue to rise. 

The assumption that the number of cross-border successions would increase is also supported 
by  legal  professionals;  all  professionals  who  commented  on  this  reported  that  this  was  the 
case (be it a slight or significant increase). 

Certain  Member  States  and  regions  are  already,  and  will  be  in  the  future,  more  affected  by 
cross-border  successions  than  others.  These  are  in  particular  those  countries  where  the 
population  has  a  higher  proportion  of  foreign  nationals  and  has  a  higher  level  of  income 
(which usually correlates with an increased level of investments abroad).  

On the basis of the proportion of non-nationals in the various EU Member States and level of 
income  (GDP/capita  in  Purchasing  Power  Standard  (PPS)),  ratings  have  been  made  for  the 
EU27  in  order  to  get  an  indication  of  what  countries  are  likely  to  be  more  affected  by 
international  successions  than  others.  It  must,  however,  be  emphasised  that  this  rating  does 
not  take  into  account  the  extent  to  which  citizens  actually  have  movable  and  immovable 
property abroad as such data were not available by country. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
Table 6 – Proportion of non-nationals and level of income by Member State 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium 

Ireland 

Luxembourg  

Cyprus 

Denmark 

Germany 

Netherlands 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Greece 

Italy 

Latvia 

Malta 

Czech Republic 

Portugal 

Slovenia 

Bulgaria 

Hungary 

Lithuania 

Poland 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Proportion 
non-nationals, 
2007 

of 

Score 1* 

GDP/capita  in 
PPS 

Score 2* 

Total score** 

10.0% 

8.8% 

10.5% 

41.6% 

15.2% 

5.1% 

8.8% 

4.2% 

10.4% 

5.4% 

6.0% 

xxx 

xxx 

xxx 

xxx 

xxx 

xx 

xxx 

xx 

xxx 

xx 

xx 

17.6% 

xxx 

2.3% 

5.8% 

7.9% 

5.0% 

x 

xx 

xx 

xx 

19.0% 

xxx 

3.4% 

2.9% 

4.1% 

2.7% 

0.3% 

1.7% 

1.2% 

0.1% 

0.1% 

0.6% 

xx 

x 

xx 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

31,600 

29,700 

37,100 

68,900 

23,200 

30,300 

28,100 

32,900 

26,500 

31,300 

29,100 

17,600 

29,000 

27,600 

24,100 

25,200 

14,400 

19,200 

20,200 

18,600 

22,600 

9,500 

15,800 

15,200 

13,300 

10,100 

17,000 

xxx 

xxx 

xxx 

xxx 

xx 

xxx 

xx 

xxx 

xx 

xxx 

xxx 

x 

xxx 

xx 

xx 

xx 

x 

xx 

xx 

x 

xx 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

6 

6 

6 

6 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

5 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Source: Eurostat *x – bottom tertile; xx – centre tertile; xxx – top tertile **Sum of Score 1 and 2 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
In  addition,  some  countries  are  particularly  frequented  by  foreign  investors  (for  relocation, 
second  homes  or  financial  investment  targets)  such  as  France,  Spain,  Portugal,  Cyprus  or 
Greece.  As  concerns  the  difficulties  linked  to  domestic  property  of  non-nationals,  these 
countries are especially affected. Also, in certain border regions where cross-border contacts 
are  strong  (such  as  e.g.  between  Belgium  and  France,  Austria  and  Hungary),  holding  some 
property in the neighbouring country is more frequent. 

3.  

Estimated  number  of  successions  in  which  the  competent  authority  applies  foreign 
law (including the law of third countries) 

Legal practitioners from the Member States referred to the number of such cases to be very 
small, but could not quantify it. 

4. 

Estimated proportion of cases where the law of third countries is not applied due to the 
application of the “ordre public exception” 

Interviewees  from  the  Czech  Republic  and  United  Kingdom  (Scotland)  reported  that  the 
exception was generally not used in succession-related cases. In Germany several judgments 
have  been  published  by  appellate  courts  in  which  the  application  of  Islamic  succession  law 
has been prohibited as it has been considered as violating the German ‘ordre public’ as far as 
the intestate shares of heirs were dependent on religion or gender. 

5. 

Approximate amount of successions in the EU in euro 

Estimates  as  regards  the  value  of  successions  have  been  made  based  on  accessible  studies, 
statistics  and  surveys,  as  well  as  estimations  made  by  legal  professionals.  Information 
obtained,  however,  greatly  varies  across  countries  and  even  across  figures  for  one  single 
country, as reflected in Table 2.7. 

In  the  United  Kingdom59,  only  40,300  successions  out  of  ca.  571,300  deaths  in  total  (7%) 
surpassed  in  value  the  nil-band  threshold  of  £240,000  (approximately  345,500  euro)  in  the 
budgetary year 2003-2004, with a total value of £23,110 million. In 291,000 cases, the value 
of the estate was below £5,000. Based on these figures, the average value of successions can 
be set at around £75-80,000 (108-115,000 euro). An estimation made by a legal professional 
was £50,000 (72,000 euro) – which may in fact be close to the median of successions. 

According to the socio-economic panel survey of 2002 by the German research institute DIW, 
the  average  value  of  successions  in  Germany  was  ca.  102,000  euro  in  1990  and  129,700  in 
1996. Extrapolating trends, the average value of successions may in 2007 reach 242,000 euro 
(corresponding  to  a  total  value  of  ca.  200  bn  euro).  The  research  company  Empirica  has 
estimated the average value of successions to be around 180,000 in 2005. 

59 

‘Inland Revenue - Inheritance Tax’, a report by the National Audit Office, 2004. 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Table 7 – Estimated average value of successions by country 

Country 

Estimated 
value of successions 

average 

Source 

United Kingdom, 2004 

108,000 

NAO study, GHK calculations 

United Kingdom, 2008 

72,000 

Estimation by a legal professional 

Germany, 1990 

Germany, 1996 

Germany, 2005 

Germany, 2007 

Spain, 2008 

102,000 

129,700 

180,000 

242,000 

400,000 

Socio-economic panel survey by DIW 

Socio-economic panel survey by DIW 

Survey by Empirica60 

Socio-economic panel survey by DIW 

Estimation by a legal professional 

Calculating  with  an  average  of  the  more  recent  survey  results  (176,667),  this  is  about  5.5 
times the gross national income per capita of the countries concerned (Germany and the UK, 
30,000  and  33,800,  respectively  in  2007,  according  to  Eurostat  data).  As  the  gross  national 
income was 24,800 euro for the EU27, one can estimate the average value of successions to 
be around 137,000 euro, ca. 646 billion euro in total, 5.9% of the EU27 GDP. 

This  proportion  will,  however,  continue  to  rise  in  the  future  –  to  a  lesser  extent  because  of 
demographic  reasons  (the  more  populous  post-war  cohorts  will  reach  the  age  65-70  in  the 
next ten years; Eurostat demographic projections forecast a 5% increase in deaths for 2018 in 
the  EU27,  as  compared  to  2008,  from  4,969,000  to  5,235,000),  but  mainly  because  of  the 
increase in net wealth accumulated by the population. 

Statistics by the German Central Bank (Deutsche Bundesbank) show a 20.6% increase in net 
wealth  per  capita  from  1993  to  2003  (net  of  inflation),  an  increase  that  may  be  even  more 
steep  in  other  Member  States.  Financial  assets  have  had  the  lion’s  share  in  the  increase 
(although the credit crisis will have had some impact on this). 

60 

„Vermögensbildung in Deutschland: Immobilienerbschaften“, Empirica Forschung und Beratung, 2005. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Table 8 – Evolution of assets and liabilities per capita in Germany, 1993-
2003 (in euro) 

Type of assets/liabilities 

1993 

2003 

Growth 
(adjusted 
inflation) 

rate 
for 

Real estate property 

38,149 

Other investments 

Financial assets 

7,960 

29,856 

Other  assets,  consumable 
goods 

8,810 

Gross wealth 

Liabilities 

Net wealth 

84,787 

-12,075 

72,711 

Source: Deutsche Bundesbank 

48,768 

9,002 

47,483 

11,850 

117,103 

-18,792 

98,311 

14.0% 

0.9% 

41.9% 

20.0% 

23.2% 

38.8% 

20.6% 

However, the increase of net wealth was not equally distributed across generations. The eldest 
generations who are usually the testators in current-time successions only had a small share in 
this wealth accumulation. Their estates are not as large as those of the following generations 
will be. 

Estimates in Table 2.8 already show that the value of estates significantly increased over time. 
In Germany, according to a study by Empirica from 2005, average real household wealth (i.e. 
discounting or inflation) has almost doubled in the last 25 years, and the ratio of households 
with a property rose by 10 percentage points (by ca. 20 percentage points for above-50-year-
olds).  Whilst  the  average  net  wealth  for  households  with  an  over-69-year-old  head  was 
119,803  euro  in  2003,  the  corresponding  figure  for  the  59-69  year  age  group  was  already 
173,165,  which  is  44.5%  higher.  This  wealth  gap  does  also  exist  and  can  be  even  wider  in 
other Member States. 

One can thus expect that the average value of successions will rise significantly in real terms 
in  the  next  ten  years,  maybe  by  around  45%  (from  137,000  to  some  199,000  euro),  whilst 
their total value – accounting for the overall increase in the number of deceases – may rise by 
perhaps 50% (from 646 billion to some 969 billion euro per annum, at 2007 prices). 

Generally, the studies and legal practitioners consulted to date have indicated that the average 
value  of  cross-border  successions  have  a  higher  value  than  purely  ‘national’  successions. 
One legal practitioner estimated its value to be around twice as high as national successions. 

The bulk of successions involve a very  small  estate of some  thousand  euro  only,  which are 
unlikely to include property abroad (although other cross-border elements, e.g. the heirs being 
non-nationals, are possible). As for the UK, successions below £5,000 (7,197 euro) accounted 
for  50.9%  of  all  cases  in  2003/2004.  In  Austria,  according  to  information  from  the  Federal 
Ministry of Finance, two thirds of successions concerned an estate of less than 7,300 euro. In 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
 
Germany, the value of 28% of all estates was below 13,000 euro. Excluding the bottom half 
of successions that are probably not cross-border, an estimation of around twice the average 
value for the  remaining half of successions  can be  used for calculations (i.e. 274,000  euro). 
Calculating with only 450,000 cross-border cases (around 9.5% of all), this would sum up to 
123.3 billion euro.  

These estates are liable to problems. Even if resolved in a reasonable manner the costs of legal 
fees  might  amount  to  from  2%  (2.466  bn  euro)  to  as  much  as  5%  of  the  total  value  of 
international  successions  (6.165  bn  euro),  according  to  legal  professionals  interviewed.  An 
average of 3% (3.699 bn euro) of the value of estates can be considered realistic. 

In  the  past  decades,  successions  involving  property  abroad  was  a  characteristic  only 
concerning  the  affluent  testator,  whereas  today  financial  investments  and  even  property 
purchases abroad are not restricted any more to the wealthiest citizens. The gap in the value of 
the average cross-border and purely national successions has probably started to narrow a bit, 
and will continue to narrow as cross-border property will be much more frequent. Despite this 
narrowing,  the  aggregated  value  of  cross-border  successions  will  rise  by  more  than  the 
previously estimated 50% (because of the increased proportion of cross-border successions). 

6. 

Approximate  number  of  legal  professionals  involved  and  the  turnover  which  cross-
border successions represent for these professionals 

The number of notaries public has been obtained from six Member States only. The number 
of inhabitants per notary is, however, in a relatively narrow range (10,762 on average). If this 
proportion  was  applicable  to  the  21  Member  States  where  this  institution  exists61,  the  total 
number of notaries would be somewhere around 38,000.  

Table 9 – Number of notaries public in the EU, 2008 

Country 

Number of notaries public 

Population (2006) 

Population  per 
notary 

Czech Republic 

451 

10,251,079 

22,730 

Germany 

8513 

82,062,249* 

9369 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Romania 

Slovenia 

123 

265 

1,824 

125 

6  Member  States 
total 

11,301 

2,294,590 

3,403,284 

21,610,213 

2,003,358 

18,655 

12,843 

11,848 

16,027 

121,624,773 

10,762 

EU21** 

37,899 

407,875,883 

10,762 

* Population in 2009 
** EU27 minus the UK, Ireland, Cyprus, Sweden, Denmark and Finland 

61 

EU-27 minus the UK, Ireland, Cyprus, Sweden, Denmark and Finland 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Information on the numbers of other legal professionals involved (lawyers, judges etc.) have 
not been obtained. The same is valid with regard to the income of international successions 
for these groups of professionals; information has not been obtained.  

As  for  the  six  Member  States  where  notaries  public  are  not  employed,  solicitors  (or 
‘advocates’  or  ‘lawyers’)  are  engaged  in  settling  successions62.  Based  on  data  obtained 
through  desk-based  research  on  the  number  of  solicitors,  it  can  be  estimated  that  there  are 
about 190,000 solicitors or equivalent in the six Members States concerned, about 130,000 of 
them  being  active.  Most  of  them  (existing  data  from  England  and  Wales  show  that  about 
80%) work in private practices. That would correspond to about 100,000. The rest are in-door 
lawyers. Many of the solicitors in private practices would occasionally deal with successions, 
though estimates have not been received. 

Table 10 – Number of solicitors in the 6 Member States concerned, 2008 

Country / 
Region 

Number of solicitors/lawyers 
(2007) 

Population (2006) 

Population per 
solicitor/lawyer 

On the roll 

Active 

England 
Wales 

and 

131,347 

89,045 (2002) 

52,919,979 (2004) 

Scotland 

11,958 

8,609 (2000) 

5,067,900 (2004) 

Northern Ireland 

2,441 

1,706,475 (2004) 

Ireland 

Cyprus 

Sweden 

11,241 

1,000 

4,442 

4,209,019 

766,414 

3,971 

9,047,752 

2,037 

403 

424 

699 

374 

766 

4  Member  States 
total 

162,429 

111,724* 

73,717,539 

EU6** 

187,580* 

129,023* 

85,132,010 

454 

454 

Source: Law Societies, Bar Associations * GHK calculation **UK, Ireland, Cyprus, Sweden, Denmark and Finland 

62 

When brought to court, successions would then also involve barristers / practicing advocates of course. 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 3 – Financial costs and benefits of the preferred policy option 

The preferred policy option would lead to the following financial costs: 

•  At  EU  level:  Costs  for  administrative  work  to  produce  the  necessary  legislation  at  EU 
level. This is estimated to be the equivalent of one Commission official during one year. 

•  At national level: Training of legal professionals (e.g. lawyers, judges, notaries, solicitors) 
and  judicial  cooperation.  It  is  reasonable  to  assume  that  these  costs  would  be  less  than 
0.5% of the legal costs associated with problematic international successions. These costs 
would be ‘one off’ as the Regulation and related practice would rapidly become the norm 
and legal professionals regularly need to absorb and learn the consequences of new law.63 

Specific elements of the preferred option may also incur initial costs: 

•  Jurisdiction rules. Financial costs for the Member States would also arise in making the 
necessary changes of national legislation with regard to the harmonised jurisdiction rules, 
e.g.  legislation  indicating  what  court/authority  would  handle  the  case,  and  enforcement. 
These costs would need to be borne by the Member States. It is reasonable to assume that 
the costs for the legislation would be very small as it would be technical in character, non-
contentious and necessary.  

•  Applicable law. Financial costs to the administration for the introduction of the new rules 
would  be  low,  i.e.  comparable  to  those  for  the  introduction  of  the  Rome  I  and  II 
Regulations.  

•  Certificate.  The  Member  States  that  currently  do  not  have  a  certificate  would  need  new 
legislation  to  identify  what  body  should  issue  the  certificate  and  to  institute  procedure. 
There would also be a small administrative cost in issuing the certificate. It is reasonable to 
estimate  the  costs  of  a  certificate  at  around  € 60  assuming  that  identity  checks  similar  to 
those required for obtaining a passport (or marriage certificate) are required, but that there 
would be no special technical requirements for the certificate itself. This would most likely 
be offset by a fee. 

•  Establishment of interconnected national registers of wills.  

–  For those countries that currently do not have registers of wills, the option would 
result in establishment costs for creating registers of wills and running them. Such 
costs will only be relevant for a few countries; first, registers of wills already exist 
in  several  Member  States64,  and  second,  the  establishment  of  a  register  of  wills 
would be voluntary. 

63 

64 

Professional services companies tend to invest circa 2% of turnover in training per annum. There would 
be  a  case  for  EU  funding  of  some  training  on  the  consequences  of  the  Regulation.  However,  the 
implications would be clear and the appropriate legal professionals would need to be informed as much 
as trained. Much of the costs of any training should be met by the legal professionals themselves. 
Registers of wills have been established in nineteen Member States (Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, 
Cyprus,  Denmark,  Estonia,  France,  Greece,  Hungary,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands, 
Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Romania), however, not all of these are ‘official’ (e.g. 
the  register  in  Sweden  is  independent).  Decentralised  registers  of  wills  are  in  place  in  three  Member 
States  (Germany,  Poland,  United  Kingdom  -  England  and  Wales;  probate  register);  registers  may  not 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  Registers of wills in some Member States would be encouraged to move from a 
paper-based  system  to  an  electronic  system  in  order  to  ensure  the  effective  and 
efficient functioning of the interconnected system.65  

–  Other  changes  to  existing  registers  (including  electronic  registers)  may  also  be 

necessary in order to allow for interconnection.  

–  Total annual costs for running a register of wills currently range from € 2,700 for 

Hungary to € 3.5 million for France.66 

•  Information  campaigns  would  be  organised  at  a  national  level  to  inform  citizens  about 
the existence of registers of wills and the rules on wills. Overall, costs for the information 
campaign are estimated to be € 50,000,000 across the EU (estimates are based on 10 euro 
per death per annum), borne at the national level. Some of these costs would be recouped 
from testators who register wills and through fees paid for searches for wills (this assumes 
that fees will be charged for both, as the current registers do). 

There  would  also  be  impacts  on  the  level  of  financial  costs  as  a  consequence  of  the  use  of 
habitual  residence  instead  of  nationality  as  the  connecting  factor  in  combination  with  the 
possibility for the testator to make a limited choice of law.  

In  many  EU  Member  States,  nationality  is  currently  used  as  a  connecting  factor.  In  these 
countries,  the  use  of  habitual  residence  will  lead  to  additional  costs  in  relation  to  the 
application  of  the  law  of  third  countries.  However,  on  the  other  hand,  the  use  of  habitual 
residence  will  also  result  in  substantial  costs  savings  in  those  countries  that  currently  have 
nationality  as  connecting  factor.  For  example,  there  are  many  Turkish  nationals  who  have 
their habitual residence in Germany. With nationality as connecting factor, Turkish succession 
law  would  at  present  be  applied.  With  the  new  rules,  German  law  would  be  applied.  Both 
these  costs  and  savings  would,  however,  not  be  certain  due  to  the  introduction  of  a  limited 
choice of law, which would mean that the law of the nationality would still be applied if the 
testator chose it. 

Furthermore, the introduction of a unitary succession system at EU level would result in cost 
savings in those Member States which presently adhere to the split system (where immovable 
property  is  governed  by  the  law  at  its  location),  because  the  court  would  apply  only  one 
succession law. 

In  sum,  the  introduction  of  the  unitary  succession  system  and  of  habitual  residence  as 
dominant connecting factor as well as the admission of a limited choice of law would tend to 
decrease costs; however, savings would vary between Member States. 

cover  the  entire  country.  Two  Member  States  (Bulgaria  and  Latvia)  are  in  the  process  of  creating  a 
register of wills. In two Member States (Ireland and Finland) no register of wills has been established 
and is not in the process of being established. No information on the existence of a register of wills has 
been identified for Malta. 
Information  on  whether  the  registers  are  electronic  or  paper-based  has  been  identified  for  thirteen 
Member  States.  The  majority  of  them  (Austria,  Belgium,  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  France,  Hungary, 
Italy,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg  and  the  Netherlands)  currently  have  an  electronic  register  of  wills. 
Cyprus, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Romania have paper-based registers. 
Belgium:  € 236,000,  Estonia:  € 15,600,  Lithuania:  € 193,000  and  Italy:  € 50,000.  Annual  budgets  for 
maintenance of registers of wills have been provided by three Member States: Italy (€ 50,000), Belgium 
(€ 60,000) and France (€ 280,000). 

65 

66 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
ANNEX 4 – Economic effect on fees for legal professionals 

The potentially affected legal professionals are: 

•  Those assisting testators in making wills. Two elements of the preferred option are likely 
to increase the proportion of wills drawn up. The first is the possibility to make a limited 
choice  of  law,  which  would  need  to  be  indicated  in  a  will.  The  introduction  of  a  limited 
choice of law would naturally have the greatest impact in those countries that currently do 
not  allow  a  choice  of  law  (Austria,  Cyprus,  France,  Greece,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Luxemburg, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Czech Republic)67. 
The  second  element  that  may  lead  to  a  minor  increase  in  the  proportion  of  wills  is  the 
national information campaigns relating to registering wills. These two elements are likely 
to  have  the  effect  of  increasing  the  business  and  income  for  legal  professionals  assisting 
testators making wills.  

•  Those charging for certificates of inheritance. Where heirs previously used to need several 
certificates, but under the preferred option would only need one European certificate, the 
legal  professionals  issuing  certificates  could  loose  some  business  and  revenue.  In  those 
countries  which  currently  do  not  issue  certificates,  the  introduction  of  a  European 
certificate would however lead to new business opportunities. These effects would concern 
cross-border successions only as the proposed legislation would not contain obligations to 
issue a European certificate for purely national successions. However, for public notaries, 
overall revenues would not necessarily be reduced. In many countries, the fees they would 
charge would be fixed (or proportional to the estate). The market of public notaries is not 
necessarily a competitive one. 

•  Those  charging  for  searching  for  wills.  By  implementing  the  preferred  option,  it  is 
expected that the system of identifying wills would become more efficient. While the fees 
charged  to  clients  for  these  activities  may  decrease,  this  might  be  associated  with  a 
substantial time and cost reductions for the professionals involved. This could increase the 
margins  on  such  work  as  currently  this  often  involves  considerable  resource  intensive 
work. 

•  Legal professionals involved in difficult cases. By far the most significant effects (most of 
the  potential  1.3  billion  euro  savings  in  legal  costs)  would  be  on  legal  professionals 
involved in difficult cases. This includes fees to legal professionals acting on behalf of the 
various parties (be it in- or out-of-court procedures), the costs of courts and court officials 
(that may be paid for by the ‘public purse’), and the costs of ‘parallel’ proceedings. Here, 
there is a clear potential for fee reductions for clients, and thus revenue 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 which could be associated 
with improved financial returns and efficiency. The effects should not therefore be seen as 
a disbenefit. 

Aggregating the above effects, the maximum revenue foregone for legal professionals would 
be  in  the  order  of  around  1.3  billion  euro  per  annum,  corresponding  to  the  annual  average 
employment of 10,800 FTE. However, this would be offset by potential increases in work to 

67 

Information is unavailable for Hungary, Malta and Northern Ireland. 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
                                                 
assist  those  making  wills  and  in  improvements  in  the  quality  of  work  due  to  reductions  in 
legal uncertainty and complexities in identifying wills and the bona fide of heirs. 

It  has  been  estimated  in  the  external  study  that  the  tax  revenue  in  2005  for  the  EU27  from 
inheritance tax was around 31.0 billion euro (this compares with the estimated total value of 
estates of 646 billion euro in 2005, 5.9% of the EU27 GDP). Inheritance tax was estimated to 
be 0.28% of EU27 GDP in the same year. Table 5.1 in Annex 5 indicates the total tax from 
inheritance  and  gifts  for  eight  EU  countries.  These  figures  have  been  used  to  extrapolate  to 
the EU27. 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 5 – Impact of the preferred option on inheritance tax 

Table 5.1 – State revenues from inheritance tax, 2005 

DE 

FR 

UK 

NL 

ES 

DK 

AT 

SE* 

Total  EU27** 

Total revenues 

4.1 

8.9 

4.7 

1.7 

2.3 

0.4 

0.2 

0.1 

22.4 

31.0 

as % of GDP 

0.18 

0.52 

0.26 

0.34 

0.25 

0.20 

0.06 

0.04 

0.28 

0.28 

Source: OECD *Inheritance tax abolished in 2004 **Extrapolated figure for the EU27 

Rates of inheritance tax vary markedly between Member States. Marginal rates range from nil 
to 80%. The latter maximum occurs in Belgium Wallonie and Brussels, for heirs not closely 
related with the testator, for inheritance above €250,000. The variation in effective tax rates is 
also considerable. Table 2 indicates the effective tax rates in EU countries for four examples 
(estates worth either 100,000 or 500,000 euro left to either spouse and/or children (assuming 
two heirs) or heirs apart from close relatives). The smaller examples of 100,000 euro reflect 
estimated average (median) size of estates in the EU average.  

Seven EU countries do not have inheritance tax. Tax rate for heirs apart from close relatives 
are almost always higher. There are wide variations in effective tax rates for each of the four 
examples. For the example of spouses and children inheriting 50,000 euro each, effective tax 
rates range from 0 to 11.3%. For the example of spouses and children inheriting 250,000 euro 
each,  effective  tax  rates  range  from  0  to  15.1%.  For  the  example  of  heirs  apart  from  close 
relatives inheriting 50,000 euro each, effective tax rates range from 0 to 46.3%. Finally, for 
the  example  of  heirs  apart  from  close  relatives  inheriting  250,000  euro  each,  effective  tax 
rates range from 0 to 71.3%.  

Table 5.2 – Effective tax rates applicable in selected Member States (for two categories of 
heirs and for two sample bequests), special tax deductions not accounted for 

Member State 

Austria (as of 2008) 

Cyprus 

Estonia 

Latvia 

Portugal 

Slovakia 

Sweden 

Belgium (Flanders) 

Belgium (Wallonie) 

Belgium (Brussels) 

Bulgaria 

EN 

Spouse and children (closest 
family) 

Heirs apart from close 
relatives** 

€50,000 

€250,000 

€50,000 

€250,000 

No inheritance tax 

7.8% 

10.7% 

10.3% 

0.3% 

45% 

46.3% 

40% 

- 

57% 

71.3% 

62.5% 

2.4% 

3% 

4.3% 

3% 

- 

73 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

1.1% 

1.5% 

7.7% 

12.4% 

15% estate tax (nil for surviving 
spouses) 

36.25% (15% estate tax and an 
additional 25% inheritance tax) 

11.3% 

15.1% 

33.9% 

8.9% (spouse) 

- 

10.9% (child) 

- (spouse) 

15.2% 

21.3% 

45.2% 

48% 

1.3% (child) 

- 

7.2% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

18% 

8% 

10.1% 

8% 

5% 

6% 

5% 

28.4% 

14.8% 

18% 

8% 

10% 

13.5% 

5% 

- 

- 

- 

2.5% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Malta  (no  inheritance  tax  but  transfer 
duty) 

5% 

5% 

Netherlands  
(plus 6% transfer duty) 

- (spouse) 

- (spouse) 

43.8% 

52.8% 

7.1% (child) 

14.2% (child) 

Poland 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Spain 

6.3% 

0.6% 

- 

0.3%  
(possibly 
exempted) 

6.9% 

0.5% 

- 

12.8% 

18.8% 

0.6% 

19.8% 

0.5% 

12 – 39% 

9.9% 
(surcharges 
possible) 

17.1% 
(surcharges 
possible) 

United  Kingdom  (estate  is  subject  to 
inheritance tax) 

- 

8.8% 

- 

8.8% 

Ranges 

0 to 11.3% 

0 to 15.1% 

0 to 46.3% 

0 to 71.3% 

*  Heirs  who  are  not  close  relatives  (i.e.  heirs  except  spouses,  children,  descendents  of  children, 
parents, siblings, nephews/nieces, in-laws)  

Note on table: For the purpose of this report, the figures have been derived by aggregating the 
different tax rates applicable to different bands68, accounting for basic tax exemptions and nil-
bands but not accounting for special tax deduction possibilities as for example in Belgium, or 
tax savings from e.g. family trust arrangements. The latter can be very significant in certain 
cases. Also, holdings in companies or immovable property may be subject to reduced tax rates 
(e.g. Greece). 

There are few potential effects of the preferred option on inheritance tax paid. 

Citizens may choose law on the basis of nationality or move habitual residence which would 
enable them to bequest their estates to heirs other than close family members. The effective 
tax rate to be paid by these ‘other’ categories of heirs (not spouses, descendents, parents) is 
usually  higher.  Thus  inheritance  tax  receipts  might  increase.  However,  such  an  effect  could 
only accrue to those ‘choosing’ England and Wales law. The scale of this effect is anticipated 
to be very low.  

68 

Source of raw data http://www.globalpropertyguide.com 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
                                                 
A  large  proportion  of  typical  estates  are  made  up  of  immovable  assets.  Inheritance  tax 
(transfer  duty)  paid  on  immovables  will  continue  to  paid  in  the  country  in  which  they  are 
located. The preferred option will only have very minor effects on this tax.  

As a result of these effects it is unlikely that there would be large changes in inheritance tax 
paid in the EU. There might, however, be some, small changes on certain national budgets, 
either increases or decreases.  

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 6 – Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators 

Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators of the preferred option  

Main Policy Objectives 

Potential indicators 

Sources of information 

General objectives 

To allow citizens to efficiently plan 
and to organise their succession in 
advance in a cross border context  

To increase the likelihood that the 
rights of potential heirs, persons 
formally or otherwise related to the 
deceased, private and public creditors 
etc. are being fulfilled in an efficient 
way 

Specific objectives 

To achieve a situation where parallel 
proceedings do not occur and where 
different substantive laws are not 
applied to the same international 
succession 

The numbers of wills made and  

Source:  national  authorities  and  legal 
professional bodies 

The  number  of  instances  when  wills  include  a 
choice of law 

The numbers of wills registered 

The  legal  costs  involved  and  time  taken  to  resolve 
‘international’ successions 

incidences  of  citizens  apparently  using 
The 
‘habitual  residence’  to  avoid  the  implications  of 
reserved portion obligations 

The numbers of wills contested by heirs 

The  legal  costs  involved  and  time  taken  to  resolve 
‘international’ successions 

NB. This indicator would be of value in 
assessing  whether  the  preferred  option 
led to adverse ‘side effects’ 

Source:  national  authorities  and  legal 
professional bodies 

NB.  Reductions  in  typical  legal  costs 
absolutely  and  as  a  proportion  of  the 
value  of  legacies  would  point  to  the 
achievement  of  this  objective.  It  is 
reasonable  to  assume  that  high  legal 
costs  are  a  barrier  to  the  exercising  of 
rights. 

The incidence of parallel proceedings 

Legal  bodies  and 
professionals 

individual 

legal 

To provide a (limited) choice of law 
for the testator 

The  numbers  of  wills  made  and  the  number  of 
instances when these include a choice of law 

Consultations  of  citizens  and 
practitioners 

legal 

To ensure the recognition of:  

Judgements, other decisions and 
authentic acts / deeds on international 
successions 

The powers of 
administrators/executors  

The status as an heir 

The instances of judgements and other decisions not 
being recognised  

Member States judicial authorities could 
be  asked  to  provide  such  information 
periodically 

The 
powers 
administrators/executors being not recognised 

incidence 

the 

of 

of 

The numbers of certificates granted to heirs 

The  number  of  certificates  not 
transnationally.  

recognised 

The  costs  and  time  delays  resulting  from  instances 
of non-recognition 

To increase the accessibility of 
information on the existence of wills 

The number of Member States having registers 

Member  States  could  be  requested  to 
provide  this  information  on  an  annual 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators of the preferred option  

Main Policy Objectives 

Potential indicators 

Sources of information 

abroad 

The  number  of  Member  States  having  electronic 
registers 

basis. 

The number of registers that are interconnected 

The number of wills registered 

The  time  taken  and  accuracy  of  ‘international’ 
sources of wills 

The  numbers  of  will  made  (as  a  proportion  of  the 
adult population) 

Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators of the magnitude of international successions and wills 

Indicator 

Specific input data 

Comments  

Source 

Figures on the number 
of successions and wills 
in the EU 

i.  Number of wills registered in 

the country  

iv.  Some wills are not registered 
even in countries where a 
central register exists  

vii.  Number of deceased by 

MS per annum by age 
group, trends (Eurostat) 

ii.  Number of wills existing in the 
country that are not registered  

iii.  Number of new wills 

made/registered in the country 
per annum (taking account of – 
i.e. discounting – updates and 
revocations) 

v. 

Individuals may have several 
wills in different countries 

vi.  Specification needed of what 

the registered numbers include 
(wills of MS citizens only, 
several versions of wills of one 
person, etc.) 

xii.  Number of successions in the 
country per annum (separately 
for intestate successions and 
for successions where will is 
available)  

xv.  Number of wills may be 

estimated by using proportion 
of intestate deceases and 
statistics on the number of 
deceased persons per annum 

xiii. Proportion of intestate 

xvi. Number of intestate 

deceases of all deceases in the 
country 

xiv. Proportion of successions 

launched in case of intestate 
deceases 

successions may be estimated 
by using proportion of 
successions launched, 
estimates on number of wills 
and statistics on the number of 
deceased persons per annum 

viii. Studies, reports, hearings, 
etc.: e.g. data or estimates 
on the number of wills or 
proportion of intestate 
deaths. 

ix.  Consultations: 

x.  Authorities managing the 
central wills register (if 
exists, like ES, FR) 

xi.  Relevant professional 

bodies  

xvii. The estimates on the proportion 
of successions launched could 
be based on separate 
assumptions by age group (e.g. 
infants usually do not possess 
property, therefore there is no 
need for succession) 

Number of cross-border 
successions within the 
EU as meaning 
involving: 

(a)  a deceased who 

lived in a Member 
State different from 
its State of origin, 
or  

(b)  a succession 

xviii. 

Number of foreign 

xx.  The length/intention of stay is 

nationals having the country as 
his/her habitual residence 

xix. Number of citizens having 
another country as his/here 
habitual residence 

also relevant for the 
determination of ‘habitual 
residence’ (is it the citizen’s 
centre of vital interests?) 

xxi. Account will have to be taken of 
temporary workers and third 
country nationals who might 
acquire citizenship later 

xxx. Number of deceased citizens 

xxxiii.  A proportion of the 

deceased may not have had 

xxii. Population by age group 
and citizenship/country of 
birth (Eurostat) 

xxiii. 

Number of EU 
citizens living in a state 
different from their own, by 
age group (Eurostat) 

xxiv. 

Number of foreign 

nationals living in EU 
Member States, by age 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators of the preferred option  

Main Policy Objectives 

Potential indicators 

Sources of information 

involving properties 
(e.g. bank accounts 
or immovable 
property) 
disseminated in 
more than one 
Member State; 

abroad per annum 

xxxi. 

Number of deceased 
foreign nationals (both EU and 
third country nationals) in the 
country per annum 

xxxii. 

Proportion of deceased 

foreign nationals/citizens 
abroad who resided in the given 
country 

their habitual residence in the 
country concerned; this will 
have to be taken into 
consideration 

xxxiv.  Number of successions 

involving cross-border elements 
per annum (application of law of 
different countries), EU/third 
countries separately 

xxxix.  All figures or estimates on 
cross-border successions 
would preferably be broken 
down to the different countries 
concerned 

xxxv.  Proportion of deaths of 

xl.  A breakdown of property 

involved according to different 
types is needed (immovables, 
financial assets and liabilities, 
etc.)  

xli.  Trends in the total value of 
property abroad/foreign 
property in the country can be 
used to extrapolate results to 
Member States without specific 
data on value of cross-border 
successions; ultimately, most 
property abroad will undergo 
some form of succession 

foreign nationals in the country 
that involves succession in the 
country (existence of some 
connecting factor, national 
jurisdiction and/or application of 
national law), EU/third countries 
separately 

xxxvi.  Proportion of deaths of 

citizens in a foreign country that 
involves succession (national 
jurisdiction and/or application of 
national law), EU/third countries 
separately 

xxxvii.  Value and type of property 
involved in cross-border 
succession cases 

xxxviii.  Proportion of succession-
related tax revenues linked to 
cross-border successions 

group (Eurostat) 

xxv. Number of international 

marriages and 
partnerships, both with EU 
or third country national, 
including same sex 
partnerships (Eurostat and 
available studies) 

xxvi. 

Studies, reports, etc.: 

e.g. figures on foreign 
nationals deceased in 
Finland have been already 
identified 

xxvii.  National statistics 

Consultations: 

xxviii.  Authorities operating 
national registers of 
citizenship and/or foreign 
nationals 

xxix. 

Tax authorities 
(foreign nationals paying 
tax in the country, tax-
paying nationals living 
abroad) 

xlii. Tax revenue from 

inheritance tax, stamp 
duties or other state 
revenues in connection 
with succession (national 
financial accounts) 

xliii. Value of immovable/other 
property (bank accounts, 
capital share, movables) 
held in MSs by other 
nationals (studies, central 
banks, land registers, tax 
authorities, national 
statistics, etc.) 

xliv. Value of immovable/other 
property (bank accounts, 
capital share, movables, 
etc.) held by nationals of 
MSs abroad (studies, 
central banks, tax 
authorities, national 
statistics, etc.) 

xlv. Studies, reports, etc. 

Consultations 

xlvi. Professional bodies (to be 

identified) 

xlvii. 

Tax authorities (on 

the value and breakdown 
of property involved) 

The number of 
successions in which 

xlviii.  Number or proportion of 
successions where the 

xlix. In case proportion is only given, 
the number of successions can 

Consultations: 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators of the preferred option  

Main Policy Objectives 

Potential indicators 

Sources of information 

competent authority applies 
laws of other EU Member 
States (in its entirety or 
elements) 

be estimated on the basis of all 
cross-border successions, or 
extrapolated using other MSs’ 
results 

l.  Professionals bodies  

li.  Number or proportion of 
successions where the 
competent authority applies 
laws of third countries (in its 
entirety or elements),  

lii. 

In case proportion is only given, 
the number of successions will 
be estimated on the basis of all 
cross-border successions, or 
extrapolated using other MSs’ 
results 

Consultations: 

liii.  Professional bodies (to be 

identified) 

liv.  Total value of cross-border 

lvii. Total value may be estimated 

the competent authority 
(e.g. court, 
administrator or notary) 
applies laws of other EU 
Member States.  

The number of 
successions in which 
the competent authority 
(e.g. court, 
administrator or notary) 
applies laws of third 
countries. 

The value/amount of all 
these successions in 
the EU (in euro); 

The number of cases 
where foreign law is not 
applied due to an opt 
out on the basis of 
‘ordre public’ 
concerning: 

(a)  Other EU Member 
States; and,  

(b)  Third countries. 

The number of legal 
professionals involved 
by Member States and 
the turnover which 
cross-border 
successions represent 
for these professionals 
(by type of group of 
professionals).  

successions (if possible, broken 
down to successions in which 
the competent authority applies 
laws of other EU/third 
countries) 

lv.  Average value of cross-border 

successions (if possible, broken 
down to successions in which 
the competent authority applies 
laws of other EU/third 
countries) 

lvi.  Average value of successions 

in general per MS 

lxi.  Number or proportion of 

successions where the law of 
another Member State is not 
applied due to an opt out on the 
basis of ‘ordre public’  

lxii. Number or proportion of 

successions where the law of 
third countries is not applied du 
to an opt out on the basis of 
‘ordre public’ 

lxv. Total number of legal 

professionals in the country 
concerned (notaries public, 
solicitors, judges in civil courts, 
etc.) 

lxvi. Number or proportion of legal 

professionals dealing 
regularly/predominantly with 
cross-border successions 

lxvii. 

Number or proportion of 

legal professionals dealing 
occasionally with cross-border 
successions 

lxviii. 

Average turnover of a 

legal professional of the 
professions concerned (working 
days per annum for judges) 

lxix. Significance of cross-border 
successions in terms of time 

by multiplying average value of 
cross-border  successions by 
the estimated number of such 
successions 

Average wealth per capita 
(studies, central banks, 
national statistics, etc.) 

Consultations: 

lviii. If average value is not 

lx.  Professional bodies (to be 

available, extrapolation is 
possible using the average 
value of successions in general 
(though this is probably a 
significant underestimation) 

lix.  For countries where the value 

of successions in general is not 
available, the average wealth 
per capita figures may be used 
to extrapolate 

lxiii. In case proportion is only given, 
the number of successions can 
be estimated on the basis of all 
cross-border successions, or 
extrapolated using other MSs’ 
results 

identified) 

Consultations: 

lxiv. Professional bodies  

lxx. Some legal professionals may 
just very occasionally deal with 
cross-border successions, this 
needs to be taken into account 

lxxi. National registers of legal 
professionals concerned 

Consultations: 

lxxii. 

lxxiii. 

Professional bodies  

Professionals dealing 

with cross-border 
successions 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
Potential monitoring and evaluation indicators of the preferred option  

Main Policy Objectives 

Potential indicators 

Sources of information 

and/or revenue for legal 
professionals (separately for 
those dealing regularly or only 
occasionally with cross-border 
successions) 

EN 

80 

   EN