COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying the acceptance of certain public documents in the European Union and amending Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012
Date: 2013-04-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: administrative formalities, area of freedom, security and justice, civil status, criminal record, intergovernmental cooperation (EU), mutual recognition principle, real property, registered trade mark, registration of a company, single market

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 24.4.2013  
SWD(2013) 144 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a  

Regulation on promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses by simplifying 
the acceptance of certain public documents in the European Union and amending 
Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012 

{COM(2013) 228 final} 
{SWD(2013) 145 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Introduction...................................................................................................................4 

Policy context ...............................................................................................................5 

Procedural issues and consultation of interested parties...............................................6 

Problem definition ........................................................................................................8 

4.1. 

General problem ...........................................................................................................8 

4.1.1.  What are the identified administrative formalities?....................................................10 

4.1.2.  What are the public documents concerned by these administrative formalities? .......11 

4.1.3.  Who is mainly affected by these administrative formalities?.....................................12 

4.1.4.  Why are these administrative formalities disproportionate? ......................................15 

4.1.5. 

In which situations are these administrative formalities required?.............................17 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

4.5. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

6. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

The fragmentation of the overall framework and the uncertainty affecting EU citizens, 
businesses and public administrations ........................................................................22 

Detection of fraud and forgery of public documents ..................................................23 

Risk of discrimination.................................................................................................23 

How would the problem evolve in the base-line scenario? ........................................24 

Does the EU have the power to act? ...........................................................................25 

Legal basis ..................................................................................................................25 

Subsidiarity test: Why the EU is better placed to take action?...................................26 

Objectives ...................................................................................................................26 

Description of policy options......................................................................................27 

Policy options .............................................................................................................27 

Discarded options .......................................................................................................31 

Impact analysis of policy options ...............................................................................32 

Comparative assessment of policy options.................................................................40 

Assessment of effectiveness of the preferred policy option against policy objectives 
(specific and operational)............................................................................................43 

11. 

Monitoring and evaluation..........................................................................................45 

Annex 1 .....................................................................................................................................47 

Annex 2 .....................................................................................................................................48 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
Legalisation and Apostille ........................................................................................................48 

Annex 3 .....................................................................................................................................50 

1.1 

1.2 

The Apostille Convention: application and scope ......................................................50 

The Brussels 1987 Convention: application and scope ..............................................50 

Annex 4 .....................................................................................................................................52 

Annex 5 .....................................................................................................................................53 

Annex 6 .....................................................................................................................................59 

Annex 7 .....................................................................................................................................60 

1.1 

1.2 

EU citizens..................................................................................................................60 

EU businesses (in particular SMEs) ...........................................................................61 

Annex 8 .....................................................................................................................................64 

Annex 9 .....................................................................................................................................66 

Annex 10 ...................................................................................................................................68 

Annex 11 ...................................................................................................................................73 

Annex 12 ...................................................................................................................................81 

Annex 13 ...................................................................................................................................86 

Annex 14 ...................................................................................................................................98 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION  

This  impact  assessment  is  for  a  legislative  measure  of  a  horizontal  nature  on  simplifying 
administrative formalities related to the authentication of public documents issued in one Member 
State  and  circulating  to  (an)other  Member  State(s).  These  formalities  are  legalisation,  Apostille 
(similar  formality)  and  certified  copies  and  certified  translations  (other  formalities).  The  general 
objective of this measure is to facilitate and enhance the exercise of the EU citizens' right to free 
movement  within  the  EU  and  of  EU  businesses'  (in  particular  SMEs)  right  to  freedom  of 
establishment  and  freedom  to  provide  services  within  the  Single  Market,  whilst  upholding  the 
general public policy interest of ensuring the authenticity of public documents.  

Without  changing  the  existing  EU  law  regulating  the  circulation  of  specific  categories  of  public 
documents,  this  measure  will  complement  it  by  abolishing  the  requirements  of  legalisation  and 
Apostille  and  by  simplifying  the  requirement  of  certified  copies  and  certified  translations.  When 
abolishing  legalisation  and  Apostille,  it  will  focus  on  establishing  the  authenticity  of  public 
documents, drawing inspiration from the existing EU law and relevant international instruments. It 
is important to stress that the measure will not, on the other hand, cover the recognition of effects 
of public documents nor will it introduce full harmonization of all existing public documents in the 
Member States or situations in which they are required in cross-border scenarios by EU citizens and 
businesses.  

This  measure  covers  situations  in  which  public  documents  are  required  in  cross-border  scenarios 
by:  (i)  public  authorities  of  the  Member  States  and  (ii)  entities  of  the  Member  States  tasked  by 
virtue of an act or administrative decision to carry out public duties.  

The aim of this measure is twofold:  

• 

• 

to reduce legal uncertainty, costs and lengthy procedures caused by the above-mentioned 
disproportionate,  burdensome  and  costly  administrative  formalities  complicating  the 
exercise of the EU citizens' right to free movement and EU businesses' (in particular SMEs) 
internal market freedoms; and 

to provide necessary safeguards preventing the use of forged public documents within the 

EU.  

While  the  measure  would  identify  the  main  categories  of  public  documents,  it  would  not  define 
each and every public document existing in the Member States.  

For the purposes of this Impact Assessment Report:  

• 

• 

1 

"Legalisation"  is  defined  as  the  formal  procedure  for  certifying  the  authenticity  of  a 
signature on a public document, the capacity in which the person signing the document has 
acted and, where appropriate, the identity of the seal or stamp which it bears. The result is 
that  the  foreign  public  document  has  the  same  evidentiary  value  as  the  domestic  public 
document as far as proof of its authenticity is concerned.  

"Similar  formality"  means  the  affixing  of  the  Apostille,  foreseen  by  the  Apostille 
Convention1, which proves the authenticity of the public document and thereby abolishes 

The  Hague  Convention  of  5  October  1961  abolishing  the  requirement  of  legalisation  for  foreign  public 
documents (Apostille Convention). 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

the  requirement  of  legalisation  for  certain  foreign  public  documents.  The  Apostille  is  a 
simplified form of legalisation. 

"Other  formalities"  mean  the  requirement  to  produce  certified  copies  and  certified 
translations of public documents. 

"Public  documents"  mean  public  documents  drawn  up  by  authorities  of  the  Member 
States  and  having 
to  birth,  death,  name, 
marriage/registered  partnership,  parenthood,  adoption,  residence,  citizenship,  nationality, 
real estate, legal status of a company or other undertaking, intellectual property rights and 
absence of a criminal record.  

formal  evidentiary  value 

relating 

2. 

POLICY CONTEXT 

The  2009  Stockholm  Programme  ''An  open  and  secure  Europe  serving  and  protecting  citizens''2 
stressed the importance of making EU citizenship effective and put the citizens at the heart of EU 
policies in the area of freedom, security and justice. The related Action Plan3 confirms this mandate 
and  states  that  a  well-functioning  European  judicial  area  "should  be  put  at  the  service  of  citizens 
and  businesses  so  as  to  support  economic  activity  in  the  single  market  (…)".  In  this  context,  the 
Action Plan foresees the adoption of a legislative proposal for dispensing with the formalities 
for the legalisation of public documents between the Member States. 

In  the  same  vein,  in  its  Resolution  on  the  Communication  on  the  Stockholm  Programme,  the 
European  Parliament  considered  that  the  priorities  in  the  field  of  civil  justice  must  first  and 
foremost meet the needs expressed by individual citizens and businesses. Therefore, it "calls for a 
simple and autonomous European system for (…) the abolition of requirements for legalisation of 
documents".4 In response to the invitation of the European Council in the Stockholm Programme, 
the  European  Commission  adopted  in  December  2010  a  Green  Paper  on  "Less  bureaucracy  for 
citizens:  promoting  free  movement  of  public  documents  and  recognition  of  the  effects  of  civil 
status''5.  This  Green  Paper  confirms  the  commitment  of  the  Commission  reflected  in  its  2010 
Citizenship Report6 to facilitate the free circulation of public documents within the EU and thus to 
simplify the life of citizens.  

At the same time, the creation of the EU Single Market received a new impetus with the adoption of 
the  Single  Market  Act  "Working  together  to  create  new  growth"7,  which  aims  at  boosting  the 
creation  of  a  real  integrated  economic  area  for  EU  citizens  and  businesses.  Fostering  mobility  of 
citizens and businesses across borders in the EU is also one of the main cornerstones of the Single 
Market  Act  II8  and  a  precondition  to  deliver  on  its  potential.  To  this  end,  the  Commission  is 
determined to continue working towards its vision of a Single Market where citizens and businesses 
are  free  to  move  cross-border  whenever  and  wherever  they  want  to  and  without  unjustified 
restrictions caused by diverging national rules.  

2 
3 
4 

5 
6 
7 
8 

OJ C 115, 4.5.2010, p.1. 
COM(2010) 171 final. 
EP Resolution of 25 November 2009 on the Communication of the Commission to the European Parliament 
and the Council – An area of freedom, security and justice serving the citizen – Stockholm programme, see 
point 95. 
COM(2010) 747 final. 
COM(2010) 603 final. 
COM(2011) 206 final. 
COM(2012) 573 final. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Consequently, cutting red tape, simplifying the procedures for cross-border use and acceptance of 
public documents between the Member States as well as harmonizing the related rules contributes 
to  all  actions  aimed  at  moving  towards  the  creation  of  a  citizens'  Europe  and  a  well-functioning 
Single  Market  for  EU  businesses,  especially  when  considering  the  challenges  of  the  on-going 
economic and financial crisis.  

This proposal is one of the key initiatives in the European Year of Citizens 2013 and provides at the 
same time a concrete contribution to the policy of the 'Justice for Growth'. It brings added value by 
establishing  horizontal  principles  on  free  circulation  of  public  documents  within  the  EU, 
complementing existing EU law in this area, filling the gaps in those areas which remain currently 
unregulated by EU law and supporting all EU initiatives aimed at simplifying the life of citizens and 
business conditions for economic operators (e.g. Europe 2020 Strategy for growth and jobs, Action 
Plan  on  European  company  law  and  corporate  governance,  Digital  Agenda  for  Europe, 
Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan, etc.). In parallel, the proposal promotes the principle of mutual 
trust between the authorities of the Member States and, at the same time, introduces simplification 
measures to the benefit of EU citizens and businesses in their contact with these authorities.  

3. 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND CONSULTATION OF INTERESTED PARTIES 

Public consultation  

The issue of free circulation of public documents was first discussed in the aftermath of the Hague 
Programme  as  part  of  the  mutual  recognition  policy.  As  a  preparatory  step,  the  Commission 
launched a comparative study on "The difficulties faced by citizens and economic operators because 
of the obligation to legalise documents within the Member States of the European Union, and the 
possible options for abolishing or simplifying this obligation", carried out by the British Institute of 
International and Comparative Law ('the Study of 2007'). 

A  public  consultation  was  carried  out  by  the  Green  Paper  from  December  2010  until  May  2011. 
The  proposed  measure  relates  to  the  first  part  of  the  Green  Paper:  'the  free  movement  of  public 
documents' and does not address the problems described in its second part 'recognition of the effects 
of civil status records'. The Commission received altogether around 11.480 answers from different 
stakeholders9. 
website: 
on 
contributions 
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/civil/opinion/110510_en.htm.  

published 

Europa 

The 

the 

are 

The  majority  of  the  Member  States,  as  well  as  of  the  consulted  stakeholders,  welcomed  the 
objective  to  abolish  the  administrative  formalities  which  are  analysed  in  this  Impact  Assessment 
Report.  However,  they  underlined  the  need  to  introduce  accompanying  safeguards,  such  as  the 
possibility  to  verify  the  authenticity  of  public  documents  through  strengthened  EU-wide 
administrative  cooperation  in  order  to  facilitate  the  transition  from  the  current  system  to  the  new 
framework and ensure legal certainty and minimize fraud.10 

9 

10 

17  Member  States,  one  third  country,  21  International  Organisations  and  Associations  and  33  National 
Organisations and Associations (legal experts, professional associations, public bodies). As for EU citizens, the 
vast majority of their replies was related to the second part of the Green Paper (cca 10.800 standard letters). 
See Annex 13 and Annex 14. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Impact Assessment Study and additional consultations  

To support the preparation of this Impact Assessment Report, the Commission requested an external 
study by Ernst & Young. The final study, presented on 4 September 2012, confirmed the existence 
of  practical  problems  and  the  orientations  of  the  Commission.  The  Commission  also  took  into 
account the Study of 2007 as well as the study on "Legislation of the Member States on civil status, 
practical  difficulties  encountered  in  this  area  by  citizens  wishing  to  exercise  their  rights  in  the 
context  of  an  European  area  of  justice  in  civil  matters  and  options  available  for  resolving  these 
problems and facilitating citizens' lives" ('the Study of 2008'). 

Parallel to the external study, DG Justice continued to meet and consult extensively with relevant 
stakeholders in 2012 to complete and update the contributions to the Green Paper. Meetings were 
held with, amongst others, the Council of the Notariats of the European Union (CNUE), the German 
and  Austrian  Chambers  of  Civil  Law  Notaries,  the  International  Commission  on  Civil  Status 
(ICCS),  the  European  Association  of  Registrars  (EVS),  the  European  Land  Registry  Association 
(ELRA),  the  European  Association  of  Craft,  Small  and  Medium  Enterprises  (UEAMPE)  and  the 
International  Lesbian,  Gay,  Bisexual,  Trans  and  Intersex  Association  (ILGA).  The  Hague 
Conference on Private International Law was consulted as well. 

A meeting with Member States Experts was held on 27 September 2012 to discuss a working paper 
containing the main elements of the proposal. The Commission continued to discuss these elements 
with experts from several Member States. 

Internal consultation 

An  Interservice  Impact  Assessment  Steering  Group  (IASG)  was  established,  consisting  of 
representatives  of  DG  Justice,  the  Secretariat-General,  the  Legal  Service  and  all  operational  or 
otherwise affected DGs i.e. DG TAXUD, DG MARKT, DG ENTR, DG BUDG, DG COMM, DG 
ELARG,  DG  EAC,  DG  EMPL,  DG  ENER,  DG  HOME,  DG  CONNECT,  DG  AGRI  and  DG 
SANCO.  IASG  meetings  were  held  on  31  May  2012,  28  June  2012  and  22  August  2012.  At  the 
meetings  and  in  direct  communication  with  individual  DGs  which  expressed  particular  interest, 
comprehensive  feedback  was  received  which  has  been  taken  into  account  throughout  this  Impact 
Assessment Report. 

This Impact Assessment Report was presented to the Commission's Impact Assessment Board on 
3 October 2012. The detailed recommendations of the Board contained in its Opinion of 5 October 
2012 have been integrated as far as possible in the final version of the Impact Assessment Report, 
which accompanies the legislative proposal.  

Based on those recommendations, the main modifications following the presentation of the Report 
to the Board can be summarized as follows: 

• 

The presentation of the scale of the problem has been improved, by clarifying the number 
of  EU  citizens  and  businesses  (in  particular  SMEs)  moving  between  the  Member  States, 
the number and kinds of relevant public documents that are involved in the exercise of free 
movement rights and are subject to administrative formalities, the costs and time waste for 
EU  citizens,  businesses  (in  particular  SMEs)  and  national  administrations.  In  addition, 
other  issues  defining  the  overall  problem  have  been  pointed  out,  i.e.  uncertainty  and 
difficulties  encountered  by  EU  citizens,  businesses  (in  particular  SMEs)  and  national 
administrations  in  relation  to  procedures  and  rules  applied  in  different  Member  States/to 
different kinds of documents, and indirect discrimination between nationals and citizens of 
other EU Member States as well as between EU citizens from different Member States. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

The gaps of the international acquis and EU legislation have been specified as well as the 
issue of more problematic documents.  

Subsidiarity and proportionality arguments have been strengthened, based on the gaps in 
the applicable provisions both at EU and international level, supporting the need for action 
at EU level in order to obtain the sought-after simplification benefits. 

With regard to the content and choice of the policy options, the practical aspects of their 
implementation  (and,  in  particular,  of  the  policy  options  3  and  4)  have  been  better 
explained.  

As for the possibility for considering some options on a stand-alone basis, it should be noted 
that sub-options 4.A, 4.B and 4.C on one side, and 4.D-4.F on the other side, have not been 
explicitly  presented  on  a  stand-alone  basis,  but  each  sub-option  has  been  assessed  by 
indicating  the  specific  effects  that  their  elements  imply,  regardless  the  provisions  of  the 
main policy option. This allows the description of the specific impact that these sub-options 
would achieve. In this respect, DG Justice has also precised that: 

• 

• 

the  reinforced  administrative  cooperation  assumes  particular  relevance  when  the 
abolition  of  legalisation,  Apostille  and  simplification  of  other  formalities  is 
introduced; 

the  introduction  of  EU  multilingual  standard  forms  would  have  only  a  limited 
effectiveness in terms of simplification benefits if not accompanied by the abolition 
of  legalisation,  Apostille  and  simplification  of  other  formalities,  and  would  hardly 
lead to the full achievement of the policy objectives. 

As  for  the  assessment  of  the  impacts,  the  assessment  tables  for  each  policy  option  and 
sub-options  have  been  revised  in  order  to  better  present  the  efficiency,  effectiveness  and 
coherence arguments (with existing rules, agreements) of the proposed measures.  

Furthermore,  the  simplification  benefits  of  the  initiative  have  been  emphasized  and  a 
detailed  assessment  of  the  costs  related  to  the  proposed  system  (i.e.  the  preferred  policy 
option) have been added.  

Monitoring  indicators  have  been  specified  in  more  detail  and  an  operation  plan  for  the 
evaluation has been defined.  

The stakeholders’ views has been integrated in the assessment of each policy option and 
sub-option. 

4. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

4.1. 

General problem  

What is the problem? 

Today,  if  EU  citizens  and  businesses  (in  particular  SMEs)  want  to  exercise  their  free  movement 
rights  or  internal  market  freedoms  by,  for  example,  choosing  to  reside  or  do  business  in  another 
Member State, they face a series of difficulties when presenting the necessary public documents to 
its authorities for an indefinite number of purposes and getting them accepted by that Member State 
contrary to its own nationals and companies. They have to undergo disproportionate, burdensome 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
and costly administrative formalities to prove the authenticity of various public documents and fight 
legal uncertainty. This phenomenon is exacerbated by the absence of multilingual standard forms at 
EU level for the most frequently used public documents between the Member States. Difficulties in 
terms of cost and time arise also for national public administrations. 

The  formalities  of  legalisation,  Apostille,  certified  copies  and  certified  translations  require 
administrative  steps  and  involve  loss  of  time  and  a  quite  considerable  cost  which  varies  greatly 
from one Member State to another. Furthermore, they do not necessarily prevent fraud and forgery 
of public documents. As a result, they can be considered outdated and disproportionate mechanisms 
for ensuring the wished objectives of legal security. More effective, secure and simpler mechanisms 
or systems should be identified, which would allow consolidating mutual trust and promoting closer 
cooperation between the Member States within the Single Market, in particular as regards a more 
effective prevention of fraud and forgery of public documents.  

The  aim  of  the  EU  to  be  an  area  of  advanced  social  and  economic  integration  should  enable  EU 
citizens and businesses to fully benefit from the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Treaties and 
the  EU  Charter  of  Fundamental  Rights,  and  entitle  them  to  a  simplification  of  their  everyday  life 
and operation.  

What is the scale of the problem? 

The mobility of EU citizens is a practical reality, evidenced in particular by the fact that some 12 
million of them study, work or live in another Member State of which they are not nationals. This 
mobility is facilitated by the rights attached to citizenship of the European Union: in particular the 
right to free movement and, more generally, the right to be treated like a national in the Member 
State of residence. The same is truth for EU businesses (in particular SMEs). Nearly half of them 
are involved in some sort of international contact and a no less important number makes regularly 
use  of  the  internal  market  freedoms  through  cross-border  business  transactions  or  clientele  in 
various Member States.  

Although  an  exact  quantification  of  the  public  documents  needed  by  EU  citizens  and  businesses 
moving and doing business within the EU and affected by the identified administrative formalities 
is  not  feasible11,  the  elements  listed  below  provide  a  rough  estimate  to  illustrate  the  scale  of  the 
problem:  

(i)  The  number  and  categories  of  public  documents  that  are  involved  in  the  exercise  of  free 
movement rights, which are subject to administrative formalities: notwithstanding the existing 
provisions of EU law and bilateral and multilateral agreements to which Member States are parties, 
a wide range of public documents needed to trigger the full enjoyment of the rights and freedoms 

11 

In addition to the lack of specific data both at EU and national level on this issue, figures depend on a complex 
set  of  factors:  on  the  one  hand,  procedures  and  practices  concerning  the  acceptance  of  foreign  public 
documents  differ  among  the  Member  States;  on  the  other  hand,  the  circulation  of  public  documents  is  also 
ruled  by  international  instruments  and  sectoral  EU  law  simplifying  or  abolishing  the  legalisation  procedure 
and/or  providing  for  administrative  cooperation  between  the  competent  national  authorities  is  specific  areas. 
Moreover,  public  documents  are  often  required  in  a  number  of  combinations:  as  copies,  certified  copies, 
originals,  translations  and  certified  translations.  Finally,  there  may  not  necessarily  be  a  direct  correlation 
between the data on intra-EU mobility and economic activities and the amount of public documents circulating 
within the EU. All these elements make specific estimates on the total number of public documents circulating 
between  the  Member  States  and  subject  to  administrative  formalities  difficult,  which  also  applies  to  the 
number  of  EU  citizens  and  businesses  requested  to  fulfil  the  identified  administrative  formalities  to  ensure 
acceptance of these public documents in other Member States.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
under  the  free  movement  of  persons,  establishment  or  provision  of  services  are  still  subject  to 
legalisation,  Apostille,  certified  copies  and  certified  translations.  It  is  estimated  that,  each  year, 
around  1.4  million  of  public  documents  are  exchanged  between  the  Member  States  and  are 
subject to the Apostille formality12, whereas a similar number of certified translations and even 
a large number of certified copies are assumed to be requested from EU citizens and businesses in 
other Member States on a yearly basis13.  

The above figures represent, however, only a minimum estimate for the overall burden placed on 
EU citizens and businesses. In this respect, two additional elements have to be considered: 

(ii) The number of EU citizens and businesses moving within the EU: potentially millions of EU 
citizens  and  businesses  are  involved.  All  these  citizens  and  businesses  need  to  produce  public 
documents drawn up by the authorities or authorised entities of a Member State(s) where they have 
previously  resided  and  to  undergo  the  identified  disproportionate,  burdensome  and  costly 
administrative formalities even after years from moving residence/place of establishment from one 
Member State to another. 

(iii) Costs and loss of time occur for EU citizens, businesses and national administrations, due to 
both fees paid and time needed to ensure fulfilment of the identified formalities, whereas additional 
practical difficulties are the result of the underlying legal uncertainty on procedures to be followed 
and rules to be applied. 

In the following paragraphs, the points listed above are examined in more detail.  

4.1.1.  What are the identified administrative formalities? 

While domestic public documents are presumed to be authentic without additional proof (in case of 
doubt,  the  supposed  author  of  the  document  is  contacted  directly  through  administrative 
cooperation), public documents originating from other Member States are accepted in the Member 
State in which they are presented subject to:  

• 

the proof of their authenticity through  

• 

• 

Apostille or 

legalisation14;  

• 

• 

a particular form i.e. certified copies and 

certified translations. 

12 

13 

14 

The number of Apostilles issued yearly is estimated on the basis of the 2008 and 2012 HCCH Questionnaires, 
available  for  22  Member  States  (including  Croatia).  In  those  Member  States  for  which  information  is  not 
available  (AT,  EE,  IT,  MT,  SE,  NL),  data  have  been  estimated  as  a  proportion  of  the  immigrant  and  total 
population. See Annex 10 and Annex 11 for further details. 
On  the  one  hand,  public  documents  exchanged  among  different  Member  States  and  subject  to  Apostille  are 
likely to be accompanied by certified translations; on the other hand, in some cases, public documents can be 
exchanged  without  an  Apostille  (e.g.  abolished  by  bilateral  or  multilateral  agreements),  but  certified  copies 
remain to be requested.  
For further details on legalisation and Apostille please see Annex 2.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The fulfilment of these administrative formalities for the sake of acceptance of public documents in 
another Member State creates additional costs and inconvenience for EU citizens and businesses. 

The administrative formalities in question relate in particular to paper documents, even if they could 
also  be  relevant  for  electronic  documents.  The  authenticity  issue  of  electronic  documents  are 
covered by the recent Commission proposal for a ‘Regulation of the European Parliament and of 
the Council on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions in the internal 
market’15,  that  aims  to  create  a  comprehensive  EU  cross-border  and  cross-sector  framework  for 
secure, 
that  encompasses  electronic 
identification, authentication and signatures. The latter proposal, however, doesn’t explicitly abolish 
the  formalities  of  legalisation,  similar  formality  or  other  administrative  formalities  for  public 
documents to which it relates. At the end, both proposals would complement each other. 

trustworthy  and  easy-to-use  electronic 

transactions 

4.1.2.  What are the public documents concerned by these administrative formalities? 

The  principal  function  of  public  documents  is  to  provide  factual  proof  of  the  acts  of  a  public 
authority recorded therein. The process  of fulfilment of an  EU right may involve the requirement 
for  the  person  claiming  such  right  to  provide  a  proof  of  the  existence  of  certain  factual 
circumstances under which the entitlement to that EU right exists. Consequently, public documents 
fulfil an essential function for the purpose of ensuring the exercise of EU rights. In this context, a 
wide  range  of  public  documents  can  be  requested  from  EU  citizens  and  businesses  when  moving 
between different Member States.  

Typical examples of most frequently used public documents related to EU rights of EU 
citizens and businesses, which are subject to the identified administrative formalities 

Public documents of EU citizens: 

Civil status records (e.g. documents relating to birth, death, name, marriage, registered 
partnership, parenthood and adoption); 

Documents relating to residence, citizenship and nationality; 

Documents relating to real estate; 

Documents relating to intellectual property rights; 

Documents proving the absence of a criminal record.  

Public documents of EU businesses (companies and other undertakings): 

Documents relating to their legal status and representation; 

Documents relating to real estate; 

Documents relating to intellectual property rights; 

Documents proving the absence of a criminal record.  

15 

COM(2012)238, 4.6.2012 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.1.3.  Who is mainly affected by these administrative formalities?  

Although there may not necessarily be a direct correlation between the data on intra-EU mobility 
and economic activities and the amount of public documents used across borders, moving between 
different  Member  States  for  a  range  of  life  and  business  events  often  implies  the  fulfilment  of 
administrative  and  legal  requirements,  including  the  requirements  of  legalisation,  Apostille, 
certified  copies  and  certified  translations  for  the  described  categories  of  public  documents.  The 
latter  requirements  affect  high  numbers  of  both  EU  citizens  and  businesses  that,  increasingly, 
exercise their free movement rights guaranteed by the Treaties and the Charter.  

EU citizens  

In the last ten years, the free movement of EU citizens across Member States has become a steadily 
increasing phenomenon, as more and more citizens move every year within the EU to live, work or 
study. Around 2.5% of the EU population is residing in a Member State other than their Member 
State  of  origin16.  In  the  last  decade,  larger  numbers  of  EU-27  citizens  took  advantage  of  free 
movement.  In  2011,  around  12  million  EU  citizens  resided  in  a  Member  State  other  than  the 
Member  State  of  origin;  1  million  more  than  in  2009  and  24%  more  in  comparison  with  2007. 
There are multiple reasons for moving within the EU17, although work is one of the most driving 
forces18.  Indeed,  out  of  12.6  million  EU  citizens  residing  in  a  Member  State  other  than  their 
Member  State  of  origin,  6.3  million  are  employed  in  the  host  Member  State19.  Marriages  also 
motivate  intra-EU  mobility,  whereby  the  percentage  of  international  marriages  on  all  marriages 
concluded in the EU for 2007 was 13%20.  

EU  citizens  exercising  their  free  movement  rights,  wishing  to  live,  work  or  study  in  another 
Member State, are requested to provide several categories of public documents in the host Member 
State,  for  an  indefinite  number  of  purposes  such  as  getting  married  or  divorced,  obtaining  a 
residence  certificate  or  a  driving  licence,  having  access  to  social  services,  having  access  to  tax 
benefits or avoiding double taxation, looking for a job, etc.  

In all these situations, EU citizens are faced with various practical difficulties, requested to undergo 
additional administrative formalities and to spend a disproportionate amount of time and money to 
produce these documents in the host Member State(s). 

A marriage between citizens from two Member States: cross-border use of civil status 
documents 

Case example: Timea (a Hungarian citizen) married Matthias (a Belgian citizen) in Hungary.  

They were misinformed by the Hungarian administrator, who realized too late that they needed the 
Apostille and not just a translation of Matthias’s civil status documents. Consequently, the couple’s 
file was not ready in time for the wedding. Moreover, they were further delayed by the translation 
issue.  It  emerged  that  the  Apostille  also  had  to  be  translated.  Obviously,  this  required  additional 
time.  Once  married,  Timea  and  Matthias  also  had  a  problem  with  having  the  marriage  certificate 

16 
17 
18 

19 

20 

Eurostat data, Population by sex, age group and citizenship 2007 – 2011 (see Annex 12, Annex Table 11). 
See Annex 12. 
Eurostat  database,  Labour  Force  Survey  2011,  percentage  distribution  of  main  reasons  for  migration,  by 
country of birth (% of total migrants born in EU 27) 2011. See Annex 12, Annex Table 12. 
Eurostat  database,  Labour  Force  Survey  2011  percentage  distribution  of  main  reasons  for  migration,  by 
country of birth (% of total migrants born in EU 27) 2011. See Annex 12, Annex Table 12.  
See Annex 12, Annex Table 14.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
accepted  in  Belgium.  Again,  an  Apostille  was  necessary  from  the  Hungarian  Ministry  of  Foreign 
Affairs.  However,  as  the  couple  lives  in  Belgium,  they  had  difficulties  in  sending  the  papers  to 
Hungary to be apostilled and receiving them back. Another unexpected problem arose from the fact 
that  the  Apostille  can  only  be  attached  to  these  types  of  documents  when  they  are  less  than  3 
months old. Theirs were 4 months old, so the couple was forced to ask the authority where they got 
married to issue a new original marriage certificate and then ask for another Apostille on it. Finally, 
in Hungary, all civil status documents need to be translated by the National Office for Translation, 
i.e. an accredited official translator is not sufficient. This means that even if you live abroad, you 
have to go to Hungary to submit the documents for translation to this office, and it is much more 
expensive than standard translations. 

Impact: As an overall consequence, this marriage requested a disproportionate amount of money, 
time and stress to arrange all the administrative formalities21.  

Difficulties in the circulation of tax certificates and double taxation  

Case example: An Italian citizen lives and works in Germany with his family. When he asks for the 
application of a more favourable tax class (i.e. the more favourable conditions applicable to married 
workers living with spouses who are not in paid employment), he is requested to produce a set of 
documents  (e.g.  certificates  from  the  tax  authorities  of  the  Member  State  of  origin  or  a  marriage 
certificate)  which  also  involves  the  obtaining  of  documentary  evidence  from  abroad  and  the 
requests for an Apostille for each document to be presented in Germany accompanied by certified 
translations. 

Impact: These requirements hinder or delay the correction of the tax class. In the present case, the 
Italian citizen and his wife suffered a rather significant economic loss22.  

EU businesses (in particular SMEs)  

According to 2010 data, there are almost 21 million SMEs in the EU, representing over 99.8% of 
EU  companies  and  other  undertakings.  More  than  44%  of  them  are  involved  in  some  form  of 
international contact. The data collected show that: 

• 

• 

nearly 30% of SMEs are engaged in import/export activities;  

2% have foreign direct investments abroad23. 

Moreover,  about  7%  of  all  EU  SMEs  are  involved  in  international  subcontracting  practices  (i.e. 
more than 1.4 million SMEs out of 21 million). While most of the EU SME subcontractors (90%) 
operate with client enterprises located within their own Member State, about 26% also have clients 
in other Member States (i.e. about 383.000 SMEs).  

The increasing cross-border activity of EU SMEs implies that  a wide  range  of public  documents, 
used for business purposes, has to undergo these formalities24. This is the case for a high number of 

21 
22 
23 

The example of the Hungarian-Belgian marriage comes from the citizens’ contributions to the Green Paper. 
Example based on Case C-332/05, Aldo Celozzi vs. Innungskrankenkasse Baden-Württemberg. 
DG Enterprise and Industry, Internationalisation of European SMEs, Final Report, 2010. Data are based on a 
survey of 9,480 SMEs carried out in spring 2009. It involved 27 EU Member States and 6 non-EU countries: 
Croatia,  Iceland,  Liechtenstein,  Former  Yugoslav  Republic  of  Macedonia,  Norway  and  Turkey.  The 
percentage  includes  data  on  SMEs  which  are  engaged  in  different  “modes  of  internationalization”,  such  as 
imports, exports, foreign direct investments, technological cooperation with enterprises abroad, subcontracting 
with foreign enterprises.  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
                                                 
documents  (see  table  on  typical  examples  of  public  documents  above),  that  are  requested  in  the 
context  of  performance  of  cross-border  activities,  typically,  in  the  context  of  establishment  of  an 
economic  activity  in  another  Member  State  or  participation  in  cross-border  public  tenders. 
Administrative burdens due to legalisation, Apostille, certified copies and certified translations are 
among  the  reasons  negatively  affecting  cross-border  activities  of  EU  businesses  as  well  as  their 
competitive force in comparison with similar businesses from third States25.  

Establishing an economic activity in another Member State  

Case example: The Italian regulation on incorporation of companies, branches and representative 
offices  as  well  as  the  common  practice  of  local  public  notaries  are  quite  burdensome.  Different 
public documents are required to be filed, in Italian, with Italian public (civil) notaries and the local 
Register of Companies. In particular, when the above-mentioned documents (e.g. certificates related 
to the legal status and representation of a company) come from another Member State, they must be 
authenticated  usually  by  a  public  (civil)  notary  who  also  certifies  their  compliance  with  the  local 
rules and attaches an Apostille (unless this is not required due to bilateral agreements between Italy 
and the other Member State). A certified translation into Italian is also required. 

Impact: Fulfilling  the  administrative requirements  for establishing a  business in  Italy can require 
lengthy procedures and high costs (i.e. only certified translations can cost a few thousand euro) 26.  

Administrative formalities in EU public procurement 

Case example: A German company applied for a public contract in the Czech Republic. With its 
bid  it  had  to  provide  a  large  number  of  documents  and  certificates  proving  its  reliability  (e.g. 
absence  of  a  criminal  record  concerning  its  CEOs).  The  company  faced  various  problems  while 
preparing these documents, including their certified translations. 

Impact:  The  company  had  to  spend  money  and  time  to  provide  certified  translations  of  the 
requested documents.27 

For further examples, please see Annex 7. 

Administrations 

Finally,  public  administrations  of  the  Member  States  (e.g.  civil  registrars,  officers  of  business 
registers, competent authorities involved in the procedures for legalisation/issuance of the Apostille) 
also face difficulties when applying the requirements of legalisation, Apostille, certified copies and 
certified  translations.  They  have  to  identify  which  law  applies  and  which  documents  have  to  be 
authenticated,  which  further  increases  the  disproportionate  costs  and  time  caused  by  the  related 
procedures. 

24 

25 

26 
27 

Moreover,  it  is  worth  noting  that  some  cross-border  activities  of  SMEs  often  entail  the  movement  and 
residence of entrepreneurs or of employees, or the movement of individual customers, from one Member State 
to another and thus being closely connected to the free movement of citizens.  
In 2012, DG Enterprise and Industry conducted a survey on a sample of 485 EU SMEs in order to identify the 
most  burdensome  pieces  of  EU  legislation.  The  survey  also  provided  practical  examples  of  the  issues  that 
SMEs encounter during cross-border transactions. Some of the examples are directly related to the requests for 
legalisation,  Apostille,  certified  copies  and  certified  translations  of  documents  needed  for  the  establishment, 
provision of services or the participation to public procurement in other MS.  
Examples of practical experience of Ernst&Young – Corporate Mergers & Acquisition.  
SME panel questionnaire 2012 – The top 10 most burdensome pieces of legislation for SMEs.  

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                  
4.1.4.  Why are these administrative formalities disproportionate? 

Legalisation and Apostille are disproportionate because they: 

(i)  imply  a  negative  presumption  as  regards  the  authenticity  of  public  documents 
originating  in  other  Member  States  contrary  to  the  principle  of  mutual  trust  between  the 
Member States; 

(ii) create additional costs and delays, and constitute obstacles to the full enjoyment of EU 
fundamental rights and freedoms of EU citizens and businesses;  

(iii) are unsuitable to effectively prevent fraud in relation to the cross-border use of public 
documents, as they are themselves sensitive to fraud; 

(iv) are old fashioned compared to the technological progress since their introduction. 

It can appear disproportionate that e.g. a university requires certified copies of school certificates, 
whereas a tax or social security office accepts also simple copies of a similar or equivalent category 
of public documents (naturally provided that the originals are available upon request for inspection 
in  the  case  of  genuine  doubt)  within  the  same  Member  State.  Indeed,  the  practice  differs  in  the 
Member States depending on the purpose of the presentation of the public document and its type. 
This  phenomenon  is  further  exacerbated  when  public  documents  are  needed  in  the  cross-border 
context. 

Certified translations appear disproportionate unless the Member States have reasonable doubt 
about the correctness or quality of the translation of the public document in an individual case. Such 
a scenario would be more in line with the principle of mutual trust between the Member States. 

On the whole, in spite of the limited effectiveness of these formalities in ensuring the authenticity of 
public documents in practice or effective protection against fraud, disproportionate costs and time 
requirements  are  placed  on  EU  citizens,  SMEs  and  public  administrations  in  each  Member  State 
(see the boxes below).  

Costs and delays for EU citizens and businesses due to administrative formalities28 

A. The scale of costs and time requirements for EU citizens and businesses related to the 
Apostille as the main formality for authentication of public documents 

Considering that fees differ significantly between the Member States, the average cost for obtaining 
an  Apostille  amounts  to  €  13,20  (see  Annex  11).  Mo reover,  to  overcome  difficulties  related  to 
obtaining the Apostille, EU citizens and, most of all, EU businesses, can rely on service providers 
(i.e. private agencies) that will attend to all the administrative formalities on their behalf. The cost 
of such services varies according to the type of documentation, the number of pages, the country of 
origin and the time required but, generally, prices range between € 60 and € 450. 

Over  the  course  of  one  year,  it  can  be  estimated  that  the  cost  for  EU  citizens  and  businesses  for 
obtaining the Apostille for intra-EU use amounts to over € 25 million  (see Annex 11, Annex Table 
7). The expenses for EU citizens and businesses are obviously much higher in the case of recourse 
to private service providers.  

28 

The figures in the box are based on a set of estimates, due to the lack of specific data on the issues concerned.  

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Although there are some Member States that issue Apostilles immediately, the majority of Member 
States need one working week. 

B. The scale of costs for EU citizens and businesses related to legalisation  

The cost of legalisation of public documents not covered by the Apostille Convention is significant, 
with a maximum price of € 80 (Germany) and an  average price of € 16,50 (see Annex 11, Annex 
Table 9). Since the Apostille largely replaced legalisation in the EU for a wide range of documents, 
the costs resulting from legalization could be assumed to be lower than the costs of the Apostille. 
For  example,  assuming  that  the  number  of  legalisation  procedures  is  equal  to  10%-20%  of  the 
number  of  Apostilles  issued  for  intra-EU  use,  the  total  cost  of  legalisation  procedures  for  EU 
citizens and businesses would range between 2.3 and 4.6 million on an annual basis29.  

C. The scale of the costs for EU citizens and businesses related to certified copies of public 
documents 

The certified copy of a public document is generally provided by the public authority issuing the 
public document itself. In these cases, obtaining a certified copy can be free of charge, although in 
some cases limited fees can be applied. For example, in Italy, while the issuance of certified copies 
of civil status certificates is generally free of charge, the issuance of such copies of certificates from 
business registers for SMEs can range between € 5 and € 7.  

In  some  Member  States30,  notaries  are  involved  in  the  process  of  issuing  certified  copies  of 
documents in diverse situations, such as marriages, registered partnerships, extracts from company 
registers or real estate transactions. Notarial service fees are highly variable, depending on the type 
31,  in 
of  the  document  and  Member  State  (in  Italy,  the  cost  can  range  from  €  6  to  €  30  per  page
Spain, it is about € 3 per page 32).  

The minimum burden which would be placed on EU citizens and businesses can be calculated as 
follows:  considering  at  least  one  working  hour  spent  for  obtaining  a  certified  copy  (with  a  cost 
equal to about € 23, based on the  average hourly labour cost in the EU) and a minimum average fee 
equal to € 3, the total amount of  money spent by EU citizens and businesses for obtaining certified 
copies of public documents to be used in cross-border situations would be in the order of 75-100 
million33.  

D. The scale of the costs for EU citizens and businesses related to certified translations of 
public documents 

29 

30 
31 

32 
33 

No  specific  data  on  the  number  of  legalisation  in  the  EU  is  available,  however,  the  MS’  replies  to 
questionnaires  delivered  by  HCCH  confirm  that  the  number  of  Apostilles  issued  exceeds  the  number  of 
legalisations. 
I.e. in the 21 EU Member States based on Roman law. 
Decreto Ministeriale 27 novembre 2001, Determinazione della tariffa degli onorari, dei diritti, delle indennità e 
dei compensi spettanti ai notai. 
Real Decreto 1426/1989, de 17 de noviembre, por el que se aprueba el arancel de los Notarios. 
This cost takes into account both: certified copies free of charge (€ 0) and certified copies that have a cost (e.g. 
€ 5, corresponding to the fee for issuance or other costs pa id, such as the cost of postal services). On average 
(by considering both copies issued for € 0 and copies is sued for € 5), an additional cost of € 2 is considered. 
This cost is additional to the time waste (quantified in terms of working hours invested). 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In general (given that they vary between the Member States), the costs of certified translations can 
be  calculated  on  a  basis  of  €  30  per  page  (i.e.  a  10  pages  document  can  cost  up  to  €  300 34).  The 
estimated cost for certified translations required for a cross-border marriage amounts to € 120 for 
the majority of Member States, as shown in 0, Annex Table 1. A certified translation of a tax return 
can cost up to € 300. Even more expensive are certifie d translations of certificates of registration to 
the  enterprise  registry:  they  generally  consist  of  20  pages  and  their  certified  translation  by 
accredited translators can cost up to € 1.800.  

Based on the number of Apostilles (i.e. estimated as 1.4 million documents each year), 90% of them 
have to be accompanied by a certified translation (i.e. 1.3 million documents)35. At the same time, 
there are public documents that do not need the Apostille, but they would need to be accompanied 
by  a  certified  translation  (we  can  assume  30%  of  documents  moving  across  the  EU,  i.e.  420.000 
documents)36.  

On the whole, more than 1.6 million public documents would need a certified translation. Based on 
the assumption that a public document can be, on average, made up of 3 pages (most of the civil 
status  documents,  such  as  birth  or  marriage  certificates,  are  1  page  documents,  whereas  other 
documents, such as tax returns, can reach 10 pages) and considering a cost equal to € 30 per page, 
we can assume that the magnitude of costs of certified translations for EU citizens and businesses 
would amount to € 100-200 million per year. 

Costs and delays for public administrations 

Example showing the scale of costs and time requirements for administrations related to the 
Apostille as the main formality for authentication of public documents 

Based  on  the  time  required  to  issue  an  Apostille37  and  on  informal  interviews  with  public 
administrations that issue an Apostille immediately (who reported that this takes up 30 minutes of a 
civil  servant’s  time38),  it  is  possible  to  estimate  that  the  average  amount  of  hours  required  by  a 
public  administration  to  issue  an  Apostille  is  about  one  hour.  The  average  hourly  labour  cost  for 
EU27+1 Member States is calculated to be € 22,6.  

The  estimated  total  costs  faced  each  year  by  the  different  public  administrations  involved  in  the 
issuance  of  the  Apostille  amount  to  approximately  €  31-33  million.  After  deducting  fees  paid  by 
citizens  in  the  range  of  €  25  m illion,  the  annual  net  costs  for  EU  administrations  issuing  the 
Apostille could be estimated in a range between € 5 million and € 7 million. 

4.1.5. 

In which situations are these administrative formalities required? 

Legalisation,  Apostille  as  well  as  certified  copies  and  certified  translations  are  required  for  the 
cross-border use of public documents in the following scenarios:  

34 

35 
36 
37 
38 

SEC(2010)  1547  final.  Impact  Assessment  accompanying  the  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European 
Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and 
commercial matters. 
Indeed, some documents would be exchanged between same-language Member States (e.g. AT-DE). 
For example, when bilateral or multilateral agreements abolish Apostille.  
The issuing of an Apostille can take up to one week, but this varies between the Member States.  
Based  on  the  known  value  for  the  immediate  issuing  of  Apostilles,  proportionate  increases  were  applied  to 
estimate the amount of working hours required by public administrations to issue the Apostille. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(i) when they are presented to public authorities of a different Member State from that in 
which  they  were  issued  (e.g.  certificate  of  no-impediment  in  the  case  of  a  cross-border 
marriage); 

(ii) when they are presented to private or semi-public entities (such as banks or notaries) in 
the course of exercise of their public duties in a different Member State from that in which 
they were issued (e.g. tax residence certificate provided to a bank in order to benefit from a 
withholding exemption foreseen by a bilateral treaty). 

Although  the  requirement  to  obtain  administrative  formalities  for  the  cross-border  use  of  certain 
public  documents  has  been  to  some  degree  abolished  or  simplified  through  sectoral  EU  law  and 
multilateral  or  bilateral  agreements,  such  a  trend  is  far  from  being  the  norm.  On  the  contrary,  it 
represents  a  serious  shortcoming  at  both  EU  and  international  level  and  complicates  the  life  and 
business of EU citizens and businesses. 

Shortcomings of existing EU laws addressing such formalities 

In addition to national rules, the circulation of public documents is also ruled by EU sectoral law 
(see  Annex  5)  and  international  instruments  (see  below  as  well  as  Annex  3,  4  and  6).  EU  law 
addresses the issue of authenticity of public documents on a sectoral basis, sometimes explicitly, but 
generally  in  an  inconsistent  and  piecemeal  manner.  In  general,  three  approaches  can  be 
distinguished:  1.  the  relevant  instrument  of  EU  law  explicitly  exempts  the  documents  from  the 
authentication requirement (e.g. court judgements under the majority of civil justice instruments), 2. 
the relevant instrument of EU law contains no explicit reference to authentication, but provides for 
other means to verify the authenticity of public documents originating in other Member States (e.g. 
mutual recognition of professional qualifications) and 3. the instrument contains neither an explicit 
reference to the abolition of authentication, nor does it provide alternative means to this end (e.g. 
free  movement  of  persons).  As  regards  other  formalities  (e.g.  certified  copies  and  certified 
translations), there are only few examples in the existing EU law which provide that Member States 
may  not  require  a  document  to  be  produced  in  its  original  form,  or  as  a  certified  copy  or  as  a 
certified translation. 

From this results that the existing sectoral EU law does not provide satisfactory solutions for 
an  easier  acceptance  of  public  documents  in  the  Member  States  and  contains  a  number  of 
shortcomings. 

An  example  of  a  sectoral  EU  law  simplifying  the cross-border  circulation  of  public  documents  is 
Directive  2005/36/EC  on  the  recognition  of  professional  qualifications39.  The  Directive  stipulates 
that,  where  the  competent  authorities  of  the  host  Member  State  decide  on  an  application  for 
authorisation  to  pursue  the  regulated  profession  in  question,  those  authorities  may  request  certain 
documents  and  certificates.  In  situations  of  reasonable  doubt,  the  host  Member  State  may  require 
from the competent authorities of the Member State of origin confirmation on the authenticity of the 
attestations  and  evidence  of  formal  qualifications  awarded  in  the  Member  State  of  origin. 
Nevertheless,  the  Directive  does  not  contain  a  provision  that  would  explicitly  exempt  public 
documents within its scope from legalisation or similar formality. Consequently, it does not provide 
for the necessary level of legal certainty for EU citizens and businesses. 

Shortcomings of existing international law instruments addressing such formalities 

39 

OJ L 255/22 of 30.9.2005. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
There  is,  in  addition,  a  vast  body  of  international  conventions  applying  diverging  approaches  to 
these aspects of public documents, including the Apostille Convention, the Convention abolishing 
the legalisation of documents in the Member States of the European Communities of 25 May 1987 
(the 1987 Brussels Convention) and different Conventions of the International Commission on Civil 
Status (CIEC). 

In total, more than 100 bilateral agreements apply between the Member States (see Annex 6) that 
explicitly  provide  for  the  exemption  of  public  documents  from  legalisation  and  Apostille. 
Nevertheless, it is only in 75 out of 600 possible situations in which documents move between the 
Member States that all legalisation formalities have been completely abolished, on the basis of the 
Brussels 1987 Convention (not in force, but applied provisionally between six Member States) and 
approximately 22 bilateral agreements40. In most cases where legalisation formalities have not been 
abolished, they have been replaced by the Apostille, which remains a simpler but still burdensome 
procedure. 

From these results that the existing international law instruments do not provide satisfactory 
solutions  for  an  easier  acceptance  of  public  documents  in  the  Member  States  and  contain  a 
number of shortcomings. 

Shortcomings of the Apostille Convention 

The legalisation process was replaced by the issuance of a standardised Apostille in all EU Member 
States  as  well  as  a  large  number  of  third  countries  through  the  Apostille  Convention  for  certain 
categories  of  public  documents.  However,  the  most  visible  shortcomings  of  the  Apostille 
Convention are the following:  

(i) it is outdated, since it was adopted in a different legal and political culture of the early 
sixties and was not modified since; 

(ii)  it  uses  old  fashioned  and  abstract  legal  terms  motivating  diverging  interpretations  by 
the State parties;  

(iii) it applies only to limited categories of public documents and does not exempt public 
documents  executed  by  diplomatic  or  consular  agents  and  administrative  documents 
dealing directly with commercial or customs operations from the legalisation requirement 
(for documents belonging to the mentioned categories, legalisation is still required); 

(iv) it leaves excessive discretion to its State parties on the form of the public document to 
which  an  Apostille  can  be  attached  with  the  consequence  that  in  the  majority  of  cases  a 
prior certification is required; 

(v) its application increases legal uncertainty among public authorities and those presenting 
the public documents (i.e. EU citizens and businesses) regarding the scope of application 
of the Convention and whether or not an Apostille continues to be required when EU law 
or an bilateral agreement preclude this formality; 

(vi)  even  as  a  simplified  form  of  legalisation,  its  application  requires  a  disproportionate 
amount of costs and time; 

40 

This is an output of the 2007 study (Study JLS/C4/2005/04).  

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(vii) it does not provide for a sufficient fraud prevention mechanism due to the lack of an 
effective administrative cooperation as well as supervision and policing tools41; 

(viii) it allows the State parties to conclude bilateral agreements going beyond its scope to 
the detriment of legal certainty42.  

Shortcomings of the CIEC Conventions 

The CIEC43 introduced several Conventions abolishing legalisation for specific types or categories 
of public documents concerning civil status44. Three out of these Conventions deal directly with the 
legalisation  of  civil  status  records.  The  CIEC  Conventions  have  also  introduced  model 
(multilingual)  extracts  from  certain  of  these  records  and  facilitated,  to  certain  extent,  the 
administrative cooperation in terms of information and document exchange between the competent 
public  authorities  of  the  participating  States.  Despite  all  these  developments,  the  extent  of  the 
positive impact of these Conventions remains limited because: 

(i)  they  are  outdated  and  dominated  by  non-EU  concepts  of  the  circulation  of  public 
documents; 

(ii) they only apply to a small number of Member States45 and cover a limited category of 
public documents effecting citizens (i.e. civil status documents); 

(iii)  the  multilingual  extracts  introduced  by  the  Conventions  are  only  related  to  birth, 
marriage and death; 

(iv) they do not abolish the requirement of certified copies and certified translations; 

(v)  due  to  the  mix  of  EU  and  non-EU  members in the CIEC, they do not provide for an 
effective administrative cooperation; 

(vi) they do not promise real expectation of speedy progress on all these issues. 

Shortcomings of the 1987 Brussels Convention 

The  Apostille  has  been  abolished  by  the  1987  Brussels  Convention.  The  Convention  applies  to  a 
wide  range  of  public  documents  and  establishes  basic  administrative  cooperation46.  It  should  be, 
however, emphasised that its positive impact in the context of the EU is minimal because: 

41 

42 

43 

44 
45 

The  Apostille  Certificate  is  a  public  document  and,  as  such,  is  susceptible  to  fraud  and  forgery.  Apostille 
certificates  are  not  always  placed  on/attached  to  documents  in  a  uniform  and  secure  way:  for  example,  the 
Apostille  may  be  detached  from  a  public  document  and  reattached  to  another  document  in  order  to  have  it 
accepted by a foreign public authority.  
See Annex 2 and Annex 5. For further details on the application and scope of the Apostille Convention, please 
see Annex 3. 
CIEC is an international organisation, which was set up in 1949 in order to promote international cooperation 
on civil status matters and improve the functioning of civil status authorities. Member States of the CIEC are 
Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Poland, 
Portugal,  Spain,  Switzerland,  Turkey  and  the  United  Kingdom.  States  with  observer  status  are  Cyprus,  the 
Holy See, Lithuania, Moldova, Rumania, Russian Federation, Slovenia and Sweden. 
See for further details in Annex 2, Annex Box 1. 
Austria,  France,  Italy,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal  and  Spain  are  State  parties  to 
Convention No 17 on the exemption from legalisation of certain records and documents. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(i) it has not entered into force since it has not been ratified by all Member States. As of 
today, the Convention has been ratified and is applied provisionally by only six Member 
States,47  and  remains  predominantly  unknown  or  obsolete  (even  in  those  Member  States 
which should normally apply it in between themselves) 48; 

(ii) it does not abolish certified copies and certified translations of public documents and 
deals only with legalisation and Apostille; 

(iii) its administrative cooperation is not elaborated in detail and left to the discretion of the 
Member States. Furthermore, it is not supported by any network and functions without the 
indispensable  electronic  support  or  other  effective  and  secure  means  to  detect  fraud  and 
forgery of public documents; 

(iv) it allows Member States to conclude bilateral agreements going beyond its scope to the 
detriment of legal certainty. 

It  is  worth  mentioning  that,  on  the  other  hand,  no  specific  and  persuasive  arguments  against  the 
ratification  of  this  Convention  by  the  Member  State  have  been  identified.  On  the  contrary,  the 
replies  to  the  Green  Paper  launching  the  present  initiative49  prove  the  broad  acceptance  and 
willingness  of  the  Member  States  to  abolish  the  formalities  linked  to  the  circulation  of  public 
documents in the EU, based on the principle of mutual trust among the authorities50.  

Shortcomings of the existing EU and international laws on certified copies 

Certified copies have been abolished to some extent by a limited number of EU sectoral law51. For 
illustration,  Article  5-(3)  of  the  Services  Directive  (2006/123/EC)52  provides  that  Member  States 
may not require a document from another Member State to be produced in its original form, or as a 
certified copy […], save in the cases provided for in other Community instruments or where such a 
requirement is justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest, including public order 
and  security.  On  the  other  hand,  the  international  law  instruments  identified  above  contain 
practically no references to certified copies. 

Moreover,  the  issue  of  the  form  in  which  public  documents  are  accepted  is  not  regulated  in  a 
uniform manner among the Member States. Generally, simple copies of public documents are not 

46 

47 

48 

49 
50 

51 
52 

Article  4(1)  of  the  1987  Brussels  Convention.  For  further  details  on  application  and  scope  of  the  Apostille 
Convention please see Annex 3.  
Namely Belgium (applicable since 16.3.1997), Denmark (26.10.1989), France (12.3.1992), Italy (11.1.1991), 
Ireland (8.3.1999) and Latvia (21.6.2004). Cyprus (29.4.2005) has acceded to the Convention, though without 
declaring  it  provisionally  applicable.  The  Convention  was  also  signed  by  Germany,  Greece,  Luxembourg, 
Netherlands,  Portugal  and  UK,  but  these  Member  States  have  refrained  from  its  ratification  and  provisional 
application. 
During the 2008 study, the foreign ministries of the Member States were asked why they had not ratified the 
1987 Brussels Convention and if there were any general objections to such a step. None of the Member States 
could  give  compelling  reasons.  In  one  Member  State,  an  official  checked  the  files  and  explained  over  the 
phone that there was an election shortly after the Convention had been signed and the responsible ministerial 
official retired. Thereafter, the issue was forgotten.  
COM(2010) 747 final. 
To this purpose, it is also worth noting that since the ratification of the Brussels Convention - 25 years ago – 
many developments have occurred in terms of mutual trust among authorities, progressive development of the 
internal market as a fully integrated space for citizens and economic operators and in terms of tools, such as 
the IMI, unavailable at the time.  
See Annex 2. 
Directive on services in the internal market. OJ L 376/36 of 27.12.2006. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                                  
accepted  by  the  Member  States  but  originals  and/or  certified  copies  of  public  documents  are 
required. In most Member States, a simple copy is not a public document and would therefore need 
to  be  certified  before  an  Apostille  is  issued  or  legalisation  is  performed.  Even  in  cases  were 
legalisation and Apostille are abolished, the original form or a certified copy has to be provided and 
simple copies are not allowed.  

Shortcomings of the existing EU and international laws on certified translations  

Certified translations were abolished to some extent by a limited number of EU sectoral law which 
contains an explicit reference to this administrative formality. Using the example of Article 5(3) of 
the Services Directive, Member States may not require a document from another Member State to 
be produced in its original form […] or as a certified translation, save in the cases provided for in 
other  Community  instruments  or  where  such  a  requirement  is  justified  by  an  overriding  reason 
relating  to  the  public  interest,  including  public  order  and  security.  As  for  the  mentioned 
international law instruments, they do not abolish the requirement of certified translations. 

In any case, this administrative formality is outdated and creates additional costs and time. This can 
be  illustrated  on  the  example  of  certificates  of  registration  used  by  EU  companies,  which  when 
translated  by  an  accredited  translator  can  cost  up  to  €  1.800.  Moreover,  this  practice  doesn’t 
correspond  with  practical  needs  of  EU  citizens  and  businesses  when  using  well  known  shorter 
standard documents and can be therefore qualified as superfluous in a high number of cases.  

The absence of multilingual standard forms of the most frequently needed public documents at EU 
level  further  increases  the  translation  requirements  imposed  on  EU  citizens  and  businesses  when 
moving across the EU53. 

4.2. 

The  fragmentation  of  the  overall  framework  and  the  uncertainty  affecting  EU 
citizens, businesses and public administrations  

In  addition  to  the  fragmentation  of  the  EU  and  international  legal  framework  with  respect  to  the 
cross-border  movement  of  public  documents  and  the  associated  administrative  formalities, 
differences in national systems also exist in terms of:  

– 

– 

the authorities involved in the procedures of legalisation, similar formality (Apostille) and 
issuance  of  certified  copies  and  certified  translations  on  the  one  hand,  and  acceptance  of 
public documents on the other hand; 

incorrect implementation of these administrative formalities (e.g. due to the lack of legal 
knowledge of public officials, issuance of Apostilles for documents which fall out of scope 
of  the  Apostille  Convention),  combined  with  incorrect  application  of  EU  secondary  law 
(e.g. request for authentication formalities not required by sectoral EU law). 

The  overall  result  is  a  high  level  of  uncertainty  and  practical  difficulties  affecting  all  the  parties 
involved which have to deal with the lack of clarity as to which procedures and rules to apply for 
the  use  of  different  public  documents  across  the  Member  States.  In  addition,  the  identification  of 
competent  authorities  for  the  issuance  and  acceptance  of  these  formalities  in  the  Member  States 
proved to be a critical issue for EU citizens and businesses.  

53 

Even if certain EU sectoral law have already established standard forms (e.g. Succession Regulation, European 
Small Claims Procedure Regulation, European Order for Payment Procedure Regulation, etc).  

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.3. 

Detection of fraud and forgery of public documents 

An important issue concerns the detection of fraud and forgery of public documents in their cross-
border  use  under  the  current  regime,  in  particular  in  the  course  of  application  of  the  Apostille 
Convention.  The  Apostille  may  be  detached  from  one  public  document  and  reattached  to  another 
document. In addition, the Apostille stamp and seal can easily be recreated leading to the abuse of 
Apostille  certificates  (see  the  example  below).  Thus,  the  prevention  of  fraud  in  this  area  is  not 
impeccable.  

It  is  also  worth  restating  that  the  Apostille  Convention  does  not  provide  for  supervision  of  the 
Apostille  system,  including  penalties  or  other  sanctions  for  fraudulent  activities,  as  well  as  for 
effective  administrative  cooperation  preventing  fraud  and  forgery  of  public  documents.  Indeed, 
notwithstanding their availability, systems for administrative cooperation among Member States are 
in practice never or, at best, very rarely used, due to a set of practical problems, such as language 
barriers, difficulties to find the involved authorities in the other Member State or to consult registers 
in paper form or located at local level.  

As  a  conclusion,  the  extent  to  which  the  Apostille  Convention  adequately  protects  the  Member 
States’ interest of fraud prevention in relation to foreign public documents is largely questionable.  

Example of fraudulent practices under the Apostille Convention 

According  to  the  Hague  Conference  on  Private  International  Law  (HCCH),  many  States  have 
expressed concerns about fake academic credentials issued by "diploma mills", which may benefit 
from  the  Apostille  process  through  notarisation.  If  a  notarial  certificate  issued  for  a  fraudulent 
educational document is valid, then there is nothing in the Convention to prevent an Apostille from 
being  issued  for  the  notarial  certificate.  Furthermore,  in  the  absence  of  effective  communication 
between  the  authorities  of  the  Member  States  in  order  to  verify  the  authenticity  of  public 
documents, the Apostille certificate itself can also be abused in order to 'pretend' the authenticity of 
public documents.  

Notwithstanding the efforts of the HCCH to introduce the Electronic Apostille Pilot Project54, the 
potential risk of fraud and forgery of apostilled public documents remains. This is mainly due to its 
limited  scope,  experimental  phase  involving  a  minimal  number  of  Member  States  and  the 
possibility of a fraudulent re-use of an electronic Apostille. 

4.4. 

Risk of discrimination 

EU law allows for some degree of differential treatment or 'discrimination' between domestic public 
documents (originating in one of the Member States) and foreign public documents (issued in third 
countries) if this is proportionate to the objective differences between such public documents. The 
Member  States,  however,  do  not  only  make  distinction  between  domestic  and  foreign  public 
documents, but also between the same types of public documents of different Member States as far 
as their authentication is concerned. 

The requirement of a Member State to authenticate public documents originating in other Member 
States,  including  the  formalities  it  involves,  does  not  amount  to  direct  discrimination.  The 
requirement is, however, indirectly discriminatory, since it is a measure that is intrinsically liable to 

54 

See Annex 6, section 6.1.  

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
affect  non-nationals  more  than  nationals  in  relation  to  the  exercise  of  fundamental  rights  and 
freedoms guaranteed by EU law55.  

In  general,  national  authorities  are  not  familiar  with  the  requirements  applicable  to  public 
documents in the Member State of origin, including their signatures, seals and stamps. This cannot, 
however,  justify  different  treatment  between  domestic  public  documents  and  public  documents 
originating  in  other  Member  States.  At  the  same  time,  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  the 
improvement of mutual trust between authorities in this area depends also on measures at EU level 
aimed  at  familiarising  authorities  with  the  form  and  substance  of  public  documents  of  other 
Member States. 

4.5. 

How would the problem evolve in the base-line scenario? 

Assuming  that  the  current  framework  remains  unchanged,  the  identified  problems  would  remain 
and  worsen,  as  the  need  for  public  documents  in  cross-border  situations  steadily  increases.  The 
acceptance  of  public  documents  in  other  Member  States  than  the  Member  State  of  origin  would 
continue  to  be  regulated  by  the  existing  rules  at  EU,  international  and  national  level  and  the 
circulation of public documents would continue to be restricted. The current legislative patchwork 
would  further  increase  with  a  negative  impact  on  legal  certainty  and  security  of  EU  citizens  and 
businesses.  At  the  same  time,  the  public  officials  involved  in  the  fulfilment  of  the  administrative 
formalities  in  question  would  continue  to  face  difficulties  due  to  the  lack  of  information  on  the 
applicable legal requirements in various Member States. 

One  might  expect  a  certain  improvement  on  the  listed  shortcomings  of  the  Apostille  Convention 
arising from the effective implementation of the ongoing Electronic Apostille Pilot Programme (e-
APP)  and  the  related  e-Registers.  However,  this  programme  is  currently  implemented  by  only  a 
minimal number of Member States and is still in a process of development. Moreover, although the 
electronic  Apostille  would  to  a  certain  extent  simplify  the  movement  of  public  documents  and 
reduce costs, the problems in terms of fragmentation and overall uncertainty (e.g. lack of clarity as 
to which documents need to be apostilled and competent authorities involved) would remain. 

Similarly,  the  use  of  electronic  documents  and  electronic  certified  copies  is  expected  to  increase. 
Although this might in principle simplify the circulation of public documents, the downside would 
be further fragmentation  (depending on  the  sectors and areas of EU law which will be concerned 
and different timing of these developments). 

Moreover,  as  far  as  can  be  estimated  to  date,  switching  to  electronic  operations,  for  all  public 
authorities  in  the  EU,  will  take  a  long  time,  also  due  to  the  huge  costs  involved  and  certain 
additional  security  levels,  above  those  of  private  entities,  which  public  authorities  are  bound  to 
observe. While the share of documents transmitted electronically is likely to increase in the future, 
paper documents will continue to circulate for a long time and an action in this field remains highly 
relevant. 

Therefore,  notwithstanding  certain  positive  tendencies,  the  need  to  complement  the  existing  EU 
law, by filling the gaps and to further simplify the overall framework regulating the circulation of 
public documents, remains a highly relevant issue to be addressed. 

55 

The summary of the conclusions of the 2007 Study informs that certain Member States charge a different rate 
for the same legalisation formality depending on the nationality of the applicant. The study concludes that this 
practice is directly discriminatory, irrespective of the fact that the requirement of legalisation itself is not (p. 
38).  

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  conclusion,  the  existing  situation  would  continue  to  produce  costs,  delays  and 
dissatisfaction  among  EU  citizens  and  businesses.  If  we  put  aside  potential  developments 
through  sectoral  harmonisation  of  EU  law,  the  applicable  legal  framework  would  remain 
highly  unclear  and  continue  creating  legal  uncertainty  as  well  as  risks  of  indirect 
discrimination between EU citizens and businesses. Finally, the protection against fraud and 
forgery of public documents would rely on traditional methods of administrative cooperation 
introduced,  in  limited  areas,  by  international  conventions  and/or  EU  legislation.  As  for  the 
expected  developments  of  the  status  quo,  the  practical  obstacles  to  the  cooperation  and 
communication among the Member State authorities would remain basically unchanged (e.g. 
difficult  communication  due  to  language  problems,  obstacles  when  consulting  registers  in 
paper form or located at local level)56. 

5. 

DOES THE EU HAVE THE POWER TO ACT?  

5.1. 

Legal basis  

The  EU's  competence  to  act  in  the  area  of  use  and  acceptance  of  public  documents  between  the 
Member  States  stems  from  two  different  provisions  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the 
European Union (TFEU). 

Article 21(1) TFEU provides that every EU citizen shall have the right to move and reside freely 
within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the 
Treaties and by the measures adopted to give them effect. Article 21(2) TFEU empowers the EU to 
adopt provisions with a view to facilitating the exercise of this right. Obstacles to the cross-border 
use  and  acceptance  of  documents  have  a  direct  impact  on  the  free  movement  of  citizens.  Thus, 
removing or reducing these obstacles would facilitate the exercise of the free movement of citizens 
as foreseen in Article 21(2) TFEU. 

Article 114 (1) TFEU empowers the European Parliament and the Council to adopt measures for the 
approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member 
States  which  have  as  their  object  the  establishment  and  functioning  of  the  internal  market. 
Obstacles  to  the  cross-border  use  and  acceptance  of  documents  have  a  direct  impact  on  the  full 
enjoyment of the internal market freedoms by EU businesses as described in Article 26 (2) TFEU 
and  referred  to  in  Article  114  (1)  TFEU.  It  therefore  could  be  the  suitable  complementary  legal 
basis to cover public documents used by EU businesses in cross-border scenarios within the internal 
market. 

For these reasons, the EU should ensure that effective and proportionate measures are in place to 
reduce legal uncertainty, costs and lengthy procedures caused by legalisation, Apostille as well as 
certified copies and certified translations, including additional necessary safeguards preventing the 
use of forged public documents within the EU. 

56 

In  this  context  it  should  be  noted  that  administrative  cooperation  in  situations  of  serious  doubt  about  the 
authenticity of public documents originating in other Member States foreseen by the 1987 Brussels Convention 
is practically non-existent between the six Member States which apply the Convention provisionally.  

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5.2. 

Subsidiarity test: Why the EU is better placed to take action? 

As  described  in  the  problem  definition,  the  need  for  the  identified  administrative  formalities 
continues  to  cause  practical  difficulties,  delays  and  costs  for  EU  citizens,  businesses  and  public 
administrations and hinder the full enjoyment of their free movement rights. 

The  EU  is  better  placed  than  the  Member  States  to  take  action  to  abolish  legalisation  and 
Apostille as well as to simplify the use of certified copies and certified translations and, at the same 
time, to ensure a solid and coherent EU cross-border and cross-sector framework for the circulation 
of public documents between the Member States,  including a more effective level of detection of 
their fraud and forgery. This is because these problems have a purely cross-border dimension and 
cannot by their nature be properly dealt with at the level of the Member States, since their partial 
efforts are further increasing the existent legislative patchwork. In addition, the Member States are 
unable to offer effective solutions to the relating challenges due to their EU dimension. Although 
the majority of the Member States are bound by a number of diverging multi/bilateral agreements 
abolishing or simplifying these formalities, the creation of a level playing field at EU level would 
require  a  complex  re-negotiation  and  re-design  of  these  agreements.  This  could  be  an  extremely 
difficult and lengthy process. 

An  EU  level  action  would  help  EU  citizens  and  businesses  to  use  different  categories  of  public 
in  cross-border  situations  without  disproportionate,  burdensome  and  costly 
documents 
administrative formalities. For these reasons, EU action would ensure higher efficiency. 

The  adoption  of  a  directly  applicable  simplifying  measure  containing  horizontal  principles  on  the 
free circulation of public documents between the Member States demonstrates clear added value 
of an EU action. 

Action at EU level would respect the proportionality principle by focusing only on the abolition 
of  the  identified  administrative  formalities,  with  the  necessary  accompanying  elements,  but  not 
striving at full harmonisation of public documents and rules governing their circulation within the 
EU. 

Moreover, the EU action would not interfere in purely domestic scenarios. It would also not affect 
any applicable sectoral EU law prescribing the identified formalities in justified cases, introducing 
harmonised forms of documents or establishing tailored administrative cooperation. Thus, the EU 
action would not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the objectives. 

6. 

OBJECTIVES 

Through  a  horizontal  approach,  the  general  objective  of  the  Commission'  proposal  is  to  facilitate 
and  enhance  the  full  exercise  of  EU  citizens'  right  to  free  movement  within  the  EU  and  of  EU 
businesses' (in particular SMEs) right to freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services 
within the Single Market. EU citizens and businesses should not be prevented or discouraged from 
exercising their rights guaranteed  by  the Treaties, including those  enshrined in the  EU Charter of 
Fundamental Rights, by the incompatibility or complexity of legal and administrative systems in the 
Member States. The general and specific objectives of the proposal are summarised in the following 
table: 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
General 

Specific 

Objectives: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Facilitate  and  enhance  the  full  exercise  of  EU  free  movement  rights  by 
EU citizens and businesses. 

Reduce  difficulties  caused  by  administrative  formalities  for 
acceptance of public documents originating in other Member States.  

the 

Simplify  the  fragmented  legal  framework  regulating  the  circulation  of 
public documents between the Member States. 

Ensure a more effective level of detection of fraud and forgery of public 
documents. 

Eliminate risks of discrimination among EU citizens and businesses.  

Operational   • 

Cut  costs  and  delays  caused  by  legalisation,  similar  formality  (i.e. 
(certified  copies  and  certified 
Apostille)  and  other 
translations) for EU citizens, businesses and public administrations. 

formalities 

• 

• 

Reduce the need for translation of public documents within the EU. 

Promote  an  efficient  and  secure  cooperation  exchange  among  Member 
States authorities as a means to verify the documents’ authenticity. 

7. 

DESCRIPTION OF POLICY OPTIONS  

7.1. 

Policy options 

The  following  five  policy  options  and  seven  sub-options  under  policy  option  4  have  been 
considered and further developed:  

Policy Option 1: Retention of the status quo (base-line scenario)  

Under this option, no new action would be taken at EU level to remove the identified problems. The 
circulation of public documents would continue to be regulated by the fragmented legal framework 
at EU, international and national level as explained in section 4.5. 

Policy  Option  2:  A  non-legislative  measure  promoting  best  practices  between  the  Member 
States in order to facilitate cross-border circulation of public documents  

According to this option, a non-legislative measure, such as a Communication, would promote best 
practices  between  the  Member  States  in  order  to  facilitate  cross-border  circulation  of  public 
documents, including the exchange of information and training for officials involved as well as the 
drafting of codes of conduct, in order to improve the level of information addressed to EU citizens 
and businesses. These activities would take place in a structured form, e.g. through the organization 
of information campaigns. 

Policy Option 3: Ratification of the 1987 Brussels Convention by all Member States 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
Under  this  option,  the  Commission  would  encourage  the  ratification  of  the  1987  Brussels 
Convention by all Member States with the aim to abolish legalisation and Apostille for a wide range 
of  public  documents.  In  addition,  an  administrative  cooperation  as  foreseen  in  the  Convention 
would  be  used  and  extended  to  all  Member  States.  This  cooperation  would  enable  the  competent 
authorities  to  verify  the  authenticity  of  public  documents  in  situations  of  serious  doubt,  however, 
without an electronic support or other secure network. 

This policy option is to be understood as a “non-legislative” option since the ratification of the 1987 
Brussels  Convention  would  not  occur  by  a  legislative  act  of  the  EU  itself.  The  Member  States 
themselves  would  have  to  act  by  ratifying  this  Convention,  following  the  recommendation  of  the 
Commission  (addressed  particularly  to  those  Member  States  that  haven’t  done  so  yet).  To  this 
purpose, the Commission would issue e.g. a Communication. 

Policy Option 4: A legislative measure promoting the free movement of citizens and businesses 
by simplifying administrative formalities related to the use and acceptance of certain public 
documents  in  the  EU,  complemented  by  improved  administrative  cooperation  between  the 
Member States and issuance of multilingual standard forms 

This policy option would consist of a legislative instrument abolishing legalisation and Apostille for 
the  most  frequently  required  public  documents  between  the  Member  States  by  incorporating  the 
principles  of  the  1987  Brussels  Convention  into  EU  law.  The  scope  of  the  instrument  would  be 
defined  in  accordance  with  a  comprehensive  list  of  public  documents,  enabling  its  potential 
extension through future regular reviews. Moreover, since the formalities related to certified copies 
and certified translations of public documents are not covered by that Convention, the scope of the 
initiative would be broadened. Considering the importance of providing for an effective mechanism 
for authenticity verification of public documents in cases of reasonable doubt, this option would be 
accompanied  by  (i)  improved  administrative  cooperation  based  on  efficient  and  secure  cross-
border  information  exchanges.  An  additional  important  element  aimed  at  reducing  the  remaining 
translation burdens for EU citizens, businesses and national public administrations consisting in the 
(ii)  issuance  of  multilingual  standard  forms  at  EU  level  for  the  most  frequently  used  national 
public documents would be added. 

(i) Improved administrative cooperation 

In  order  to  guarantee  the  integrity  and  security  of  public  documents  as  well  as  the  necessary 
certainty  for  public  authorities,  the  instrument  would  establish  an  accompanying  measure,  i.e.  an 
improved administrative cooperation. Such cooperation would enable the public authorities and 
entities authorised by virtue of an act or an administrative decision to carry out public duties57 in the 
receiving Member States to submit requests for information on the authenticity of public documents 
in cases of reasonable doubt. 

These authorities or entities could submit similar requests in order to obtain certainty as regards the 
authenticity  of  certified  copies  of  public  documents.  The  improved  administrative  cooperation 
would be supported by electronic means and adapted to the needs of the authorities authorized to 

57 

Authorities and other entities (including private entities carrying out public duties) can be registered in IMI. 
Authorities and/or private entities carrying out public duties that do not (or do not yet) have direct access to 
IMI themselves and have reasonable doubt about the authenticity of public documents may request information 
from  the  central  authority(ies)  of  their  Member  State.  Such  a  possibility  shouldn’t  be,  however,  awarded  to 
private  entities  or  individual  citizens  when  being  presented  with  public  documents  originating  from  other 
Member  States.  Most  documents  themselves  (such  as  contracts,  invoices,  cheques,  commercial  documents) 
which private entities deal with are not public documents and are beyond certification or legalisations.  

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
transmit  and  receive  requests,  i.e.  facilities  for  communication  exchange.  The  new  system  would 
also provide translation functionalities to facilitate the mentioned information requests. Thereby, the 
proposed  cooperation  system  would  contribute  to  the  specific  objective  of  reducing  difficulties 
caused  by  administrative  formalities  for  the  acceptance  of  public  documents  originating  in  other 
Member States. It will also ensure a more effective level of detection of fraud and forgery of public 
documents, which represents another specific objective of this measure. Indeed, whereas under the 
current  situation  there  exists  only  an  incomplete,  fragmented  or  partial  protection  against  fraud 
(since  the  Apostille  is  vulnerable  to  fraud  and  communication  among  authorities  is  limited),  the 
authorities of the Member States would be encouraged to effectively and promptly solve potential 
reasonable  doubts  on  the  authenticity  of  public  documents,  with  the  support  of  secure  electronic 
means ensuring their permanent interaction. 

All  this  should  be  reinforced  by  the  appropriate  training  and  awareness  measures  for  the 
administrations involved. 

It is important to stress that the envisaged administrative cooperation would not interfere with other 
systems  of  administrative  cooperation  established  by  Union  law  which  provide  for  exchange  of 
information between the Member States in specific areas, such as the CCN/CSI system in the area of 
taxation and customs.  

This improved administrative cooperation can be addressed by 3 sub-options: 

Sub-option 4A: administrative cooperation as foreseen under policy option 3. 

Sub-option 4B: administrative cooperation based on the Internal Market Information System (IMI), 
offering translation facilities (multilingual tool) and a mechanism for fast and secure cross-border 
information exchanges. Such cooperation would be in line with the new Regulation of the European 
Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  administrative  cooperation  through  the  Internal  Market 
Information System (the “IMI Regulation”)58. 

In  practical  terms,  this  sub-option  would  require  an  amendment  to  the  IMI  Regulation  (No 
1024/2012  of  25  October  2012),  by  adding  the  present  legislative  instrument  to  its  Annex  titled 
"Provisions  on  administrative  cooperation  in  Union  acts  that  are  implemented  by  means  of  IMI, 
referred to in Article 3". To address the specificities of public documents, a new section (module) 
would  be  developed  within  the  general  IMI  platform  to  serve  the  purposes  of  this  initiative.  The 
competent  authorities  established  at  national,  regional  or  local  level  and  validated  by  an  IMI 
coordinator under the IMI Regulation would mutually assist each other by replying to requests for 
information in cases of reasonable doubt about the authenticity of public documents. They would be 
assisted by central authorities designated by the Member States to take any other measures aimed at 
facilitating the application of the new proposal, including the resolution of problems which would 
arise in this context. For example, the central authorities could develop with the Commission: 

(i) a repository of templates of the most frequently used national public documents within 
the  EU,  including  their  translation  into  all  Union  official  languages,  in  order  to  support 

58 

Following the proposal COM(2011) 522 final, the new Regulation (Regulation 1024/2012 of 25 October 2012 
on administrative cooperation through the Internal Market Information System) was published in the Official 
Journal on 14 November 2012 and entered into force on 4 December 2012. The Regulation provides a high 
level of flexibility for future expansion of IMI to Union acts not yet listed in the Annex (Art. 4 of the “IMI 
Regulation”),  based  on  pilot  projects  carried  out  by  the  Commission  and  evaluations  of  their  outcomes, 
including data protection issues and effective translation functionalities. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
authorities  with  insufficient  linguistic  expertise  to  judge  correctness  or  quality  of 
translations of public documents presented to them; 

(ii) an appropriate fraud prevention guidance concerning the circulating public documents; 
and 

(iii) best practices on the promotion of the use of electronic versions of public documents. 

The  exchanges  between  the  competent  and  central  authorities  would  be  facilitated  by  specific 
directories for searching the responsible 'contact' authority in other Member States. 

Sub-option  4C:  the  creation  of  a  network  of  civil  registers.  Under  this  sub-option,  which  would 
build  on  the  European  Civil  Registry  Network  (ECRN),  a  network  of  contact  points  in  each 
Member  State  involving  civil  registrars  would  be  created,  through  the  establishment  of  a  Central 
Authority  in  each  Member  State.  Since  civil  registrars  as  a  defined  category  of  public 
administrations are particularly affected by the need to exchange formal civil status documents with 
the  highest  possible  degree  of  authenticity  and  security,  this  sub-option  would  therefore  support 
such an exchange. Registrars of one Member State would be authorized and encouraged to contact 
registrars  of  other  Member  States  directly  in  cases  of  reasonable  doubt  about  the  authenticity  of 
civil status documents. To this purpose, a software application accessible via the Internet would be 
created,  accompanied  by  tailored  data  protection  systems.  As  for  the  latter  point,  the  European 
Commission  and  the  Member  States  would  need  to  take  all  necessary  precautions  to  ensure 
compliance with the rules on data protection and personal data processing. 

(ii) Multilingual standard forms 

Furthermore,  with  a  view  to  reducing  the  remaining  translation  requirements  imposed  on  EU 
citizens and businesses when moving across the EU, there is a need for an additional accompanying 
element to this policy option allowing the issuance of multilingual standard forms at EU level for 
public documents most pertinent to cross-border use. These forms would save costs and time for EU 
citizens and businesses and facilitate the verification of their authenticity by the national authorities 
involved.  If  such  a  standard  form  is  introduced  for  a  specific  public  document,  the  linguistic 
obstacles  related  to  its  cross-border  circulation  would  be  eliminated.  Moreover,  EU  multilingual 
standard forms would substantially reduce the cases of forgery of public documents and the need of 
recourse to the administrative cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States. 

These  standard  forms  would  have  the  same  formal  evidentiary  value  as  the  equivalent  public 
documents drawn up by the authorities of the issuing Member State. Their use would depend on the 
choice  of  the  EU  citizen  or  undertaking  in  a  concrete  cross-border  case.  Once  the  citizen  or 
undertaking  decides  to  use  the  EU  multilingual  standard  form  instead  of  its  national  equivalent 
existing in the issuing Member State, its authorities would have the obligation to issue the particular 
standard form. Similarly, the authorities of the requesting (receiving) Member State would have to 
accept  that  form  and  consider  it  equally  authentic  as  its  national  equivalent  drawn  up  by  the 
authorities of the issuing Member State. 

Notwithstanding, such multilingual standard forms would not produce legal effects as regards 
the  recognition  of  their  content  when  they  are  presented  in  another  Member  State  than  the 
Member State where they were issued. 

The  proposed  instrument  would  establish  EU  multilingual  standard  forms  for  birth,  death, 
marriage/registered partnership as well as for legal status and representation of a company or other 
undertaking. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
It should be also emphasized that the issuance of a multilingual standard form on its own, without 
an explicit abolition of legalisation or Apostille, would not automatically exempt that form from the 
latter administrative formalities (e.g. under the Succession Regulation59, the European Certificate of 
Succession is exempted from legalisation and similar formality by Article 74 of that Regulation). In 
addition, the proposed new system would not interfere with those situations where standard forms 
or  harmonised  public  documents  already  exist  under  EU  or  international  law.  In  particular,  the 
standard  forms  established  by  several  Conventions  of  the  ICCS  (e.g.  Convention  No  16  on 
multilingual extracts from certain civil status records) could provide useful inspiration at EU level. 
In this respect, it should be emphasided that the mentioned Conventions of the ICCS do not apply to 
all  EU  Member  States,  and  consequently  not  all  EU  citizens  and businesses  can  currently  benefit 
from the ICCS work. The standard forms can be addressed by 4 sub-options: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Sub-option 4D: status quo: no standard forms. 

Sub-option 4E: compulsory standard forms. The use of these forms would be compulsory 
in  cross-border  cases  but  not  in  'domestic'  cases.  It  means  that  only  this  compulsory 
standard form  would  be used in a concrete case involving cross-border circulation of the 
underlying national public document. 

Sub-option  4F:  optional  standard  forms  as  annexes  to  national  public  documents.  Such 
forms would be attached to specific types of (national) public documents for optional use 
in  other  Member  States.  Each  national  administration  would  continue  to  issue  national 
public documents along with the EU standard forms. 

Sub-option 4G: optional standard forms used independently in cross-border cases. Under 
this sub-option, the standard form could be presented abroad independently and separately 
from  the  underlying  national  public  document  on  an  optional  basis.  The  corresponding 
national public documents would continue to exist at national level. 

Policy  Option  5:  Full  harmonisation  of  public  documents  and  rules  governing  their 
circulation within the EU 

This policy option would consist of a full harmonisation of public documents at national level for 
their use both in national and cross-border situations, of situations in which public documents are 
needed  in  cross-border  scenarios  by  EU  citizens  and  businesses  and  of  rules  concerning  the 
authentication of public documents within the EU, including those issued in third countries. 

7.2. 

Discarded options 

The following policy options have been discarded after an initial evaluation: 

• 

59 

Amendment to all EU sectoral law which contains provisions on legalisation, similar 
or other formalities and/or provide for a certain form of administrative cooperation: 
this  option  would  complement  the  existing  EU  sectoral  law  regulating  these  issues. 
However,  it  would  not  meet  the  objective  of  establishing  a  horizontal  approach  and 
consequently  lead  to  further  fragmentation.  Moreover,  this  option  would  keep  outside  of 
the scope of the instrument the currently unregulated policy areas at EU level. 

Regulation  (EU) No 650/2012 on  jurisdiction,  applicable  law,  recognition  and  enforcement  of decisions  and 
acceptance  and  enforcement  of  authentic  instruments  in  matters  of  succession  and  on  the  creation  of  a 
European Certificate of Succession. OJ L 201/107 of 27.7.2012. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

A  legislative  initiative  limited  to  a  specific  category  of  public  documents  (e.g.  civil 
status documents): this option would not meet the objective of establishing a horizontal 
approach  because  its  scope  of  intervention  would  be  limited.  Consequently,  it  would 
contribute to an increased fragmentation of the current legal framework. 

8. 

IMPACT ANALYSIS OF POLICY OPTIONS 

Policy Option 1: 

Retention of the status quo (base-line scenario) 

The  existing  costs,  delays  and  dissatisfaction  among  EU  citizens  and  businesses  due  to  the 
requirements of legalisation, similar and other formalities would continue. The same applies to the 
fragmented  legislative  framework.  In  conclusion,  the  current  situation  would  follow  its  natural 
development at EU, international and national level. 

Policy Option 2:  A  non-legislative  measure  promoting  best  practices  between  the  Member 

States in order to facilitate cross-border circulation of public documents 

Expected Impact 

Effectiveness in 
meeting objectives 

The promotion of best practices concerning in particular administrative cooperation would 
reduce  delays  in  checking  public  documents  originating  in  other  Member  States  for  the 
authorities  concerned,  by  allowing  better  exchange  of  information.  This  would  have  an 
indirect positive effect in improved services for EU citizens and businesses.  

However,  the  overall  postive  impact  would  be  limited  because  the  administrative 
formalities would remain and the legal framework would still be fragmented. In addition, 
risks  of  indirect  discrimination  between  EU  nationals  and  EU  non-nationals  would 
continue to exist.  

An  indirect  positive  economic  impact  (enhanced  intra-EU  mobility,  cross-border 
activities, functioning of the EU Single Market and national markets) could be achieved 
with better understanding and information.  

Economic and 
financial impact  

Notwithstanding, no direct savings for EU citizens and businesses would be achieved in 
terms of money. 

Social impact 

Impact on 
fundamental rights 

At Member States level, some savings for administrations in terms of time could occur as 
a result of better mutual understanding between the authorities of the Member States.  

Medium positive effects would occur for EU citizens and businesses in terms of reduction 
of uncertainty as a result of information campaigns and/or the implementation of further 
tools  for  increasing  awareness  of  the  existing  requirements  in  different  Member  States. 
This  would  result  in  less  frustration  for  EU  citizens  and  businesses.  However,  since  the 
formalities  would  remain,  very  low  positive  impact  on  simplification  benefits  for  EU 
citizens and businesses.  

The  current  problems  in  terms  of  i.e.  the  risk  of  indirect  discrimination  between  EU 
nationals and EU non-nationals would persist.  

Promoting  best  practices  between  the  Member  States  in  order  to  facilitate  cross-border 
circulation of public documents beyond the already existing level would result in a more 
frequent exchange of information, including on personal data. Consequently, the right to 
the protection of personal data as enshrined in Article 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental 
Rights  would  require  the  obligation  of  the  Member  States  to  comply  with  Directive 
95/46/EC.  

Depending on the role which the Commission might play (e.g. data controller) under this 
non-legislative  measure,  Regulation  45/2001/EC  might  also  be  applicable.  This  is  either 
because the Commission would keep data which would be discussed during the meetings 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
to  be  organised  between  the  Member  States  or  because  the  Commission  would  be  in 
charge of these meetings (e.g. list of participants). 

Impact on fraud 

Very low positive impact on detection of fraud. Improved knowledge of documents and 
practices in other Member States would to a certain extent enable public officials to better 
identify potential cases of fraud.  

Impact on EU budget 

As for the potential impact on EU budget, there would be costs for information campaigns 
(such  as  conferences,  meetings,  publications,  audiovisuals,  etc).  Costs  for  training  and 
related actions aimed at stakeholders for the purpose of raising awareness and aiding the 
dissemination of information also have to be considered.  

Transposition and 
compliance aspects 

No  difficulties,  since  this  policy  option  would  not  impose  any  additional  legislative 
interventions. Possible exchange of know-how and best practices would entail additional 
implementation costs for Member States. 

View of stakeholders  The stakeholders consider that a soft law intervention such as this one would be less 
of  an  imposition  on  Member  States  than  a  binding  Regulation.  However,  they  also 
recognise that it would not be sufficient to eliminate the identified difficulties faced 
by  EU  citizens  and businesses,  especially  with  respect to the  burdensome  costs and 
administrative formalities that the current situation imposes on them. 

Policy Option 3: 

Ratification of the 1987 Brussels Convention by all Member States 

Expected Impact 

This option would not guarantee an improvement to the current situation because there is 
no  legal  obligation  for  the  Member  States  to  ratify  that  Convention.  In  addition,  the 
ratification process by so many Member States is very time-consuming and could stretch 
over many years. Consequently, legal uncertainty would continue to exist.  

If and when ratified by all Member States, then positive impact on the enjoyment of EU 
citizens' right to free movement and EU businesses ' (in particular SMEs') internal market 
freedoms, due to the abolishment of legalisation and Apostille in cross-border circulation 
of  public  documents.  Savings  for  EU  citizens  and  businesses  would  occur  in  terms  of 
costs and time required as a result of the abolition of these formalities. However, obstacles 
caused  by  certified  copies  and  certified  translations  would  remain,  since  their 
simplification would not be covered by this policy option. 

Cases of serious doubt as regards the authenticity of public documents originating in other 
Member  States  could  be  dealt  with  more  easily  through  the  administrative  cooperation 
foreseen  in  the  Convention.  However,  it  would  not  be  accompanied  by  an  electronic 
support  or  other  secure  network  and  depend  largely  on  the  wilingness  of  the  Member 
States. 

Positive  non-discriminatory  effect  since  the  different  treatment  of  public  documents 
originating  in  other  Member  States  as  compared  to  domestic  documents  would  be 
removed.  

Each  year,  EU  citizens  and  businesses  could  save  between  €  25.8  million  and  €  26.2 
million on Apostilles and between € 2.3 million and € 4.6 million on legalisation. 

Annual  costs  for  the  Member  States  administrations  for  issuing  the  Apostilles  can  be 
estimated in a range between € 31 million to € 33 million. However, the costs faced by 
EU  citizens  and  businesses  for  obtaining  Apostille  can  be  considered  as  revenues  for 
competent authorities between €  25.8 million and € 26.2 mil lion each year. In end effect, 
the net cost savings for the Member State administrations when abolishing the Apostille 
could be estimated in a range between € 5 million and € 7 million.  

Assuming that the number of legalisation procedures could be equal to 10% - 20% of the 
number of Apostilles issued for intra-EU use (i.e. 140.000/280.000 legalisations per year), 
and considering that an average price for legalisation amounts to € 16,50, the total annual 
costs  for  legalisation  procedures  for  EU  citizens  and  businesses  would  range  between  € 

Effectiveness in 
meeting objectives 

Economic and 
financial impact 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
Social impact 

Impact on 
fundamental rights 

2.3  and  €  4.6  million.  The  net  cost  savings  for  the  Member  State  administrations  when 
abolishing legalisation could be estimated between € 500.000 and € 1 million. 

On the other hand, no saving for EU citizens, businesses or public administrations would 
be obtained in terms of costs of certified copies and certified translations.  

Similarly,  if  and  when  ratified,  positive  impact  for  EU  citizens  and  businesses  in  the 
exercice of their free movement rights. Public documents originating in different Member 
States,  and  needed  e.g.  for  the  purposes  of  residence  or  establishment  of  economic 
activities, would be accepted without legalisaton or Apostille. No more frustration or time 
wasted  for  EU  citizens  and  businesses  in  the  accomplishment  of  such  administrative 
formalities. However, the simplification benefits would be limited due to the absence of 
simplification action as regards certified copies and certified translations.  

Possible positive impact in terms of fundamental rights:  

-  this  option  could  to  an  extent  simplify  the  administrative  burdens  of  EU  citizens  and  
businesses in terms of the right to take up residence, to seek employment, to exercise the 
right  of  establishment  and  to  provide  services  or  conduct  business  in  another  Member 
State  (Articles  45,  15.2  and  16  of  the  Charter).  This  option  could  also  simplify  the 
administrative  requirements  involved  in  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  social  security 
entitlements in accordance with EU and national law (Article 34.2 of the Charter); 

-  impact  on  a  number  of  life  events  of  citizens  that  may  occur  during  a  stay  in  another 
Member State and that could effect their possibilities to take full advantage of the Single 
Market. This policy option would make the handling of documents in these situations less 
burdensome and would thus show consideration for the respect of the right to private and 
family life and to an extent also for the right to marry and found a family as well as for the 
rights of the child as provided in Articles 7, 9 and 24 of the Charter; 

-  this  policy  option  would  also  to  a  certain  extent  address  the  risk  of  indirect 
discrimination of non-nationals as documents emanating from other Member States would 
no longer require legalisation or Apostille, similarly to  domestic public documents. 

Possible negative impact in terms of fundamental rights:  

- the risk of indirect discrimination of non-nationals would not be fully dealt with under 
this  option  as  the  costs  and  administrative  constraints  involved  in  providing  certified 
copies as well as certified translations are not addressed; 

- personal data will be processed frequently and in depth by competent authorities when 
they check the authenticity. Consequently, the right to the protection of personal data as 
enshrined in Article 8 of the Charter would require the obligation of the Member States to 
comply with Directive 95/46/EC; 

- depending on the role which the Commission might play (e.g. data controller) under this 
option, Regulation 45/2001/EC might also be applicable.  

Impact on fraud 

The  provisions  concerning  administrative  cooperation  would  be  specifically  aimed  at 
limiting  the  risk  of  fraud  and  forgery  of  public  documents.  However,  no  significant 
improvement, as compared to the status quo, is expected since the system is paper based, 
unsophisticated and does not allow fast and secure exchanges. 

Impact on EU budget  

No significant cost/very low negative impact on the EU budget, except for the drafting of 
the proposed  instrument. 

Transposition and 
compliance aspects 

This international law instrument would require Member States to designate a competent 
authority  in  order  to  ensure  the  administrative  cooperation  with  the  exception  of  those 
Member States that already apply the 1987 Brussels Convention. 

Views of stakeholders 

Although  little  input  is  provided  by  stakeholders  on  this  policy  option,  the 
contributions  to  the  European  Commission’s  Green  Paper  highlight  the  interest  in 
exploring  the  possibilities  of  the  content  of  this  Convention  in  order  to  achieve 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
positive effects on citizens and SMEs.   

Policy Option 4:  A  legislative  measure  promoting  the  free  movement  of  citizens  and 
businesses  by  simplifying  administrative  formalities  related  to  the  use  and 
acceptance  of  certain  public  documents  in  the  EU,  complemented  by 
improved  administrative  cooperation  between  the  Member  States  and 
issuance of optional standard forms  

Expected Impact 

Effectiveness in 
meeting objectives 

The circulation of public documents of EU citizens and businesses between the Member 
States  would  be  effectively  and  concretely  supported.  Intra-EU  mobility  and  the 
functioning of the Single Market would be enhanced by eliminating the disproportionate, 
burdensome and costly administrative formalities of legalisation, Apostille as well as by  
simplifying the use of certified copies and certified translations. 

The large scope of public documents to be covered would achieve a greater level of non-
discrimination between public documents originating in other Member States as compared 
to domestic documents. 

Improved administrative cooperation 

Sub-option  4A  (administrative  cooperation  as  foreseen  under  policy  option  3):  effects 
will be low since there is no electronic support for this type of administrative cooperation 
and  its  efficiency  would  depend  on  the  discretion  of  the  Member  States.  In  addition, 
information  requests  would need  to  be  translated  in order  to  be understood by  the  other 
public authority. 

Sub-option 4B (administrative cooperation based on the IMI): positive effects in cases of 
reasonable doubt about the autenticity of public documents. The IMI provides for fast and 
secure  communication  channels  for  cross-border  information  exchanges.  Competent 
authorities would benefit from the existing functionalities of the IMI system, including the 
provision  of  a  multilingual  system  for  communications,  the  use  of  pre-translated  and 
standard  questions  and  answers  as  well  as  from  the  IMI  repository  allowing  to  share 
templates of the most frequently used public documents for citizens and companies cross-
border.  The  exchange  of  information  and  documents  by  electronic  means  would  allow 
efficient and secure exchanges of electronic versions of public documents. 

Sub-option  4C  (administrative  cooperation  based  on  the  creation  of  a  network  of  civil 
registers): positive effects for civil registrars who could communicate between each other 
directly in case of doubt about the authenticity of a civil status document or other related 
issues. However, positive effects would be limited to one category of public documents, 
meaning civil status documents and the objective of the measure would only be partially 
met. 

Multilingual standard forms 

Sub-option 4D (status quo): no positive effects. 

Sub-option  4E  (compulsory  standard  forms  to  be  used  in  cross-border  cases):  medium 
positive impact on the difficulties and costs related to the translation and understanding of 
public documents originating in other Member States. 

Sub-option 4F (optional standard forms as annexes to national public documents): same 
effects as in sub-option 4E. However, the use of these standard forms  would depend on 
the discretion of the users and the system might appear too complex for users as well as 
administrations. 

Sub-option 4G (optional standard forms used independently in cross-border cases): high 
positive impact on EU citizens and businesses as well as public administrations in terms 
of  higher  practical  benefits,  reduced  difficulties  and  costs  related  to  the  translation  and 
understanding  of  public  documents  in  cross-border  scenarios,  even  if  the  use  of  these 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
Economic and 
financial impact   

forms would depend on the discretion of the users. 

High savings for EU citizens and businesses would be obtained in terms of costs and time 
due to the elimination of the mentioned formalities. Each year, EU citizens and businesses 
could save between € 25.8 million and € 26.2 million only on Apostilles and between € 
2.3 million and € 4.6 million on legalisation. The annual net cost savings for the Member 
State administrations when abolishing the Apostille could be estimated in a range between 
€ 5 million and € 7 million and when abolishing legalisation between € 500.000 and € 1 
million. 

There will be further savings for EU citizens and businesses due to the simplification of 
certified copies based on the estimation that one page costs up to € 30. The total amount 
of yearly savings for EU citizens and businesses for simplifying certified copies of public 
documents to be used in cross-border situations would be in the order of € 75-100 million. 

The  removal  of  certified  transaltions  would  also  save  costs,  bearing  in  mind  that  the 
related  cost  for  one  page  is  €  30.  The  to tal  amount  of  savings  for  EU  citizens  and 
businesses  for  abolishing  certified  translations  of  public  documents  to  be  used  in  cross-
border situations would be in the order of € 100-200 million per year.  

The  revenues  of  public  administrations  would  only  be  marginally  affected  after  the 
simplification  of  the  requirement  of  certified  copies  and  certified  translations.  This  is 
mainly because certified copies are often issued without additional charges and certified 
translations are mainly performed by accretited  translators60. 

There  could,  however,  be  a  decrease  of  income  for  private  agencies  that  attend  to 
administrative formalities on behalf of clients, but that is not considered significant since 
the business relating to public documents of non-EU countries/to non-EU countries would 
remain. In addition, the acceptance of non-certified translations could negatively affect the 
business of some certified translators. The losses of these professionals would depend on 
the  share  of  certified  translations,  which  represent  only  a  part  of  all  the  requests  for 
translations  managed.  Moreover,  in  some  Member  States  only  translations  of  public 
documents  performed  by  specialized  public  authorities  are  accepted.  Annual  negative 
economic  impact  would  range  from  €  50  to  €  100  million  but  would  be  outweighed  by 
savings of EU citizens and businesses  in the order of € 100-200 million 61. 

As for the implementation and ongoing costs of the policy option, these would depend on 
the specific option for intervention and are, therefore, detailed below, for each sub-option.  

Improved administrative cooperation  

Sub-option  4A  (administrative  cooperation  as  foreseen  under  policy  option  3):  see 
economic impact under policy option 3. 
Sub-option  4B  (administrative  cooperation  based  on  the  IMI):  IMI  is  flexible  and  can 
accommodate  any national  administrative  structure (centralised, fully  decentralised  or in 

60 

61 

As  already  mentioned,  the  costs  placed  on  EU  citizens  and  SMEs  for  certified  copies  is  based  on  the  time 
waste and the combination of copies issued without any charge (typically by public administrations) and other 
additional costs (notarial services, postal services). Therefore, the savings for EU citizens and SMEs are not 
directly related to the fees charged by public administrations, but are also (and mainly) due to the reduction of 
time  waste,  the  use  of  notarial  services,  or  postal  services.  Consequently,  no  significant  loss  for  public 
administrations would be envisaged based on this estimate. 
Based on the number of Apostilles (i.e. estimated as 1.4 million documents each year), 90% of them have to be 
accompanied by a certified translation (i.e. 1.3 million documents). At the same time, there would be public 
documents that would not need the Apostille certificate, but they would need to be accompanied by a certified 
translation  (we  can  assume  30%  of  documents  moving  across  EU,  i.e.  420.000  documents).  On  the  whole, 
more  than  1.6  million  public  documents  would  need  a  certified  translation.  The  estimated  savings  of  EU 
citizens and businesses are based on the assumption that a document can be, on average, made up of 3 pages 
(the  most  of documents  such  as  birth/  marriage  certificates  are 1  page documents,  whereas  other  documents 
such as tax return can reach 10 pages) and considering a cost equal to €30 per page.  

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
between) and its use generates no IT costs for the Member States. 

IMI  works  currently  with  ca.  13  000  registered  users  in  several  legislative  areas 
(professional qualifications, services, SOLVIT case handling, posting of workers, cash in 
transit  and  patients'  rights).  Setting-up  a  new  IMI  module  to  support  the  administrative 
cooperation foreseen by this proposal will not require any new costs and can be covered 
by the generic workflows which have already been developed (e.g. software development, 
translation 
the  system,  support  services,  etc.). 
Consequently, there will be no need to establish new specific server for public documents. 

functionalities,  maintenance  of 

Sub-option  4C  (administrative  cooperation  based  on  the  creation  of  a  network  of  civil 
registers):  in  addition  to  the  recurrent  costs  for  administrative  cooperation  activities, 
training of users involved and reporting on the new system (similar to those entailed by 
sub-option 4.B), high costs linked to the management and administration of the network 
among registrars (using a completely new IT system) would be borne both at the EU and 
Member  State  level.  As  compared  to  sub-option  4B  (IMI),  the  costs  entailed  by  the 
present  sub-option  would  be  additional.  For  example,  the  IMI  (as  a  benchmark  for 
estimating  costs  of  an  EU-wide  IT  communication  platform)  entails  the  following 
recurrent costs (maintenance and support services: € 350.000 per year; hosting: € 200.000 
per year; and training and promotion: € 200.000 per year). 

Multilingual standard forms 

Sub-option 4D (status quo): no positive impact. 

Sub-option 4E (compulsory standard forms to be used in cross-border cases): Additional 
costs  would  be  imposed  on  the  Member  States  due  to  the  introduction  of  new  standard 
forms,  with  regard  to  printing  of  forms  or  creating  templates  for  computer  usage,  and 
some  limited  training  and promotion  activities.  Medium  positive  impact  on  cost  savings 
for EU citizens and businesses due to the absence of translations and on administrations 
due to the reduced workload. 

Sub-option 4F (optional standard forms as annexes to national public documents): Same 
effect as in sub-option 4E. However, additional costs might be incurred due to the need to 
provide copies of national public documents to which these forms would be attached. 

Sub-option 4G (optional standard forms used independently in cross-border cases): same 
effects on Member States as in sub–option 4E.  

High positive impact on EU citizens and businesses in the exercice of their free movement 
rights  due  to  the  proposed  simplification  benefits.  Public  documents  originating  in 
different Member States and needed e.g. for the purposes of residence or establishment of 
economic  activities  would  be  accepted  without  legalisaton,  Apostille  and  under  a 
simplified  certification  regime.  No  more  frustration  or  time  wasted  for  EU  citizens  and 
businesses in the accomplishment of such administrative formalities.  

Possible positive impact in terms of fundamental rights: 

-  dispensing  with  administrative  formalities  of  public  documents,  including    the 
simplification  of  the  requirement  of  certified  copies  and  certified  translations,  would 
significantly reduce  the administrative burdens and costs of EU citizens and businesses in 
terms  of  the  right  to  take  up  residence,  to  seek  employment,  to  exercise  the  right  of 
establishment  and  to  provide  services  or  conduct  business  in  another  Member  State 
(Articles 45, 15.2 and 16 of the Charter). The proposed policy option could also facilitate 
the exercise of the right to social security entitlements in accordance with EU and national 
law (Article 34.2 of the Charter); 

- high positive impact on a number of  life events of EU citizens that  may occur during a 
stay in another Member State or that have a cross-border dimension. The proposed policy 
option  would  render  the  handling  of  documents  in  these  situations  less  burdensome  and 
would thus show consideration for the right to respect for private and family life and to an 
extent also for the right to marry and found a family, the right to property as well as for 
the rights of the child as provided in Articles 7, 9, 17 and 24 of the Charter; 

Social impact 

Impact on 
fundamental rights 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
-  the  proposed  policy  option  would  furthermore  effectively  address  the  risk  of  indirect 
discrimination  of  non-nationals  since  documents  emanating  from  other  Member  States 
would  no  longer  require  additional  administrative  formalities  as  compared  to  domestic 
documents; 

- the sub-options involving standard forms 4E-4G would have an overall positive effect in 
terms  of  minimising  costs  and  time  needed  by  EU  citizens  and  businesses  when 
presenting a public document in a host Member State. They would equally help to reduce 
the risk of indirect discrimination of non-nationals in comparison with nationals; 

Possible negative impact in terms of fundamental rights: 

-    the  abolition  of  legalisation  and  Apostille  requires  the  setting-up  of  an  improved 
administrative cooperation for the exchange and processing of information. As regards its  
impact on the right to the protection of personal data, it is necessary to precise that: 
Article  8  of  the  Charter  protects  the  right  to  privacy  with  respect  to  the  processing  of 
personal  data.  Whenever  personal  data  are  processed,  this  right  is  interfered  with.  The 
proposed legal instrument would foresee that information is directly transmitted between 
two authorities in the framework of an administrative cooperation based on the IMI. The 
existing  IMI  system  will  be  extended  to  serve  as  the  structure  for  the  administrative 
exchange. It is very likely that this information would contain personal data; consequently 
a  transmission  of  such  data  falls  under  the  protection  of  Article  8  of  the  Charter. 
According to Article 8(2) of the Charter, such data must be processed fairly for specified 
purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate 
basis laid down by law. 

The  future  legal  instrument  aims  to  ensure  those  safeguards  by  referring  to  Directive 
95/46/EC  on  the  protection  of  personal  data  and  to  the  IMI-Regulation.  Nevertheless, 
some of the abovementioned data protection safeguards have to be included in the legal 
instrument itself. This applies in particular to the purpose limitation. The reason is that a 
referral  to  legal  acts  regarding  data  protection/information  exchange  in  general  cannot 
substitute a clear definition of the specific purpose of the exchange of personal data in the 
scope of the legal instrument that will be proposed. 

These impacts would be handled by indicating clearly in the legal instrument itself that the 
documents  shall  be  exchanged  for  the  sole  purposes  of  producing  evidence  before  a 
competent authority of another Member State within the sphere of the competence of the 
said authority in a specific case. In addition, it will be made clear that the proposed legal 
instrument  would  only  allow  the  exchange  of  documents  between  the  authorities  which 
are authorised to operate in IMI and no other authorities. 

To  ensure  other  data  protection  safeguards,  the  proposed  instrument  would  contain 
necessary references to Directive 95/46/EC and to the safeguards in the IMI-Regulation. 

Sub-option 4B: effective fraud prevention mechanism ensured through the administrative 
cooperation (accompagnied by training and awareness activities) and the secure exchange 
of information under IMI. 

As compared to the status quo, the improved and easier administrative cooperation would 
effectively  support  the  communication  between  the  authorities  of  the  Member  States  in 
order to verify the authenticity of public documents, whereas the cases of fraud due to the 
abuse  of  the  Apostille  certificate  (e.g.  the  fraudulent  attachment  of  the  Apotille  on  fake 
documents in order to feign theri legitimacy) would be eliminated. The traditional visual 
chek and review of the document in detail to verify that there is no indication of forgery 
remains as possibility for the receiving authority. 

Sub-options  involving  standard  forms  (4E  –  4G):  the  use  of  standard  forms  would  also 
facilitate the detection of fraud of public documents in cross-border scenarios. 

Impact on fraud  

In general, very low negative impact on EU budget under this policy option. 

Impact on EU budget  

In particular, very low negative impact under sub-option 4B: adding of new users to IMI 
after the application of this proposal could be handled within the capacity of the current 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
IMI  infrastructure.  As  regards  potential  training  costs  under  this  proposal,  these  will  be 
covered  by  a  cost-sharing  model  including  the  contribution  of  the  Commission's  DG 
Justice. It is estimated that the total (one-shot) costs for the necessary training would be 
around 50 000 EUR. For sub-option 4C: there would be management and IT costs. Based 
on data available for the implementation of IMI (which involves 5.700 public authorities), 
the costs for developing the network from scratch were around € 1,5 million. 

As  regards  the  sub-options  related  to  the  standard  forms  (4E  –  4G),  the  cost  would  be 
related to meetings  under the comitology procedure. 

The  new  EU  instrument  would  require  implementation  by  the  Member  States  which 
would  need  to  designate  competent  authorities  in  order  to  ensure  participation  in  the 
administrative cooperation and in the comitology procedure. 

The removal of all identified administrative formalities would necessarily require a high 
level  of  mutual  trust  between  the  authorities  of  the  Member  States  and  the  need  for 
implementing effective tools for guaranteeing the authenticity of public documents. 

Transposition and 
compliance aspects 

As for the principal elements of this policy option, no major issues in terms of political 
acceptability are detected as most of the Member States have already concluded a number 
of  bi/multilateral  agreements  abolishing  legalisation  or  the  Apostille.  In  addition,  EU 
sectoral  law  already  provides  for  simplification,  administrative  cooperation  and  mutual 
assistance between the competent authorities in the Member States in certain areas. 

This policy option would not interfere with substantive or procedural national or EU law 
at any level or concepts on which all Member States have already agreed, under the 1987 
Brussels Convention itself and/or the Apostille Convention. 

Thus, the policy option identified would not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the 
objectives and would not raise issues in terms of compliance with existing legislation62. 

The  majority  of  the  Member  States,  as  well  as  of  the  consulted  stakeholders, 
welcomed the objective to abolish the administrative formalities which are analysed 
in this Impact Assessment Report. However, they underlined the need to introduce 
accompanying  solutions,  such  as  the  possibility  to  verify  the  authenticity  of  public 
documents through administrative cooperation in order to ensure legal certainty and 
minimize fraud63. The idea of introducing electronic systems such as the IMI is also 
welcomed  by  stakeholders  and  is  in  line  with  the  trend  to  move  away  from  paper 
documents  (provided  that  the  necessary  legal  certainty  and  fraud  prevention 
measures are taken). 

Stakeholders views  

Policy Option 5:   Full  harmonisation  of  public  documents  and  rules  governing 

their 

circulation within the EU 

This  policy  option  would  consist  of  a  full  harmonisation  of  public  documents  at  national  level, 
meaning  that  only  one  document,  e.g.  birth  or  marriage  certificate,  would  exist  in  all  Member 
States. These harmonised public documents would then be used in either national or cross-border 
situations, as they would contain all the required information in a fully standardised manner in all 
official  languages.  In  addition,  this  policy  option  would  completely  abolish  the  formalities  of 
legalisation,  Apostille,  certified  copies  and  certified  translations  and  fully  harmonise  situations  in 
which  public  documents  are  needed  in  cross-border  scenarios  by  EU  citizens  and  businesses. 

62 

63 

Moreover, it is worth noting that this initiatives would relate only to administrative formalities and would not 
have  implications  in  terms  of  automatic  recognition  of  the  effects  of  public  documents  (i.e.  the  second 
initiative  of  the  Green  Paper  COM(2010)  747  final,  focused  on  the  recognition  of  the  effects  of  civil  status 
records). 
See Annex 14.  

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Finally, it would introduce harmonisation of national rules concerning the authentication of public 
documents within the EU, including those issued in third countries. 

The  expected  impact  in  achieving  objectives  under  this  'extreme'  policy  option  would  be  limited, 
most  importantly  because  it  would  have  excessive  intrusive  impact  on  the  national  legal  systems 
and  administrative  practices.  Despite  possible  benefits  for  EU  citizens  and  businesses  in  terms  of 
costs, time, legal certainty and facilitation of their Treaty and Charter rights, it would undoubtedly 
create  difficulties  as  regards  the  acceptability  of  the  fully  harmonised  public  documents  in  the 
Member States. Another associated disadvantage of this policy option would be its high compliance 
cost  both  at  national  and  EU  level.  Finally,  even  if  this  policy  option  would  theoretically  bring 
added value in terms of detection of fraud and forgery of public documents (as a consequence of the 
full  harmonisation  at  national  and  EU  level),  this  would  be  diminished  by  the  missing 
administrative  cooperation  allowing  competent  authorities  to  prevent  potential  cases  of  fraud  on 
public documents or enable other useful exchanges between them (such as through IMI). 

9. 

COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF POLICY OPTIONS 

The table below sets out a comparison of the relative rating of the 4 policy options as described in 
section  8  against  the  general  and  specific  objectives  as  defined  in  part  6.  The  policy  options  are 
classified according to their potential to meet the objectives defined in section 6, with three positive 
checkmarks  ((cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51))  indicating  highest  relative  potential  and  three  negative  checkmarks  (---) 
indicating lowest  relative  potential. Ratings for expected effectiveness in achieving the objectives 
are given equal weight in the final sum. 

The rating takes into account, in particular, the expected beneficial effects of each of the options on 
the level of deterrence against illegal activities affecting EU financial interests. 

Comparative assessment of the policy options 1-5 

                  Policy 

1  

2  

3 

4  

5 

                  options 

(Status quo) 

  Comparison 
      criteria 

Effectiveness in 
achieving policy 
objectives 

0 

0 (marginal) 

savings of  € 25 
million for 
abolishing 
Apostille per 
year,  savings 
between € 2.3 
million and € 
4.6 million for 
abolishing 
legalisation per 
year 

savings of € 25 
million for 
abolishing 
Apostille per 
year,  savings 
between € 2.3 
million and € 
4.6 million for 
abolishing 
legalisation per 
year, savings of 
€ 75-100 
million for  
simplifying  
certified copies 
per year and of 
€ 100-200 
million for 
simplifying 
certified 
translations 

(cid:51) 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Efficiency (costs of 
implementation) 

Impact on 
fundamental rights 

Impact on fraud 
(ability of authorities 
to verify the 
authenticity of public 
documents ) 

0 

0 

0 

0 (marginal) 

0/- 

0/- 

(cid:51) 

per year   

0/- 

(cid:51)(cid:51) 

- - - 

(cid:51)(cid:51) 

(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51) 

The sub-options under policy option 4 related to accompanying measures: improved administrative 
cooperation and issuance of standard forms are set out in detail in a comparative table below. 

Comparative assessment of the sub-options considered under policy options 4 as regards the 
improved administrative cooperation  

4A 

4B 

4C 

                  Policy 

                  options 

          Comparison 

            Criteria 

 (administrative 
cooperation as it is in 
the 1987 Brussels 
Convention extended 
to all MS) 

(expansion of IMI) 

(network of civil 
registers) 

Reduction of cost and time of 
administrations related to 
verification procedures and 
translations  

Administrative/ implementation 
costs at Member States level 

Administrative/ implementation 
costs at EU level  

0 

0 

0 

(cid:51)(cid:51)(cid:51) 

(cid:51)(cid:51) 

0 

0/- 

-- 

--- 

The  preferred  sub-option  as  regards  the improved  administrative  cooperation  is  sub-option  4B: 
administrative cooperation based on the Internal Market Information System (IMI). This sub-
option  was  preferred  since  it  would  represent  an  effective  and  secure  means  for  assessing  the 
authenticity  of  public  documents,  preventing  fraud  and  forgery,  and,  at  the  same  time,  for 
simplifying the administrative burdens placed on EU citizens and businesses. It would also promote 
the principle of mutual trust between the competent authorities. 

Its advantages could be summarised as follows: 

– 

– 

EN 

immediate direct contacts between the competent authorities in the Member States aimed 
at verifying the authenticity of public documents in the event of reasonable doubt; 

immediate direct contacts between the competent authorities in the Member States aimed 
at verifying the authenticity of public documents in the event of reasonable doubt; 

41 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
– 

– 

– 

– 

easy  identification  of  the  relevant  interlocutors  in  other  Member  States  through  secure 
electronic means and reduced language barriers; 

effective detection of fraud and forgery of the circulating public documents; 

very low negative impact on EU budget  due to the use of the existing functionalities and 
infrastructure; 

advanced  and  up-to-date  procedures  and  rules  for  data  protection,  as  already  included 
within  the  new  IMI  Regulation  (Regulation  1024/2012  that  entered  into  force  on  4 
December 2012). 

Comparative assessment of the sub-options considered under policy options 4 as regards the 
issuance of multilingual standard forms 

4 D  

4 E  

4F  

4G  

                     Policy  

Sub-options  

(status quo) 

(compulsory 
standard forms 
to be used in 
cross-border 
cases)  

(optional 
standard forms 
as annexes to the 
national 
documents) 

(optional 
standard forms 
used 
independently in 
cross-border 
cases) 

   Comparison  

       criteria 

Facilitating 
the 
acceptance  of  foreign 
documents  

Implementation costs 
at EU level 

Transposition and 
compliance aspects  

0 

0 

0 

(cid:51)(cid:51) 

- - 

- - 

(cid:51) 

- 

- - 

(cid:51)(cid:51) 

- 

- 

The  preferred  sub-option  as  regards  the  issuance  of  multilingual  standard  forms  is  sub-option 
4G:  optional standard forms used independently in cross-border cases. 

This sub-option was preferred since the issuance of these multilingual standard forms would: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

lead  to  important  cost  and  time  savings  for  EU  citizens,  businesses  and  national  public 
officials; 

favour the mutual understanding of public documents between  the Member States; 

further reduce translation requirements as they would exist in all official languages of the 
EU (multilingual forms); 

substantially  reduce  cases  of  reasonable  doubt  concerning  the  authenticity  of  the 
circulating public documents; 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
          
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
– 

10. 

allow the parallel existence of the underlying national public documents at Member States 
level. 

ASSESSMENT  OF  EFFECTIVENESS  OF  THE  PREFERRED  POLICY  OPTION  AGAINST  POLICY 
OBJECTIVES (SPECIFIC AND OPERATIONAL)  

The preferred option is Policy Option 4 with sub-options 4B and 4G.  

Consequently, the preferred option would involve a combination of the followings elements: 

– 

– 

– 

Abolition  of  legalisation,  Apostille  and  simplification  of  certified  copies  and  certified 
translations. 

Improved  administrative  cooperation  between  the  Member  States  through  a  modern  and 
secure communication network based on the existing Internal Market Information System 
(IMI). 

Development  of  EU  multilingual  standard  forms used  independently and separately from 
the  underlying  national  public  documents  in  cross-border  cases.  Four  types  of  such 
standard  forms  (concerning  birth,  death,  marriage/registered  partnership  and  legal  status 
and representation of a company or other undertaking) would be directly established in the 
annexes of the instrument. 

As regards the legislative form of the instrument, a Regulation appears to be the most appropriate 
taking into account both the problems and objectives identified. 

Summary of the preferred option 

The  preferred  option  would 
involve  a  combination  of  the 
following elements: 

Abolition of legalisation, Apostille 
simplification  of 
as  well  as 
certified  copies  and  certified 
translations. 

Improved 
administrative 
cooperation  between  the  Member 
States,  through  a  communication 
network  based  on  the  existing 
Internal  Market 
Information 
System (IMI). 

Development 
of  multilingual 
standard  forms  at  EU  level  to  be 
used independently and separately 
from 
the  underlying  national 
public  documents  in  cross-border 
cases. These standard forms would 
be defined for the most frequently 
used  public  documents  by  EU 
citizens  and  businesses  in  cross-

This  would  address 
problems, see section 4: 

the 

following 

This  would  achieve  the  following 
objectives, see section 6: 

Overall  cost  and 
legalisation and Apostille. 

time  wasted 

for 

Facilitate  and  enhance  the  exercise 
of  EU  free  movement  rights  by  EU 
citizens and businesses. 

Overall cost and time wasted for certified 
copies and certified translations. 

Legal uncertainty and diversity. 

Risk of discrimination. 

Fraud and forgery of public documents. 

caused 

difficulties 

Reduce 
by 
administrative  formalities  for  the 
acceptance  of  public  documents 
originating in other Member States. 

the 

fragmented 

Simplify 
legal 
framework regulating the circulation 
of  public  documents  between  the 
Member States. 

Ensure  a  more  effective  level  of 
detection  of  fraud  and  forgery  of 
public documents. 

Eliminate  risks  of  discrimination 
among EU citizens and businesses. 

Cut  costs  and  delays  caused  by 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
Summary of the preferred option 

  for 
border  scenarios,  namely 
public 
concerning 
documents 
birth,  death,  marriage/registered 
partnership  and  legal  status  of  a 
company  or  other  undertaking. 
These  would 
established 
directly  in  the  annexes  to  the 
instrument.  

be 

legalisation,  similar  formality  (i.e. 
formalities 
Apostille)  and  other 
certified 
(certified 
citizens, 
translations) 
businesses 
public 
administrations. 

and 
for  EU 
and 

copies 

Reduce  the  need  for  translation  of 
public documents within the EU. 

exchange 

Promote  an  efficient  and  secure 
among 
cooperation 
Member  States  authorities  as  a 
means 
the  documents’ 
authenticity. 

to  verify 

The  benefits  for  EU  citizens,  businesses  and  national  public  administrations  under  the  preferred 
policy  option  (e.g.  cost  and  time  savings,  simplification  and  reduction  of  practical  difficulties, 
added security and more effective detection of fraud) would not be outweighed by the creation of 
additional  burdens  for  the  Member  States.  In  fact,  the  administrative  burdens  for  the  Member 
States  would  be  reduced  by  €  5-7  million  annually 64,  due  to  the  abolition  of  the  Apostille  and 
moreover between € 500.000 and € 1 million  as a 

consequence of the abolished legalisation. 

In any case, the administrative burden placed on the Member States authorities for the exchange of 
information concerning documents whose authenticity is in doubt would certainly be lower than at 
present.  Of  all  the  public  documents  which  currently  need  the  issuance  of  the  Apostille,  a  minor 
percentage is likely to be of dubious authenticity. 

It  is  worth  noting  that  the  costs  of  administrative  cooperation  could  differ  between  the  Member 
States, depending  on  the numbers of EU non-nationals making use of the right to free movement 
and/or  the  number  of  documents  issued  for  cross-border  use.  In  Member  States  where  one  or  the 
other  are  higher  than  average  (e.g.  France,  Belgium,  Luxembourg,  Germany,  Spain,  UK,  Italy), 
costs can be anticipated to be more significant. 

Possible application of the EU standard cost model  

The application of the EU standard cost model is constrained by the lack of evidence on the number 
of  cases  in  which  the  authenticity  of  public  documents  is  questioned  and  the  time  required  for 
solving each case. 

Following  some  basic  assumptions,  the  administrative  costs  due  to  administrative  cooperation 
through the IMI could be represented as follows: 

Price  =  Tariff  (average  hourly  labour  costs  in  the  EU  =  22,6  € 65)  x  Time  (time  spent  for  the 
activities required for administrative cooperation = around half an hour) 

multiplied by 

64 
65 

i.e. in the first step by €  31-33 million annually, less fee revenue from citizens, by 5-7 million.  
Eurostat, “Hourly labour costs in the EU 27“.  

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Quantity  =  Number  of  entities  (4  authorities  involved  in  different  Member  States  –  i.e.  each 
exchange would involve at least 2 public authorities (the involvement of 1-2 further authorities at 
local  level  per  each  Member  State  can  be  envisaged)  x  Frequency  (it  can  be  estimated  as  the 
number of apostilled documents issued and giving rise to doubts on their authenticity = around 1% 
of the Apostilles issued annually in the EU, i.e. 14.000). 

As a result of the core equation, the costs for the usage of IMI for administrative cooperation would 
amount to around € 633.000. 

Finally, the usage of the IMI would have very low negative impact on EU budget due to the use of 
the existing functionalities and infrastructure.  Similarly, the introduction of multilingual standard 
forms would create only limited and negligible costs at Member States level with regard to printing 
of forms or creating templates for computer usage, and some limited training. 

Finally,  in  the  long  term  unforeseeable  additional  administrative  burdens  and  costs  may  arise 
due  to  increased  mobility  of  citizens,  businesses,  goods  and  services  within  the  EU  and  the 
increased  need  for  documents  which  on  Member  State  level  may  already  have  been  replaced  by 
inter-administrative  cooperation  and  data  access  (e.g.  when  the  child  benefit  authority  can 
electronically access the birth records). Firstly, this development is a desired development since the 
cost  and  burden  of  intra-EU  mobility  are  greatly  offset  by  the  advantages  of  such  mobility. 
Secondly,  similarly  to  the  Member  State  level,  in  the  long  term  further  administrative  sectoral 
cooperation may also develop at EU level and should not negatively impact on the proposal. 

11. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Providing  for  a  solid  monitoring  and  evaluation  mechanism  is  crucial  to  ensure  that  the  rules 
provided in the instrument are complied with in practice. A transitional period will be provided in 
the instrument in order to allow Member States to prepare for its implementation and communicate 
to the Commission the requested information. 

A  review  clause  will  also  be  inserted  in  the  instrument  in  order  to  evaluate  its  application  by  the 
Member  States  and  ensure  the  possibility  for  follow-up  amendments.  It  is  foreseen  that  the 
Commission  submits  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  Economic  and  Social 
Committee, by 3 years after the date of application of this Regulation, and every 5 years thereafter 
at  the  latest,  a  report  on  the  application  of  the  new  instrument,  including  an  evaluation  of  any 
practical  experiences  relating  to  the  cooperation  between  central  authorities.  That  report  will  be 
accompanied,  where  appropriate,  by  proposals  for  amendments,  in  particular  as  regards  a 
possible  extension  of  the  application  of  the  Regulation  to  broader  categories  of  public 
documents. 

Progress indicators and periodical reporting 

A set of progress indicators will be defined in order to monitor: 

(i) The state of implementation and correct application of the Regulation: 

• 

• 

EN 

Correct/complete  application  of  the  new  Regulation  reported  by  relevant  national  
authorities; 

Infringements  procedures  -  under  Article  258  of  the  TFEU  -  launched  by  the  European 
Commission. 

45 

   EN 

 
(ii) The progress towards objective and expected impacts: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Number  of  accesses  to  IMI  by  designated  competent  authorities  for  administrative 
cooperation on the authenticity of public documents; 

Change in the number of complaints concerning obstacles related to the free movement of 
public documents in the EU, reported by EU citizens and businesses; 

Change in the number of cases of fraud or forgery of public documents detected; 

Trends and changes of the intra-EU mobility rates of EU citizens; 

Trends and changes of the intra-EU trade and cross-border activities of EU businesses. 

Monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  practical  effects  will  take  place  on  three  levels.  Firstly,  and  as 
usual,  the  transposition  and  implementation  of  the  proposed  Regulation  would  have  to  be 
monitored. Secondly, the administrative cooperation based on the IMI would be designed to offer  
certain  statistical  data  as  to  its  usage,  which  would  provide  an  indication  about  the  number  of 
problems occurring under the new system as well as about  the costs these problems create. Thirdly, 
relevant  practical  experiences.
external  studies  could  be  envisaged 

to  evaluate  any 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
Annex 1 

Abbreviations 

CNUE  

Council of the Notaries of the European Union 

eAPP   

electronic Apostille Pilot Program  

EC 

EU 

European Commission 

European Union 

HCCH  

Hague Conference on Private International Law 

CIEC   

International Commission on Civil Status / Commission Internationale de l'Etat Civil 

IMI 

IT 

MS 

RP 

Internal Market Information System 

Information Technology 

Member State 

Registered Partnership 

SME 

Small-Medium Enterprise 

TFEU   

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 2 

Main definitions: legalisation and the similar 
administrative formality  

Legalisation and Apostille 

The legalisation is the formal procedure66 for certifying the authenticity of a signature, the capacity 
in which the person signing the document has acted and, where appropriate, the identity of the seal 
or stamp which it bears67. It has the effect of putting a foreign public document on the same footing 
as a domestic public document as far as proof of its authenticity is concerned.  

Although  there  is  a  nearly-homogeneous  interpretation  by  the  MS  of  the  legal  concept  of 
legalisation68, divergences continue to exist, which results in different requirements being imposed 
on the citizens and businesses needing the legalised documents for cross-border use.  

The  practice  of  legalisation  within  the  MS  appears  to  be  insufficiently  unregulated  or  merely 
contained in (internal) ministerial guidelines69. The status and legal effects of this approach to the 
practice  of  legalisation  means  that  both  the  guidelines  and  their  effects  may  be  unclear,  allowing 
judicial and administrative authorities to be flexible in choosing whether and how to give effect to 
them: the ultimate consequence is a significant degree of uncertainty for individuals, i.e. the citizen 
or the business needing the legalisation. 

In the EU, the procedure of legalisation has been largely substituted by the similar formality of the 
Apostille, a simplified formality that envisages the addition of the certificate foreseen by the Hague 
Convention  of  1961  (i.e.  the  Apostille  Convention)  abolishing  the  requirement  of  legalisation  for 
foreign public documents. The Apostille is issued by an authority of the state of origin, and certifies 
the  genuineness  or  “authenticity  of  the  signature,  the  capacity  in  which  the  person  signing  the 
document  has  acted  and,  where  appropriate,  the  identity  of  the  seal  or  stamp,  which  it  bears” 
(Article 3.1 Hague Apostille Convention). 

There  are,  however,  practical  problems.  Sometimes,  the  authorities  of  the  receiving  state  do  not 
know  whether  the  issuing  authority  was  competent  to  authenticate  the  document  or  whether  the 
procedure and/or the  form  required  by the national law  of the  state of origin have been complied 
with. 

66

67 
68 

69 

Alternative wording  for  "the  formal  procedure"  could  be "the  formality  used  to  certify",  based  on  Article  1, 
Convention  of  CoE  1968  ("…legalisation  means  only  the  formality  used  to  certify  the  authenticity  of  the 
signature  on  a  document,  the  capacity  in  which  the  person  signing  such  document  has  acted  and,  where 
appropriate, the identity of the seal or stamp which such document bears.) 
See Article 3 of the 1987 Convention. 
All MS have adhered to an interpretation and use of the concept of legalisation that is the same or similar to 
that introduced by the Apostille Convention. Some differences exist, such as the fact that in Hungary, Latvia, 
Lithuania,  Portugal,  Slovakia,  Slovenia  and  Spain,  legalisation  has  been  described  as  concerning  merely  the 
authenticity  of  the  signature  of  the  public  authority  signing  the  public  document;  in  Greece,  the  process  of 
legalisation also concerns the competence of the public authority signing the public document. 
In  particular,  this  is  the  case  in  Denmark,  Finland,  France,  Greece,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Netherlands, 
Poland, Spain and Sweden. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
This  problem  is  not  solved  by  the  Apostille  procedure  because  the  Apostille  proves  only  the 
genuineness of the instrument, not the competence of the issuing authority or the compliance with 
all procedural and formal requirements. 

Only legalisation in the wider sense (which may be issued by the diplomatic or consular authorities 
of the state of destination in the state of origin) would certify also that the requirements concerning 
competence, procedure and form have been met. 

Even in cases where the Apostille is abolished, only a public document issued by a competent 
authority following the procedure and form required by the law of the state of origin can be 
rightly expected to be accepted and used in the state of destination. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
Annex 3 

Main international agreements 

1.1 

The Apostille Convention: application and scope 

As explained in the main text of the Impact Assessment Report, the Apostille Convention abolishes 
the requirement of legalisation for relatively a broad range of categories of public documents drawn 
up  in  all  the  states  that  are  parties  to  the  Convention  (all  EU  MS  and  a  large  number  of  non-EU 
MS). However, it does not cover documents executed by private persons, commercial and customs 
related documents (e.g. certificates of origin or import or export licenses) nor documents executed 
by diplomatic or consular agents. 

According to its Article 1, it applies to the following documents: 

a)  documents  emanating  from  an  authority  or  an  official  connected  with  the  courts  or 
tribunals of the State, including those emanating from a public prosecutor, a clerk of a court 
or a process-server (“huissier de justice”); 

b) administrative documents; 

c) notarial acts; 

d)  official  certificates  which  are  placed  on  documents  signed  by  persons  in  their  private 
capacity, such as official certificates recording the registration of a document or the fact that 
it was in existence on a certain date and official and notarial authentications of signatures. 

Besides, provided that the only effect of an Apostille is to certify the authenticity of the signature, 
the  capacity  in  which  the  person  signing  the  document  has  acted  and,  where  appropriate,  the 
identity  of  the  seal  or  stamp  which  the  document  bears,  it  does  not  relate  to  the  content  of  the 
underlying document itself (i.e. the apostilled document). 

1.2 

The Brussels 1987 Convention: application and scope 

The Brussels 1987 Convention is an EU intergovernmental Convention abolishing both legalisation 
and the requirement for attaching an Apostille. This Convention did not enter into force, because 
it has not been ratified by all MS (as required by its Article 6(2)). However, those MS, which have 
ratified  the  Convention  can  declare  that  the  Convention  nonetheless  should  apply  between  them 
(Article 6(3)). 

As  of  today,  the  Convention  has  been  ratified  and  is  applied  provisionally  by  six  MS,  namely 
Belgium  (applicable  since  16.3.1997),  Denmark  (26.10.1989),  France  (12.3.1992),  Italy 
(11.1.1991),  Ireland  (8.3.1999),  and  Latvia  (21.6.2004).  Cyprus  (29.4.2005)  has  acceded  to  the 
Convention, however without declaring it provisionally applicable. The Convention was also signed 
by Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and UK, but these Member States have 
refrained from its ratification. 

As to its substantive scope of application, Article 1(2) of the Convention basically applies to the 
same  types  of  documents  as  the  Hague  Apostille  Convention,  but  without  the  exceptions 
contained in Article 1(3) of the Apostille Convention (i.e. documents executed by diplomatic or 
consular  agents  and  administrative  documents  dealing  directly  with  commercial  or  customs 
operations). 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
Article 4 of the Convention also provides for administrative cooperation in situations where the 
authority  of  the  MS  of  destination  has  serious  doubts,  with  good  reason,  in  relation  to  the 
authenticity of public documents that originate in a MS that provisionally applies the Convention. 

However, the scope for cooperation under the Convention is very limited: the Convention states 
that authorities may request information directly from the relevant central authority of the MS from 
which the act or document emanated only if they have serious doubts, with good reason, as to the 
authenticity of the document’s signature, the capacity in which the person signing the document has 
acted or the identity of the seal or stamp (Article 4(1) of the Convention). The Convention further 
limits  the  scope  for  activating  the  administrative  cooperation  by  stressing  that  requests  for 
information may be made only in exceptional cases and must set out the grounds on which they are 
based (identical provision). 

The  1987  Convention  has  a  field  of  application  that  goes  beyond  that  of  the  other  multilateral 
conventions. The Convention provides that when a treaty, convention or agreement between two or 
more  contracting  MS  contains  provisions  which  subject  the  certification  of  a  signature,  seal  or 
stamp  to  certain  formalities,  the  Convention  will  override  such  provisions  if  those  formalities  are 
more rigorous than the formality provided for in the Convention (Article 8 of the Convention). 

Since  the  1987  Convention  contains  less  rigorous  formalities  than,  for  example,  the  Apostille 
Convention, the Convention overrides the use of the Apostille formality between the MS that apply 
the 1987 Convention provisionally, substituting it with its own less burdensome provisions. 

There  is  no  evidence  about  issues  encountered  by  MS  that  ratified  the  Convention  in  terms  of 
increased cases of forgery or fraud related to the use of public documents across different MS. 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
Annex 4 

CIEC Conventions exempting public documents from 
legalisation 

Annex Box 1: CIEC/ICSS Conventions exempting public documents from legalisation 

Convention No 1 on the issue of certain extracts from civil status records for use abroad 

CIEC Convention No 1 on the issue of certain extracts from civil status records for use abroad, which was signed in Paris on 27 
September 1956 and entered into force on 15 March 1958, applies between nine MS (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, 
Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Slovenia).The Convention exempts extracts from civil status records intended to be used 
abroad under the Convention from legalisation (see Article 5 of the Convention). 

Convention No 2 on the issue free of charge and the exemption from legalisation of copies of civil status records 

Convention No 2 on the issue free of charge and the exemption from legalisation of copies of civil status records, which was signed 
in Luxembourg on 26 September 1957 and entered into force on 3 January 1960, applies between eight MS (Austria, Belgium, 
France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Portugal).The Convention exempts from legalisation verbatim copies of or 
extracts from civil status records, which bear the signatures and seal of the issuing authority (see Article 4 of the Convention). 

Convention No 5 extending the competence of authorities empowered to receive declarations acknowledging natural children 

CIEC Convention No 5 extending the competence of authorities empowered to receive declarations acknowledging natural children, 
which was signed in Rome on 14 September 1961 and entered into force on 29 July 1963, applies between eight MS (Belgium, 
France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain).The Convention exempts from legalisation certified copies of or 
extracts from instruments embodying the declarations acknowledging – without filiation - natural children (see Article 2 of the 
Convention) and declarations acknowledging – with filiation - natural children (see Article 3 of the Convention) as far as these 
documents bear the signature and seal of the issuing authority (see Article 5 of the Convention). 

Convention No 12 on the legitimation by marriage 

CIEC Convention No 12 on the legitimation by marriage, which was signed in Rome on 10 September 1970 and entered into force 
on 8 February 1976, applies between six MS (Austria, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and Netherlands).The Convention exempts 
from legalisation notices and supporting documents concerning annotation of legitimation by marriage of children sent by the civil 
registrar of the state where a marriage is celebrated to another state where the record of the birth of a child was drawn up or 
transcribed (see Article 7 of the Convention). 

Convention No 15 introducing an international family record book 

CIEC Convention No 15 introducing an international family record book, which was signed in Paris on 12 September 1974 and 
entered into force 1 March 1979, applies between three MS (Greece, Italy and Luxembourg).The Convention exempts from 
legalisation the “international family booklet” that was created through the establishment of the Convention (see Article 11 of the 
Convention). 

Convention No 16 on the issue of multilingual extracts from civil status records 

CIEC Convention No 16 on the issue of multilingual extracts from civil status records, which was signed in Vienna on 8 September 
1976 and entered into force on 30 July 1983, applies between eleven MS (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, 
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain).The Convention abolishes legalisation between the MS party of multilingual 
extracts from civil status records (see Article 8 of the Convention). 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
Annex 5 

Summary of EU laws and their relation to EU rights 

The table below summarizes the main EU law related to the following areas of EU rights: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Free movement of judgments 

Access to justice (legal aid) 

Entry and residence for Union citizens and their family members 

Free movement of workers 

Entry and residence for self-employed persons 

Recognition of professional qualifications 

Free movement of services and freedom of establishment 

For  each  legal  instrument,  the  existence  of  provisions  in  terms  of  legalisation,  administrative 
cooperation or introduction of standard forms is highlighted. 

Annex Table 1: Provisions of legal Instruments related to different areas of EU rights 

Legal instrument 

Brussels I Regulation 
(Regulation No 44/2001) 
on jurisdiction and the 
recognition and 
enforcement of 
judgments in civil and 
commercial matters  

Regulation 
1896/2006/EC creating a 
European order for 
payment procedure 

Exemptio
n from 
legalisati
on 

Provisions 

Harmonis
ation of 
public 
document
s 

Administrati
ve 
Cooperation 

Free movement of judgments 

Notes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Requires  that  a  party  seeking  recognition  of  a  judgment 
rendered in another MS produces a copy of the judgment 
“which  satisfies the conditions  necessary to establish  its 
authenticity” 

Prohibits  MS  from  requiring  prior  legalisation  of  a 
judgment rendered in another MS before accepting it  

Exempts certificates which are required for certifying the 
authenticity  of 
judgments,  court  settlements  and 
authentic  instruments,  as  well  as  authentic  instruments  
and the documents used for their certification, as well as 
settlements which have been approved by a court in the 
course of proceedings and are enforceable in the Member 
State in which they were concluded  

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Establishes  the  use  of  a  standard  form  by  the  court  that 
executes the order for payments  

Exempts  from  legalization:  the  copy  of  the  European 
order  for  payment,  as  declared  enforceable  by  the  court 
of  origin,  satisfies  the  conditions  necessary  to  establish 
its authenticity  

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Exemptio
n from 
legalisati
on 

Provisions 

Harmonis
ation of 
public 
document
s 

Administrati
ve 
Cooperation 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Notes 

Lays down minimum standards for the free circulation of 
judgments,  court  settlements  and  authentic  instruments 
without  any  intermediate  proceedings  brought  in  the 
Member  State  of  enforcement  prior  to  recognition  and 
enforcement  

Allows  a  judgment  to  be  enforced  in  all  other  MS 
without  judicial  review  of  the  proper  application  of  the 
minimum  procedural  standards  in  the  MS  where  the 
judgment is to be enforced. 

Exempts judgments in matrimonial matters or in matters 
concerning  parental  responsibility  from 
legalisation 
formalities  

Exempts  from  legalisation  formalities  certificates  drawn 
up  in  the  standard  forms  required  for  certifying  the 
authenticity  of  judgments,  authentic  instruments  and 
agreements between parties  

Establishes  the  direct  transmission  and  execution  of 
requests  for 
the 
competent courts in the MS 

taking  of  evidence  between 

the 

Requires that MS draw up a list of the courts competent 
to  receive  requests  for  the  taking  of  evidence  and 
designate  a  central  body  responsible  for    supplying 
information  to  the  courts,  seeking  solutions  to  any 
difficulties  which  may  arise  in  respect  of a  request;  and 
forwarding,  in  exceptional  cases,  at  the  request  of  a 
requesting court, a request to the competent court  

the  direct 
in 

transmission  of  all  documents 
Provides 
involved 
the  competent 
authorities  in  the  MS,  as  well  as  the  competent 
authorities (Article 2) 

the  procedure  between 

Exempts from legalisation  

Provides  for  the  mutual  recognition  of  judgments  and 
decisions  in  cross-border  insolvency  proceedings  but 
does not provide for standard forms 

Exempts documents by which a liquidator is appointed in 
a Member State and translations of such documents from 
legalisation formalities 

Access to justice (legal aid) 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Provides for harmonised forms for legal aid applications 
and  for  the  transmission  of  legal  aid  applications  in  the 
event of cross-border litigation 

Exempts from legalisation  

Legal instrument 

Regulation 805/2004/EC 
creating a European 
Enforcement Order for 
uncontested claims 

Regulation 
2201/2003/EC 
concerning jurisdiction 
and the recognition and 
enforcement of 
judgments in 
matrimonial matters and 
the matters of parental 
responsibility 

Regulation 
1206/2001/EC on 
cooperation between the 
courts of the MS in the 
taking of evidence in 
civil or commercial 
matters 

Regulation 
1348/2000/EC on the 
service in the MS of 
judicial and extrajudicial 
documents in civil or 
commercial matters 

Regulation 
1346/2000/EC on 
insolvency proceedings 

Directive 2003/8/EC to 
improve access to justice 
in cross-border disputes 
by establishing 
minimum common rules 
relating to legal aid for 
such disputes 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
 
Exemptio
n from 
legalisati
on 

Provisions 

Harmonis
ation of 
public 
document
s 

Administrati
ve 
Cooperation 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Notes 

Requires  the  MS  to  designate  authorities  competent  to 
send  (transmitting  authorities)  and  receive  (receiving 
authorities) the harmonised legal aid application forms 

Exempts from legalisation 

Entry and residence for Union citizens and their family members 

No 

No 

No 

in  principle, 

Contains  no  explicit  exemptions  from 
legalisation, 
regulation  and 
meaning, 
implementation  of  legalisation  formalities  aimed  at 
verifying  the  authenticity  of  foreign  Public  Documents 
remain subject to the domestic laws of the MS 

that 

the 

Contains though passages that shed light on the question 
whether  formalities  to  ensure  the  authenticity  of  the 
documents  required  in  the  process  of  recognising  the 
rights protected by the Directive can be justified 

Free movement of workers 

No 

No 

No 

Specifies the supporting documents that may be required 
by  the  MS  prior  to  recognising  the  existence  of  an  EU 
right in order to avoid divergent administrative practices 
or  interpretations  constituting  an  undue  obstacle  to  the 
exercise in practice of the right of entry and residence 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

This directive addresses administrative cooperation in the 
field  of  taxation,  by  inviting  MS  tax  authorities  to 
actively cooperate in exchanging information 

There is  no explicit provision in the Directive to exempt 
Public  Documents 
this  area  from  Legalisation 
requirements 

in 

This  is  also  because  the  Directive  concentrates  on 
administrative  cooperation  between  the  competent  tax 
authorities, which can exchange public documents 

Establishes  e-form  certificates  in  relation  to  general 
information  and 
the 
competent authorities in the MS, the posting of workers, 
sickness  benefits,  pensions,  unemployment, 
family 
benefits and non-contributory benefits  

transferred  between 

requests 

Legal instrument 

1977 European 
Agreement on the 
transmission of 
applications for legal aid 

Directive 2004/38/EC on 
the right of citizens of 
the Union and their 
family members to move 
and reside freely within 
the territory of the MS 

Directive 2004/38/EC on 
the right of citizens of 
the Union and their 
family members to move 
and reside freely within 
the territory of the MS 
Income tax issues of 
non-resident migrant 
workers 

Directive 2011/16/ EC, 
on administrative 
cooperation in the field 
of taxation 

Regulations 
1408/71/EEC on the 
application of social 
security schemes to 
employed persons, to 
self-employed persons 
and to members of their 
families moving within 
the Community  

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
Exemptio
n from 
legalisati
on 

Provisions 

Harmonis
ation of 
public 
document
s 

Administrati
ve 
Cooperation 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Legal instrument 

Regulation 883/2004/EC 
on the coordination of 
social security systems 

Notes 

EC  legislation  on  the  coordination  of  social  security 
systems  of  the  MS,  explicitly  exempting  all  documents 
that are required for this coordination from legalisation 

Regulation 883/2004 is clear when it comes to applicable 
legalisation  formalities  regarding  documents  required  to 
be  produced  abroad  for  the  implementation  of  the 
Regulation: “all statements, documents and certificates of 
in 
any  kind  whatsoever  required 
application  of  this  Regulation  shall  be  exempted  from 
authentication  by  diplomatic  or  consular  authorities” 
(Article  80(2)  of 
this 
regulation creates: 

the  Regulation).  Moreover, 

to  be  produced 

rules related to mutual cooperation between MS; 

a set of harmonized forms to be used by MS.  

Entry and residence for self-employed persons 

No 

No 

No 

Directive 2004/38/EC on 
the right of citizens of 
the Union and their 
family members to move 
and reside freely within 
the territory of the 
Member States 

In  relation  to  the  right  of  entry  and  residence  of  self-
employed persons, Directive 2004/38/EC on the right of 
citizens of the Union and their family members to move 
and  reside  freely  within  the  territory  of  the  MS  is  also 
relevant 

Directive  2004/38  contains  no  explicit  exemptions  from 
legalisation  (see  above  development  1.2.4  on  the  entry 
and  residence  for  Union  citizens  and  their  family 
members) 

Again,  the  Directive  specifies  the  supporting  documents 
that may be required by the MS prior to recognising the 
existence of an EU right within the scope of the Directive 
in  order  to  avoid  divergent  administrative  practices  or 
interpretations  constituting  an  undue  obstacle  to  the 
exercise in practice of the right of entry and residence 

The Directive does not harmonise the form or substance 
of  the  public  documents  that  may  be  required  by  the 
authorities  of  the  MS  and  equally  does  not  provide  for 
administrative  cooperation  between 
the  competent 
authorities  of  the  MS  for  the  purpose  of  verifying  the 
authenticity of those documents 

Recognition of professional qualifications 

Directive 2005/36/EC on 
the recognition of 
professional 
qualifications 

Lisbon Recognition 
Convention (six MS 
have not ratified this 
Convention) 

No 

No 

Yes 

Envisages administrative cooperation in case of justified 
doubts  about  the  authenticity  or  adequacy  of  public 
documents 
professional 
qualifications 

required 

proof 

of 

as 

No 

Yes 

No 

Not ratified by six MS 

provides  for  the  establishment  of  a  harmonised  public 
document  to  be  attached  to  a  higher  education  diploma, 
the so-called “Diploma Supplement” 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
 
Legal instrument 

Exemptio
n from 
legalisati
on 

Provisions 

Harmonis
ation of 
public 
document
s 

Administrati
ve 
Cooperation 

Notes 

Free movement of services and freedom of establishment 

Directive 2006/123/EC 
on services in the 
internal market 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

for 

legal  basis 

the  necessary 

Provides 
the 
establishment  at  the  EU  level  of  harmonised  forms  for 
documents  which  must  be  accepted  by  the  MS  as 
equivalent  to  certificates,  attestations  and  any  other 
documents  required  from  a  provider  for  the  purpose  of 
exercising the freedom of establishment 

for 

the 

importance  of  efficient  administrative 
Stresses 
cooperation  between  MS.  It  requires  that  MS  give  each 
other  mutual  assistance,  and  put  in  place  measures  for 
effective cooperation with one another, in order to ensure 
the supervision of providers and the services they offer 

the  preservation  of 

Does  not  explicitly  abolish 
legalisation  formalities 
between the Member States. However, it is important to 
note  that  the  formulation  of  the  Directive  in  principle 
legalisation  formalities 
renders 
impossible  between  the  Member  States.  The  Directive 
contains an explicit prohibition for the Member States to 
require  that  a  document  originating  in  another  Member 
State  is  produced  in  its  original  form  or  as  a  certified 
copy, save in the cases provided for in other Community 
instruments  or  where  such  a  requirement  is  justified  by 
an  overriding  reason  relating  to  the  public  interest, 
including  public  order  and  security.  (Article  5(3)  of  the 
Directive) 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
Legal instrument 

Exemptio
n from 
legalisati
on 

Provisions 

Harmonis
ation of 
public 
document
s 

Administrati
ve 
Cooperation 

Tax recovery  

Directive 2010/24/EC on 
tax recovery assistance  

 - 

Yes 

Yes 

Notes 

the 

least 

form  containing  at 

Notification  assistance  is  provided  under  this  Tax 
Recovery Assistance Directive. In this legal instrument, a 
special provision was adopted (Article 8(1), 2nd para.) to 
avoid  the  translation  issue  and  to  protect  the  citizen's 
rights:  the  adoption  of  the  Uniform  Notification  Form: 
"The  request  for  notification  shall  be  accompanied  by  a 
standard 
following 
information: (a) name, address and other data relevant to 
the identification of the addressee; (b) the purpose of the 
notification  and  the  period  within  which  notification 
should  be  effected;  (c)  a  description  of  the  attached 
document  and  the  nature  and  amount  of  the  claim 
concerned;  (d)  name,  address  and  other  contact  details 
regarding:  (i)  the  office  responsible  with  regard  to  the 
attached document, and, if different; ii) the office where 
further  information  can  be    obtained  concerning  the 
notified  document  or  concerning  the  possibilities  to 
contest the  payment obligation. 

The  adoption  of  the  Uniform  Instrument  Permitting 
Enforcement (UIPE) in the requested Member State (Art. 
12(1) of the Directive: "Any request for recovery shall be 
accompanied  by  a  uniform 
instrument  permitting 
the  requested  Member  State.  This 
enforcement 
in 
uniform 
the 
instrument  permitting  enforcement 
requested  Member  State  shall  reflect  the  substantial 
contents of the initial instrument permitting enforcement, 
and  constitute  the  sole  basis  for  the  recovery  and 
precautionary  measures  taken  in  the  requested  Member 
State.  It  shall  not  be  subject  to  any  act  of  recognition, 
supplementing or replacement in that Member State. "By 
using  this  UIPE,  the  problems  of  the  past  are  avoided 
with  regard  to  the  recognition  of  enforcement  titles  of 
other MS. 

in 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
Annex 6 

Bilateral agreements abolishing legalisation and similar 
requirements 

Annex Table 2: Synoptic table of bilateral agreement between selected EU MS abolishing legalisation and Apostille 
requirements (by date of conclusion of the agreement) 

MS 

France (12) 

Germany (6) 

Poland (18) 

Romania (9) 

Sweden (-) 

United 
Kingdom (2) 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

15.6.1966 

21.6.1923 

11.12.1963 

17.11.1965 

9.11.1981 

13.5.1975 

17.12.1986 

3.10.1975 

18.1.1989 

4.12.1961 

3.12.1958 

14.11.1996 

Czech Republic 

19.6.1995 

21.12.1987 

31.5.1995 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

17.6.1936 

27.11.1998 

27.5.1980 

- 

13.9.1971 

5.4.1967 

5.11.1974 

3.6.1937 

Germany 

13.9.1971 

- 

Greece 

11.5.1938 

24.10.1979 

Hungary 

31.7.1980 

6.3.1959 

7.10.1958 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

27.3.1923 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

20.7.1983 

Romania 

5.11.1974 

7.8.1996 

25.5.1994 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

7.6.1969 

28.4.1989 

23.2.1994 

26.1.1993 

26.8.1931 (see 
UK) 

- 

25.1.1962/ 
15.5.1999 

26.8.1931/ 
23.2.1967 

4.6.1962/ 
15.5.1999 

- 

21.12.1987 

25.10.1958 

6.2.1960 

17.11.1997 

- 

United Kingdom 

3.6.1937 

26.8.1931/ 
23.2.1967 

- 

Source: European Parliament - Comparative analysis of the national provisions of private law and private international law in the field of authentic 
instruments within selected EU MS 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 7 

Examples of situations where legalisation, Apostille, 
certified copies and certified translations are 
disproportionately costly and time-consuming 

1.1 

EU citizens 

Civil status documents 

These include public documents related to civil status events (such as birth, death, name, marriage, 
registered  partnership,  parenthood  or  adoption),  which  are  needed  e.g.  when  requesting  a 
registration certificate or residence card, accessing social rights or in the context of life events that 
may occur during the stay in another Member State. Cross-border marriages in particular give rise 
to  significant  authentication  costs  and  costs  for  certified  translations  of  e.g.  birth  certificates  and 
medical  certificates  in  some  Member  States70  as  well  as  certificates  of  dissolution  of  previous 
marriages. In the case of divorce, civil status documents such as marriage certificates are required. 

Cross-border marriages 

Case  example  -  typical  difficulties  and  costs:  Based  on  the  Study  2008,  costs  of  marriages 
between  nationals  of  different  Member  States  have  been  estimated  by  taking  into  account 
translation  costs,  costs  for  travelling  to  the  Member  States  of  origin/to  the  nearest  consulate  or 
embassy  (when  personal  appearance  for  obtaining  an  Apostille  or  an  official  translation  was 
required) and further costs when additional documents were required (such as the certificate of no 
impediment). The average costs of such a marriage for EU citizens are about € 300 and the average 
time  to  fulfil  the  administrative  formalities  is  about  three  months.  However,  when  a  “difficult 
combination” of Member States is selected, expenses can be more than € 1.000 and the duration of 
all administrative proceedings can take up to 426 days. 

Source: Von Freyhold, JLS/2006/C4/004, 2008. 

Administrative documents 

Examples  of  public  documents  that  can  play  an  important  role  during  a  citizen’s  life  abroad  are 
extracts  from  property  registers,  tax  resident  certificates  and  documents  proving  the  absence  of  a 
criminal  record.  All  these  documents  need  to  be  legalised  or  apostilled  and/or  their  certified 
translation needs to be provided, unless there is an exemption from these requirements enshrined in 
EU or international law. 

Difficulties in the circulation of taxation documents 

Case example – additional costs and double taxation: A Dutch employee worked from January 
to  August  in  Italy  but  was  subject  to  taxation  in  Italy  also  for  the  working  period  spent  in  the 
Netherlands  (September-December)  as  he  was  qualified  as  tax  resident  in  Italy  for  the  whole  tax 
year.  Due  to  this,  he  claimed  tax  credit  in  Italy  for  the  double  taxation  suffered.  The  Italian  tax 
authority challenged his claim and asked for a formal document from the Netherlands attesting the 

70 

Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Romania.  

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
                                                 
amount of taxes paid. The Dutch citizen presented the Dutch assessment but the Italian tax authority 
did not accept it because the translation was not certified according to Italian requirements. 

Impact: In Italy, a certified translation of a tax return can cost up to € 300. In the present case, the 
Dutch citizen suffered a double taxation in Italy and the Netherlands, due to the lack of information 
and the bottlenecks in the circulation of public documents attesting the tax payment between these 
Member States. 

Source: Examples of practical experience of Ernst&Young – Human Capital Global Mobility Services. 

Professional documents 

A typical example of this category of public documents is diplomas. They are of vital importance 
for  both  professional  purposes  (aimed  at  finding  a  job)  and  academic  purposes  (aimed  at  the 
continuation  of  studies)71.  The  main  costs  are  due  to  the  need  for  authentication  and  certified 
translations. This could discourage citizens and prevent them from moving across the EU, as shown 
in the case example below. 

Free movement of professionals 

Case example – circulation of professional documents: A relevant example of a negative impact 
of burdensome requirements on the free movement of EU professionals can be found in an action 
brought by the Commission against Italy, where the Court accepted the complaints concerning the 
obstacles  to  freedom  to  provide  services  and  to  freedom  of  establishment  created  by  the  Italian 
legislation requiring architects wishing to obtain recognition in Italy of a qualification awarded to 
them  in  another  Member  State.  The  Italian  legislation  requested  originals  of  diplomas  or  their 
certified copies and certified translations72. 

Impact: This requirement imposed additional costs as well as risks of possible delays for architects 
applying for recognition of their qualifications and thus created obstacles that were disproportionate 
to the objective pursued. Moreover, the obligation to provide certified translations (i.e. translations 
must be certified as true to the original by the Italian diplomatic or consular authorities located in 
the  Member  State  in  which  the  documents  were  drawn  up  or  by  an  approved  translator)  of  all 
documents was regarded as unnecessary and an additional burden increasing costs. 

Case C-298/99: Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 85/384/EEC — Mutual recognition of 
formal qualifications in architecture — Access to the profession of architect — Article 59 of the EC Treaty. 

1.2 

EU businesses (in particular SMEs)  

A high and steadily increasing number of EU businesses, namely 44% of EU SMEs in 201073, are 
engaged in cross-border activities and have to present a whole set of public documents to different 

71 
Specifically,  documentary  requirements  concern  attestations  of  professional  competence,  evidence  of  formal 
qualifications  giving  access  to  certain  professions,  attestations  of  professional  experience  and  documents  proving  the 
good reputation of the citizen. 
72 
73 

Decree No 129/92.  
DG Enterprise and Industry, Internationalisation of European SMEs, Final Report, 2010. Data are based on a 
survey  of  9,480  EU  SMEs  carried  out  in  spring  2009.  It  involved  27  EU  Member  States  and  6  non-EU 
countries: Croatia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Norway and Turkey. The 
percentage  includes  data  on  SMEs  which  are  engaged  in  different  “modes  of  internationalisation”,  such  as 
imports, exports, foreign direct investments, technological cooperation with enterprises abroad, subcontracting 
with foreign enterprises. 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
                                                 
entities. This implies that a wide range of public documents that may be used for business purposes 
have  to  meet  these  formalities.  The  practical  examples  reported  below  show  that  the  current  EU 
regulatory  framework  contains  disproportionate,  burdensome  and  costly  authentication  and 
certification requirements74.  

Cross-border economic activities 

Case example - Cross- border selling of cars: A German car-sale company bought for its client a 
Fiat  Punto  in  Poland.  The  car  was  to  be  registered  in  a  county  in  Hessen.  The  car  registry  office 
would  not  accept  the  Polish  certificate  of  conformity.  The  same  category  of  cars  was,  however, 
registered  with  the  same  certificate  in  two  different  counties  in  Baden-Württemberg  without  any 
problems. The car registration office in Hessen requested further certified translations in German or 
English. 

Impact: This procedure caused a time lag in registering the car which had a negative impact both 
on the company and on the customer. 

Source: SME panel questionnaire 2012 – The top 10 most burdensome pieces of legislation for SMEs. 

While legalisation has been made redundant to some extent in EU sectoral law, there are still public 
documents that may be required for proving the fulfilment of national rules for the establishment of 
a  business  or  the  provision  of  services,  which  still  need  to  be  authenticated  and  accompanied  by 
certified  translations.  This  produces  obstacles  that  delay  or  make  cross-border  movements  and 
activities burdensome, especially in terms of costs and time.  

Establishing an economic activity in another Member State  

Case example - 'Double' legalisation of SME documents: A French company wishes to buy land 
in Bulgaria in order to develop its activity in that Member State. During the acquisition transaction 
there  is  a  problem  with  the  legalisation  of  the  company's  documents.  These  are  translated  into 
Bulgarian  and  are  certified  with  an  Apostille.  In  spite  of  this,  the  Bulgarian  notary  requires  the 
legalisation of the documents (even if, according to the Apostille Convention, documents with an 
Apostille are exempted from legalisation). 

Impact:  In  order  to  solve  the  problem,  the  company  wasted  unnecessary  time  and  money.  The 
documents were sent back to France for additional legalisation. 

Source: SME panel questionnaire 2012 – The top 10 most burdensome pieces of legislation for SMEs. 

Additionally, when participating in cross-border public tenders there are many documents that need 
to be provided under the current legislative framework75, an issue that in 2008 has concerned about 
9% of EU SMEs engaged in cross-border public contracts. Businesses participating in cross-border 
tenders  are  required  to  provide  public  documents  that  may  need  additional  administrative 
formalities. The examples of such documents are those attesting the absence of a criminal record of 
the company's CEOs, certificates proving the financial, professional and technical reliability of the 
company,  documents  proving  that  the  company  is  not  insolvent  or  bankrupt  and  other  documents 
proving the compliance with EU law. 

74 

75 

Even though there is an attempt to harmonise the purchase of cars on EU-level, namely by Directive 
1999/37/EC and Directive 2007/46/EC, these attempts do not expressly exempt registration certificates from 
legalisation, similar formalities and other formalities. 
Directives 2004/18/EC and 2004/17/EC. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Administrative formalities in EU public procurement 

Case example 1 - A German company applied for a public contract in the Czech Republic. With its 
bid it had to provide a large number of documents and certificates proving its financial, professional 
and  technical  reliability.  The  company  faced  various  problems  while  preparing  these  documents, 
including their certified translations. 

Impact:  The  company  had  to  spend  money  and  time  to  provide  certified  translations  of  the 
requested documents. 

Case example 2: 

A  Spanish  company  operating  in  the  renewable  energy  sector,  in  order  to  submit  the  offer  and 
related  documentation  in  a  public  tender  in  Greece,  was  requested  by  the  Greek  authorities  to 
provide a criminal record certificate of all members of the company's Board. This entailed costs for 
providing certified translations and Apostilles to the requested documents. 

Impact: The requirement of the Greek authorities hinders the possibility for foreign companies to 
enter the national market and the potential benefits for the Greek economy and employment. 

Source: SME panel questionnaire 2012 – The top 10 most burdensome pieces of legislation for SMEs. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
Annex 8 

The Internal Market Information System 

The  IMI  is  a  web-based  application  that  allows  national,  regional  and  local  authorities  to 
communicate  quickly  and  easily  with  their  counterparts  abroad.  It  was  developed  by  the 
Commission  in  partnership  with  MS  and  it  was  launched  in  February  2008  under  the  IDABC 
programme.  The  organization  of  IMI  is  based  on  the  presence  of  the  National  IMI  Coordinator 
(NIMIC), designed by each MS and responsible for the IMI activities in his/her country.  IMI makes 
it possible for the competent authority76 to: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Find the right foreign partner authority to deal with. 

Provide  standard  sets  of  pre-translated  questions  and  answers  and  a  tool  for  the 
translation of a free text. Multilingualism is an essential element of the IMI service 
which is available in 22 official EU languages. 

Send, receive and answer to information requests in the area of the area of services, 
professional qualifications and posting of workers77. 

Attach documents to the requests. 

Offer a directory of registers held by public authorities all over the EU, such as trade 
registers or registers of lawyers, with a multilingual search function. If a register is 
available online, IMI provides the direct link to it. 

76 

77 

Competent  authority  means  any  body  established  at  either  national,  regional  or  local  level  and  registered  in 
IMI with specific responsibilities relating to the application of national law or Union acts listed in the Annex in 
one or more internal market areas (Regulation No 1024/2012, of 25 October 2012). 
In the areas concerning the Services Directive, the IMI supports the administrative cooperation provisions 
under Chapter VI of the Directive, including requests for information and to carry out checks, inspections and 
investigations, alert and case-by-case derogation procedures. Under the Professional Qualifications Directive, 
requests are aimed at verifying, for example: whether a citizen, holding a diploma for a specific profession, has 
the right to pursue the relevant professional activities beyond the territory of the MS of origin, what profession 
is a citizen entitled to pursue, etc. 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Annex Figure 1: Total number of information exchanges in IMI per legislative area. Source “IMI Annual report for 
2011” 

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

2.166

1836

1.404

Posting of workers

Services

Professional 
Qualifications

374

48

352

181

181

2008

2009

2010

2011

With regard to the data protection issue, IMI has been designed including a strict application of the 
purpose limitation principle and appropriate access controls: it guarantees a high level of technical 
and procedural data protection78. 

IMI is constantly under development. The 2011 Communication “Better governance of the Single 
Market  through  greater  administrative  cooperation:    A  strategy  for  expanding  and  developing  the 
Internal  Market  Information  System"79  launched  the  inclusion  of  new  policy  areas  (e.g.  area  of 
posting of workers80) and developed new functionalities (new directory of registers interface). From 
a  technical  point  of  view,  there  are  no  limits  to  the  expansion  of  IMI,  the  system  could  include 
further  policy  areas,  representing  an  important  benchmark  in  the  communication  and  cooperation 
workflow  between  the  Member  States.    Following  COM  proposal  (2011)522  final,  the  new 
Regulation  1024/2012  of  25  October  2012  on  administrative  cooperation  through  the  Internal 
Market Information System entered into force on 4 December 2012. 

That  Regulation  strengthens  the  rules  for  security  and  data  protection  and,  above  all,  provides  a 
high level of flexibility for future developments, by including a mechanism for expanding IMI to 
new EU acts. 

78 

79 
80 

The IMI data exchange procedure between authorities are fully compliant with EU data protection rules: 
-  The  European  Commission  Decision  of  12  December  2007  concerning  the  implementation  of  the  Internal 
Market  Information  System  (IMI)  as  regards  the  protection  of  personal  data.  It  is  replaced  by  the  IMI 
Regulation; 
- The European Commission Recommendation of 26 March 2009 on data protection guidelines for the Internal 
Market Information System (IMI). It is replaced by the IMI Regulation;  
-  The  European  Commission  Decision  of  2  October  2009  setting  out  the  practical  arrangements  for  the 
exchange of information by electronic means between MS under Chapter VI of Directive 2006/123/EC of the 
Services Directive. 
COM(2011) 75 final. 
Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the  
posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Annex 9 

e-APP and ECRN 

1. 

E-APOSTILLE PILOT PROGRAM 

Following  the  2003  Special  Commission,  in  2006  the  Hague  Conference  and  the  NNA  (National 
Notary  Association)  launched  the  electronic  Apostille  Pilot  Program  (e-APP)  to  promote  the 
implementation of a new software technology with the following aims: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Introducing a paperless way to record and verify Apostilles: with the implementation 
of the e-APP, it will be possible to transmit electronic Apostilles by e-mail. 

Providing  a  higher  level  of  security  which  exceeds  the  actual  security  standards  in 
paper environment. 

Providing  assurance  that  the  e-Apostille  was  signed  by  the  Competent  Authority 
identified in the e-Apostille. 

Improving  the  movement  of  public  document  globally  by  avoiding  the  usage  of  a 
courier to dispatch paper documents. 

At the same time, a relevant development in this field is the e-Register, i.e. an electronic Register 
that can be accessed online by recipients of Apostilles. The usage of an e-Register can entail several 
benefits: 

•  Make it easier to verify the authenticity of Apostilles. 

• 

Saving space in the offices required to keep paper records. 

However, as for the simplification benefits that such an initiative is likely to achieve, several 
shortcomings  would  still  remain:  issuing  an  e-APP  would  continue  to  entail  certain  verification 
procedures  and  the  availability  of  some  electronic  requirements  (such  as  the  electronic  signature) 
would further represent an obstacle to the full implementation of the e-APP. 

2. 

EUROPEAN CIVIL REGISTRY NETWORK 

European Civil Registry Network (ECRN) is a pilot project promoted by a consortium composed of 
14  EU  public  authorities  and  co-financed  by  the  European  programme  CIP  ICT-PSP81,  aimed  at 
providing an e-Government service for EU citizens. The project deals with the establishment of an 
experimental  platform  for  the  transmission  of  civil  status  documents  and  information  among  the 
Local Governments. The main purposes of the ECRN are: 

• 

Increasing  the  efficiency  of  local  administrative  actions  by  strengthening  the 
administrations’ ability to use new technologies, thus contributing to time efficiency 
and cost effective solutions. 

81 

Competitiveness and Innovation Programme, Information and Communication Technologies Policy Support 
Programme. 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
                                                 
• 

• 

Improving  the  Citizen-Administration  relationship  by  shortening  delays  for  the 
public  bodies  to  manage  procedures  and  enabling  citizens  to  reply  in  due  time  to 
requests  for  certification  for  inscriptions  to  schools,  universities,  and  employment 
opportunities. 

Enabling public authorities to gain immediate knowledge in case of any changes in a 
Citizens  civil  status,  i.e.  if  a  citizen  conceives  a  child,  gets  married,  or  dies;  the 
public registry of her/his home country can be immediately updated. 

ECRN  allows  the  Civil  Status  Registry  office  of  a  Member  State  to  request  a  specific  certificate 
directly from its counterpart. With ECRN, obtaining a certificate from one MS to another will take 
2-3  working  days  through  a  web  platform  rather  than  2-3  months  via  ordinary  mail.  And  with 
regard to security issues, the certified and secure web platform will guarantee the exchange of an 
authentic Civil Registry certificate. However, it is limited to civil status documents. 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
Annex 10 

Data tables on the number of Apostilles issued and types 
of documents apostilled 

Annex Table 3: Number of Apostilles issued from 2008-2011 for the EU 27 + 1 MS 

EU 27 + 1 (Croatia) 

Number of Apostilles issued 

2008 

2009 

2010 

2011 

AUSTRIA 

BELGIUM 

BULGARIA 

CROATIA 

CYPRUS 

CZECH REPUBLIC 

DENMARK 

ESTONIA 

FINLAND 

FRANCE 

GERMANY 

GREECE 

49.137  

23.630 

46.955  

20.115 

44.693 

20.135 

45.999 

22.911 

19.845 

48.985 

19.220 

48.208 

21.076 

45.670 

23.731 

46.414 

40.019 

39.990 

38.000 

36.000 

HUNGARY 

6.906 

11.767 

12.700 

14.655 

11.175 

11.544 

11.548 

11.601 

ITALY 

IRELAND 

LATVIA 

LITHUANIA 

LUXEMBOURG 

MALTA 

NETHERLANDS 

POLAND 

24.044 

PORTUGAL 

25.012 

19.856 

27.286 

32.552 

31.045 

33.846 

ROMANIA 

200.520 

141.015 

169.222 

241.428 

16.587 

14.516 

15.804 

14.307 

17.349 

16.078 

19.800 

16.338 

SLOVAKIA 

SLOVENIA 

SPAIN 

SWEDEN 

UK 

382.073 

343.274 

368.342 

385.194 

Source: HCCH Questionnaire, 2012 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Annex Table 4: Estimation on the number of intra-EU Apostilles issued from 2008-2011 for the EU 27 + 1 MS 

Hypothesis 1: Missing data completed per 
Member States through estimations with series of 
immigrant population 

Hypothesis 2: Missing data completed per 

MS 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany  

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Estimation on the 
number of Apostilles 
(in red estimated 
number, where HCCH 
data are missing) 

89,281

45,999

22,911

4,894

328,554

23,731

46,414

1,106

36,000

385,619

180,000

50,000

14,655

78,431

256,200

11,601

11,299

53,992

13,535

 Estimation on the 
number of Apostilles 
issued for intra-EU 

82

market 

Estimation on the 
number of Apostilles 
(in red estimated 
number, where 
HCCH data are 

missing) 

83

 Estimation on the 
number of Apostilles 
issued for intra-EU 

84

market

43,748

22,540

11,226

2,398

160,991

11,628

22,743

542

17,640

188,953

88,200

24,500

7,181

38,431

41,876 

45,999 

22,911 

4,894 

                20,519  

                22,540  

                11,226  

                  2,398  

328,554 

              160,991  

23,731 

46,414 

6,701 

36,000 

385,619 

180,000 

50,000 

14,655 

78,431 

                11,628  

                22,743  

                  3,283  

                17,640  

              188,953  

                88,200  

                24,500  

                  7,181  

                38,431  

125,538

301,702 

              147,834  

5,684

5,537

26,456

6,632

11,601 

11,299 

53,992 

2,072 

82,875 

31,045 

                  5,684  

                  5,537  

                26,456  

                  1,015  

                40,609  

                15,212  

31,045

15,212

82 

83 

84 

HCCH Questionnaire 2012 or HCCH Questionnaire 2008 (most recent available). These figures have then 
been multiplied by 0,49 (i.e. 49%), which is the average (mean) of the percentage of EU non-nationals on the 
total number of EU nationals (equal to 34%) and the percentage of intra-EU trade as compared to total volume 
of trade (equal to 64%). 
HCCH Questionnaire 2012 or HCCH Questionnaire 2008 or Von Freyhold, Vial & Partner Consultants, 2008 
(most recent available). In cases where the data was in range format (minimum-maximum) the midpoint has 
been calculated. Where data is lacking, we have applied the weighted average of € 13,20. 
HCCH Questionnaire 2012 or HCCH Questionnaire 2008 (most recent available). These figures have then 
been multiplied by 0,49 (i.e. 49%), which is the average (mean) of the percentage of EU non-nationals on the 
total number of EU nationals (equal to 34%) and the percentage of intra-EU trade as compared to total volume 
of trade (equal to 64%). 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
Hypothesis 1: Missing data completed per 
Member States through estimations with series of 
immigrant population 

Hypothesis 2: Missing data completed per 

MS 

Estimation on the 
number of Apostilles 
(in red estimated 
number, where HCCH 
data are missing) 

 Estimation on the 
number of Apostilles 
issued for intra-EU 

82

market 

Estimation on the 
number of Apostilles 
(in red estimated 
number, where 
HCCH data are 

missing) 

83

 Estimation on the 
number of Apostilles 
issued for intra-EU 

84

market

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

TOTAL 

33,846

241,428

19,800

16,338

459,189

52,173

385,194

16,585

118,300

9,702

8,006

225,003

25,565

2.893.234

1.417.685

33,846 

                16,585  

241,428 

              118,300  

19,800 

16,338 

                  9,702  

                  8,006  

459,189 

              225,003  

46,703 

                22,885  

385,194 

2.962.869 

188,745

1.451.806

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
Annex Table 5: Types of documents most frequently apostilled  

EN 

71 

EN 

 
  
Annex Box 2: Summary on the number of Apostilles issued and documents concerned 

Total number of Apostilles issued 

The total number of Apostilles issued in 2011 by 13 Member States which responded so far to the 
HCCH  Questionnaire  2012  amounts  to  928.962.  More  responses  were  received  to  the  HCCH 
Questionnaire 2008 (22 Member States): the number of Apostilles issued in 2007 corresponded to 
2.788.188. 

Given  the  above,  it  can  be  estimated  that  the  number  of  Apostilles  issued  in  2011  by  all  the  27 
Member States would easily exceed 2.000.000. 

Taking  into  account  the  number  of  EU  citizens  (12.6  million)  living  in  a  Member  State  different 
from  the  one  of  their  citizenship  and  the  fact  that  almost  half  of  EU  SMEs  are  engaged  in  some 
form  of  cross-border  activities,  it  is  possible  to  roughly  estimate  that  the  number  of  Apostilles 
potentially needed would be a lot higher than that reported in the data above. 

Furthermore,  the  trends  reported  by  the  replies  point  towards  an  increase  in  the  number  of 
Apostilles issued as a result of the free movement of workers, goods and services within the EU. 
This confirms the need to address the red tape entailed by the Apostille in view of a demand that 
will continue to increase. 

Types of documents concerned 

EU  citizens  and  businesses  (in  particular  SMEs)  need  approximately  the  same  amount  of  public 
documents in order to move across the EU. 

The most frequently apostilled documents are civil status documents (which concern EU citizens) 
and  notarial  authentications  of  signatures  (concern  both  EU  citizens  and  businesses),  followed  by 
extracts from commercial registers and other registers (concern EU businesses). 

Under the above estimation, half of the public documents concerned by the Apostille formality are 
issued for intra-EU usage: i.e. around 1 million. 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 11 

Data tables on costs and time for the issuance of the Apostille, legalisation and 
certified translations 

Annex Table 6: Cost range and time required to issue Apostilles 

Cost of Apostille (EUR)

EU 27 + 1 (Croatia)
AUSTRIA
BELGIUM
BULGARIA
CROATIA
CYPRUS
CZECH 
DENMARK
ESTONIA
FINLAND
FRANCE
GERMANY
GREECE

Cost (EUR)
16,40 €
10,00 €
2,50 €

Source (Note)

Von Freyhold, Vial & Part ner Consult ants, 2008

HCCH 2012 Questionnaire

HCCH 2012 Questionnaire

4,00 €

 -  8,00 €

HCCH 2008 Questionnaire

1,00 €
4,00 €
25,00 €
14,70 €
11,00 €
0,00 €

Von Freyhold, Vial & Part ner Consult ants, 2008

HCCH 2012 Questionnaire

HCCH 2012 Questionnaire

Von Freyhold, Vial & Part ner Consult ants, 2008

HCCH 2012 Questionnaire

Von Freyhold, Vial & Part ner Consult ants, 2008

10,00 €

 -  20,00 €

Von Freyhold, Vial & Part ner Consult ants, 2008

Apostille issue time

Time

Minimum

Maximum

Source

Immediat e

Von Freyhold, Vial & Partner Consultant s, 2008

< 1 hour

1 wor king week HCCH 2012 Quest ionnaire

2 days

HCCH 2012 Quest ionnaire

Immediat e

Von Freyhold, Vial & Partner Consultant s, 2008

< 1 hour

1 wor king week HCCH 2012 Quest ionnaire
HCCH 2012 Quest ionnaire

< 1 hour

Same day

10 days

Von Freyhold, Vial & Partner Consultant s, 2008

< 1 hour

HCCH 2012 Quest ionnaire

1 mont h
Immediat e

6 mont hs
2 weeks

Von Freyhold, Vial & Partner Consultant s, 2008

Von Freyhold, Vial & Partner Consultant s, 2008

Same day

HCCH 2012 Quest ionnaire

HUNGARY

16,50 €

 -  18,00 €

HCCH 2012 Questionnaire [ Lower price is applied by the Minist ry of  Public Administ ration and Just ice and the 
Hungarian National Chamber of  Civil Law Not aries.  Higher price is applied by the Minist ry of  Foreign Af fairs]   

< 1 hour

1 wor king week HCCH 2012 Quest ionnaire

ITALY
IRELAND
LATVIA
LITHUANIA
LUXEMBOURG
MALTA
NETHERLANDS
POLAND
PORTUGAL
ROMANIA
SLOVAKIA
SLOVENIA
SPAIN
SWEDEN

0,00 €
20,00 €
14,50 €

Von Freyhold, Vial & Part ner Consult ants, 2008

Von Freyhold, Vial & Part ner Consult ants, 2008

HCCH 2012 Questionnaire

1,00 €

 -  20,00 €

Von Freyhold, Vial & Part ner Consult ants, 2008

1,00 €
12,00 €
16,00 €
14,00 €

Von Freyhold, Vial & Part ner Consult ants, 2008

Von Freyhold, Vial & Part ner Consult ants, 2008

Von Freyhold, Vial & Part ner Consult ants, 2008

HCCH 2012 Questionnaire

5,00 €

 -  10,00 €

HCCH 2012 Questionnaire

6,50 €

HCCH 2012 Questionnaire

1,50 €

 -  5,00 €

HCCH 2012 Questionnaire

0,00 €

Von Freyhold, Vial & Part ner Consult ants, 2008

UK

37,00 €

 -  92,50 €

HCCH 2012 Questionnaire [ Lower price is what  businesses and members of the public are charged per apostille 
issued (signat ure verified). Higher price is what  business customers using the UK's premium business service in 
Central London are charged per document (signat ure verified)]

Immediat e

Von Freyhold, Vial & Partner Consultant s, 2008

Immediat e

1 day

Von Freyhold, Vial & Partner Consultant s, 2008

2 days

HCCH 2012 Quest ionnaire

1 day
2 days

5 days
4 days

Immediat e

Von Freyhold, Vial & Partner Consultant s, 2008

Von Freyhold, Vial & Partner Consultant s, 2008

Von Freyhold, Vial & Partner Consultant s, 2008

1 hour

6 weeks

Von Freyhold, Vial & Partner Consultant s, 2008

< 1 hour

HCCH 2012 Quest ionnaire

Same day
< 1 hour
< 2 hour s
Same day
Same day

< 2 hour s

1 wor king week HCCH 2012 Quest ionnaire
1 wor king week HCCH 2012 Quest ionnaire
1 wor king week HCCH 2012 Quest ionnaire
1 wor king week HCCH 2012 Quest ionnaire

3 days

Von Freyhold, Vial & Partner Consultant s, 2008

1 day

Von Freyhold, Vial & Partner Consultant s, 2008

Following 
wor king day

HCCH 2012 Quest ionnaire

Maximum price -->

Average price -->

92,50 €
11,71 €

i.e. UK

Where there is a range, t his is based on t he midpoint .

6 mont hs
Immediat e

France

<-- Longest issue time

Aust ria, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland, Malta

<-- Shortest issue time

EN 

73 

EN 

 
  
 
NB: The average price indicted in the table above is an arithmethic (unweighted) average. Calculations are developed further in the Annex Table 7 to derive the weighted average.

EN 

74 

EN 

 
  
Annex Table 7: Calculations and estimations on cost of the Apostille to EU citizens and EU SMEs 

 Hypothesis 1: Missing data completed per Member 
States through estimations with series of immigrant 
population  

 Hypothesis 2: Missing data completed per Member 
States through estimations with series of total 
population  

 Estimation on 
the number of 
Apostille issued 
for intra-EU 

85

market 

 Cost of the 
Apostille (to the 
86
SME / citizen)

Total cost of all 
Apostilles issued 

 Estimation on 
the number of 
Apostille issued 
for intra-EU 

87

market

Cost of the 
Apostille (to 
the SME / 
88
citizen) 

Total cost of all 
Apostilles issued

43,748 

           16.40 € 

              717,466 € 

               20,519  

16.40 €  

  336,519 € 

22,540 

11,226 

2,398 

10.00 € 

              225,395 € 

               22,540  

10.00 €  

     225,395 € 

2.50 € 

                28,066 € 

                11,226  

2.50 €  

      28,066 € 

   6.00 € 

                14,388 € 

                 2,398  

6.00 €  

     14,388 € 

MS 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

160,991 

     1.00 € 

              160,991 € 

             160,991  

Czech Republic 

11,628 

        4.00 € 

                46,513 € 

               11,628  

1.00 €  

4.00 €  

160,991 € 

  46,513 € 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany  

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

22,743 

      25.00 € 

              568,572 € 

               22,743  

25.00 €  

   568,572 € 

542 

      14.70 € 

                  7,966 € 

                  3,283  

14.70 €  

    48,265 € 

17,640 

      11.00 € 

              194,040 € 

               17,640  

11.00 €  

   194,040 € 

188,953 

      13.20 € 

           2,494,514 € 

             188,953  

13.03 €  

  2,461,273 € 

88,200 

       15.00 € 

           1,323,000 € 

               88,200  

15.00 €  

1,323,000 € 

24,500 

      13.20 € 

              323,443 € 

               24,500  

13.03 €  

   319,133 € 

7,181 

    17.25 € 

              123,871 € 

                 7,181  

17.25 €  

   123,871 € 

38,431 

    20.00 € 

              768,624 € 

               38,431  

20.00 €  

   768,624 € 

125,538 

  13.20 € 

           1,657,319 € 

       147,834  

      13.03 €  

   1,925,658 € 

5,684 

5,537 

    14.50 € 

                82,425 € 

                 5,684  

14.50 €  

    82,425 € 

      10.50 € 

                58,133 € 

                 5,537  

10.50 €  

    58,133 € 

Luxembourg 

26,456 

      1.00 € 

                26,456 € 

               26,456  

1.00 €  

   26,456 € 

Malta 

6,632 

    12.00 € 

                79,583 € 

                 1,015  

12.00 €  

   12,183 € 

85 

86 

87 

88 

HCCH Questionnaire 2012 or HCCH Questionnaire 2008 (most recent available). These figures have then 
been multiplied by 0,49 (i.e. 49%), which is the average (mean) of the percentage of EU non-nationals on the 
total number of EU nationals (equal to 34%) and the percentage of intra-EU trade as compared to total volume 
of trade (equal to 64%). 
HCCH Questionnaire 2012 or HCCH Questionnaire 2008 or Von Freyhold, Vial & Partner Consultants, 2008 
(most recent available). In cases where the data was in range format (minimum-maximum) the midpoint has 
been calculated. Where data is lacking, we have applied the weighted average of € 13,20. 
HCCH Questionnaire 2012 or HCCH Questionnaire 2008 (most recent available). These figures have then 
been multiplied by 0,49 (i.e. 49%), which is the average (mean) of the percentage of EU non-nationals on the 
total number of EU nationals(equal to 34%) and the percentage of intra-EU trade as compared to total volume 
of trade (equal to 64%). 
HCCH Questionnaire 2012 or HCCH Questionnaire 2008 or Von Freyhold, Vial & Partner Consultants, 2008 
(most recent available). In cases where the data was in range format (minimum-maximum), the midpoint has 
been calculated. Where data is lacking, we have applied the weighted average of € 13,20. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
      
                                                 
 Hypothesis 1: Missing data completed per Member 
States through estimations with series of immigrant 
population  

 Hypothesis 2: Missing data completed per Member 
States through estimations with series of total 
population  

MS 

 Estimation on 
the number of 
Apostille issued 
for intra-EU 

85

market 

 Cost of the 
Apostille (to the 
86
SME / citizen)

Total cost of all 
Apostilles issued 

 Estimation on 
the number of 
Apostille issued 
for intra-EU 

87

market

Cost of the 
Apostille (to 
the SME / 
88
citizen) 

Total cost of all 
Apostilles issued

Netherlands 

      16.00 € 

                       -   € 

               40,609  

16.00 €  

   649,740 € 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

15,212 

       14.00 € 

              212,969 € 

               15,212  

14.00 €  

   212,969 € 

16,585 

       13.20 € 

              218,945 € 

               16,585  

13.03 €  

216,027 € 

118,300 

       7.50 € 

              887,248 € 

             118,300  

9,702 

          6.50 € 

                63,063 € 

                 9,702  

7.50 €  

6.50 €  

8,006 

      3.25 € 

                26,018 € 

                  8,006  

 3.25 €  

887,248 € 

63,063 € 

26,018 € 

225,003 

   13.20 € 

           2,970,427 € 

            225,003  

13.03 €  

2,930,845 € 

25,565 

     13.20 € 

              337,497 € 

               22,885  

    13.03 €  

   298,092 € 

United Kingdom 

TOTAL 

      64.75 € 

          12,221,243 € 

188,745

      64.75 €  

12,221,243 € 

25,838,175 € 

26,228,750 € 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex Table 8: Calculations and estimations on cost and time requirements for public administrations to issue Apostilles 

 Hypothesis 1: Missing data completed per Member 
States through estimations with series of immigrant 
population  

 Hypothesis 2: Missing data completed per 
Member States through estimations with series 
of total population  

 Estimation 
on the 
number of 
Apostilles 
issued for 
intra-EU 
89
market

 Time 
required 
for 
adminis-
tration to 
issue an 
90
Apostille

 Hourly 
Labour 
91
Cost

 Annual 
administrative 
cost to issue an 
Apostille  

Estimation 
on the 
number of 
Apostilles 
issued for 
intra-EU 
92
market 

 Time 
required 
for 
adminis-
tration to 
issue an 
93
Apostille

Hourly 
Labou
r 
Cost

94

 Annual 
administrati
ve cost to 
issue an 
Apostille  

1 417 685

0,99 

22,52 €

31 837 858,75 €

1 451 806

1,00  22,70 € 

1 415 287

0,99 

22,52 €

31 810 858,39 €

1 449 408

1,00  22,70 € 

33 135 

949,73 €

33 108 

730,63 €

43 748

0,50 

29,20 €

638 719,42 €

20 519

0,50  29,20 €  299 584,12 €

22 540

11 226

2 398

1,50 

39,30 €

1 328 704,11 €

22 540

1,50  39,30 € 

1 328 704,11 

1,00 

3,50 €

39 292,37 €

11 226

1,00 

3,50 € 

39 292,37 €

0,50 

27 000,36 €

2 398

0,50 

27 219,10 €

MS 

EU 28 

EU 27 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Croatia 

Cyprus 

160 991

0,50 

16,50 €

1 328 179,55 €

160 991

0,50  16,50 € 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

11 628

22 743

1,50 

10,50 €

183 143,99 €

11 628

1,50  10,50 €  183 143,99 €

0,50 

38,60 €

438 937,20 €

22 743

0,50  38,60 €  438 937,20 €

542

3,00 

8,10 €

13 168,19 €

3 283

3,00 

8,10 € 

79 784,46 €

17 640

0,50 

29,70 €

261 954,00 €

17 640

0,50  29,70 €  261 954,00 €

188 953

95

0,85

34,20 €

5 468 151,28 €

188 953

14,00  34,20 €  5 468 151,28 

1 328 179,55 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

HCCH Questionnaire 2012 or HCCH Questionnaire 2008 (most recent available). These figures have then 
been multiplied by 0,49 (i.e. 49%), which is the average (mean) of the percentage of EU non-nationals on the 
total number of EU nationals(equal to 34%) and the percentage of intra-EU trade as compared to total volume 
of trade (equal to 64%). 
HCCH Questionnaire 2012 or Von Freyhold, Vial & Partner Consultants, 2008 (most recent available). All 
values have been converted to hours. In cases where the data was in range format (minimum-maximum) the 
midpoint has been calculated. 
Eurostat,  “Hourly  labour  costs  in  the  EU  27“,  http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/  3-
24042012-AP/EN/3-24042012-AP-EN.PDF. The latest available figure for each MS has been used. 
HCCH Questionnaire 2012 or HCCH Questionnaire 2008 (most recent available). These figures have then 
been multiplied by 0,49 (i.e. 49%), which is the average (mean) of the percentage of EU non-nationals on the 
total number of EU nationals (equal to 34%) and the percentage of intra-EU trade as compared to total volume 
of trade (equal to 64%). 
HCCH Questionnaire 2012 or Von Freyhold, Vial & Partner Consultants, 2008 (most recent available).  All 
values have been converted to hours. In cases where the data was in range format (minimum-maximum) the 
midpoint has been calculated. 
Eurostat, “Hourly labour costs in the EU 27“, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_PUBLIC/ 3- 
24042012-AP/EN/3-24042012-AP-EN.PDF. The latest available figure for each MS has been used. 
The HCCH questionnaire revealed a figure of 14 hours required to issue an Apostille. We have revised this 
figure,  considering  it  abnormal.  Instead  a  figure  of  0.85  has  been  determined  using  partial  least  squares 
regression (PLS regression), where three characteristics have been considered: the number of Apostilles under 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
€
  
  
€
 
                                                 
 Hypothesis 1: Missing data completed per Member 
States through estimations with series of immigrant 
population  

 Hypothesis 2: Missing data completed per 
Member States through estimations with series 
of total population  

MS 

 Estimation 
on the 
number of 
Apostilles 
issued for 
intra-EU 
89
market

 Time 
required 
for 
adminis-
tration to 
issue an 
90
Apostille

 Hourly 
Labour 
91
Cost

 Annual 
administrative 
cost to issue an 
Apostille  

Estimation 
on the 
number of 
Apostilles 
issued for 
intra-EU 
92
market 

 Time 
required 
for 
adminis-
tration to 
issue an 
93
Apostille

Hourly 
Labou
r 
Cost

94

 Annual 
administrati
ve cost to 
issue an 
Apostille  

Germany  

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

88 200

24 500

7 181

38 431

3,50 

30,10 €

9 291 870,00 €

88 200

3,50  30,10 € 

0,50 

17,50 €

214 375,00 €

24 500

0,50  17,50 €  214 375,00 €

1,50 

7,60 €

81 862,83 €

7 181

1,50 

7,60 € 

81 862,83 €

0,50 

27,40 €

526 507,30 €

38 431

0,50  27,40 €  526 507,30 €

9 291 870,00 

125 538

0,50 

26,80 €

1 682 207,62 €

147 834

0,50  26,80 € 

1 980 972,97 

5 684

5 537

26 456

6 632

15 212

16 585

1,00 

5,90 €

33 538,49 €

1,00 

5,50 €

30 450,81 €

5 684

5 537

1,00 

5,90 € 

33 538,49 €

1,00 

5,50 € 

30 450,81 €

2,00 

33,70 €

1 783 139,79 €

26 456

2,00  33,70 € 

0,50 

11,90 €

39 460,01 €

1 015

0,50  11,90 € 

6 040,51 €

1 783 139,79 

96

1,07

31,10 €

0,00 €

40 609

7,00  31,10 € 

1 357 437,92 

0,50 

7,10 €

54 002,78 €

15 212

0,50 

7,10 € 

54 002,78 €

1,50 

12,10 €

301 009,40 €

16 585

1,50  12,10 €  301 009,40 €

118 300

1,50 

4,20 €

745 288,24 €

118 300

1,50 

4,20 €  745 288,24 €

9 702

8 006

1,50 

8,40 €

122 245,20 €

1,50 

14,40 €

172 921,39 €

9 702

8 006

1,50 

8,40 €  122 245,20 €

1,50  14,40 €  172 921,39 €

225 003

1,00 

20,60 €

4 635 053,77 €

225 003

1,00  20,60 € 

25 565

0,50 

39,10 €

499 787,80 €

22 885

0,50  39,10 €  447 395,32 €

4 635 053,77 

United Kingdom 

188 745

0,50 

20,10 €

1 896 887,85 €

188 745

0,50  20,10 € 

1 896 887,85 

hypothesis  1  (EU  non-nationals),  the  number  of  Apostilles  under  hypothesis  2  (total  population),  and  the 
Hourly  Labour  Cost.    See  Bastien,  P.  Vinzi,VE,  and  Tenenhaus,  M,  “LS  generalised  linear  regression”, 
Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 48 (2005) 17 – 46 for more details on this method. 
The HCCH questionnaire revealed a figure of 7 hours required to issue an Apostille. We have revised this 
figure, considering it abnormal, using the same PLS method as explained in the footnote above. 

96 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
€
€
€
€
  
 
€
€
€
 
                                                                                                                                                                  
Annex Table 9: Cost of legalisation of public documents 

EU 27 + 1 (Croatia)
AUSTRIA 
BELGIUM 
BULGARIA 
CROATIA 
CYPRUS 
CZECH REPUBLIC 
DENMARK 
ESTONIA 
FINLAND 
FRANCE 
GERMANY 
GREECE 
HUNGARY 
ITALY 
IRELAND 

LATVIA
LITHUANIA 
LUXEMBOURG 
MALTA 
NETHERLANDS 
POLAND 
PORTUGAL 
ROMANIA 
SLOVAKIA 
SLOVENIA 
SPAIN 
SWEDEN 
UK 

Cost of legalisation (EUR) 

10,00 €

12,00 €

 - 24,00 €

20,00 €

20,00 €

20,00 €

 - 80,00 €

2,00 €  - 3,50 €

20,00 €

 - 50,00 €
7,00 €  - 28,00 €
1,00 €  - 20,00 €

12,00 €

 - 17,00 €

10,00 €

20,00 €
11,00 €

 - 25,00 €
 - 25,00 €

17,00 €
3,00 €
0,00 €
13,00 €

Maximum price
Average price

80,00 €

(Germany)

16,50 €

Source: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2007 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Annex Table 10: Cost of certified translation of public documents (for the translation of certificates related to cross-border 
marriages) 

EU 27 + 1 (Croatia) *

AUSTRIA

BELGIUM

BULGARIA

CROATIA

CYPRUS

CZECH REPUBLIC

DENMARK

ESTONIA

FINLAND

FRANCE

GERMANY

GREECE

HUNGARY

ITALY

IRELAND

LATVIA

LITHUANIA

LUXEMBOURG

MALTA

NETHERLANDS

POLAND

PORTUGAL

ROMANIA

SLOVAKIA

SLOVENIA

SPAIN

SWEDEN

UK

Highest cost

Lowest cost

Cost of translation (EUR)

Minimum
0,00 €

0,00 €

Maximum
120,00 €

60,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

0,00 €

120,00 €

120,00 €

120,00 €

120,00 €

120,00 €

120,00 €

0,00 €

120,00 €

120,00 €

60,00 €

120,00 €

60,00 €

120,00 €

120,00 €

120,00 €

120,00 €

60,00 €

120,00 €

120,00 €

120,00 €

120,00 €

120,00 €

120,00 €

60,00 €

120,00 €

120,00 €

120,00 €

Source: Von Freyhold, Vial & Part ner Consult ant s, 2008

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
 
 
Annex 12 

Statistical tables on intra-EU mobility  

The  increasing  trend  of  intra-EU  mobility  is  confirmed  by  the  trends  recorded  on  the  number  of 
those born in an EU MS and living in another MS: this trend has generally been characterized by an 
increase  over  the  years,  going  from  around  15.7  million  in  2009  to  16.4  million  in  2011  (4% 
increase)97.  Finally,  the  annual  data  on  EU  migrants:  the  total  number  of  EU  migrants  in  2010 
amounted to 2.900.000 people, divided into approximately 1.000.000 EU nationals and 1.900.000 
EU non-nationals98. 

Annex Figure 2: EU citizens residing in another MS 

14.000.000

12.000.000

10.000.000

8.000.000

6.000.000

4.000.000

2.000.000

0

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Source: Eurostat, Population and social conditions, Population by citizenship and country of birth -Population by sex, age group and citizenship 
(migr_pop1ctz), 2007-2011. Data for EU 27 MS and Croatia. 

Data on EU population and intra-EU mobility (migration, foreign workers, 
students) 

Annex Table 11: Foreign population with EU 27 citizenship (except declaring country) 

MS 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

% of foreign 
pop. on the 
total pop. 
(2011) 

4% 

6% 

: 

0,01% 

1% 

2% 

1% 

97 
98 

Eurostat database, Population by sex, age group and country of birth (see further in this Annex). 
According to Eurostat, "Immigration" denotes the action by which a person establishes his or her usual 
residence in the territory of a Member State for a period that is, or is expected to be, of at least 12 months, 
having previously been usually resident in another Member State or a third country.  

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
MS 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

Croatia 

TOTAL 

% of foreign 
pop. on the 
total pop. 
(2011) 

1% 

2% 

3% 

1% 

1% 

7% 

2% 

0,4% 

0,05% 

37% 

2% 

2% 

0,04% 

1% 

: 

1% 

0,2% 

5% 

3% 

3% 

: 
2.5% 

Source: Eurostat, Population and social conditions, Population by citizenship and country of birth -Population by sex, age group and citizenship 
(migr_pop1ctz), 2007-2011.Eurostat database – Population by sex, age group and citizenship, 2007-2011

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
Another phenomenon which makes it possible to quantify intra-EU mobility for working reasons, 
regards cross-border commuters99, i.e. persons who work in an EU country but reside in a different 
one.  According  to  the  most  recent  available  data  (2010100),  five  people  out  of  the  1.000  of  those 
employed commute across borders between MS. 

Annex Table 12: Employed persons in a EU MS, with citizenship of another MS, in 2011 (in thousands) 

Employed persons 

MS 

Total 

Declaring 
country 

EU-27 countries except 
declaring country 

Extra EU-
27 

Total foreign 
countries 

Percentage of EU 
employed persons on the 
total foreign employed 
population 

Austria 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Cyprus 

Czech Rep. 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Greece 

Hungary 

Ireland 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Spain 

Sweden 

UK 

Total 

4.069,6 

4.470,5 

2.908,3 

364,1 

4.827,8 

2.643,1 

588,2 

3.610,2 

4.069,4 

2.904,9 

283,4 

4.755,2 

2.485,1 

502,0 

2.428,5 

2.375,9 

25.562,3 

24.182,3 

38.979,3 

35.457,2 

4.016,6 

3.779,0 

1.764,0 

3.662,1 

3.748,1 

1.548,7 

22.582,7 

20.342,9 

949,3 

810,5 

1.342,1 

1.335,3 

222,4 

166,3 

113,4 

161,5 

8.231,7 

7.880,9 

15.879,6 

15.854,6 

4.557,4 

8.750,0 

2.339,3 

914,8 

4.402,8 

8.746,1 

2.335,1 

896,0 

17.953,3 

15.582,7 

4.529,4 

4.311,1 

28.207,3 

25.672,2 

213.026,9 

198.029,6 

201,3 

297,6 

: 

48,1 

35,6 

69,2 

2,3 

24,7 

628,7 

1.508,1 

70,4 

21,5 

159,6 

738,5 

1,4 

0,6 

99,9 

1,9 

148,5 

8,6 

27,0 

: 

2,9 

0,8 

759,0 

115,9 

1.316,0 

6.288,1 

258,1 

103,5 

: 

32,7 

36,9 

88,6 

84,0 

27,4 

740,9 

2.014,0 

283,0 

9,4 

55,7 

1.501,2 

137,5 

6,2 

9,0 

2,7 

139,2 

16,2 

127,5 

: 

: 

18,0 

1.611,6 

99,5 

1.217,9 

8.620,7 

459,4 

401,1 

: 

80,8 

72,5 

157,8 

86,3 

52,1 

1.369,6 

3.522,1 

353,3 

30,9 

215,4 

2.239,7 

138,9 

6,8 

109,0 

4,6 

287,6 

24,8 

154,6 

: 

4,2 

18,8 

2.370,6 

215,4 

2.533,9 

14.910,2 

40% 

70% 

: 

60% 

50% 

40% 

3% 

50% 

50% 

40% 

20% 

70% 

70% 

30% 

1% 

10% 

90% 

40% 

50% 

30% 

20% 

: 

70% 

4% 

30% 

50% 

50% 

- 

Source: Eurostat -– Labour market, Labour Force Survey, (lfsa) 2011

99 

100 

A migrant worker is, as defined by the United Nations, “a person who is engaged or has been engaged in a 
remunerated activity in a State of which he or she is not a National”. A commuter, instead, is a person who 
travels to work on a regular basis, which can be daily, weekly or even spread over a larger amount of time. 
European Commission - Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Mobility in Europe, 2011. The 
study refers to 2010 data, more recent data were not available due to the subject being very specific. 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  number  of  EU-citizens  moving  to  another  Member  State  for  study  reasons  is  generally 
increasing. The available data for 2009 shows that the highest number of EU students studying in 
another Member State comes from Malta (71.8%), Cyprus (56.2%), Italy (19.5%), Latvia (14.8%) 
and the UK (11.4%)101. Many of those students use the EU Erasmus programme. Indeed, since the 
inception  of  the  programme,  the  number  of  students  benefitting  from  an  Erasmus  grant  has 
continued to grow, reaching a total of 231.410  students in 2010-2011, with an annual increase of 
8.5% compared to 2009-10 (the equivalent year-on-year increase inn 2009-2010 was 7.4%)102. 

MS 
Austria 
Belgium 
Bulgaria 
Cyprus 
Czech Rep. 
Denmark 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Hungary 
Ireland 
Italy 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Poland 
Portugal 
Romania 
Slovakia 
Slovenia 
Spain 
Sweden 
UK 
Croatia 

Annex Table 13: EU Students studying in another EU-27 as % of all students 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 

3,8 
2,4 
3,2 
46,5 
1,3 
2,7 
2,5 
3,2 
6,2 
1,8 
1,8 
12,4 
1,7 
16,9 
9,4 
1,7 
1,3 
: 
1,8 
74,5 
8,2 
1,9 
4,7 
0,9 
2,3 
1,5 
3,0 
: 

3,8 
2,4 
4,3 
44,4 
1,5 
2,6 
3,2 
3,0 
7,2 
1,9 
1,9 
10,9 
1,8 
16,3 
8,0 
1,7 
1,4 
: 
2,0 
68,6 
6,9 
1,8 
4,9 
0,9 
2,3 
2,0 
5,5 
: 

4,7 
2,4 
6,0 
52,2 
1,6 
2,6 
3,0 
3,0 
4,3 
1,9 
1,9 
8,6 
1,7 
15,3 
7,4 
1,6 
1,3 
: 
2,1 
66,0 
12,4 
1,7 
4,6 
1,0 
2,3 
2,1 
6,4 
: 

4,7 
2,6 
7,4 
53,6 
1,8 
2,7 
3,2 
3,0 
9,2 
1,9 
1,9 
7,9 
1,7 
15,7 
7,5 
1,6 
1,7 
: 
2,3 
66,7 
5,9 
1,8 
4,5 
1,1 
2,5 
2,2 
7,9 
6,8 

4,7 
2,6 
8,6 
54,8 
1,8 
2,5 
3,5 
2,9 
10,4 
2,0 
1,9 
7,3 
1,5 
15,5 
8,5 
1,6 
1,6 
: 
2,3 
: 
8,4 
1,8 
4,7 
1,2 
2,7 
2,4 
8,2 
6,9 

4,4 
2,6 
8,7 
56,5 
1,8 
2,3 
3,6 
2,7 
11,9 
2,1 
2,2 
6,0 
1,5 
17,0 
9,3 
1,5 
1,7 
77,1 
2,6 
: 
7,8 
1,8 
4,8 
1,3 
2,9 
2,3 
8,6 
6,3 

4,6 
2,5 
8,9 
53,2 
2,0 
2,6 
4,1 
3,0 
11,9 
2,4 
2,8 
5,5 
1,7 
17,4 
13,8 
1,7 
2,2 
73,6 
3,0 
80,8 
10,0 
2,1 
4,9 
1,6 
3,7 
2,2 
10,2 
6,4 

4,7 
2,6 
8,3 
56,9 
2,1 
2,5 
4,5 
2,9 
10,5 
2,5 
3,1 
5,8 
1,8 
17,8 
14,2 
1,8 
2,5 
51,0 
3,3 
: 
9,9 
2,1 
5,0 
1,8 
4,0 
2,2 
10,2 
6,2 

Source: Eurostat database - Education and training, 2000-2009 

4,3 
2,9 
7,9 
58,4 
2,6 
2,4 
4,9 
2,7 
8,4 
2,3 
3,5 
5,2 
1,8 
18,2 
17,7 
1,8 
2,9 
67,7 
3,6 
: 
10,9 
2,2 
5,1 
1,8 
3,9 
2,0 
10,7 
6,0 

4,5 
2,7 
8,0 
56,2 
2,7 
2,5 
5,2 
2,8 
8,0 
2,4 
3,6 
: 
2,1 
19,5 
14,8 
2,1 
3,3 
71,8 
4,0 
: 
11,4 
2,5 
5,3 
2,0 
4,4 
2,3 
11,4 
6,4 

101 
102 

Eurostat, Education and training statistics.  
EC, MEMO/12/310, The Erasmus programme in 2010-11: the figures explained, 2012. The Erasmus 
programme enables those in higher education to spend between 3 and 12 months in another European country 
– either for studies or for a placement in a company or other organisation. 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 Annex Table 14: Number of marriages in the EU Member States (2007) 

Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Cyprus
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany 
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Poland
Portugal 
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain 
Sweden 
UK

Total marriages
35,996
1%
2%
45,561
1%
29,640
2%
57,157
1%
13,422
2%
36,576
0%
7,022
1%
29,497
273,833 11%
368,922 15%
3%
61,377
40,842
2%
1%
22,544
250,360 10%
1%
15,486
1%
23,065
0%
1,969
0%
2,479
72,485
3%
248,777 10%
2%
46,329
8%
189,240
1%
27,437
0%
6,373
9%
208,057
47,898
2%
268,386 11%

3%
2%
1%

1%
8,295
2% 10,451
2,413
1%
4,969
2%
9,890
0%
5,753
1%
2,486
0%
2,447
1%

Marriages in 2007
International 
National
27,689
3%
3%
35,110
1%
27,227
2%
52,188
3%
3,532
2%
30,821
1%
4,536
1%
27,050
228,864 11% 44,969 15%
318,082 15% 50,840 17%
2%
53,952
38,990
1%
1%
19,096
215,801 10% 34,559 11%
0%
14,579
1%
20,339
0%
837
0%
1,582
3%
61,848
1%
244,732 12%
2%
2%
39,648
2%
9%
183,803
1%
1%
23,778
0%
5,299
0%
8% 34,223 11%
173,834
38,043
3%
9,855
2%
232,154 11% 36,232 12%

907
1%
2,726
1%
1,132
0%
0%
881
3% 10,637
4,045
6,681
5,437
3,659
946

7,425
1,852
3,448

Total

2,430,730 100% 2,123,414 87% 307,158 13%

Source and notes:
Eurostat; International marriages and divorces in the Member States and National Statistical Offices
*International marriages include "unknow n marriages" for: AT (12), DK (2), Malta (16), Slovenia (128). 
2007 data for the UK has been estimated from the total number of new  marriages for the period 2000-2006
2007 data on new  international marriages for Ireland has been estimated by using 2006 census on marriages

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
                       
 
Annex 13 

Overview of citizens replies to the Green Paper 

The following tables provide an overview of the citizens’ responses to the 6 questions of the Green 
Paper  stakeholder  consultation  that  are  within  the  scope  of  this  Impact  Assessment.  Answers  that 
were provided in a language other than English or French have been translated into English. 

The  answers  are  colour-coded  as  follows  to  represent  the  for/against  nature  of  the  answers  with 
respect to the initiative: 

Note: 

No citizen replies were received from the following MS: AT, CY, CZ, DK, EE, EL, ES, FI, IE, LT, 
LU, LV, MT, NL, PT, SE, SI, SK. 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
 
 
Responses to questions 1-2 

Proposed 
solution (cid:198) 

The abolition of administrative formalities for the 
authentication of public documents 

Cooperation between the competent national 
authorities 

1 

2 

Question (cid:198) 

Do you think that the abolition of administrative 
formalities such as legalisation and the Apostille would 
solve the problems encountered by citizens? 

Should closer cooperation between Member States' 
authorities be envisaged, in particular as regards civil 
status records, and if so, in what electronic form?  

Member State  

BE 

La législation des actes de l’ état civil et des autres documents 
administratives ou judiciaires doit être supprimée pour les pays 
de l’ union européenne. On doit avoir de la confiance à une 
autorité compétente qui délivre des données à une autre autorité 
compétente. 

Nous devons appliquer et mettre en œuvre les "policy options" 
mentionnés sur page 101 dans le rapport de Von Freyhold et 
dans son rapport de synthèse. L’adage doit être: Les données 
doivent courir pas les citoyens. Ça veut dire qu’une fois une 
donnée d’une personne ou un changement de cette donnée est 
registrée, le citoyen ne doit plus porter à quelconque autorité que 
soit, une copie ou une attestation de cette donnée.  
C’est l’autorité compétente (communes, provinces, états 
membres d’un pays, les ministères, l’union européenne, les états 
membres de l’union européenne, les tribunaux, les notaires) qui 
doit demander à l’autorité qui possède cette donnée, dont il a 
besoin de l’envoyer et ça par voie électronique, directement 
d’une autorité à l’autre, même au-delà des frontières. La création 
d’un document européen de la personne comme l’Association 
européenne des officiers de l’état civil avait proposé à son 
congres en 2005 doit être fait en forme électronique, ça facilitera 
"le libre trafic" de nos compatriotes européens. 

BG 

   No, I think this will increase the difficulties. 

Yes, but this requires specific proposals.  

The Commission must ensure that the authenticity of documents 
may be determined in the future. 

Precise proposals must be developed.  

DE 

FR 

Yes, the abolition of administrative formalities, such as 
legalisation, the apostille and of translation requirements would 
solve problems encountered by EU citizens. Civil status 
documents should be automatically recognised throughout the 
EU. 

No! It would be great for the individuals affected, but 2,5% of 
European citizens is a number too small to justify such an effort.
It would also be suicide for individual states to deprive 
themselves of the money collected through taxes (to reach this 
objective). Instead of using the funds for the change/transition 
process, the majority of individuals should contribute by paying 
taxes.   

Pour rappel, la légalisation ou l’apostille sont des démarches qui 
visent à authentifier et légaliser des documents administratifs 
passés dans un état étranger. Sans aucun doute, la suppression de 
telles formalités simplifierait à première vue les démarches des 
administrés européens. Mais, aux regards des différences 
existantes entre les documents administratifs des États membres 
et des diverses langues, elle serait aussi à l’origine d’une grande 
insécurité juridique et source de nombreux dysfonctionnements. 
La Commission ne fait en effet aucune proposition pour pallier à 
ces différences. A moins de tenir pour acquis que les 
administrations de chaque pays seraient à même de connaître et 
reconnaître TOUS les actes administratifs passé dans les 26 
autres pays membres, il conviendrait donc que la Commission 
associe à la suppression de telles formalités des mesures 
permettant néanmoins d’assurer une sécurité juridique suffisante. 

 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Yes, but only if this does not require modification of Member 
States' civil status legislation. For example, certificates in 
different languages could be created. We reject the abolishment 
of certificates and documents, as this could lead to abuse and 
fraud. The low number of weddings between Finns and Cypriots 
does not justify this. 

Si, à première vue, une réponse affirmative semble évidente, il 
s’avère en fait que la question de la Commission est trop 
imprécise pour pouvoir y répondre en toute connaissance de 
cause. Quel type de coopération est-il envisagé ? Comment 
inscrire celle-ci dans le respect des traités européens et de la 
souveraineté des États membres en la matière ? 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Proposed 
solution (cid:198) 

The abolition of administrative formalities for the 
authentication of public documents 

Cooperation between the competent national 
authorities 

1 

2 

Question (cid:198) 

Do you think that the abolition of administrative 
formalities such as legalisation and the Apostille would 
solve the problems encountered by citizens? 

Should closer cooperation between Member States' 
authorities be envisaged, in particular as regards civil 
status records, and if so, in what electronic form?  

Sans aucun doute la suppression de telles formalités simplifierait 
à première vue les démarches des administrés européens. Mais 
aux regards des différences existantes entre les documents 
administratif des États membres et des diverses langues, elle 
serait aussi à l’origine d’une grande insécurité juridique et 
source de nombreux dysfonctionnements. La commission ne fait 
en effet aucune proposition pour pallier à ces différences. A 
moins de tenir pour acquis que les administrations de chaque 
pays seraient à même de connaitre et reconnaitre TOUS les actes 
administratifs passé dans les 26 autres pays membres, il 
conviendrait donc que la Commission associe à la suppression 
de telles formalités des mesures permettant néanmoins d’assurer 
une sécurité juridique suffisante. 

Si, à première vue, une réponse affirmative semble évidente, il 
s’avère en fait que la question de la Commission est trop 
imprécise pour pouvoir y répondre en toute connaissance de 
cause. Quel type de coopération est-il envisagé? Comment 
inscrire celle-ci dans le respect des traités européens et de la 
souveraineté des États membres en la matière? 

HU 

   http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/civil/opinion/files/110510/citizens/hungary_en.pdf

IT 

IT 
(cont'd) 

Although reducing administrative formalities would be useful, it 
is indispensable to ensure the legality and authenticity of 
external public documents. The principle of "blind trust" 
proposed by the EC is hardly practical and, more importantly, 
there seems to be no concern with regards to guaranteeing the 
legal nature and authenticity of external public documents. The 
EC should at least propose some alternative mechanisms to 
verify the authenticity of documents. 

The Apostille and the legalisation of documents do not represent 
needless bureaucracy - they are aimed at providing authorities 
with a means of ensuring the legal nature and the authenticity of 
external public documents. If the Commission proposes to 
eliminate these formalities, it should also explain how authorities 
will be able to verify the validity and authenticity of an external 
public document. It can neither be demanded nor expected that 
public servants be aware of the "appearance" of all documents 
from all MS - indeed, these are often not uniform even within 
the same country. Therefore, it seems that the Commission is 
suggesting that MS have a blind trust in foreign citizens. 
Although this might simplify administrative procedures, it would 
damage public order in MS. 

The Commission should propose alternative methods to facilitate 
the verification of the authenticity of documents in conjunction 
with the reduction of administrative formalities. 

The Commission should propose alternative methods to facilitate 
the verification of the authenticity of documents in conjunction 
with the reduction of administrative formalities. 

I would prefer it if it were clearer what mechanism would be 
used to verify the authenticity of documents. I therefore would 
ask the EC to add proposals with respect to this. 

One could consider the elimination of legalization and the 
Apostille only for documents for which a European format is 
created, available in all the official languages and complemented 
by the technical infrastructure necessary to guarantee the 
authenticity of a document (i.e. that it comes from an official 
authority) and the fact that it has not been counterfeited.  

Yes, but the Commission should present concrete proposals in 
this respect.  

I do not see the need for this.  

The Commission should present concrete proposals in this 
respect.  

This type of cooperation would undoubtedly be most useful. The 
Commission should present concrete proposals in this respect. 

In this case, too, I would like the Commission to present 
concrete proposals.  

First of all, it would be necessary to set up a national 
information system for citizens' personal data. This would not be 
hard, as the legislation is homogeneous. It would be hard to 
create a unified system at European level. One could envisage 
that all MS be required to provide a translation of the data 
collected by them, so that individual MS may access the 
information systems of other MS to consult the data. 

The abolition of legalization and apostille can only be 
considered in conjunction with a concrete proposal for an 
alternative method of determining the authenticity and validity 
of documents issued in another Member State. 

PL 

Yes, but this requires a specific proposal. 

   No, I think it would be more intensified. 

Yes, but it requires a specific proposal. 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Proposed 
solution (cid:198) 

The abolition of administrative formalities for the 
authentication of public documents 

Cooperation between the competent national 
authorities 

1 

2 

Question (cid:198) 

Do you think that the abolition of administrative 
formalities such as legalisation and the Apostille would 
solve the problems encountered by citizens? 

Should closer cooperation between Member States' 
authorities be envisaged, in particular as regards civil 
status records, and if so, in what electronic form?  

The Green Paper describes the apostille and validation of 
documents as an “outdated” and “inadequate” method. However, 
it does not give any arguments on which such an assessment can 
be based.  
The reduction of bureaucratic formalities would certainly be in 
the interests of the citizens. However, the apostille and 
validation of documents are not bureaucracy in itself. Their 
objective is to help the public authorities establish the legality 
and authenticity of official documents from abroad.  
Since the Commission is proposing the abolition of such 
formalities, it should also clarify how the public authorities will 
determine the authenticity and validity of foreign documents 
from this moment. It cannot very well be expected that civil 
servants will be familiar with the external appearance of all 
official documents from all Member States or know which body 
in another Member State has the competence to issue a given 
type of document. They will also be unable to read and 
understand all official languages used in the Member States.  
Therefore, what the commission is proposing looks like the 
establishment of the principle of “blind faith” without any 
control. This is certainly non-bureaucratic, but also 
dysfunctional. It would be better if, when proposing the abolition 
of such “formalities”, the Commission added something about 
alternative ancillary mechanisms which help ensure the 
authenticity of documents.  

The document presented does not specify how the public 
authorities of the Member States would establish the legality and 
authenticity of civil documents from other MS. It is difficult to 
imagine registry offices at local level using all 27 official 
languages of the EU Member States in practice. In my opinion, 
such a solution would create legal chaos and more problems than 
potential benefits. 

Yes. I think this would solve the problems of citizens, however, 
create major complications for the offices. In my view, 
important documents should still have the statement of 
authenticity issued by the competent authority. 

No. To my judgment it would rather make those problems more 
acute. 

The Green Paper describes the apostille and validation of 
documents as an “outdated” and “inadequate” method. However, 
it does not give any arguments on which such an assessment can 
be based.  
The reduction of bureaucratic formalities would certainly be in 
the interests of the citizens. However, the apostille and 
validation of documents are not bureaucracy in itself. Their 
objective is to help the public authorities establish the legality 
and authenticity of official documents from abroad.  
Since the Commission is proposing the abolition of such 
formalities, it should also clarify how the public authorities will 
determine the authenticity and validity of foreign documents 
from this moment. It cannot very well be expected that civil 
servants will be familiar with the external appearance of all 
official documents from all Member States or know which body 
in another Member State has the competence to issue a given 
type of document. They will also be unable to read and 
understand all official languages used in the Member States.  
Therefore, what the Commission is proposing looks like the 
establishment of the principle of “blind faith” without any 
control. This is certainly non-bureaucratic, but also 
dysfunctional. It would be better if, when proposing the abolition 
of such “formalities”, the Commission added something about 
alternative ancillary mechanisms which help ensure the 
authenticity of documents.  

PL 
(cont'd) 

PL 
(cont'd) 

Such cooperation would certainly be useful. The Commission 
should develop a more accurate proposal. 

Yes, but it is difficult to assess without reference to specific 
proposals. 

Yes, because every collaboration will contribute to the 
facilitation for the citizens. Electronic form today is a very good 
idea, it would allow for easier and faster communication. 

Yes, but specific, concrete proposals are required. 

Such cooperation would certainly be useful. The Commission 
should provide more precise proposals. 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Proposed 
solution (cid:198) 

The abolition of administrative formalities for the 
authentication of public documents 

Cooperation between the competent national 
authorities 

1 

2 

Question (cid:198) 

Do you think that the abolition of administrative 
formalities such as legalisation and the Apostille would 
solve the problems encountered by citizens? 

Should closer cooperation between Member States' 
authorities be envisaged, in particular as regards civil 
status records, and if so, in what electronic form?  

No, I think that would create even more chaos in the status of 
documents, their hierarchy and relationships between them. In 
addition, lead to many misunderstandings, and even the 
paradoxical situation in which the status and rights arising from 
the document would be less in the country of origin of the 
citizen than in other EU Member States. 

On the one hand, the advantages of such a solution can be seen, 
but in practice, the abolition of any form of audit and validation 
of documents creates the danger of a falsification of documents. 
Officials of individual Member States should not be required to 
be familiar with all forms and printed matter issued by 
authorities throughout the whole of the European Union, often 
issued in the national languages, which additionally makes it 
difficult to understand the content. In my opinion, a far better 
solution would be to consolidate the forms, which, regardless of 
the abolition of bureaucratization, would speed up decision-
making processes. 

No, I think the problems would be intensified. This raises the 
question of how public authorities will determine the 
authenticity and validity of foreign documents. What is needed 
is that the European Commission provides specific proposals for 
alternative mechanisms. 

Yes, but not in electronic form. Any official statement should be 
equivalent in paper form. 

Such cooperation would certainly be useful. The best technical 
solution could be to use (and if necessary to develop new) open 
standards. Any proprietary software which is likely to expose the 
Member States to a so-called vendor lock-in should be 
especially avoided. 

Yes, cooperation would be useful, but, once again, concrete 
proposals are needed. 

   No, I think it would be more intensified. 

Yes, but it requires a specific proposal 

1.1 Seen from the citizens' point of view, administrative 
formalities are an obstacle to the expedient realisation of their 
rights. They impose time, financial and other costs on the 
citizens, without producing any visible gains. They can also, due 
to time constraints, endanger the fast realisation of citizens' 
rights. 1.2 Seen from the state's point of view, administrative 
formalities fulfil an important function - that of keeping track of, 
and filtering, those proofs of a legal status which seek to enter 
the legal sphere - in other words, the legal environment - of the 
requested state. They provide a useful check of compatibility 
with that state's rules and with the legal situations already 
established in that state. Therefore, recognition acceptance of 
documents without any form of administrative formalities might 
endanger the stability of legal relationships in a particular state. 
1.3 However, the European area of right and justice is based on 
the mutual trust between Member States' legal systems. In 
particular, this mutual trust applies to the legal exercise of 
prerogatives by the relevant authorities of each Member State. 
Since the apostille, for example, seeks only to give additional 
proof of this exercise, it might well be abandoned, something 
which has already been done between some Member States. 
However, legalisation, which sometimes seeks to provide a filter 
of legality to private transactions, also within one state, should 
be kept inasmuch as it serves functions enumerated at 1.2. 

The Green Paper describes the apostille and legalisation of 
documents as “obsolete” and “not suitable”. But it fails to 
provide any argument on which such assessments can be based. 
A reduction of bureaucratic formalities would certainly be in the 
interest of citizens. However, the apostille and the legalisation of 
documents are not simply bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake. 
Their function is to help public authorities ascertain the legality 
and authenticity of public documents of foreign origin. If the 
Commission proposes the abolition of such formalities, it should 
also explain how public authorities will henceforth be able to 
ascertain the authenticity and validity of a document of foreign 
origin. It can hardly be expected that civil servants will be 
familiar with the outward appearance of all public documents 
from all other Member States. Nor can they be expected to know 

RO 

UK 

2.1 Cooperation between Member States' authorities is essential 
in the transition between multiple areas of right and law, and a 
unique area of right and law. This transition involves, on the one 
hand, mutual recognition of civil status situations which are 
established by the relevant authorities of any Member State, but, 
on the other hand, the clarification of existing, and possible 
future situations, which have been / will be solved differently by 
different Member States, because of their incompatible 
appreciations of facts, or their own legal traditions and rules. 
2.2 Since the European Union does not have many prerogatives 
in the field of material rules of law, two of the most important 
means to achieve the objective stated in 1.2 are the adoption of 
unique rules of private international law, and the facilitation of 
information exchanges between Member States' authorities, with 
a view to preventing conflicting situations, and enabling the 
effective utilisation of legal documents done in one Member 
State within the other's legal environment. 
2.3 Since electronic means are the most effective form of 
communication, a European network of civil status registries 
should be established, with facilities for exchanging information 
on cross-border civil status situations. 

Such co-operation would certainly be useful. The Commission 
should elaborate more precise proposals. 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Proposed 
solution (cid:198) 

The abolition of administrative formalities for the 
authentication of public documents 

Cooperation between the competent national 
authorities 

1 

2 

Question (cid:198) 

UK 
(cont'd) 

Do you think that the abolition of administrative 
formalities such as legalisation and the Apostille would 
solve the problems encountered by citizens? 
which authority in another Member State is competent for 
issuing which type of documents. Nor can they be expected read 
and understand all official languages of all Member States. What 
the Commission is proposing, therefore, looks like the 
establishment of a principle of “blind trust” without any control. 
This is certainly un-bureaucratic, but it is also dysfunctional. It 
would be far more helpful if the Commission, in the course of 
proposing the abolition of such “formalities”, could also give 
some thought to alternative mechanisms that could help to 
ascertain the authenticity of documents. 

I cannot find any adequate arguments in the green paper as to 
why the apostille and legalization of documents is not suitable, 
nor does it explain what grounds it bases its conclusion on. 
Moreover, the main function of the legalization of documents is 
to enable authorities to assess the legality and authenticity of 
public documents of foreign origin. Therefore, these formalities 
should not be abolished without a proposal from the 
Commission on alternative mechanisms with which they can be 
replaced that are at least equally effective in determining the 
authenticity and validity of documents of foreign origin. 

I consider that the Commission Green Paper does not give any 
adequate arguments as to why the apostille and legalization of 
documents is not suitable, nor does it explain what grounds it 
bases its conclusion on. I would like to point out that the main 
function of the legalization of documents is to enable authorities 
to assess the legality and authenticity of public documents of 
foreign origin. Therefore, these formalities should not be 
abolished without a proposal from the Commission on 
alternative mechanisms with which they can be replaced that are 
at least equally effective in determining the authenticity and 
validity of documents of foreign origin. 

Should closer cooperation between Member States' 
authorities be envisaged, in particular as regards civil 
status records, and if so, in what electronic form?  

Such cooperation would be useful for documents where national 
status provisions are virtually identical (e.g. birth and death 
certificates); I therefore request that the Commission elaborates 
a more precise proposal, but not for documents where national 
status provisions are different. 

I consider that such cooperation would be useful for documents 
where national status provisions are virtually identical (e.g. birth 
and death certificates). For these, I request that the Commission 
elaborates a more precise proposal. However, some documents 
have different status provisions within different MS which give 
their own, specific significance and legal effect to these 
documents [such as those relating to marriage, civil partnership, 
or adoption]. In such cases, mutual recognition of civil status 
documents cannot be automatic, but must be subjected to the 
receiving state’s own policy approach. 

Yes the abolition of administrative formalities and the apostille 
would simplify matters for all EU citizens. 

Yes, closer cooperation between Member States’ authorities 
should be envisaged. A single online website/E-portal such the 
E-Justice portal would be convenient and advantageous. 

The Commission’s Green Paper fails to give any adequate 
arguments as to why the apostille and legalization of documents 
is not suitable, nor does it explain what grounds it bases its 
conclusion on. Moreover, the main function of the legalization 
of documents is to enable authorities to assess the legality and 
authenticity of public documents of foreign origin. Therefore, 
these formalities should not be abolished without a proposal 
from the Commission on alternative mechanisms with which 
they can be replaced that are at least equally effective in 
determining the authenticity and validity of documents of 
foreign origin. 

Such cooperation would be useful for documents where national 
status provisions are virtually identical (e.g. birth and death 
certificates); we therefore request that the Commission 
elaborates a more precise proposal, but not for documents where 
national status provisions are different. 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Responses to questions 3-4 

Proposed 
solution (cid:198) 

Question(cid:198) 

(cont'd) Cooperation between the competent national authorities. 

3 

4 

What do you think about the registration of a person's civil 
status events in a single place, in a single Member State? 
Which place would be the most appropriate: place of birth, 
Member State of nationality or Member State of residence? 

Do you think that it would be useful to publish the list of 
national authorities competent to deal with civil status 
matters or the contact details of one information point in 
each Member State? 

Member State  

BE 

On doit faire le régistrement des événements à une telle manière 
que l’échange de ces événements se produisent à la façon la plus 
efficace sans que les garanties légales soient en danger ni pour les 
citoyens ni pour les autorités compétentes. 
Pour atteindre ce but les données doivent être registrés à un centre 
central dans chaque pays membre (voir rapport Von Freyhold) ou 
on conserve et met à jour ces données. 
Bien sûr le lieu de naissance et de mariage doivent être averti de 
chaque changement dont on doit faire une mention marginale à 
l’acte de naissance ou de mariage. Aussi le lieu de résidence doit 
être averti pour qu’on puisse changer le registre de population. 

La publication d’une liste des autorités compétentes nationales sera 
une très grande aide pour les citoyens et pour les autorités qui 
doivent chercher des données des personnes. 

BG 

The proposal will create more chaos with respect the problems of 
the status of the majority of citizens, rather than solve the complex 
cases of a few individuals. 

It should be enough to designate a contact point in each Member 
State.  

The place of birth will always remain the same. The Commission 
will have to review its proposals before initiating this discussion. 
Only 2,5% of European citizens live outside the country where 
they were born. The higher costs and impacts are completely 
(100%) concern the population. 

Each Member State should establish a contact point. 

 - - - - - - - - - - - 

 - - - - - - - - - - - 

No! I do not want my data to be visible to MS with high corruption 
(Bulgaria, Italy, Romania, etc). 

Yes. 

What do you think about the registration of a person's civil 
status events in a single place, in a single Member State? 
Which place would be the most appropriate: place of birth, 
Member State of nationality or Member State of residence? 

Do you think that it would be useful to publish the list of 
national authorities competent to deal with civil status 
matters or the contact details of one information point in 
each Member State? 

Si tant est que l’enregistrement des événements d’état-civil d’une 
personne à un seul endroit dans un seul État représente un 
allègement des formalités administratives, ce qui reste à 
démontrer(*), il est certain que le seul endroit pertinent est celui du 
lieu de naissance, étant le seul qui ne changera jamais. Cela pose 
néanmoins le problème des citoyens européens nés hors de l’Union 
européenne, pour lesquels devrait être envisagé le critère de 
nationalité.  
*Cela suppose en effet que tous les États membres acceptent 
l’enregistrement des événements d’état-civil via internet, car on 
voit mal comment devoir se présenter à son lieu de naissance à 
chacun de ces événements représenterait une simplification 
administrative pour le citoyen européen. 

La liste des autorités compétentes nationales en matière d’état-civil 
risquant d’être très longue, il semble préférable d’opter pour un 
point d’information par État membre. 

DE 

FR 

 - - - - - - - - - - - 

 - - - - - - - - - - - 

HU 

   http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/civil/opinion/files/110510/citizens/hungary_en.pdf

IT 

Further detail on this proposal should be provided. At the moment, 
the benefits are not very clear, whereas the significant costs are 
apparent. The GP states that only 2,5% of the population in the EU 
lives outside its MS of origin. Is it fair to impose the cost of a 
reform that will only benefit 2.5% of the population to 100% of the 
same? 

The second option is preferable. In some MS there are several 
national authorities working within the scope of civil status, and it 
would be complicated to involve all of them. 

EN 

92 

   EN 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Proposed 
solution (cid:198) 

Question(cid:198) 

(cont'd) Cooperation between the competent national authorities. 

3 

4 

What do you think about the registration of a person's civil 
status events in a single place, in a single Member State? 
Which place would be the most appropriate: place of birth, 
Member State of nationality or Member State of residence? 

Do you think that it would be useful to publish the list of 
national authorities competent to deal with civil status 
matters or the contact details of one information point in 
each Member State? 

Member State  

IT 
(cont'd) 

PL 

PL 
(cont'd) 

The proposal would increase administrative burden, not reduce it. 
It would also imply significant additional costs. Furthermore, out 
of the three options put forward in the Green Paper, the only 
criteria that remains unchanged over time is the place of birth 
which, however, may not always be within the EU. Therefore, 
none of these options would work. 

I do not see a need for this.  

Considering the significant costs of this proposal, the benefits seem 
unclear.  

In order to avoid inefficiencies, it would make sense to designate a 
single point of contact per MS.  

   The Member State of nationality would be the most appropriate 

I find the publication of such a list unnecessary. 

The proposal needs to be better elaborated. Furthermore, I notice 
that the GP states that only 2,5% of the EU's population lives 
outside its country of origin. Therefore, is it really worth facing 
high costs that affect 100% of the population? 

Events related to civil status could be registered at the place of 
birth. However, it should be made a compulsory requirement to  
indicate on all documents the MS and the place (city/town etc) of 
birth, perhaps assigning a code to these (e.g. the tax code in Italy 
contains a code made up of a letter and three numbers which 
represent the place of birth). 

Given that the law on marital status differs between the Member 
States, I believe that any change should be recorded in the country 
where the change in marital status took place. 

The proposal will result in rather greater chaos in matters of civil 
status than most people solve complicated cases of individuals. 

This proposal could bring new confusion into bureaucracy rather 
than eliminate it. 
Referring to the three options proposed in the Green Paper, it 
should be noted that place of birth is the only criterion which will 
always be the same, while citizenship and the permanent place of 
residence may be changed. Simultaneously, many people in the EU 
were born outside the EU. Therefore, none of the three criteria can 
exist without additional arrangements (i.e. if a person was born 
outside the EU, it must be the Member State certifying citizenship 
and, if the person is not a citizen of the EU, the State of permanent 
residence).  
In a word, the proposal requires further work. In the form in which 
it currently is, its benefits would not be obvious, while its costs 
would be substantial. (It should be noted that - according to the 
Green Paper – only 2.5% of the population of the EU live outside 
their country of origin. In such a case, does this particular interest 
in these people actually justify such expensive reforms affecting 
100% of the EU population??) 

In my opinion, such a solution is impossible to implement for 
practical reasons. As for the place of birth, the problem arises of 
people born outside the EU. As for citizenship, how would the 
matter of people having citizenship of more than one country be 
resolved? In terms of the country of permanent residence, in many 
cases, it will be difficult to establish the definition of permanent 
residence. The proposal would rather create greater chaos 
regarding the civil status of the majority of citizens than resolve 
complex cases of individual people. In addition, it does not seem 
reasonable to implement such a proposal in the light of the fact that 
the vast majority of EU citizens live in the country in which they 
were born. 

I think it would be better to set up a single point of contact in each 
MS. 

Local authorities (at municipal level) should be encouraged/obliged 
to be able to provide citizens with information on the competent 
authorities at national level. Furthermore, each State should 
communicate to the others what the competent authorities are, so 
that all states can divulge this through the information points.  

It is advisable to publish a list indicating a central information 
point. 

Just designate a single point of contact in each Member State. 

Taking into account that in the larger Member States a list of 
national competent authorities to deal with matters of civil status 
would be quite long, it is better to designate a single point of 
contact in each Member State. 

Given the diversity of legal and administrative systems in MS, I 
think that should be set in each EU country, one contact point. 

EN 

93 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Proposed 
solution (cid:198) 

Question(cid:198) 

(cont'd) Cooperation between the competent national authorities. 

3 

4 

What do you think about the registration of a person's civil 
status events in a single place, in a single Member State? 
Which place would be the most appropriate: place of birth, 
Member State of nationality or Member State of residence? 

Do you think that it would be useful to publish the list of 
national authorities competent to deal with civil status 
matters or the contact details of one information point in 
each Member State? 

Member State  

This proposal would make the very complicated situation of many 
people much easier. The most appropriate place would be the 
Member State of permanent residence; this would enable the 
avoidance of the difficulties of travelling to the place of birth or the 
Member State certifying citizenship. 

Instead of solving complicated cases of particular individuals, the 
proposal would rather lead to greater chaos in problems of civil 
status of the majority of citizens. 

This proposal could bring new confusion into bureaucracy rather 
than eliminate it.  
Referring to the three options proposed in the Green Paper, it 
should be noted that place of birth is the only criterion which will 
always be the same, while citizenship and the permanent place of 
residence may be changed. Simultaneously, many people in the EU 
were born outside the EU. Therefore, none of the three criteria can 
exist without additional arrangements (i.e. if a person was born 
outside the EU, it must be a Member State certifying nationality 
and, if the person is not a citizen of the EU, the State of permanent 
residence).  
In a word, the proposal requires further work. In the form in which 
it currently is, its benefits would not be obvious, while its costs 
would be substantial. (It should be noted that - according to the 
Green Paper - only 2.5% of the population of the EU live outside 
their country of origin. In such a case, does this particular interest 
in these people actually justify such expensive reforms affecting 
100% of the EU population??)  

The proposal would rather create greater chaos regarding the civil 
status of the majority of citizens than resolve complex cases of 
individual people. I think that the mechanism for communicating 
information between the respective authorities in each of the States 
would fail with such a proposal. 

Each of the proposals creates a new bureaucratic problems: place 
of birth - constant, but creates the problem of registration of 
immigrants from outside the European Union; a place of permanent 
residence and citizenship - due to migration of people all 
documentation would also have to be safely transported.  

The place of birth is the only criterion which will remain the same, 
whereas citizenship or the permanent place of residence may 
change. However, many residents of the European Union were 
born outside the EU. It arises from this that none of the three 
criteria can exist without additional arrangements.  
The proposal would rather create greater chaos regarding the civil 
status of the majority of citizens than resolve complex cases of 
individual people. Therefore, it needs further work. 

The proposal will result in greater chaos in matters of civil status 
for most people, rather than solve complicated cases of individuals. 

3.1 Registration of civil status events serves two main purposes. 
On the one hand, it serves the person in question, who is interested 
in proving, towards third parties, his civil status, and in having his 
position in society recognised by the state and fellow persons. On 
the other hand, it also serves society as a whole, and individual 
third parties, who can ascertain the civil status of a person at any 
given time, and correspondingly enter into relationships with that 
person, grant her/him the relevant rights, or implement policies for 
a given category of persons. 
3.2 Therefore, in a way, every of the states mentioned in the 
question has an interest in the registration of civil status events. A 

Yes, it would be another advantage. 

Establishing of one contact point in each member state will be 
sufficient. 

Bearing in mind that, in the larger Member States, the list of 
national authorities with competence for dealing with matters of 
civil status would be quite long, it would be better to designate a 
single point of contact in each Member State. 

Just designate a single point of contact in each Member State. 

Best to establish one point of contact, providing information about 
specific administrative units. The entire list would probably be 
quite large and difficult to search. 

Just designate a single point of contact in each Member State. 

Just designate a single point of contact in each Member State. 

The publications of both categories of information would be 
preferable. 

PL 
(cont'd) 

RO 

EN 

94 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Proposed 
solution (cid:198) 

Question(cid:198) 

(cont'd) Cooperation between the competent national authorities. 

3 

4 

What do you think about the registration of a person's civil 
status events in a single place, in a single Member State? 
Which place would be the most appropriate: place of birth, 
Member State of nationality or Member State of residence? 

Do you think that it would be useful to publish the list of 
national authorities competent to deal with civil status 
matters or the contact details of one information point in 
each Member State? 

Member State  

system of unique registration can only be established if and when 
an underlying system of effective access to civil status documents 
registered in another Member State exists between every 
participating country. 
3.3 In such a case, it would be preferable to register these events at 
the place of birth, since this would provide an immoveable and 
easily proven point of contact, and it is also compatible with the 
existing legislation of many Member States. 

This proposal is likely to generate new bureaucratic burdens rather 
than reducing them. With regard to the three options proposed in 
the Green Paper, it is worth noting that the place of birth is the only 
criterion that will always remain the same, whereas a person’s 
citizenship and residence can change. But, at the same time, many 
EU residents have been born outside the EU. Thus, none of the 
three criteria can work without a subsidiary arrangement (i.e., if the 
person is born outside the EU, then the person’s civil status must 
be based on the Member State of nationality; if the person is not an 
EU citizen, then it must be based on the country of residence). In 
short, the proposal needs further elaboration. As it currently stands, 
its benefits would not be self-evident and the costs would be 
considerable. (It should be noted that, according to the Green 
Paper, only 2.5% of the EU’s population live outside their Member 
State of origin. Does the particular interest of a few expatriates 
really justify reforms that are expensive and which affect 100% of 
the population?) 

UK 

Given that in the larger Member States the list of national 
authorities competent to deal with civil status matters would be 
rather long, it seems preferable to designate one contact point in 
each Member State.  

   Member state of residence may be the most convenient. 

Yes it would be convenient. 

Responses to questions 5-6 

Proposed 
solution (cid:198) 

Question (cid:198) 

Limiting translations of public documents. 

The European civil status certificate. 

5 

6 

What solutions do you recommend in order to avoid or at 
least limit the need for translation? 

What kind of civil status certificates could be the subject 
of a European civil status certificate? Which details 
should be mentioned on such certificate? 

Member State  

BE 

On doit créer dans l’union européenne des actes plurilingues, 
pourvus des codes cfr. Convention nr 25 du CIEC. Tout acte doit 
être dressé dans la langue nationale (ou les langues nationaux) et 
en Allemand, Français et Anglais mais en forme documentaire 
(Système des extraits internationaux). Il faut créer un acte 
européen, qui sera le même dans toute l’Europe. Cela évitera que 
les citoyens ou autorités doivent laisser traduire les actes. 

Tous les actes doivent faire l’objet d’un certificat européen 
d’état civil (naissance, mariage, 
divorce, décès, adoption). 
Un certificat de personne doit contenir : 
- Le nom de famille 
- Les prénoms 
- Date et lieu de naissance 
- Sexe 
- Nom de famille et prénoms de ses parents 
- Date et lieu de mariage/partenariat 
- Date et lieu de dissolution de mariage/partenariat 
- Nationalité 
- Dernière adresse 
- Date et lieu de décès 
- Adoption 

EN 

95 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
Proposed 
solution (cid:198) 

Question (cid:198) 

Limiting translations of public documents. 

The European civil status certificate. 

5 

6 

What solutions do you recommend in order to avoid or at 
least limit the need for translation? 

What kind of civil status certificates could be the subject 
of a European civil status certificate? Which details 
should be mentioned on such certificate? 

Member State  

BG 

DE 

FR 

The only solution is to create standard forms that contain the 
necessary information in all languages (as in the case of 
passports). 

Such certificate may be applied only in those areas where there 
is common ground between the laws of different Member States, 
i.e. for example. in MS where family is understood exclusively 
as a link between man and woman. 

Standard forms which contain the necessary information in all 
official languages. 

Birth or death certificates.  

As mentioned in the answer to question 2, certificates created in 
different (European) languages right from the start.  

La meilleure solution semble être dans l’élaboration de 
documents standards au niveau européen, ou à tout le moins de 
documents reprenant les mêmes rubriques, chaque fois que cela 
est rendu possible par une convergence suffisante entre les États 
membres de la signification de tel ou tel document administratif. 
Ceci est déjà le cas pour le passeport et le permis de conduire.  

The example given in the Green Paper makes the assumption 
regarding the certificate that "in this case, the Spanish authorities 
would probably ask for a translation". It would be better to know 
this from the very beginning. In Germany documents related to 
civil status already exist in an international format. Therefore, 
the European format would not be necessary. 

Ne pourraient faire l’objet d’un certificat européen d’état-civil 
que les actes d’état-civil qui recouvrent une même signification 
et une même réalité dans chaque état membre. Ainsi, naissance 
et décès pourraient être concernés. Le mariage et les unions 
civiles, n’ayant plus la même signification dans tous les États 
membres depuis la reconnaissance par une minorité d’entre eux 
du mariage homosexuel, ne pourrait par contre pas faire l’objet 
d’un tel certificat. 

HU 

   http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/civil/opinion/files/110510/citizens/hungary_en.pdf

IT 

The only solution is to create standard forms that contain the 
necessary information in all languages (as in the case of 
passports). 

IT 
(cont'd) 

When I registered in Germany (coming from Italy), I had to 
produce civil status documents on forms written in several 
languages. Therefore, based on my experience, this option 
already exists. It would be advisable for these forms to be 
available upon request, and that they are not imposed on 
everyone, given that 97,5% of the population will not need them. 

Strictly speaking, only death and birth certificates would be able 
to be part of a European Civil Status Certificate ("death" and 
"birth" should have the same meaning in all MS). In any case, 
the certificate can only exist in domains common to different 
legislations. For example, a standard format for a marriage 
certificate could only be used whereby all jurisdictions converge 
(i.e. only for heterosexual marriage). 

If a European Certificate is to be introduced, this can only relate 
to those aspects for which there is legal homogeneity between 
MS. Therefore, this would probably include birth and death, and 
exclude marriage, PACS, adoptions, etc. 

The only solution is to create standard forms that contain the 
necessary information in all languages (as in the case of 
passports). 

For sure birth and death certificates. For other certificates, this 
concept may only be applied whereby there is common ground 
between the legislation of individual MS. 

The only solution is to create standard forms that contain the 
necessary information in all languages (as in the case of 
passports). 

The only solution is to create standard forms that contain the 
necessary information in all EU languages.  

Only birth and death certificates could be the object of a 
European Certificate (as "death" and birth" probably have the 
same meaning in all MS). However, it should be noted that this 
concept may only be applied whereby there is common ground 
between the legislation of individual MS.  For example, a 
common European format for a marriage certificate could only 
be used when all  legal jurisdictions converge, i.e. only for 
heterosexual marriages.  

The only certificates common to all legislations and for which 
the concept of a European certificate would therefore apply are 
those for birth and death. I totally exclude the possibility of such 
a certificate existing for "Family Status" and "marriage" given 
that, as stated in Art. 81(3) TFEU, for family status national 
parliaments are the competent authorities: in many MS, 
homosexual unions are not considered to be "marriage" and 
adoption by such couples is not permitted.  

EN 

96 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Proposed 
solution (cid:198) 

Question (cid:198) 

Limiting translations of public documents. 

The European civil status certificate. 

5 

6 

What solutions do you recommend in order to avoid or at 
least limit the need for translation? 

What kind of civil status certificates could be the subject 
of a European civil status certificate? Which details 
should be mentioned on such certificate? 

Member State  

 - - - - - - - - - - - 

The creation of standard forms containing the necessary 
information in all languages. 

PL 

The only solution would be to develop standard forms that 
contain the necessary information in all languages (as is the case 
of passports). 

The only solution would be to develop standard forms of short-
circuiting the necessary information in all languages (as it has in 
the case of passports). 

PL 
(cont'd) 

Standardization of forms, so that they contain the necessary 
information in all languages. 

It is hard to envisage a European Civil Status Certificate because 
one would need to foresee all the possible hypotheses regulated 
by the national laws of each MS. This would result in hundreds 
of different hypotheses. Instead of simplifying the certificate, 
this  would make it more complicated. For example, in Italy, the 
declaration of birth consists in 45 different formats depending on 
the different cases regulated by the law. Death is probably a 
more uniform discipline, and birth, too, as long as one only 
looks at the place and date of birth, without mentioning the 
parental relationships. As per the latter, marriage and civil 
partnerships are also treated very differently within the EU. 

Such certificates could easily be used in relation to death 
certificates. Generally, however, such a certificate would apply 
only in areas where there is common ground between the laws of 
different Member States (for example, in MS where marriage is 
meant only as the union between man and woman). 

Such a certificate would apply only in areas where there is 
common ground between the laws of different Member States 
and, therefore, for example, in MS where marriage is meant only 
as a union of man and woman. 

This could be easily conducted in the case of birth and death 
certificates, assuming that “births” and “deaths” probably have 
the same meaning everywhere.  
It should be noted, however, that such a solution may only be 
applied in areas where there is common ground between the 
legislation of the various Member States. For example, the 
standard European form of the marriage certificate could only be 
used where there is common ground between all legal systems, 
i.e. in the case of marriages between people of opposite sexes. 

I do not think that it is possible to create such a certificate which 
is useful in practice in view of the large (and increasing) 
differences in definition by the legal systems of the Member 
States of even basic concepts, falling within the scope of civil 
law (e.g. it is difficult to speak of the notion of marriage being 
identical in MS where marriage is understood exclusively as a 
union of a women with a man, and those which allow unions of 
people of the same sex to be called marriages).  

The only solution would be to develop standard forms that 
contain the necessary information at least in the official language 
of the country in which it was done and English. 

The subject of a European Certificate of civil status certificates 
could be all that would be needed to make various legal actions. 
It should contain all the information you need. 

In my opinion the only solution would consist in preparing 
standard forms containing necessary information in all languages 
(as in the case of passports). 

PL 
(cont'd) 

The only solution would be to develop standard forms 
containing the necessary information in all languages (as is the 
case of passports). 

The only solution would be to develop standard forms that 
contain the necessary information in all languages (as is the case 
of passports). 

Such a certificate could be applied only in such areas where a 
common basis exists in legal systems of different member states, 
e.g. in MS where marriage is understood exclusively as a union 
between a woman and a man. 

This could be easily conducted in the case of birth and death 
certificates, assuming that “births” and “deaths” probably have 
the same meaning everywhere.  
It should be noted, however, that such a solution may only be 
applied in areas where there is common ground between the 
legislation of the various Member States. For example, the 
standard European form of marriage certificate could be used 
only where there is common ground between all legal systems, 
i.e. in the case of marriage between persons of opposite sexes. 

Such a certificate would apply only in areas where there is 
common ground between the laws of different Member States 
and, therefore, for example, in MS where marriage is meant only 
as a union of man and woman. 

EN 

97 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Proposed 
solution (cid:198) 

Question (cid:198) 

Limiting translations of public documents. 

The European civil status certificate. 

5 

6 

What solutions do you recommend in order to avoid or at 
least limit the need for translation? 

What kind of civil status certificates could be the subject 
of a European civil status certificate? Which details 
should be mentioned on such certificate? 

Member State  

Harmonization of forms. On the one hand standard forms (like 
passports) may be set up, while on the other hand technology 
enables data to be kept in generally designed databases, the 
description of which each Member State may translate into the 
national language. 

The only solution would be to develop standard forms that 
contain the necessary information in all languages (as is the case 
with passports). 

The only solution would be to develop standard forms that 
contain the necessary information in all languages (as is the case 
of passports). 

Information on documents can be unscientifically classified into 
two categories: self-contained data, and explanations. It is 
unavoidable that explanatory data, and other particular 
comments relating to a complex point will always need 
translations. However, both for self-contained data and complex 
messages, translation could be simplified or avoided through 
standardised forms, and through indices of situations, compiled 
with the input of Member States. These indices would provide a 
unique number for a given situation / type of data and they 
would be translated in every Member State. The filling and 
understanding of common forms would be much simplified. 

RO 

UK 

The only foreseeable solution would be to develop standard 
forms that contain the necessary information in all official 
languages (as is already the case for passports). 

Developing standard forms that contain the necessary 
information in a uniform template as is currently the case for 
passports and driving licenses. 

They can be used for status, which have the same meaning 
everywhere, just like birth and death certificates.  
It should be noted, however, that such a solution may only be 
applied in areas where there is common ground between the 
legislation of the various Member States. For example, the 
standard European form of marriage certificate could be used 
only where there is common ground between all legal systems, 
i.e. in the case of marriage between persons of opposite sexes. 

Such a certificate would apply only in areas where there is 
common ground between the laws of different Member States 
(for example, in MS where marriage is meant only as the union 
between man and woman). 

Such a certificate would apply only in areas where there is 
common ground between the laws of different Member States 
and, therefore, for example, in MS where marriage is meant only 
as a union of man and woman. 

Traditionally, civil status documents have had their individual 
identity. A unification into a civil status certificate would 
involve the constant updating of this certificate throughout the 
person's life. Questions of preservation, duplication and proof 
should be considered before establishing such a certificate. 
However, if these questions are positively solved, then it would 
be preferable that this certificate should only mention the 
common data stored in national certificates of all Member 
States, avoiding those which are only to be found in one or a few 
Member States. The data should also be analysed from the point 
of view of their compatibility with Human Rights and privacy 
law. 

This could easily be done, for example, for birth or death 
certificates (given that “birth” or “death” probably has the same 
meaning everywhere. Given the divergences in material law with 
regards to artificial procreation, it would exclude documents 
related to these practices). However, it should be noted that such 
a solution can only be used in areas where there is common 
ground between the legislation of different Member States. For 
example, a European standard form for a marriage certificate 
could only be used where there is common ground between all 
legal systems (i.e., for marriage between two persons of different 
sex). 

A European civil status certificate may be a reasonable solution 
in areas where there is common ground between the legislation 
of different Member States, in cases such as for birth or death 
certificates for example, as these probably have the same 
meaning everywhere. 
However, this would be more problematic in the case of a 
standard European form for 
marriage or civil partnership certificates as there is no common 
ground between all legal 
systems of the EU Member States in this area. 

EN 

98 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Proposed 
solution (cid:198) 

Question (cid:198) 

Limiting translations of public documents. 

The European civil status certificate. 

5 

6 

What solutions do you recommend in order to avoid or at 
least limit the need for translation? 

What kind of civil status certificates could be the subject 
of a European civil status certificate? Which details 
should be mentioned on such certificate? 

Member State  

 - - - - - - - - - - - 

Multilingual forms in all EU languages would be necessary to 
help with translation issues. 

Developing standard forms that contain the necessary 
information in a uniform template as is currently the case for 
passports and driving licenses. 

A European civil status certificate may be a reasonable solution 
in areas where there is common ground between the legislation 
of different Member States, in cases such as for birth or death 
certificates for example, as these probably have the same 
meaning everywhere. However, this would be more problematic 
in the case of a standard European form for marriage or civil 
partnership certificates as there is no common ground between 
all legal systems of the EU Member States in this 
area. For example, the European consensus on the definition of 
marriage was broken eleven years ago (2000) when the 
Netherlands became the first of a small minority of European 
MS to permit marriage between two persons of the same sex. 

Civil status certificates such as birth, partnership, marriage, 
death, surname changes need to be mentioned on a European 
Civil Status Certificate. The date of the life event should be 
mentioned. Any changes to the life event should be noted on the 
certificate, as well.  

A European civil status certificate may be a reasonable solution 
in areas where there is common ground between the legislation 
of different Member States, in cases such as for birth or death 
certificates for example, as these probably have the same 
meaning everywhere. However, this would be more problematic 
in the case of a standard European form for marriage or civil 
partnership certificates as there is no common ground between 
all legal systems of the EU Member States in this area. The 
European consensus on the definition of marriage was broken 
eleven years ago (2000) when the Netherlands became the first 
of a small minority of European MS to permit marriage between 
two persons of the same sex. 

EN 

99 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Annex 14 

Output of the stakeholders' consultation through the 
questionnaires of the preparatory study 

The  preparatory  study  examined  the  views  of  the  stakeholders  through  a  questionnaire.  The 
outcome is summarized here. 

EU Citizens and SMEs 

The stakeholders agree on the fact that the most problematic documents are civil status documents, 
such as marriage certificates and death certificates. The main difficulties are connected to the fact 
that often the document requested does not correspond to the same document in another MS. 

The replies to the questionnaires also underlined the difficulty of obtaining original copies, as it is 
not  always  easy  to  get  in  contact  with  the  competent  authorities  (or  even  to  understand  to  which 
authority one must refer). 

From the answers provided, it is clear that certified translations are mostly perceived as an obstacle. 

As far as costs are concerned, citizens actually complained about the need to pay the fees for the 
legalised  documents,  whereas  these  costs  and  time  wasted  were  indicated  to  be  higher  when 
documents  had  to  be  searched  for  in  the  archives  of  the  relevant  authorities.  All  in  all,  the 
respondents to the questionnaires qualified the costs placed on them as excessive and an obstacle to 
the exercise of the free movement rights. 

In  addition,  time  needed  for  administration  formalities  seemed  to  be  approximately  four  to  five 
working  days.  Several  respondents  considered  the  formalities  related  to  the  cross-border  use  of 
public documents to be lengthy and time-consuming and consequently having a negative impact on 
their family situation. 

In conclusion, the respondents suggested that it would be useful to increase the usage of standard 
forms and digital transmission of documents. 

Public authorities 

The  questionnaire  was  aimed  at  Public  Authorities  (including  competent  authorities  under  the 
Apostille  Convention  and  the  1987  Brussels  Convention)  dealing  with  authentication  and 
legalisation procedures of public documents. 

A  practical  example  of  a  difficulty  that  may  arise  with  respect  to  issuing  or  accepting  public 
documents  originating  in  other  Member  States  is  the  requirement  to  obtain  sample  stamps  and 
signatures, but this issue is specifically related to public documents originating in  third countries. 
The authorities consulted also pointed out that Apostille seals can be forged. 

As regards the perspective of administrative cooperation, the stakeholders consulted pointed out 
that,  in  some  cases,  communicating  with  the  official  who  issued  the  document  to  verify  data 
contained therein is a fundamental element, in the case of documents that, at first glance, may not 
appear  trustworthy  (an  example  provided  pointed  out  to  the  relevance  of  direct  communication 
between competent authorities in order to avoid sending a widow back abroad to get the Apostille 

EN 

100 

   EN 

 
on  her  husband’s  death  certificate). In  any  case,  the  existing  means  of  administrative  cooperation 
are  considered  unsatisfactory  since  they  do  not  solve  citizens'  problems  through  direct  contact 
between them, the country of origin and the State where that citizen actually lives. 

Furthermore, the success of the ECRN platform was underlined, which aims at the provision of a 
reliable exchange of civil status acts and certificates. 

EN 

101 

   EN