COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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) 145 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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) 144 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 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 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Problem definition........................................................................................................ 3 

Analysis of subsidiarity................................................................................................ 4 

Main policy objectives ................................................................................................. 5 

Policy options............................................................................................................... 5 

Assessment of the policy options' impacts................................................................... 6 

The preferred option..................................................................................................... 8 

Monitoring and evaluation ........................................................................................... 8 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

If EU citizens and businesses want to exercise their free movement rights or internal market 
freedoms by choosing to reside or do business in another Member State, they face difficulties 
when  producing  the  required  public  documents  and  getting  them  accepted  by  that  Member 
State.  They  have  to  undergo  disproportionate  and  burdensome  administrative  formalities  to 
prove  the  authenticity  of  various  public  documents  and  fight  legal  uncertainty.  These 
formalities are legalization, Apostille as well as certified copies and certified translations. 

The aim of this measure is twofold: 

(1) 

(2) 

to  reduce  legal  uncertainty,  costs  and  lengthy  procedures  caused  by  the  above-
mentioned  formalities  complicating  the  exercise  of  the  EU  citizens'  right  to  free 
movement and EU businesses' internal market freedoms; and 

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

The principal function of public documents is to provide factual proof of the acts of a public 
authority  recorded  therein.  While  domestic  public  documents  are  presumed  to  be  authentic 
without  additional  proof,  public  documents  originating  from  other  Member  States  are 
accepted in the Member State in which they are presented subject to proof of authentication 
through  Apostille  or  legalisation  or  a  particular  form,  i.e.  certified  copies  and  certified 
translations. 

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

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Civil status records (e.g. documents relating to birth, death and marriage); 

Documents relating to residence, citizenship and nationality; 

Documents relating to real estate; 

Documents  relating  to  legal  status  and  representation  of  a  company  or  other 
undertaking; 

Documents relating to intellectual property rights; 

Documents proving the absence of a criminal record. 

The  formalities  of  legalisation,  Apostille,  certified  copies  and  certified  translations  are 
outdated and disproportionate mechanisms to establish the authenticity of public documents, 
whereas  more  effective  mechanisms  could  be  identified  in  cases  of  reasonable  doubt  which 
would allow consolidating mutual trust between the Member States within the Single Market. 

The existing EU and international law instruments do not provide satisfactory solutions for an 
easier acceptance of public documents in the Member States. 

The  EU  law  addresses  the  issue  of  authenticity  of  public  documents  on  a  sectoral  basis, 
sometimes explicitly, but generally in an inconsistent manner. Overall, three approaches can 
be distinguished: 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

the  relevant  instrument  of  EU  law  explicitly  exempts  the  documents  from  the 
authentication requirement (e.g. civil justice instruments for judicial documents); 

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 

instrument  contains  neither  an  explicit  reference 

the 
the  abolition  of 
authentication, nor does it provide alternative means to this end (e.g. free movement 
of persons). 

to 

As  regards  certified  copies  and  certified  translations,  there  are  examples  in  the  existing  EU 
law  (e.g.  Directive  2006/123/EC  on  services  in  the  internal  market)  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. 

There  is,  in  addition,  a  vast  body  of  international  law  instruments  applying  diverging 
approaches to these aspects of public documents, including the Hague Apostille Convention, 
the Brussels Convention abolishing the legalisation of documents in the Member States and 
different Conventions of the International Commission on Civil Status. 

Nevertheless, those instruments have proved insufficient for achieving the desired facilitation 
of  administrative  burdens  for  EU  citizens  and  businesses  and  thus  still  limit  the  exercise  of 
fundamental rights. Due to the above mentioned shortcomings, EU citizens and businesses are 
in many situations still faced with time-consuming and costly procedures. 

It can be estimated that over the course of one year, the cost for EU citizens and businesses 
for obtaining Apostille for intra-EU use amounts to over € 25 million. The estimated overall 
annual  costs  for  obtaining  legalisation  of  public  documents  can  be  between  €  2.3  and  €  4.6 
million.  In  addition,  annual  costs  for  certified  copies  for  EU  citizens  and  businesses  can  be 
estimated in the order of € 75 – 100 million. The  overall costs of certified translations for EU 
citizens and businesses can amount to € 100-200 million per year. 

For all these reasons, a horizontal approach is required in order to facilitate and enhance the 
exercise  of  the  right  of  EU  citizens  to  free  movement  and  of  the  right  of  EU  businesses  to 
freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services within the Single Market. 

2. 

ANALYSIS OF SUBSIDIARITY 

The EU is better placed than the Member States to take action to abolish legalisation and 
Apostille and to simplify the requirement of certified copies and certified translation and, at 
the  same  time,  to  ensure  EU  cross-border  and  cross-sector  framework  for  a  more  effective 
level of detection of frauds and forgery of public documents. 

An  EU  level  action  would  help  EU  citizens  and  businesses  to  use  different  categories  of 
public documents in cross-border situations without disproportionate, burdensome and costly 
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 the clear 
added value of an EU action. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
Action  at  EU  level  would  respect  the  proportionality  principle  by  focusing  only  on  the 
abolition and simplification of the identified administrative formalities. 

3. 

MAIN POLICY OBJECTIVES 

Based  on  the  problem  definition,  the  following  general  and  specific  objectives  can  be 
identified: 

General objective: 

• 

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

Specific objectives: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

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

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. 

4. 

POLICY OPTIONS 

Five options and seven sub-options under policy option 4 have been considered in detail: 

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

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

Policy  Option  3:  Ratification  of  the  1987  Brussels  Convention  by  all  Member  States 
encouraged  by  the  Commission,  i.e.  the  abolition  of  legalisation  and  Apostille  for  a  wide 
range of public documents and the use of an administrative cooperation as established in the 
Convention. 

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 instrument would abolish legalisation and Apostille and the scope of the initiative would 
be further broadened by adding provisions simplifying the cross-border use of certified copies 
and certified translations. 

The improved administrative cooperation can be addressed by three sub-options: 

EN 

5 

   EN 

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

Sub-option 4B: Administrative cooperation based on the Internal Market Information System 
(IMI) in cases of reasonable doubt on the authenticity of public documents. 

Sub-option  4C:  The  creation  of  a  network  of  civil  registers,  built  on  the  European  Civil 
Registry Network (ECRN). 

The multilingual standard forms can be addressed by four sub-options: 

Sub-option 4D: Retention of the status quo, meaning no standard forms would be introduced. 

Sub-option 4E: The introduction of compulsory standard forms for the use in a concrete cross-
border case. 

Sub-option  4F:  The  introduction  of  optional  standard  forms  as  annexes  to  national  public 
documents for the purpose of their use in other Member States. 

Sub-option  4G:  The  introduction  of  optional  standard  forms  used  independently  in  cross-
border cases. The corresponding national public document would continue to exist at national 
level. 

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

5. 

ASSESSMENT OF THE POLICY OPTIONS' IMPACTS 

Policy  option  1:  No  effect  of  this  policy  option  in  terms  of  effectiveness  in  meeting  the 
objectives is expected. 

Policy  option  2:  The  effectiveness  of  this  policy  option  is  deemed  to  be  very  low. 
Notwithstanding the indirect positive effect due to the reduction of delays in checking public 
documents  originated  in  other  Member  States  and  better  exchanges  of  information,  the 
existing  administrative  formalities  would  remain  and  the  legal  framework  would  still  be 
fragmented. Moreover, very low positive impact on the detection of fraud is to be expected. 

Policy  option  3:  This  policy  option  would  not  guarantee  an  improvement  to  the  current 
situation because there is no legal obligation for the Member States to ratify that Convention. 
If and when ratified by all Member States, then positive impact on the full enjoyment of EU 
citizens'  right  to  free  movement  and  EU  businesses'  internal  market  freedoms  due  to  the 
abolishment of legalisation and Apostille in cross-border circulation of public documents. The 
overall added value of this policy option for facilitating the full exercise of EU free movement 
rights  is  very  limited,  as  certified  copies  and  certified  translations  could  still  be  required 
without exception. 

Policy  option  4:  The  policy  option  is  expected  to  have  a  high  positive  impact  in  terms  of 
effectiveness  resulting  from  abolishing  legalisation  and  Apostille  and  the  additional 
simplification  of  certified  copies  and  certified  translations.  As  a  result,  the  circulation  of 
public  documents  between  the  Member  States  would  be  significantly  and  effectively 
supported and intra-EU mobility of EU citizens and businesses enhanced. This would lead to 
annual savings for EU citizens and businesses between € 25.8 million and € 26.2 million on 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
Apostilles  and  between  €  2.3  and  €  4.6  million 
savings due  to the  simplification of certified copies in the order  of  €  100  –  200  million  per 
year.  Moreover,  the  removal  of  certified  transaltions  would  also  save  costs  between  €  75  – 
100 million annually for EU citizens and businesses, bearing in mind that the related cost for 
one page is € 30. The annual net cost savings fo r the Member State administrations could be 
estimated between € 5 million and € 7 m illion on Apostilles and between € 500.000 and € 1 
million on legalisations. 

on  legalisation.  There  will  be  additional 

Improved administrative cooperation 

Sub-option 4A: The effectiveness of this sub-option would be low since there is no electronic 
support  to  this  type  of  administrative  cooperation  and  its  efficiency  would  depend  on  the 
discretion of the Member States. 

Sub-option  4B:  This  sub-option  would  have,  in  cases  of  reasonable  doubt  about  the 
authenticity of a public document originating in another Member State, a positive impact in 
terms of effectiveness. The existing IMI provides for fast and secure communication channels 
for  cross-border  information  exchanges  and  electronic  versions  of  public  documents.  In 
addition,  through  the  administrative  cooperation  and  the  secure  exchange  of  information 
under  IMI,  a  positive  impact  on  fraud  is  expected.  Furthermore,  to  provide  certainty  as 
regards certified copies, the authorities would have the same mechanism at their disposal. 

Sub-option 4C: The positive effects for civil registrars, who could communicate between each 
other  directly  in  case  of  doubt  about  the  authenticity  of  a  public  document,  would  only  be 
limited  to  one  category  of  public  documents,  namely  civil  status  documents.  High  negative 
economic  impact  and  compliance  costs  at  EU  and  Member  State  level  through  the 
establishment and operation of a new IT system. 

Multilingual standard forms 

Sub-option 4D: There would be no effects in terms of effectiveness in meeting the objectives. 

The effectiveness of sub-option 4E is deemed to be medium positive as some difficulties and 
costs  related  to  the  translation  and  understanding  of  public  documents  originating  in  other 
Member States would remain. 

The effectiveness of sub-option 4F is considered to be as high as of 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. In addition, costs might incur due to the need to provide copies of 
national public documents to which these forms would be attached. 

The sub-option 4G is expected to have a high positive impact on EU citizens and businesses 
in  terms  of  increased  practical  benefits  and  reduced  difficulties  when  presenting  public 
documents in cross-border scenarios. 

Policy  option  5:  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, there would be undoubtedly 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. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
6. 

THE PREFERRED OPTION 

A  comparative  assessment  of  the  impacts  indicates  that  the  legislative  measure  abolishing 
legalisation and Apostille and simplifying the use of certified copies and certified translations 
(policy  option  4),  combined  with  an  improved  administrative  cooperation  between  the 
Member  States  through  a  modern  communication  network  based  on  the  existing  Internal 
Market  Information  System  (sub-option  4B)  and  the  development  of  multilingual  standard 
forms used independently in cross-border cases (sub-option 4G) would be the most effective 
in achieving the identified objectives. 

The  preferred  policy  option  4  is  the  most  suitable  means  to  achieve  the  policy  objectives 
without high implementation costs, including a considerable reduction of disproportionate and 
burdensome  administrative  formalities  for  EU  citizens  and  businesses.  In  particular,  high 
savings  due  to  the  abolition  of  legalisation  or  Apostille  and  the  simplification  of  certified 
copies and certified translations can be expected for EU citizens and businesses, while none of 
the alternative options would result in an equal level of savings. 

The  preferred  sub-option  4B,  which  results  in  using  existing  IT  infrastructure  with  minimal 
budgetary  impact,  would  represent  an  effective  and  secure  means  for  assessing  the 
authenticity of public documents or their certified copies, preventing fraud and forgery, and, 
at  the  same  time,  for  simplifying  the  administrative  burdens  placed  on  EU  citizens  and 
businesses. Through secure electronic means and reduced language barriers it would be easy 
to  identify  the  relevant  interlocutors  in  other  Member  States.  The  preferred  sub-option  4G 
would lead to cost and time savings for EU citizens, businesses and national public officials, 
favour  the  mutual  understanding  of  public  documents  across  the  Member  States,  reduce  the 
remaining translations requirements as multilingual forms would exist, and allow the parallel 
existence of the underlying national public documents at Member State level. 

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

7. 

MONITORING AND EVALUATION 

Providing for a solid monitoring and evaluation mechanism is crucial to ensure that the rules 
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. 

EN 

8 

   EN