REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Directive 2011/99/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the European protection order
Date: 2020-05-11
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: European judicial area, application of EU law, child protection, crime against individuals, domestic violence, help for victims, human rights, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, right to justice, women's rights

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 11.5.2020  COM(2020) 187 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the implementation of Directive 2011/99/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011 on the European protection order  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Background 

Directive 2011/99/EU on the European protection order (‘the Directive’) constitutes 
the first mutual recognition directive adopted under Article 82(1) (a) and (d) TFEU 
after the entry into application of the Lisbon Treaty.  

The Directive was proposed in 2010 on the initiative of 12 Member States (Belgium, 
Bulgaria, Estonia, Spain, France, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Finland 
and  Sweden).  It  was  adopted  on  13  December  2011.  Together  with  Regulation 
606/2013  on  mutual  recognition  of  protection  measures  in  civil  matters1  (‘the 
Regulation’) and with Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the 
rights, support and protection of victims of crime2 (‘the Victims’ Rights Directive’) it 
formed  a  package  of  measures  aimed  at  strengthening  the  rights  and  protection  of 
victims of crime in the EU. More concretely, the Directive and the Regulation deal 
with  the  recognition  of  protection  orders  in  criminal  and  civil  matters  and  aim  at 
strengthening the protection of persons in need (victims and potential victims) when 
they travel or move to another Member State.  

The  Directive  is  binding  on  all  Member  States  with  the  exception  of  Ireland  and 
Denmark. 

In  2018  the  European  Parliament  published  a  report  on  the  implementation  of  the 
Directive3, based on a study from 20174. In addition, the European Parliament looked 
into  the  functioning  of  the  European  protection  order  in  the  context  of  a  general 
study on criminal procedural law in the EU published in 2018.5  

1.2. 

Purpose and main elements of the Directive 

The  objective  of  the  Directive  is  to  ensure  that  a  person  who  benefits  from  a 
protection  measure  in  one  Member  State  can  continue  to  rely  on  such  protection 
when moving or traveling to another Member State. 

The Directive sets out rules enabling competent authorities to ensure such continuous 
protection throughout the Union.  

The Directive requires the competent authorities in the issuing State to issue, on the 
basis  of  a  national  protection  order,  a  separate  instrument,  the  European  protection 
order (‘EPO’), and transmit it to the competent authorities in the executing Member 

1  Regulation  (EU)  No  606/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  12  June  2013  on  mutual 
recognition of protection measures in civil matters, OJ L 181, 29.6.2013, p. 4–12. 
2  Directive  2012/29/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25  October  2012  establishing 
minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework 
Decision 2001/220/JHA, OJ L 315, 14.11.2012, p. 57–73. 
3 Report on the implementation of Directive 2011/99/EU on the European protection order (2016/2329(INI)), 14 
March 2018), https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2018-0065_EN.html 
4 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/603272/EPRS_STU(2017)603272_EN.pdf 
5 Criminal procedural laws across the European Union  — A comparative analysis of selected main differences 
legislation,  PE  604.977,  August  2018, 
the  development  of  EU 
and 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/604977/IPOL_STU(2018)604977_EN.pdf 

they  have  over 

September 

protection 

European 

603.272, 

impact 

EPRS, 

Study, 

2017, 

order 

the 

PE 

2 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
State for recognition and execution. The executing authority can adopt any measure, 
available  under  their  national  law  in  a  similar  case,  in  order  to  provide  continued 
protection to the protected person. Based on this instrument the competent executing 
authority can continue protecting the protected person in its own territory. 

The Directive is applicable to national protection measures which aim at protecting a 
person against criminal  acts  which may endanger their life, physical,  psychological 
or  sexual  integrity,  dignity  or  personal  liberty.  It  is  applicable  to  the  three  most 
common types of national protection measures: 

  a prohibition from entering places where the protected person resides, works, 

regularly visits or stays;  

  a prohibition or regulation of contact, in any form, with the protected person; 

  a prohibition or regulation on approaching the protected person closer than a 

prescribed distance. 

In  practice,  protection  measures  are  mostly  applied  to  protect  women  in  cases  of 
intimate partner or domestic violence, harassment, stalking or sexual assault. This is 
because  victims  of  such  crimes  are  particularly  exposed  to  secondary  and  repeated 
victimisation, intimidation and retaliation. 

1.3. 

Objective and scope of the report  

This  report  assesses  the  application  of  the  Directive,  as  required  by  its  Article  23. 
The  assessment  is  based  on  an  analysis  of  the  national  measures  transposing  the 
Directive that were notified to the Commission and of additional data that Member 
States communicated to  the Commission (in accordance with Articles 21 and 22 of 
the Directive respectively). 

This  report  focuses  on  provisions  which  form  the  core  of  the  Directive  and  are 
crucial for the smooth functioning of the EPO. These provisions include: designation 
of  the  competent  authorities;  the  need  for  an  existing  protection  measure  under 
national  law;  issuance  and  recognition  of  a  EPO;  consequences  of  a  breach  of  the 
measures taken based on a EPO; and the obligation to inform the parties about their 
rights and relevant decisions. 
The report covers all Member States bound by the Directive6. 

2. 

GENERAL ASSESSMENT 

At  the  expiry  of  the  transposition  period  on  11  January  2015  (Article  21(1)),  14 
Member  States  had  not  communicated  the  necessary  measures  to  the  Commission: 
Belgium,  Bulgaria,  Czechia,  Greece,  France,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Portugal, 
Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and Sweden.   

In  March  2015,  the  Commission  launched  infringements  under  Article  258  TFEU 
against  all  these  Member  States  for  failing  to  communicate  their  transposition 
measures. In December 2015, the Commission sent reasoned opinions to Greece and 

6 The report includes the UK as the assessment covers both the time when it was an EU Member State and part 
of the transition period during which the Directive applies in the UK. 

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
Romania and in July 2016 to Belgium. By 4 October 2017, all Member States bound 
by the Directive had notified to the Commission their national transposing measures. 
The prima facie analysis of the notified measures has not  shown missing elements. 
Infringement  proceedings  for  incomplete  transposition  were  closed.  This  does  not 
preclude however that the Commission may open further infringements for incorrect 
transposition of the Directive.  

All Member States informed the Commission about judicial or equivalent authorities 
that  are  competent  to  issue  and  execute  EPOs.  Some  Member  States  did  not 
communicate relevant  data on the application of the instrument  required by  Article 
22 of the Directive.  

The analysis shows that one Member State has not set up the structures necessary for 
issuing  and  recognising  EPOs.  The  Commission  is  currently  working  with  this 
Member  State  to  resolve  the  issue.  If  necessary,  the  Commission  may  take  legal 
action. 

3. 

SPECIFIC POINTS OF ASSESSMENT 

3.1. 

Competent authorities (Article 3 and Article 4) 

Article 3 requires  that  Member States inform  the Commission  about which judicial 
or equivalent authorities are competent to issue and recognise EPOs.  

For a majority of Member States, the authorities competent to issue EPOs are courts, 
public prosecutors or examining magistrates. Police authorities have been designated 
in one Member State. A Member State in which EPOs in criminal matters cannot be 
issued  has  designated  civil  courts  for  the  receipt,  as  executing  State,  of  requests  to 
issue EPOs and their transfer to the issuing State in accordance with Article 6(3).  

As  a  competent  executing  authority,  a  large  majority  of  Member  States  have 
designated  geographically  competent  judicial  authorities.  One  Member  State  has 
designated the police. For cases with unknown residence of the protected person, two 
Member States have additionally designated the courts in their capitals.  

Article 4 provides a possibility for Member States to designate one or more central 
authorities  that  assist  the  competent  authorities.  More  than  half  of  Member  States 
have designated a central authority (Ministry of Justice in a majority of cases).    

The  information  about  competent  authorities  was  gathered  mostly  through  the 
e-Justice portal. However, only half of the Member States responded to the e-Justice 
request and a small number of them communicated information directly in a separate 
document  to  the  database  of  national  execution  measures.  In  the  absence  of 
communication  from  the  remaining  Member  States,  information  about  competent 
authorities had to be identified and extracted from the national legislative measures 
notified to the database of national execution measures. The information received is 
available on the website of the European Judicial Network7. 

7 https://www.ejn-crimjust.europa.eu/ejn/libcategories.aspx?Id=85 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
 
3.2. 

Language regime (Article 17) 

A  EPO  must  be  translated  by  the  competent  authority  of  the  issuing  State  into  the 
official  language(s)  of  the  executing  State  (Article  17(1)).  Member  States  may 
declare that they will accept a translation in one or more other official languages of 
the Union (Article 17(3)). 

Only  a  few  Member  States  have  informed  the  Commission  that  they  accept  other 
languages  than  their  own.  Several  Member  States  accept  the  English  language.  A 
small number of Member States accept incoming EPOs in additional languages on a 
reciprocal basis.  

3.3. 

Issuance of a European protection order (Article 5 and Article 6) 

Under the Directive, a EPO is not issued automatically at the request of the protected 
person.  The  competent  judicial  authority  must  verify  whether  the  conditions  for 
issuing a EPO laid down in Article 5 are fulfilled and take into account the length of 
the intended stay and the seriousness of the need for protection.  

Some Member States formalise the conditions in their legislation. For instance, one 
requires the description of the reasons for moving to another Member State. Another 
Member State requires the duration of the stay to be longer than 3 months.  

The Directive  requires  that the request  for the issuance of  a EPO should be treated 
with  appropriate  speed,  taking  into  account  the  specific  circumstances  of  the  case 
(Recital  13).  In  this  regard,  it  is  worth  mentioning  that  a  few  Member  States  have 
laid down deadlines for taking a decision on a EPO of 3, 10 or 15 days. One Member 
State specifies that a EPO can be issued at the same time as the national protection 
measure is imposed.   

The  Directive  also  provides  that  the  protected  person  may  submit  a  request  for  the 
issuance  of  a  EPO  to  the  competent  authority  of  the  issuing  State  or  the  executing 
State. The latter is obliged to transfer the request as soon as possible to the competent 
authority of the issuing State (Article 6(3)). A significant number of Member States 
have enabled such a transfer of the requests to take place. 

Nonetheless,  in  a  few  Member  States  the  Commission  has  not  identified  such 
provisions enabling the transfer of requests. 

3.3.1.  Procedural guarantees for the person causing danger (Article 6(4)) 

The Directive requires that before the issuance of a EPO, the person causing danger 
has  the  right  to  be  heard  and  to  challenge  the  national  protection  measure  if  that 
person has not been granted these rights in the procedure leading to the adoption of 
the national protection measure (Article 6(4)).  

More than half of the Member States have transposed this provision. Some of them 
are  going  beyond  the  minimum  requirement  laid  down  in  Article  6(4)  of  the 
Directive. For instance, in one Member State a person causing danger who was not 
heard in the proceedings in which the national protection measure has been adopted 
is  called  to  a  hearing  within  72  hours  of  the  request  to  issue  a  EPO.  In  another 
Member  State,  the  issuing  authority  has  to  verify  whether  the  national  protection 

5 

 
 
 
 
measure  has  been  adopted  in  an  adversarial  procedure.  If  this  is  not  the  case,  it 
notifies the person causing danger of the decision containing the national protection 
measure. Another Member State requires that a hearing of both the protected person 
and the person causing danger take place unless these two parties agree to a written 
procedure.  

3.3.2.  Obligations to inform the protected person (Article 6(5) and (7)) 

According  to  the  Directive,  upon  adoption  of  a  national  protection  measure  the 
competent  authority  should  inform  the  protected  person  about  the  possibility  of 
requesting a EPO, in accordance with the procedures under its national law (Article 
6(5)). 

A number of Member States have transposed this obligation by imposing an explicit 
obligation on the competent authorities to inform the protected person upon adoption 
of a national protection measure.   

Furthermore, the Directive lays down that if the request to issue a EPO is rejected, 
the competent authority of the issuing State must inform the protected person of any 
applicable  legal  remedies  that  are  available  under  its  national  law  against  such  a 
decision (Article 6(7)).  

The  obligation  to  inform  the  protected  person  has  been  transposed  by  the  Member 
States  in  different  ways.  In  several,  national  law  obliges  the  authority  refusing  the 
request to issue a EPO to inform the protected person of the legal remedies available. 
In  a  small  number  of  Member  States,  the  decision  on  refusing  to  issue  a  EPO  is 
notified  to  the  protected  person,  or  the  protected  person  is  informed  about  the 
decision and its reasons. However, it is not clearly stated in the transposing laws that 
the protected person is also informed about existing legal remedies.  

In a few Member States, no provision for informing the protected person about the 
remedies has been identified.   

3.4. 

Recognition  of  a  European  protection  order  (Article  9,  Article  10  and  Article 
15) 

3.4.1.  Procedure for recognition and adoption (Article 9(1)–(2)) 

Upon receipt of a EPO the executing State must, without undue delay, recognise it 
and adopt a relevant protection measure that is available under its national law in a 
similar  case  (Article  9(1)  and  (2)).  The  competent  authority  of  the  executing  State 
has a degree of discretion in determining such a measure. 

The above-stated mechanism of adaptation is available in almost all Member States. 
Only one has not informed the Commission about its national measures transposing 
the procedure for issuing and recognising EPOs. 

In  the  national  legislation  of  a  few  Member  States,  it  is  explicitly  stated  that  the 
adopted measure cannot be more stringent or stricter than the original measure, that it 
should be equivalent or milder or that any differences should be considered in favour 
of the person causing danger.  

6 

 
 
 
 
In one Member State, the transposing provision states that if the executing authority 
considers  the  protection  measure,  as  reflected  in  the  EPO,  to  be  not  sufficient  and 
appropriate to ensure continued protection, it may request a panel of three judges to 
adjust the measure or impose any other measure provided for under its national law.  

As to the duration of the new protection measure, one Member State’s national law 
expressly allows the adoption of a national protection measure of the same duration 
as  that  of  the  one  adopted  in  the  issuing  State.  In  two  other  Member  States  it  is 
required that the new protection measure does not exceed a specified duration – 180 
days in one of these States and a year in the other. 

3.4.2.  Time frame for recognition and priority in recognition (Article 15)  

The  Directive  does  not  provide  for  a  mandatory  deadline  for  the  recognition  of  a 
EPO  or  for  the  adoption  of  a  national  protection  measure  on  the  basis  of  a  EPO. 
Nonetheless, a few Member States have introduced specific deadlines for executing a 
EPO,  obliging  their  competent  authorities  to  recognise  a  EPO  or  take  another 
decision on the measure. Depending on the Member State, the deadline is 2 days, 3 
days,  10  days,  15  days,  7  +  10  days,  or  28  days.  These  Member  States  have 
introduced a possibility to extend the deadline if their competent authorities need to 
consult the competent authorities of the issuing State due to incomplete information 
contained in the EPO (procedure laid down in Article 9(4)). 

Article  15  of  the  Directive  states  that  a  EPO  must  be  recognised  with  the  same 
priority  as  a  national  protection  measure  in  a  similar  case.  A  few  of  the  Member 
States  have  literally  transposed  the  wording  of  Article  15.  Several  Member  States 
require  the  decision  on  recognition  to  be  taken  without  delay,  immediately  or 
urgently. 

3.4.3.  Obligation  to  inform  the  protected  person,  the  person  causing  danger  and  the 
competent  authority  of  the  issuing  State  about  the  measures  adopted  and  the 
consequences of their breach (Article 9(3)) 

The  Directive  imposes  an  obligation  on  the  competent  authority  of  the  executing 
State  to  inform  the  protected  person,  the  person  causing  danger  and  the  competent 
authority of the issuing State of any measures adopted on the basis of a EPO. It must 
also  inform  them  of  the  possible  legal  consequence  (e.g.  sanctions)  of  a  breach  of 
such  a  measure  provided  for  under  national  law,  and  in  accordance  with  Article 
11(2).  

The degree of transposition of this obligation varies among the Member States. Most 
have  transposed  the  obligation  to  provide  information  on  the  measures  adopted  on 
the basis of a EPO in relation to all three parties. Several Member States have limited 
the scope of this obligation and have addressed the information only to:   

- 

- 

the issuing State and the person causing danger;  

the protected person and the person causing danger  and, in a few Member States, 
additionally to the authorities in the protected person’s vicinity in the executing 
State, such as prosecutor or police;  

7 

 
 
 
 
- 

the  competent  authority  of  the  issuing  State,  with  the  expectation  that  its 
competent authorities will forward the information to the protected person. 

In a few Member States, the relevant provisions could not be identified.  

Moreover,  information  about  the  possible  legal  consequences  of  a  breach  of  the 
protection measure adopted on the basis of the EPO is not provided in some of the 
Member States. One provides it only to the person causing danger, and another only 
to the competent authority of the issuing State and the person causing danger.  

3.4.4.  Grounds for non-recognition (Article 10(1)) 

The  Directive  provides  for  nine  grounds  for  non-recognition  of  a  EPO  (Article 
10(1)). The executing authorities may refuse to recognise a EPO on the basis of these 
grounds. Several Member States have transposed the grounds as optional and one has 
introduced  them  as  mandatory.  In  a  few  other  Member  States  most  of  the  non-
recognition  grounds  are  introduced  as  mandatory  and  a  small  number  as  optional. 
Two  have  used  both  approaches  (mandatory  and  optional)  in  transposing  these 
grounds almost on an equal basis.  

A few other Member States have transposed most of the grounds for non-recognition 
(as optional), but  at the same time they have not introduced one of the grounds for 
non-recognition. A few have not transposed the non-recognition grounds at all.  

Such approaches  to  implementation  can lead to  discrepancies between the different 
legal orders and it can potentially make the application of the Directive more difficult 
in practice. 

Apart from the grounds for non-recognition laid down in Article 10 of the Directive, 
a few Member States have set out additional grounds for non-recognition of EPOs in 
their national legislation, related to a possible violation of the fundamental rights of 
the person causing danger.  

3.4.5.  Obligations to inform the protected person and the issuing State about the non-

recognition of the European protection order (Article 10(2)) 

The  Directive  imposes  a  number  of  information  obligations  on  the  competent 
authority  of  the  executing  State  which  refuses  to  recognise  a  EPO.  This  competent 
authority must inform the issuing State and the protected person of this refusal and of 
the  grounds  for  it  without  undue  delay.  Almost  all  the  Member  States  concerned 
have  transposed  this  obligation.  However,  in  a  few  the  implementing  provisions 
oblige their competent authorities to inform only the issuing State, not the protected 
person.  

Furthermore, the competent authority of the executing State must, where appropriate, 
inform  the  protected  person  about  the  possibility  of  requesting  the  adoption  of  a 
protection measure in accordance with its national law. A number of Member States 
have transposed this obligation but several have not. 

8 

 
 
 
 
The  Directive  stipulates  that  the  protected  person  is  also  to  be  informed  by  the 
competent authority of the executing State of any applicable legal remedies available 
under  this  State’s  national  law  against  the  decision  on  non-recognition.  Several 
Member States have not transposed this obligation.   

3.5. 

Adoption  of  protection  measures  on  the  basis  of  a  European protection  order, 
breach of the measures and its consequences, and obligation to notify related to 
the breach (Article 11 and Article 12) 

3.5.1.  Procedures  for  the  adoption  and  enforcement  of  the  protection  measures 

(Article 11(1)) 

According  to  the  Directive,  the  executing  State  must  be  competent  to  adopt  and 
enforce protection measures on its territory following the recognition of a EPO and 
the law of that State shall apply to such decisions (Article 11(1)).  

In all Member States but one, the transposing provision recalls that the national law 
applies to the adoption and enforcement of protection measures. One Member State 
has specified that a hearing of the person causing danger is required upon adoption of 
a national protection measure. In another, such a hearing is required unless both the 
protected  person  and  the  person  causing  danger  agree  to  a  procedure  in  writing 
instead. In a few other Member States such hearings are to be conducted if possible. 
There is also a Member State that provides explicitly in the transposing law that the 
recognition of a EPO and the adoption of an appropriate protection measure are made 
without the person causing danger having been heard. 

The  law  of  the  executing  State  must  also  apply  to  the  legal  remedies  against 
decisions adopted in that State in relation to the EPO (Article 11(1)). The Directive 
does  not  provide  for  a  self-standing  legal  remedy  for  the  person  causing  danger, 
should this person wish to challenge the protection measure adopted in the executing 
State.  In this regard, the Directive refers to  the national  procedures, if they  exist in 
the domestic law of that State. It should be noted that the Directive does not provide 
for an obligation to inform the person causing danger of the remedies available. 

A small number of Member States have explicitly provided in their transposing law 
that  the  person  causing  danger  has  a  right  to  challenge  the  recognition  of  a  EPO 
and/or  the  adoption  of  a  national  protection  measure  based  on  it.  Available  legal 
remedies  vary  from  a  complaint  (with  or  without  a  suspensive  effect)  to  the  same 
authority  which  has  recognised  the  EPO  and  has  adopted  the  national  protection 
measure, to an appeal to a higher authority on grounds of law or facts or in order to 
dispute admissibility.  

3.5.2.  Consequences in the event of a breach of the protection measure (Article 11(2)) 

The  Directive  deals  with  sanctions  and  other  legal  consequences  in  the  event  of  a 
breach  of  one  or  more  of  the  measures  taken  by  the  executing  State  following  the 
recognition of a EPO (Article 11(2)).  

9 

 
 
 
 
The Directive allows the executing State to  impose criminal  penalties and take any 
other measure as a consequence of the breach, if  that breach amounts to  a criminal 
offence under the law of that State (Article 11(2)(a)).  

This  State  is  also  allowed  to  take  any  non-criminal  decisions  related  to  the  breach 
(Article 11(2)(b)) and any urgent and provisional measure to put an end to the breach 
pending,  where  appropriate,  a  subsequent  decision  by  the  issuing  State  (Article 
11(2)(c)). 

Several Member States have transposed these provisions almost literally. Some have 
specified  in  their  transposing  provisions  the  consequences  of  non-compliance  with 
the  measure  taken  by  their  competent  authorities  in  recognition  of  a  EPO.  The 
national legislation of a small number of Member States provides for imprisonment 
and/or  a  fine  for  non-compliance  with  the  obligation  or  prohibitions  imposed  by  a 
EPO.  A  couple  of  Member  States  envisage  only  financial  penalties.  A  few  others 
have referred to taking a ‘stronger’ or ‘harsher’ measure or a ‘measure of other type 
of protection or assistance’ by the competent judicial authority. 

National  provisions  transposing  Article  11(2)  of  the  Directive  have  not  been 
identified in a small number of Member States.  

3.5.3.  Obligation  to  notify  the  competent  authority  of  the  issuing  State  in  case  of  a 

breach of the protection measure (Article 12) 

The Directive obliges the executing  State to  notify the issuing State or the State of 
supervision8 of any breach of the measure or measures taken on the basis of a EPO 
(Article 12). The purpose of this notification is to enable the competent authority of 
the issuing State to promptly decide on any appropriate response with respect to the 
protection measure imposed in that State on the person causing danger (Recital 26). 

To  facilitate  the  notification,  the  Directive  provides  a  uniform  standard  form  in 
Annex II and obliges the competent authority of the executing State to use it (Article 
12). The form should contain standard information on the persons concerned, details 
on the EPO and the competent authorities. 

One Member State has not transposed this obligation. 

4. 

DATA COLLECTION 

To  facilitate  the  evaluation  of  its  application,  the  Directive  provides  that  Member 
States must communicate to the Commission relevant data related to the application 
of national procedures on the EPOs, at least on the number of EPOs requested, issued 

8 This applies in case of a judgment within the meaning of Article 2 of Framework Decision 2008/947/JHA on 
probation  measures  and  alternative  sanctions,  or  a  decision  on  supervision  measures  within  the  meaning  of 
Article 4 of Framework Decision 2009/829/JHA 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
and/or  recognised  (Article  22).  In  addition,  Member  States  are  invited  to  provide 
other types of data, such as, for example, the types of crimes concerned (Recital 32). 

Two  questionnaires  were  sent  to  Member  States  requesting  the  above-mentioned 
information, respectively by 1 September 2017 (for the years 2015 to mid-20179) and 
by 11 March 2019 (for the years 2015-2018). 

19 Member States replied to the questionnaire sent in 2017 and/or to the one sent in 
2019.  3  of  the  19  replied  only  to  the  questionnaire  sent  in  2017.  The  other  16 
Member States provided updated information in 2019. 

Statistics provided by Member States and compiled for the years 2015-2018 record a 
total  of  37  EPOs  issued.  According  to  the  questionnaire  replies,  the  majority  of 
reported  EPOs  were  issued  by  a  single  Member  State  (27  out  of  37).  Two  other 
Member  States  also  reported  having  issued  EPOs.  From  the  information  available, 
only  15  EPOs  were  recognised  and  led  to  the  adoption  of  protection  measure(s)  in 
the executing State (4 in 2015, 5 in 2016, 3 for the first half of 2017, and 3 in 2017-
2018).  Finally,  10  Member  States  reported  that  they  have  neither  issued  nor 
recognised any EPOs. 

A few Member States have examples of good practices of case management systems, 
some of which include registration of EPOs.   

5. 

CONCLUSION 

The national implementing provisions received from all the 26 Member States bound 
by the Directive seem to be satisfactory overall, especially regarding the mechanism 
for  recognising  EPOs.  Transposing  provisions  are  sufficient  to  enable  the  issuance 
and recognition of EPOs in all Member States but one.  

The analysis of the practical application of the Directive shows however that it has 
not  yet reached its  full  potential, as shown by the low number of  EPOs  issued and 
executed. According to the information available to the Commission, only 37 EPOs 
were  issued  and  only  15  were  executed.  The  national  authorities  competent  for 
issuing EPOs are not fully aware of the possibilities for doing so. Moreover, persons 
in need of protection may not be fully aware of the possibility to request a EPO.   

The  implementation  of  some  provisions  of  the  Directive,  such  as  the  obligation  to 
inform, should be improved in some Member States.   

Some  Member  States  do  not  envisage  any  sanctions  for  a  breach  of  a  measure 
adopted  in  recognition  of  a  EPO.  This  may  have  a  deterrent  effect  on  potential 
requests for this form of cross-border protection. 

The wide variety of protection measures available in the Member States (under civil, 
administrative or criminal proceedings) may be another reason why the EPO remains 
under-used. 

9 30 June 2017 

11 

 
 
 
                                                           
The  Commission  will  continue  to  assess  Member  States’  compliance  with  the 
Directive and will take appropriate measures to ensure conformity with its provisions 
throughout  the  Union.  If  necessary,  the  Commission  will  open  infringement 
proceedings against Member States which are not in compliance with the Directive. 

At  the  same  time  the  Commission  is  working  closely  with  Member  States  to 
overcome  the  difficulties  in  implementing  the  Directive.  In  particular,  the 
Commission is promoting, notably through financial support the effective application 
of  national  protection  orders,  by  raising  awareness  and  stressing  the  need  to  train 
practitioners about the availability of the EPO10.  

10  Regulation  (EU)  No  1382/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  December  2013 
establishing a Justice Programme for the period 2014 to 2020, OJ L 354, 28.12.2013, p. 73–83 

12