REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application of 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
Date: 2022-03-28
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: application of EU law, crime against individuals, enforcement of ruling, help for victims, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, right to justice

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 28.3.2022  COM(2022) 127 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the application of 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  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Background 

Regulation (EU) No 606/2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil 
matters1  (the  ‘Regulation’)  complements  Directive  2011/99/EU  on  the  European 
protection order2 (the ‘Directive’). Both are part of the same legislative package. The 
Regulation was adopted on 12 June 2013, based on Article 81(2)(a), (e) and (f) of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.  

Together with Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, 
support  and  protection  of  victims  of  crime3  (the  ‘Victims’  Rights  Directive’),  the 
Directive and the Regulation form a consistent set of measures. This strengthens the 
rights  and  protection  of  victims  and  potential  victims  of  crime  when  they  travel  or 
move to another Member State.  

The Directive and the Regulation aim to achieve this objective by providing a legal 
basis for the competent authorities in Member States to recognise protection orders 
granted  in  another  Member  State.  Under  this  legal  framework,  all  Member  States 
must  recognise  and  execute  both  criminal  protection  orders  and  civil  protection 
measures issued in another Member State.  

As  required  under  Article 21  of  the  Regulation,  this  report  assesses  its  application. 
The European Commission must also submit a report on the Regulation’s application 
to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and,  if  necessary,  any  proposals  for  amendments.  Although  the  report 
was  due  by  11 January  2021,  the  outbreak  of  the  COVID-19  pandemic  in  the  first 
half of 2020 put the Commission under unprecedented pressure to deal  with urgent 
COVID-19-related files. This has delayed the assessment and its publication.  

The Regulation complements the Directive to ensure that there is no legal loophole in 
the EU framework for the mutual recognition of protection measures for victims of 
crime.  Therefore,  this  report  must  be  read  together  with  the  report  on  the 
implementation of the Directive, which the Commission published on 11 May 20204. 
Together,  the  reports  provide  a  complete  picture  of  the  minimum  rules  that  apply 
across the EU on transnational recognition and execution of protection measures by 
the competent authorities in Member States. 

1.2. 

Purpose and main elements of the Regulation 

The Regulation aims to ensure that a natural person who benefits from a protection 
measure in civil matters in one Member State can continue to rely on such protection 

1  

2  

3  

4  

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). 
Directive  2011/99/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  13 December  2011  on  the 
European protection order (OJ L 338, 21.12.2011, p. 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). 
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 (COM(2020) 187 final, 11.5.2020). 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
when  moving  or  travelling  to  another  Member  State.  At  the  same  time,  the 
Regulation aims to safeguard the rights of defence of the person causing the risk.  

Therefore,  the  Regulation  lays  down  rules  for  the  mutual  recognition  of  protection 
measures ordered in Member States. These rules enable the competent authorities to 
ensure  continuous  protection  throughout  the  EU  using  a  simple  and  rapid 
mechanism.  

The  Regulation  applies  to  national  protection  measures  in  civil  matters,  ordered  as 
part of civil and administrative procedures. More specifically, it applies to measures 
that  impose  obligations  on  a  person  causing  a  risk  to  another  person’s  physical  or 
psychological  integrity  and  whose  purpose  is  to  protect  this  other  person.  The 
Regulation applies to all victims. It covers the three most common types of national 
protection measures: 

  prohibitions  or regulations on entering the place where the protected person 

resides, works or stays, or which the protected person regularly visits;  

  prohibitions or regulations of contact, in any form, with the protected person; 

and 

  prohibitions or regulations on approaching the protected person closer than a 

prescribed distance. 

Protection measures mostly aim to prevent any form of: 

  gender-based violence; 

  domestic violence; or  

  violence in close relationships, such as physical violence, harassment, sexual 

aggression, stalking, intimidation or other forms of indirect coercion. 

Victims  of  such  crimes  are  particularly  exposed  to  secondary  and  repeated 
victimisation,  intimidation  and  retaliation.  In  practice,  women  are  the  primary 
beneficiaries of protection measures.  

Protection  orders  usually  entail  a  relatively  limited  violation  of  the  freedom  of 
movement  of  the  person  causing  the  risk.  Issuing  and  monitoring  protection  orders 
generally does not involve significant financial investments. However, they can help 
reduce and prevent violence5. 

In practice, the person who receives protection under one or more national protection 
measure(s) (the ‘protected person’) makes a request to the authority of the Member 
State  in  which  the  protecting  measures  are  ordered  (the  ‘issuing  authority’).  If  the 
request is granted, the issuing authority in this Member State (the ‘Member State of 
origin’)  issues  a  certificate.  Then,  the  issuing  authority  sends  this  certificate  to  the 
competent  authority  of  another  Member  State  (the  ‘Member  State  addressed’)  to 
have the protecting measures recognised and executed on the territory of the Member 
State addressed. The competent authority of the Member State addressed can adopt 
any  measure  available  under  its  national  law  in  a  similar  case  to  continue  the 
protected  person’s  protection  on  the  territory  of  the  Member  State  addressed.  The 
Member State addressed must provide the victim with the same level of protection it 
would provide its own citizens in a similar situation. 

5  

van der Aa, S., Niemi, J., Sosa, L., Ferreira, A., Baldry, A.,  Mapping the legislation and assessing the 
impact of protection orders in the European Member States, 2015. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                           
The  certificate  on  protection  measures  in  civil  matters  takes  the  form  of  a 
multilingual  standard  template,  which  was  adopted  by  a  subsequent  implementing 
act6. The other Member States must recognise this certificate without any additional 
verification. The certificate must be directly enforceable, meaning that the protected 
person is able to directly invoke the protection measures before the authorities of the 
Member State addressed.   

Since  11 January  2015,  the  Regulation  is  directly  applicable  in  all  Member  States 
except in Denmark. 

1.3. 

Objective and scope of the report  

The Commission’s analysis mostly builds on direct information from Member States. 
The  Commission  extracted  primary  data  from  Member  States’  notifications  under 
Article 18(1).  These  notifications  list  the  competent  authorities  and  languages 
accepted  for  the  purpose  of  the  Regulation.  In  addition,  the  Commission  examined 
the responses to a questionnaire on the application of the Regulation since its entry 
into force. The Commission had sent this questionnaire to the competent authorities 
in the Member States in July 2021 and 19 Member States had replied. Of all Member 
States, 16 had confirmed that their legal system enables protection measures in civil 
matters.  The  Commission  gathered  additional  information  on  the  competent 
authorities in the Member States using the e-Justice portal. 

this  report, 

the  Commission  used 

two  additional  studies,  which 
To  draft 
complemented  the  data  from  Member  States.  More  specifically,  the  Commission 
drew from a study published by the European Parliament in 2017. The study looked 
into the functioning of the mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters 
as  part  of  an  assessment  of  the  Directive’s  implementation7.  The  Commission  also 
delved  into  the  final  study  of  POEMS,  a  project  funded  by  the  Commission’s 
DAPHNE  programme  between  2012  and  2014.  The  study  mapped  legislation  and 
assessed the impact of protection orders in Member States8.  

This  report  focuses  on  provisions  which  form  the  core  of  the  Regulation  and  are 
crucial for the smooth functioning of the mutual recognition of protection measures 
in civil matters throughout the EU.  

These  provisions  include  the  obligation  to  notify  the  types  of  authorities  that  are 
competent in matters covered by the Regulation, specifying: 

 

 

 

the authorities competent to issue civil protection measure certificates; 

the authorities before which a protection measure ordered in another Member 
State is to be invoked (and which are competent to enforce such a measure); 

the  authorities  which  are  competent  to  effect  the  adjustment  of  protection 
measures; and 

6  

7  

8  

Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  939/2014  of  2  September  2014  establishing  the 
certificates referred to in Articles 5 and 14 of Regulation (EU) No 606/2013 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters (OJ L 263, 3.9.2014, 
p. 10). 
European  Parliament  Research  Service,  European  protection  order  –  Study,  PE  603.272,  September 
2017 
(http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/603272/EPRS_STU(2017)603272_EN.pd
f). 
van der Aa, S. et al., op. cit. 

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
 

the  authorities  to  which  the  application  for  refusal  of  recognition  is  to  be 
submitted.  

The report also looks into: 

  Member States’ language arrangements; 

 

 

the obligation to respect the rights of defence of the person causing the risk; 

the  issuing,  processing  and  transmission  of  civil  protection  measure 
certificates; and 

 

the rectification and withdrawal of civil protection measure certificates.  

2. 

GENERAL ASSESSMENT 

The report covers all Member States that are bound by the Regulation9.  

Issuing  authorities  in  the  Member  State  of  origin  can  order  protection  measures  in 
civil  matters,  for  instance prohibitions  on approaching  another person closer than a 
prescribed distance. Under recital 14 of the Regulation, the Member State addressed 
must recognise such measures as protection measures in civil matters. 

In  addition,  the  notion  of  civil  matters  must  be  interpreted  autonomously.  The 
authority ordering a protection measure can be of a civil, administrative or criminal 
nature.  However,  this  nature  is  not  relevant  when  assessing  whether  a  protection 
measure  is  of  a  civil  nature,  as  long  as  the  decision  itself  concerns  civil  matters 
(recital 10).  

The Regulation takes account of the different legal traditions of Member States and 
does  not  interfere  with  the  national  systems  for  ordering  protection  measures.  This 
means  that  it  does  not  oblige  Member  States  to  change  their  national  systems  to 
enable protection measures in civil matters. Neither does it oblige Member States to 
introduce  protection  measures  in  civil  matters  for  the  Regulation’s  application 
(recital 12).  

The  Commission  received  confirmation  from  16 Member  States  that  their  legal 
systems  do  enable  protection  measures  in  civil  matters.  Of  all  Member  States,  4 
confirmed that they do not enable protection measures in civil matters or certificates 
covered by the Regulation. The Commission took this into account when drafting the 
report.  

As  a  result,  the  report  reflects  the  situation  in  Member  States  insofar  as  the 
Regulation  is  applicable  to  them  in  practice.  The  report  also  takes  into  account 
recital 12 of the Regulation. 
The  2015  POEMS  final  report10  and  the  2017  European  Parliament  study11  found 
that all Member States provide for some form of criminal or civil protection orders. 
However, both studies found that protection order laws and levels of protection differ 

9  

10  
11  

The  report  does  not  cover  the  United  Kingdom  as  the  data  on  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation 
collected for the analysis part of the report was collected after this country had left the EU and after the 
end of the transition period during which the Regulation still applied in the United Kingdom. 
van der Aa, S. et al., op. cit. 
European Parliament Research Service, op. cit. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
significantly across the EU and therefore may hamper the smooth functioning of the 
Directive and the Regulation, which together make up the EU legal framework.  

It  appears that most Member States favour a system where protection measures are 
ordered following either a criminal procedure, or a civil or administrative procedure. 
In  other  Member  States,  a  mix  of  civil  and  criminal  measures  are  available  to 
victims.  

In certain cases it can be difficult for the competent authorities in Member States to 
determine whether the Directive or the Regulation applies. This situation is likely to 
occur  when  a  single  protection  order  includes  several  measures  of  various  natures 
(either civil, administrative or criminal).  

Therefore,  both  the  2015  POEMS  final  report  and  the  2017  European  Parliament 
study  suggest  that,  in  practice,  the  use  of  protection  measures  in  civil  and  criminal 
matters and the way they are applied vary greatly across the EU. 

3. 

SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT 

3.1. 

Competent authorities (Article 18(1)(a)) 

Article 18(1)(a) of the Regulation requires Member States to inform the Commission 
of the types of authorities  that are competent in  matters covered by the Regulation. 
By  July  2015,  all  but  one  Member  State  bound  by  the  Regulation  had  notified  the 
necessary information to the Commission.  

According  to  Article 5(1)  of  the  Regulation,  the  issuing  authority  of  the  Member 
State of origin must, on the protected person’s request, issue the certificate using the 
multilingual  standard form.  Article 18(1)(a)(i) requires  Member States  to  notify the 
Commission  about  the  categories  of  authorities  competent  to  order  protection 
measures and issue certificates.  

Of all Member States to which the Regulation applies, 20 notified that the authorities 
competent to order and issue protection measures in civil matters are geographically 
competent  courts.  These  include  courts  of  first  instance,  courts  of  appeal  and 
supreme  courts.  Of  all  Member  States,  5  explicitly  mentioned  family  courts  or  the 
family  section  of  courts,  while  1 Member  State  mentioned  the  labour  court. 
Furthermore, 4 Member States notified that public prosecutors are also competent. 

To take account of the various types of authorities that order protection measures in 
civil  matters  in  Member States, the Regulation  applies to  decisions of both  judicial 
and  administrative  authorities.  However,  administrative  authorities  must  offer 
guarantees with regard to their impartiality and to the parties’ right to judicial review. 
This also means that police authorities cannot be issuing authorities (recital 13). One 
Member  State  informed  the  Commission  that  the  mayor  of  a  town  is  competent. 
Another Member State notified that the police, in its capacity as a body vested with 
public administration powers, may order temporary preventive restraining measures, 
and issue certificates.  

Article 18(1)(a)(ii)  of  the  Regulation  requires  Member  States  to  notify  the 
Commission of the types of authorities: 

  before which a protection measure ordered in another Member State is to be 

invoked; and/or 

5 

 
 
 
  
 
  which are competent to enforce such a measure. 

Of  all  Member  States,  12  designated  courts,  out  of  which  all  but  one  explicitly 
designated  geographically  competent  courts,  such  as  district  courts,  city  courts  or 
county courts. In 3 Member States, public prosecutors are competent, and in 4 others, 
the  bailiff.  In  addition,  8 Member  States  involve  law  enforcement  authorities  to 
enforce protection measures. It appears that in 2 Member States, the police is directly 
responsible for recognising certificates and enforcing protecting measures.  

Article 18(1)(a)(iii)  of  the  Regulation  requires  Member  States  to  notify  the 
Commission  about  the  types  of  authorities  which  are  competent  to  effect  the 
adjustment  of  protection  measures.  Of  all  Member  States,  18 explicitly  designated 
geographically competent courts, such as district courts, city courts, county courts or 
the president of the local  tribunal. Furthermore,  3 Member States  designated courts 
or  courts  of  first  instance  in  general,  while  2 Member  States  designated  public 
prosecutors and 2 others the bailiff. 

Finally,  Article 18(1)(a)(iv)  of  the  Regulation  requires  Member  States  to  notify  the 
Commission  about  the  types  of  authorities  to  which  the  application  for  refusal  of 
recognition  (and  enforcement)  is  to  be  submitted.  Of  all  Member  States,  17 
designated geographically competent courts explicitly. On the other hand, 4 Member 
States  notified other types of  courts, such as courts of first instance, minor offence 
courts, and courts of appeal. 

3.2. 

Language regime (Article 18(1)(b), Article 16, Article 4(2)(c) and Article 5(3)) 

If  necessary,  a  protected  person  who  wishes  to  invoke  a  protection  measure  in  the 
Member State addressed must provide the competent authorities with a translation of 
the certificate  (Article 4(2)(c)). The protected person can request  the Member State 
of origin to provide this translation (Article 5(3)).  

The certificate must be  translated into one of the official  languages of the Member 
State addressed or into an official language of the EU which this Member State has 
notified it can accept (Article 16(1)). Member States had until 11 July 2014 to notify 
this  information  to  the  Commission  (Article 18(1)(b)).  Of  all  Member  States,  8 
respected  this  deadline.  By  July  2015,  all  but  one  Member  State  bound  by  the 
Regulation had notified the necessary information to the Commission. 

Of all Member States, 3 accept incoming certificates in English and 1 informed the 
Commission  that  one  of  its  district  courts  accepts  incoming  certificates  in  Italian. 
Furthermore,  2 Member  States  accept  incoming  certificates  in  additional  languages 
on a reciprocal basis. 

3.3. 

Procedural guarantees for the person causing the risk (Articles 6, 11, 12 and 13) 

The Regulation provides for specific safeguards to ensure that, if a protected person 
requests the issuing  of a certificate, the  rights of defence of the person  causing the 
risk  are  respected  (Article 6).  In  particular,  the  competent  authority  must  verify 
whether the person causing the risk: 

  was  notified  of  the  protection  measure  (or  of  its  adjustment,  in  accordance 

with Article 11(3)); 

  was informed of the initiation of the proceeding; or 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
  has  the  right  to  challenge  the  protection  measure  in  the  Member  State  of 

origin.  

In 5 Member States, the person causing the risk is notified of the protection measure 
personally, by bailiff or by court official.  

In 2 Member States, the person is notified either personally or by registered letter. In 
1 Member  State,  this  is  done  only  via  registered  letter.  In  1 Member  State,  the 
notification  takes  place  in  writing  in  most  cases  (electronically  or  by  registered 
letter).  If  the  person  causing  the  risk  is  present  at  the  hearing,  the  information  is 
provided orally. In 1 Member State, the person is notified by normal postal letter. In 
3 Member States, the police can, in some cases, do the notification in person. 

In  3 Member  States,  there  are  no  specific  rules  on  notifying  the  certificate.  The 
person causing the risk can be notified in various ways, such as by electronic means, 
by registered letter, by courier service providers, or personally.  

Member States did not report any recurring problems in notifying the person causing 
the risk.  

Under  the  Regulation,  the  person  causing  the  risk  can  take  judicial  action  in  the 
Member  State  addressed.  The  person  causing  the  risk  can  appeal  against  the 
adjustment  of  the  protection  measure  (Article 11(5)).  In  certain  cases12,  this  person 
can  also  request  the  refusal  of  the  recognition  or  enforcement  of  the  protection 
measure (Article 13(1)).  

1 Member State provided statistics on action that persons causing the risk had taken 
before the court of first instance. There were 13 requests in total in 2017, 28 in 2018 
and 13 in 2019.  

3.4. 

Issuing,  processing  and 
Article 5(1)) 

transmitting 

the  certificate 

(Article 4(1)  and 

A  protected  person  can  request  the  Member  State  of  origin’s  issuing  authority  to 
issue  the  certificate  (Article 5(1))  and  address  it  to  another  Member  State’s 
authorities  for  recognition  and  enforcement.  Under  Article 4(1)  of  the  Regulation, 
Member States must recognise protection measures ordered in another Member State 
without any special procedure being required. Furthermore, these measures must be 
directly enforceable in the Member State addressed. 

The  operation  of  the  multilingual  standard  form  issued  under  Article 5  of  the 
Regulation, including its content, was satisfactory according to all 8 Member States 
that provided feedback on the matter. 

Of all Member States, 7 have made it possible to send certificates electronically. In 
addition,  5 Member  States  confirmed  that  certificates  for  the  recognition  of 
protection  measures  in  civil  matters  can  be  processed  digitally.  Of  these  Member 
States, 4 had a positive experience in  this regard, and none of them had a negative 
experience.  No  Member  State  made  the  Commission  aware  of  any  problems  in 
sending  certificates.  However,  1 Member  State  noted  that  separate  standard  forms 
must be completed if more than one person is concerned. In such cases, it takes more 
time to complete the forms. 

12  

If such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State addressed or if it would 
be irreconcilable with a judgment given or recognised in that Member State. 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
No  Member  State  declared  any  recurring  problem  with  the  procedure,  including  in 
complying with deadlines.  Lastly,  4 Member States signalled that  they do not  have 
data or practical experience. 

3.5. 

Rectification  or  withdrawal  of  protection  measures  and  certificates 
(Article 14(1) and Article 9(1)) 

A protecting measure can be suspended, limited or withdrawn in the Member State 
of origin.  In such  an event,  the protected person  or the person causing the risk can 
request the issuing of a certificate to ensure that this change is taken into account in 
the Member State addressed (Article 14(1)).  

If a certificate contains a clerical error or was clearly wrongly granted, the protected 
person or the person causing the risk can request the rectification or the withdrawal 
of  the  certificate.  The  issuing  authority  can  also  do  so  on  its  own  initiative 
(Article 9(1)).  

The  operation  of  the  multilingual  standard  form  issued  under  Article 14  of  the 
Regulation, including its content, was satisfactory according to all 8 Member States 
that provided feedback on the matter.  

Only  1 Member  State  provided  information  about  the  average  time  for  the 
withdrawal  or  the  rectification  to  take  place,  and  indicated  it  took  10  to  14 days. 
Furthermore,  1 Member  State  informed  that  in  one  case,  the  certificate  had  to  be 
rectified due to a calculation error. 

In  another  Member  State,  national  law  does  not  set  any  deadline  to  rectify  or 
withdraw the certificate. In this Member State, the issue is examined during a court 
hearing of which the participants must be notified in advance. Therefore, the duration 
of  the  procedure  may  vary  depending  on  the  duration  of  these  court  proceedings. 
Lastly,  9 Member States either did  not  provide data or indicated that they  have not 
had any cases.  

3.6. 

Awareness raising and training on the Regulation’s implementation 

Of all Member States, 7 raised awareness on the Regulation’s implementation among 
judicial  authorities  and  judicial  professionals,  notably  using  letters  of  information, 
websites, handbooks and manuals, bar associations, and guidelines.  

Training  sessions on the Regulation’s implementation were organised in  5 Member 
States.  However,  in  4  of  them,  these  sessions  did  not  specifically  focus  on  the 
Regulation, but rather were part of programmes for judges and/or court officials with 
a more general outlook.  

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. 

DATA COLLECTION 

In July 2021, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the competent authorities in the 
Member  States  to  collect  data  and  information  on  the  Regulation’s  implementation 
from its entry into force. The Commission received replies from  19 Member States, 
of  which  16  confirmed  that  their  legal  system  enables  protection  measures  in  civil 
matters.  

The  Commission  found  that  10 Member  States  (i.e.  half  of  the  Member  States  to 
which the Regulation applies) declared not to have disaggregated statistical data on 
protection measures in civil matters. Therefore, these Member States were not able to 
provide data on the number of certificates issued or received  under  the Regulation. 
Of all Member States, 7 provided data, but indicated extremely low numbers for both 
the certificates issued and the certificates received (from 1 to 0). In 1 Member State, 
25 certificates were issued.  

Of  all  Member  States,  14 replied  that  they  had  not  had  any  cases  or  did  not  have 
disaggregated  statistics  on  the  requests  to  issue  certificates  that  they  had  received 
acting  as  a  Member  State  of  origin.  On  the  other  hand,  2 Member  States  informed 
that their respective competent authorities had each received a single request to issue 
a certificate, one of which had been rejected.  

The  questionnaire  also  enquired  about  cases  in  which  Member  States,  acting  as  a 
Member State addressed, enforced a protection measure via the  Article 5 certificate 
and eventually adjusted this measure. Of all Member States, 5 indicated that they had 
not had any such cases.  

Similarly,  5 Member  States  indicated  that  they  had  not  had  any  cases  involving  an 
appeal procedure against the adjustment of a protection measure.  

Nearly all Member States that replied to the questionnaire indicated that they did not 
have known cases of (2 Member States) or disaggregated data on (9 Member States) 
suspended, rectified or withdrawn protection measures under Article 14 or Article 9 
of  the  Regulation.  This  is  regardless  of  whether  they  acted  as  a  Member  State  of 
origin or as a Member State addressed. In 1 Member State, 1 certificate was rectified 
in accordance with Article 9 of the Regulation, due to a calculation error.  

The 2015 POEMS final  report13 and the  2017 European Parliament study14 already 
pointed out the lack of reliable and publicly available data on the occurrence of civil 
protection  orders.  Both  studies  reported  that  many  Member  States  lacked  regular 
statistics  and  could  only  rely  on  incidental  studies.  In  addition,  the  information 
provided  usually  covered  certain  protection  orders  or  certain  parts  of  the  country. 
The  studies  concluded  that  the  great  differences  in  the  data  gathered  in  various 
Member  States  could  suggest  that  the  true  occurrence  of  civil  protection  measures 
was  largely  underestimated.  The  results  of  the  2021  survey  lead  to  a  similar 
conclusion.  The  lack  of  disaggregated  data  by  Member  States  whose  legal  systems 
enable protection measures in civil matters poses challenges to the real estimation of 
the use of civil protection measures. 

13  
14  

van der Aa, S. et al., op. cit. 
European Parliament Research Service, op. cit. 

9 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
5. 

CONCLUSION 

A smooth functioning of the Regulation is paramount to offer complete and reliable 
protection  to  victims  of  crime  in  the  EU  when  they  exercise  their  right  to  free 
movement. 

According  to  the  Member  States  concerned,  the  core  of  the  mutual  recognition 
system set up by the Regulation (i.e. the operation of the multilingual standard form) 
is  satisfactory.  In  addition,  it  appears  that  Member  States  did  not  encounter  any 
major issues when applying the main aspects of the Regulation, such as those onthe 
issuing, processing and transmission of certificates. Several Member States can send 
certificates electronically. 

Member  States  also  do  not  report  any  recurring  problems  with  regard  to  the 
procedural guarantees for the person causing the risk. In particular, when it comes to 
notification to this person of the protection measures, Member States apply different 
procedures,  such  as  notifications  by  registered  letters,  by  electronic  means  or 
personal notification. 

The  analysis  did  not  identify  problematic  issues  with  regard  to  the  rectification  or 
withdrawal of protection measures. Some Member States indicated that they do not 
have such cases. 

However,  similar  to  the  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Directive  on  the 
European protection order, this analysis shows that differences in laws and practices 
on national protection measures in the EU are likely to prevent the instrument from 
reaching  its  full  potential  and  affect  the  success  of  the  mutual  recognition  of 
protection orders. Analysis shows that in certain cases it can be difficult to determine 
whether  the  Directive  or  the  Regulation  applies.  For  instance,  these  are  the  cases 
when  a  single  protection  order  includes  several  measures  of  various  natures  (either 
civil, administrative or criminal).  

In  addition,  this  report  shows  that  there  is  scope  to  improve  awareness  of  the 
in  Member  States.  Promoting  awareness  raising  and  providing 
Regulation 
information  and  guidance  to  practitioners  and  stakeholders  at  national  level  could 
help making better use of the Regulation.  

10