COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition of decisions and acceptance of authentic instruments in matters of parenthood and on the creation of a European Certificate of Parenthood
Date: 2022-12-07
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, child protection, cross-border cooperation, family law, family relationship, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, ruling

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 7.12.2022  SWD(2022) 391 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition of decisions and acceptance of authentic instruments in matters of parenthood and on the creation of a European Certificate of Parenthood {COM(2022) 695 final} - {SEC(2022) 432 final} - {SWD(2022) 390 final} - {SWD(2022) 392 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

2. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ............................................................... 1 

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

3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ........................................................................................................ 22 

4.  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? ............................................................................... 24 

5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? .................................................................... 25 

6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? ........................................................... 33 

7.  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? ............................................................................................ 43 

8. 

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

9.  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................................. 46 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 48 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION (SYNOPSIS REPORT) ................................................ 56 

ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? .......................................................................................... 62 

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS ..................................................................................................... 67 

ANNEX 5: POLICY OPTIONS 2A AND 2B .............................................................................................. 89 

ANNEX 6: FEES FOR RECOGNITION PROCEDURES .......................................................................... 93 

ANNEX 7: EXAMPLES OF PROBLEMS AND THEIR IMPACT ............................................................ 94 

ANNEX 8: POTENTIAL EVALUATION INDICATORS ....................................................................... 103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Throughout the report, wherever a term is marked by *, reader is invited to consult this 
Glossary for an explanation of the relevant term. 

Term or acronym 

Adoption  

Meaning or definition 

A process whereby a person or persons take(s) on the parenthood of another, usually a 
child,  from  that  person’s  biological  or  legal  parent(s).  The  legal  effects  of  parenthood 
established by adoption are in principle the same as those of biological parenthood. 

-  Domestic adoption  

Adoption  of  a  child  or  an  adult  habitually  resident  in  one  country  by  (a)  prospective 
parent(s) habitually resident in that same country. Domestic adoption is solely governed 
by the national adoption laws of the country that grants it. 

-  Intercountry adoption  

Adoption  of  a  child  or  an  adult  habitually  resident  in  one  country  by  (a)  prospective 
parent(s)  habitually  resident  in  another  country.  It  typically  implies  a  change  of  the 
habitual residence of the child in question. 

With respect to intercountry adoptions, it should be noted that all EU Member States are 
party to the HCCH 1993 Intercountry Adoption Convention*. 

-  Simple adoption  

In  some  jurisdictions,  simple  adoption  is  an  adoption  that  does  not  have  the  effect  of 
terminating  a  pre-existing  legal  child-parent  relationship  between  a  child  and  its 
biological parent(s), while it establishes parenthood of (an) adopter(s) to the child. 

AG 

Advocate General of the CJEU. 

Applicable law rules 

Provisions designating, on the basis of certain criteria (known as connecting factors), the 
law applicable to a situation in which the laws of different jurisdictions may apply. 

ART,  Assisted  Reproductive 
Technologies 

In  this  report,  any  method  used  to  achieve  conception  involving  artificial  or  partially 
artificial  means and which is undertaken by a  medical/health clinic or institution. Two 
most common ART methods are artificial insemination and in-vitro fertilisation. 

Authentic instrument 

For  the  purposes  of  this  report,  a  document  on  parenthood  formally  drawn  up  or 
registered as an authentic instrument in any Member State and the authenticity of which:  

(a)  relates to the signature and the content of the instrument; and  
(b)  has  been  established  by  a  public  authority  or  other  authority  empowered  for 

that purpose.  

Authentic  instruments  can  establish  parenthood  (such  as  a  notarial  act  on  adoption) or 
provide evidence of parenthood (such as a birth certificate). 

Birth certificate 

A  document  certifying  the  live  birth  of  a  child  and  typically  also  recording  other 
information, such as the parenthood of the child, date and place of birth and other vital 
statistics relating to the child.  

Brussels IIb Regulation 

Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and 
enforcement  of  decisions  in  matrimonial  matters  and  the  matters  of  parental 
responsibility, and on international child abduction, OJ L 178, 2.7.2019, p. 1–115. 

Charter 

Child  

Subject to certain transitional provisions, it will repeal the Brussels IIa Regulation as of 
August 2022 (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning 
jurisdiction  and  the  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  in  matrimonial  matters 
and the matters of parental responsibility, OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, p. 1 29). 

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 326, 26.10.2012. 

In this report, “child” means a person of any age whose parenthood is to be established 
or recognised, i.e., depending on the context: 

a) 

any  person  regardless  of  their  age  in  relation  to  which  parenthood  is 
considered1; or  

1 Since questions concerning  parenthood  may arise  for the  duration of a person’s lifetime (e.g.  where an 
inheritance issue emerges) and the recognition of parenthood can continue to take place after a person has 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
CJEU 

CoE 

COM 

COM Expert Group  

Compliance costs  

b) 

a  person  under  the  age  of  18  years  old  in  relation  to  which  parenthood  is 
considered. 

Court of Justice of the European Union. 

Council of Europe. 

European Commission. 

Expert  Group on  the  recognition  of  parenthood between  Member  States  set  up by  DG 
JUST  in  2021  to  receive  expert  advice  on  the  preparation  of  an  initiative  on  the 
recognition  of  parenthood  between  Member  States.  For  more  information  about  the 
Expert  Group,  see  the  Register  of  Commission  Expert  Groups  and  Other  Similar 
Entities. 

In this report, direct costs related to a possible EU intervention. These costs include in 
particular adjustment costs, i.e. investments and expenses that public authorities have to 
bear to adjust their activity to the provisions included in the EU policy  intervention (in 
particular training costs for public authorities and lawyers)2. 

Costs for recognition procedures  Direct  costs  related  to  administrative  and  court  procedures  for  the  recognition  of 

parenthood, incurred under the baseline and all policy options, by: 

-  cross-border  families  (e.g.  translation  costs,  administrative  and  court  fees  for 
recognition  procedures,  fees  for  evidence  and  DNA  tests,  costs  for  legal 
representation etc.); 

-  Member States’ public authorities (e.g. staff-related costs, costs for translations and 

interpreters etc.)3. 

Country reports 

Country Reports were compiled by an external contractor* in collaboration with Spark 
Legal Network in the context of the Study by an external contractor*. The reports were 
based on a questionnaire completed by 26 national legal experts. 

Cross-border family 

A  family  with children  in which one or more  members are of different nationalities or 
live in a country other than their country of origin.  

Digitalisation proposal 

The Commission’s proposal for a regulation on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation 
and  access  to  justice  in  cross-border  civil,  commercial  and  criminal  matters,  and 
amending certain acts in the field of judicial cooperation. COM (2021) 759. 

DG JUST 

ECHR 

ECtHR 

ECP 

EJN-civil 

Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers of the European Commission.  

European Convention of Human Rights (Council of Europe). 

The ECHR and related case law binds Member States. In addition, the Court of Justice 
of the EU applies the ECtHR case law indirectly, as  a part of the general principles of 
the EU law. 

European Court of Human Rights. 

European Certificate of Parenthood. 

European  Judicial  Network  (in  civil  and  commercial  matters):  network  of  judicial 
authorities  and  other  national  authorities  (ministries  of  justice,  notaries,  enforcement 
officials)  involved  in  the  application  of  the  EU  instruments  in  civil  and  commercial 
matters and set up to facilitate judicial and legal cooperation between Member States in 
cross-border  civil  and  commercial  matters.  EJN-civil  meets  several  times  a  year  to 
discuss  the  application  of  these  EU  instruments  or  other  matters  related  to  civil  and 
commercial justice in the EU. 

reached majority, all actions considered in this report would apply to persons regardless of their age 
(i.e., regardless whether the child is below or above 18 years of age).  
2 For details regarding costs and methodology for their calculation, see  Annex 4. See also the typology of 
costs in Better Regulation Toolbox (November 2021). 
3 Ibid. 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                 
e-Justice Portal  

European  e-Justice Portal:  EU  portal  that provides  information  to  the public  in  all  EU 
languages  on  EU  law  and  national  justice  systems  in  civil,  family  and  commercial 
matters. 

EAVA  report  on  the  recognition 
of adoptions 

European Parliament (2016). Cross-border recognition of adoptions – European Added 
Value Assessment. 

It presents estimates on the possible added value of taking legislative action at EU level 
related to cross-border recognition of adoptions. It identifies costs borne by EU citizens 
as  a  result  of  the  absence  of  an  EU  regulation  on  automatic  recognition  of  adoption 
decisions.  It  forms  a  basis  for  the  European  Parliament  resolution  of  2  February  2017 
with  recommendations  to  the  Commission  on  cross  border  aspects  of  adoptions 
(2015/2086(INL)). 

Enforcement costs 

Costs associated with activities linked to the implementation of the Parenthood initiative 
(such as monitoring and litigation)4. 

EUR/€  

EU 

EU-26 

Euro. 

European Union. 

All Member States of the European Union with the exception of Denmark5. 

External contractor 

ICF Consulting SA.  

Family 

For the purposes of this report, a group of one or more parents and their children. 

The external contractor prepared a study that supported the preparation of this report.  

NB: Substantive family law falls within the competence of Member States. Accordingly, 
no EU instrument in the area of judicial cooperation in civil matters contains a definition 
of “family”6.  

-  Rainbow family 

For  the  purposes  of  this  report,  a  family  that  consists  of  parents  of  the  same  gender 
bringing up a child, or an LGBTIQ+ parented family. 

Free  movement,  free  movement 
right 

Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States as provided for 
in Articles 21, 45, 49 and 56 TFEU, Directive 2004/38/EC and relevant case law of the 
CJEU. 

FTE 

Ground 
ground 

Full-Time Equivalent. 

for 

refusal, 

refusal 

A  reason  that  can  be  invoked  to  refuse  the  recognition  of  a  judgment  or  an  authentic 
instrument. 

Hague  Conference  on  Private 
International Law, HCCH 

Intergovernmental  organisation  with  its  seat  in  The  Hague,  which  is  working  for  the 
progressive  unification,  by  means  of  international  conventions,  of  the  rules  of  private 
international law. The HCCH has currently 91 members: 90 states and the EU. 

Hassle costs 

For the purposes of this report, costs for families resulting from delays and unnecessary 
waiting times related to the procedures for the recognition of parenthood of a child7.  

HCCH 

1993 

Intercountry  Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of 

4 For details regarding costs and methodology for their calculation, see  Annex 4. See also the typology of 
costs in Better Regulation Toolbox (November 2021). 
5 In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol (No 22)  on the position of Denmark annexed to the 
TFEU, Denmark does not take part in any measures adopted under Title V TFEU (thus including Article 
81 TFEU). As a result, Denmark would not take part in any EU initiative on the recognition of parenthood 
between Member States. Since the Parenthood initiative* would not apply in Denmark, this Member 
State is excluded from this impact assessment report. 
6 The  Free  Movement Directive (Directive  2004/38/EC) defines “family  members” in its Article 2(2) for 
the purposes of the right to free movement.  
7 For details regarding costs and methodology for their calculation, see  Annex 4. See also the typology of 
costs in Better Regulation Toolbox (November 2021). 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Adoption Convention 

Intercountry Adoption.  

It  governs  adoption  where  the  adoptive  parents  and  the  child  have  their  habitual 
residence  in  different  States.  It  lays  down  substantive  safeguards  to  ensure  that 
intercountry adoptions take place in the best interests of the child and with respect for 
the child’s fundamental rights. Under the Convention, every adoption which is certified 
to  be  made  in  accordance  with  the  procedures  set  out  in  the  Convention  is recognised 
“by operation of law” in all other Contracting Parties (Art. 23). 

All EU Member States are party thereto. 

HCCH  Parentage  /  Surrogacy 
Project 

A  project  undertaken  by  the  HCCH*  to  study  and  address  the  issues  encountered  in 
relation to the legal parentage of children and international surrogacy arrangements. 

In the context of this project, meetings of an Experts’ Group have been organised since 
2016 to explore the feasibility of advancing work in this area. The work of the Experts’ 
Group focuses on developing (i) a general PIL* instrument on legal parentage; and (ii) a 
separate  protocol  on  legal  parentage  established  as  a  result  of  international  surrogacy 
arrangements. A report of the Expert Group on the feasibility of work in this area is due 
in 2023. 

IA 

Impact Assessment. 

ICCS/CIEC 

International Commission on Civil Status/Commission International de l’État Civil. 

Intergovernmental  organisation  based  in  Strasbourg  whose  aim  is  to  facilitate 
international  co-operation  in  civil-status  matters  and  to  further  the  exchange  of 
information  between  civil  registrars.  To  this  end,  it  has  adopted  conventions  and 
recommendations. 

Intending parent(s) 

A person or persons who request(s) a surrogate mother to carry and give birth to a child 
for them8. 

IVF 

ISA 

ISSG 

Jurisdiction 

In Vitro Fertilisation.  

International Surrogacy Arrangement. 

Inter-Services Steering Group. 

The  power  conferred  upon  a  court  or  tribunal  to  hear  a  specific  case;  international 
jurisdiction is the competence of the courts of a particular country to hear a case. 

LGBTIQ  

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Queer. 

Limping parenthood 

Situation  in  which  a  child  has,  from  a  legal  viewpoint,  different  parents  in  different 
States as a result of the fact that two States answer the question “who is a parent of this 
child”  in  a  different  manner.  It  includes  situations  where  the  legal  parenthood  by  one 
parent, as established in one State, is not recognised in another State. 

Lower bound, upper bound  

In this report, lower and upper bounds represent the smallest and biggest value between 
which the exact value can be found. They are mostly used when quantifying costs (since 
the costs usually differ Member State to Member State and case by case).  

Maintenance Regulation 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  4/2009  of  18 December  2008  on  jurisdiction,  applicable 
law,  recognition  and  enforcement  of  decisions  and  cooperation  in  matters  relating  to 
maintenance obligations, OJ L 7, 10.1.2009. 

Maintenance rights 

In this report, maintenance rights are all rights to receive maintenance or alimony arising 
to a child from its family relationship or affinity. Notably, the Maintenance Regulation 
does not define the term “maintenance rights”. 

Member State, MS 

Member State of the European Union. 

8 Definition taken from: International Social Service (2021).  Principles for the protection of the rights of 
the child born through surrogacy (Verona principles), p.7. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State of 
(non-)recognition  

National certificate of 
parenthood 

NB: In this report, this normally excludes Denmark (see fn. 5). 

Member State where the recognition of parenthood is sought. 

A  national  authentic  instrument  on  parenthood,  for  instance,  a  certificate  of  birth,  a 
certificate  of  parenthood  or  a  notarial  act  establishing  or  providing  evidence  of 
parenthood. 

NGO 

Non-governmental organisation. 

OIOO / One in, one out 

One in, one out.  

OIOO costs savings 

OPC 

Parentage  

Parenthood  

The  one  in,  one  out  approach  requires  offsetting  new  burdens  resulting  from  a 
Commission proposal by reducing existing burdens in the same policy area9. 

Costs saved by families under the Policy Option 3 that can qualify as cost savings under 
the one in, one out approach. These cost savings concern only savings on administrative 
costs, such as costs for translations, supporting documentation and evidence, and thus do 
not  include  the  savings  on  administrative  fees  and  court  fees  and  costs  for  legal 
representation. 

For  details,  see  Annex  4:  Costs  reduction  estimates  under  the  ‘One  in,  one  out’ 
approach. 

Open  Public  Consultation  conducted  from  the  Commission’s  “Have  your  say”  portal 
between 19 May 2021 and 25 August 2021 to gather data and the views of stakeholders 
with regard to a possible initiative on the recognition of parenthood. 

See the Summary Report here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/12878-Recognition-of-parenthood-/public-consultation_en  and  in  Annex 
9. 

A  child-parent  relationship  that  indicates  the  descent  from  parents  or  ancestors  and 
which is closely linked to bio-genetic affinity. 

A  parent-child  relationship  established  in  law.  It  includes  the  legal  status  of  being  the 
child  of  a  particular  parent  or  parents.  This  civil  status  is  particularly  relevant  to  a 
person’s identity, and other rights and obligations derived from it. 

For the purposes of this report, parenthood is to be understood as legal parenthood (see 
below). It may or may not correspond to the social or biological parenthood. 

Even  though  the  term  “parenthood”  does  not  fully  bring  out  the  child-centred 
perspective  of  the  initiative,  it  was  chosen  for  this  report  as  it  corresponds  to  the 
terminology used in other EU family-law legislative instruments. 

-  Biological parenthood 

Bio-genetic  affinity  between  a  child  and  its  father  and  mother  whose  DNA  the  child 
carries. 

-  Social parenthood 

It relates to the actual act of taking care of a child as a parent. 

-  Legal parenthood 

The  child-parent  relationship  established  in  law.  It  may  be  attributed  on  a  number  of 
grounds besides bio-genetic affinity. 

Parenthood initiative  

For  the  purposes  of  this  report,  it  refers  to  any  of  the  possible  policy  options  that  the 
Commission may undertake to facilitate the recognition of parenthood between Member 
States.  

Parenthood regulation, 
Regulation  

For the purposes of this report, it refers to the legislative policy option, i.e. legislation on 
the recognition of parenthood between Member States. (See Section 5 of this report). 

PIL, Private International Law 

A branch of law governing which rules are to be applied in cases with an international 
dimension  and  dealing  with  the  resolution  of  conflicts  between  the  jurisdictions  and 

9 See Tool #59, Better Regulation Toolbox (November 2021). 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
applicable  laws  of  different  States.  In  this  report,  it  refers  to  applicable  law  rules, 
jurisdiction and, where relevant, rules on the recognition of parenthood.  

PO  

Policy Option. 

Public authorities 

For  the  purposes  of  this  report,  it  is  to  be  understood  broadly  as  any  authorities 
competent, under national law, to establish, record or register the parenthood of a child 
and/or to recognise parenthood established abroad.  

Recognition  

Public  authorities 
thus 
municipalities), courts, notaries, or consulates. 

include  administrative  authorities  (civil  registrars  and 

For the purposes of this report, recognition of parenthood should be understood broadly 
as any legal technique that makes a parenthood status that has been acquired abroad, i.e. 
formed/conferred in accordance with the laws of another State, valid also as regards the 
recognising  State.  Recognition  does  not  have  to  involve  any  formal  procedure  for 
recognition and can be automatic.  

In particular, recognition and acceptance of authentic instruments is not differentiated in 
this report and ‘recognition’ should thus refer to both legal concepts. 

Recommendation 

A non-binding act that can be adopted by the  European Commission and that does not 
have legal consequences but provides guidance to Member States on a certain matter. 

In  this  report,  “Recommendation”  also  refers  to  Policy  Option  1,  i.e.  Commission 
Recommendation addressed to the Member States.  

Reference period 

Period for which the impacts are assessed, i.e. years 2022-2032. 

Registered partnership 

A legal family format that is constituted in a procedure that results in a registration in a 
public register.  

In the Regulation (EU) No 2016/1104 also defined as: The regime governing the shared 
life of two people which is provided for in law, the registration of which is mandatory 
under  that  law  and  which  fulfils  the  legal  formalities  required  by  that  law  for  its 
creation. 

Regulation on Public Documents  Regulation (EU) 2016/1191 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 
2016 on promoting the free movement of citizens by simplifying the requirements for 
presenting certain public documents in the European Union, OJ L 200, 26.7.2016, p. 
1-136. 

Rights derived from EU law  

In  its  V.M.A.  case,  the  CJEU  held  that  Member  States  are  required  to  recognise 
parenthood for the purposes of permitting a child that has the nationality of a Member 
State to exercise without impediment, with each of its two parents, the right to move and 
reside  freely  within  the  territory  of  the  Member  States  as  guaranteed  in  Article  21(1) 
TFEU and, in that context, rights which the child derives from EU law (paras. 49 and 57 
of the V.M.A. case).  

For  other  rights  derived  from  EU  law,  see  fn.  33.  These  rights  can  be  exercised 
irrespective  of  recognition  in the  law  of  the  host  Member  State. The  only  condition  is 
that  there  be  a  “child”  of  an  EU  citizen,  within  the  meaning  of  Article  2(2)(c)  of 
Directive 2004/38/EC, as established in a Member State. 

RSB 

SDGs 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board. 

United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.  

The 17 SDGs are at the heart of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted 
by all United Nations Member States in 2015. 

Study  by  an  external  contractor, 
Study 

ICF  (2022).  Study  to  support  the  preparation  of  an  impact  assessment  on  a  possible 
Union legislative initiative on the recognition of parenthood between Member States  – 
Final report.  

The  Study  was  commissioned  by  DG  JUST  to  gather  information  for  this  impact 
assessment. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Succession Regulation 

Summary Report 

Surrogacy, surrogacy 
arrangement10 

Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 
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, 27.7.2012, p. 107–134. 

Report  summarising  the  results  of  the  Open  Public  Consultation*,  available  at: 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12878-
Recognition-of-parenthood-/public-consultation_en and in Annex 9. 

An agreement: 

i) between a prospective surrogate mother and (an) intending parent(s);  
ii)  made before a child is conceived;  
iii) which provides that, following the child’s birth, the parties plan for the intending 
parent(s)  to  be  the  child’s  legal  parent(s),  and  for  the  surrogate  mother  to 
surrender the child into their care11. 

-  Altruistic surrogacy 

A surrogacy arrangement where there is no payment to the surrogate mother or, if there 
is payment, it is only for reasonable expenses associated with the surrogacy12. 

-  Commercial surrogacy   Commercial  (or  for  profit)  surrogacy  exists  where  the  surrogate  mother  agrees  to 
provide  gestational  services  and/or  to  legally  and  physically  transfer  the  child,  in 
exchange  for  remuneration  or  other  consideration.  One  indication  of  commercial 
surrogacy is the involvement of for-profit intermediaries13. 

Surrogate 

TEU 

TFEU 

A woman who agrees to carry and give birth to a child for (an) intending parent(s). 

Treaty on European Union.  

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

Third country / third countries 

Country/ies which are not members of the EU. 

UN 

UNCRC 

United Nations. 

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the United Nations 
General Assembly on 20 November 1989 (United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1577, p.3). 

CJEU case law cited in this report 

Casagrande 

Cristini 

Coman 
Commission v Austria 

Even  
Freitag 

Garcia Avello 
Grunkin and Paul 

K.S.  
Matteucci 

the  Court  of  16 

June  2022,  Commission  v  Austria¸  C-328/20, 

the  Court  of  30  September  1975,  Cristini  v  S.N.C.F,  C-32/75, 

Judgment  of  the  Court  of  3  July  1974,  Casagrande  v  Landeshauptstadt  München,  C-9/74, 
ECLI:EU:C:1974:74. 
Judgment  of 
ECLI:EU:C:1975:120. 
Judgment of the Court of 5 June 2018, Coman and Others, C-673/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:385. 
Judgment  of 
ECLI:EU:C:2022:468.  
Judgment of the Court of 31 May 1979, Even¸ C-207/78, ECLI:EU:C:1979:144. 
Judgment  of 
ECLI:EU:C:2017:432. 
Judgment of the Court of 2 October 2003, Garcia Avello, C-148/02, ECLI:EU:C:2003:539. 
Judgment  of 
EU:C:2008:559. 
Order of 24 June 2022, Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich, C-2/21, ECLI:EU:C:2022:502.  
Judgment  of  the  Court  of  27  September  1988,  Matteucci  v   Communauté  française  de 
Belgique, C-235/87, ECLI:EU:C:1988:460. 

the  Court  of  14 October  2008, Grunkin  and  Paul,  C-353/06,  ECLI: 

the  Court  (Second  Chamber)  of  8  June  2017,  Freitag,  C-541/15, 

10  Nothing  in  this  report  should  be  purported  to  support  or  oppose  surrogacy.  Considerations  as  to 
whether surrogacy in any form should be permitted or prohibited fall outside the scope of the report and the 
report should not be used as a basis for condoning or encouraging surrogacy.  
11 Definition taken from: International Social Service (2021). Principles for the protection of the rights of 
the child born through surrogacy (Verona principles), p.7. 
12 Ibid. Principles for the protection of the rights of the child born through surrogacy (Verona principles), 
p.7. 
13 Ibid. Verona principles, p.7. 

 
 
 
                                                 
Meeusen 
V.M.A.  

V.M.A. Opinion  

Judgment of the Court of 8 June 1999, Meeusen, C-337/97, ECLI:EU:C:1999:284. 
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2021, V.M.A. v Stolichna obshtina, 
rayon “Pancharevo”, C-490/20, ECLI:EU:C:2021:1008. 
Opinion  of  Advocate  General  Kokott delivered  on 15  April 2021  in  case  V.М.А.  v Stolichna 
obshtina, rayon “Pancharevo“, C-490/20, ECLI:EU:C:2021:296. 

ECtHR case law cited in this report 

A.D.- K. v. PL 
Advisory Opinion 

ECtHR, pending, A.D.- K. & Others v. Poland, No. 30806/15. 
ECtHR, 10 April 2019, Advisory Opinion concerning the recognition in domestic law 
of  a  legal  parent-child  relationship  between  a  child  born  through  a  gestational 
surrogacy arrangement abroad and the intended mother, No. P16-2018-001. 
ECtHR, 26 June 2014, Labassee v. France, No. 65941/1. 
ECtHR, 13 June 1979, Marckx v. Belgium, No. 6833/74.  
ECtHR, 26 June 2014, Mennesson v. France, No. 65192/11. 
ECtHR, 3 May 2011, Negrepontis-Giannisis v. Greece, No. 56759/08. 

Labassee v. FR 
Marckx v. BE 
Mennesson v. FR 
Negrepontis-Giannisis v. EL 
Paradiso and Campanelli v. IT   ECtHR, 24 January 2017, Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy, No. 25358/12. 
S.-H. v. PL 

ECtHR, S.-H. v. Poland, No. 56846/15 and 56849/15 (inadmissible). 

Schlittner-Hay v. PL 
Valdís Fjölnisdóttir v. Iceland 
Wagner v. LU 

ECtHR, pending, Schlittner-Hay v. Poland, No. 56846/15 and 56849/15. 
ECtHR, 18 May 2021, Valdís Fjölnisdóttir and Others v. Iceland, No. 71552/17. 
ECtHR, 28 June 2007, Wagner & J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg, No. 79240/01. 

 
 
 
1.  1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

“If you are parent in one country, you are parent in every country.”  

… said  Commission President  von der  Leyen in  her State of the Union speech in 
202014. With this statement, she referred to the need to ensure that parenthood established 
in one Member State be recognized in all other Member States.  

Parenthood  (or  filiation)  is  a  civil  status  that  forms  a  constituent  element  of  a  child’s 
identity. Parenthood of a child, understood here as the child-parent relationship established 
in  law,  provides  the  legal  proof  of  an  existing  family  relationship  between  children  and 
their  parents.  Numerous  rights  and  obligations  vis-à-vis  the  child’s  parents,  public 
authorities  and  others  flow  directly  from  parenthood  or  are  related  to  it,  for  example 
parental  responsibility,  maintenance,  succession,  or  nationality  of  the  child  (where  in 
national law nationality  is based on  ius sanguinis15). The preservation of the parent-child 
link  in  cross-border  situations  is  thus  essential  for  protecting  the  fundamental  rights  of 
children and their families (including the right for respect of private and family life, right 
to non-discrimination and rights of the child, such as the protection of the best interests of 
children  and  the  right  to  maintain  on  a  regular  basis  a  personal  relationship  and  direct 
contact with their parents)16. 

However, as national approaches with respect to the determination of parenthood and civil 
status  vary  among  Member  States,  each  Member  State  determines  a  child’s  parenthood 
differently  and,  in  addition,  may  not  recognize  parenthood  legally  established  in  another 
Member  State  for  all  purposes.  As  a  result,  some  families  may  encounter  problems  in 
cross-border context and children end up in precarious situations where they lose, from a 
legal viewpoint, one parent (sometimes both) in other Member States. (The reasons for the 
non-recognition of parenthood and consequences thereof are detailed in Section 2.) 

The  “Parenthood  initiative”*  introduced  below  would  thus  be  taken  in  this  context  and 
with the aim to protect children and their fundamental rights in cross-border situations and 
to ensure continuity of parenthood across borders in the EU. It is based on the premise that 
no children should be disadvantaged or suffer harm because of the circumstances of their 
conception  or  birth.  This  initiative  would  not  affect  the  rights  that  a  child  derives  from 
Union law, in particular the rights that a child enjoys under Union law on free movement, 
including Directive 2004/38/EC. 

2.1. 

1.1 

Legal context  

National legal context  
As  families  are  increasingly  mobile17,  Member  States  frequently  have  to  deal  with 
situations  where  parenthood  has  an  international  element,  for  instance  children  or  their 

14 State of the Union Address by President von der Leyen at the Parliament Plenary, 16 September 2020. 
15 For explanation, see fn. 72. 
16 As to these rights guaranteed in the Charter, ECHR and UNCRC, see Section 1. 
17 Based on the Eurostat data, it is expected that 3.2% of families are currently mobile and that this number 
should increase to 5% by 2032. See Annex 4. Although it is not excluded that parenthood recognition may be 
needed  in  other  cross-border  cases,  in  the  overwhelming  majority  of  cases  the  need  to  have  parenthood 
recognised arises where a child and its family move to another MS or return to their MS of origin. 

1 

 
 
                                                 
parents have foreign nationality, the birth happened abroad or parenthood was established 
based on the national  law of another State.  In situations like these, Member States apply 
their private international law (PIL)* rules and rules on the recognition of parenthood. The 
Member  States’  PIL  rules*  and  approaches  to  the  recognition  of  parenthood  established 
abroad differ, which complicates the recognition of parenthood between Member States. (It 
must  be  noted  though  that  children  of  EU  citizens  enjoy  certain  rights  derived  from  EU 
law, in particular the acquis on EU citizenship and free movement, irrespective of whether 
their parenthood has been formally recognised in a Member State18). 

In  addition,  considerable  differences  exist  in  the  national  family  law  of  Member  States 
with  respect  to  family  concepts.  Family  matters  are  culturally  sensitive  issues  that  may 
touch  on  the  national  identity  of  Member  States  and  are  influenced  by  different  legal 
traditions  and  societal  backgrounds.  Under  the  EU  Treaties,  substantive  law  on  family 
matters and the legal status of persons (including parenthood) falls within the competence 
of  Member  States.  Therefore,  in  a  comparable  factual  situation,  Member  States  may 
establish,  under  their  national  law,  parenthood  differently19  and  by  using  differing 
procedures20.  

Currently,  various  public  authorities  are  involved  in  establishing  and  subsequent 
registering of parenthood at national level21. Once parenthood has been established in one 
Member  State  (for  example,  by  operation  of  law  after  birth),  parenthood  is  generally 
recorded  in  a  civil  or  population  register.  An  administrative  document  containing  the 
information on parenthood - most frequently a birth certificate - is typically provided as the 
evidence of parenthood. Birth certificates serve as a proof that the birth of a child has been 
registered and often include information about and evidence of the child's family ties and 
other  information,  such  as  the  place  of  birth.  Birth  certificates  are  often  required  in  a 
variety of administrative and professional procedures  or  procedures to  establish a  child’s 
nationality.  Besides  birth  certificates,  other  documents  may  be  issued  recording  the 
parenthood  of  a  child22.  The  parenthood  of  a  child  may  also  be  established  by  a  court 
decision,  for  instance  in  cases  of  domestic  adoptions  or  where  parenthood  has  been 
disputed.  Even  where  parenthood  is  established  by  a  court  decision,  a  birth  certificate  is 
usually  subsequently  issued.  The  difference  between  court  decisions  and  authentic 
instruments  and  whether  they  establish  parenthood  or  only  provide  evidence  thereof,  is 
also  relevant  where  these  documents  are  brought  for  recognition  in  another  Member 
State23. 

18 For details, see fn. 33. 
19 For example, based on different legal presumptions of parenthood, rules related to the acknowledgment of 
parenthood,  conditions  for  the  adoption  of  a  child,  rules  governing  the  access  to  Assisted  Reproduction 
Technologies (“ART”) etc. 
20  Different  formal  requirements  on  the  acknowledgment  or  contestation  of  parenthood,  procedures 
concerning registration of parenthood in national population registers etc. 
21 For instance civil registrars, notaries, consulates, courts. 
22 For instance extracts from civil status registries, or parenthood certificates. 
23 This distinction will also be relevant for designing the Parenthood regulation*, as it will have to be decided 
whether the legislation would only cover the recognition of parenthood recorded in court decisions or also in 
authentic instruments (As to this choice, see Annex 5). 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
International legal context  

Problems with the recognition of parenthood are not specific to the EU. As the movement 
of families takes on a global dimension, the need to ensure that the parenthood of a child is 
recognised in cross-border settings is also acknowledged at international level. 

For  example,  the  Hague  Conference  on  Private  International  Law  (HCCH)  is  currently 
undertaking  work  on  the  PIL  issues  surrounding  the  parenthood  of  children  (HCCH 
Parentage/Surrogacy Project*). This work could eventually lead in the long term to the 
adoption  of  an  international  convention  on  legal  parentage  and  of  a  separate  optional 
protocol on legal parentage established as a result of international surrogacy arrangements 
(ISAs). However, as expounded below (Section 3), this work at the international level does 
not  in  principle eliminate the need for an  action  concerning  recognition  of parenthood  at 
EU level.  

Other  international  instruments  related  to  children24  either  do  not  deal  with  cross-border 
aspects of parenthood, their scope as regards parenthood matters is limited, or only a few 
Member  States  are  parties  to  such  instruments. With  respect  to  intercountry  adoptions in 
particular,  the  HCCH  1993  Intercountry  Adoption  Convention  exists  and  seeks  to 
ensure  that  intercountry  adoptions  are  made  in  the  best  interests  of  children  and  with 
respect  for  their  fundamental  rights25.  Moreover,  in  the  past  some  Member  States 
concluded  with  other  Member  States  or  with  third  countries  bilateral  and  multilateral 
agreements related to parenthood matters, but their scope is also limited or the agreements 
only cover a few Member States26.  

All  Members  States  are  obliged  to  protect  the  rights  of  children  and  their  best  interests 
anchored in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (“UNCRC”) and 
other  international  instruments,  such  as  the  European  Convention  on  Human  Rights 
(“ECHR”)  (see  Article  8  ECHR  and  Articles  2,  3(1),  7(1)  and  8(1)  UNCRC27).  The 
European  Court  of  Human  Rights  has  been  seized  a  number  of  times  with  complaints 

24  The  Council  of  Europe’s  European  Convention  on  the  Adoption  of  Children  (Revised)  of  27  November 
2008; the Internal Social Service’s 2021 Principles for the protection of the rights of the child born through 
surrogacy (Verona principles); or conventions on civil status prepared under the aegis of ICCS, for instance 
the  Convention  No  16  on  the  issue  of  multilingual extracts from civil status  records  or  the  HCCH’s  1996 
Convention  of  19  October  1996  on  Jurisdiction,  Applicable  Law,  Recognition,  Enforcement  and 
Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children. 
25 The HCCH 1993 Intercountry Adoption Convention ensures that the adoption order is recognised in both 
countries involved in the intercountry adoption and, in principle, other Contracting States. All Member States 
are party to this Convention.  
26  See  for  instance  the  1962  Convention  on  the  establishment  of  maternal  descent  of  children  born  out  of 
wedlock (parties: DE, EL, ES, LU, NL, Switzerland and Turkey) and the 1979 Act on recognition of Nordic 
judgments and acknowledgements of paternity (parties: DK, FI, SE, Iceland, Norway), the 1963 Convention 
on mutual relations in civil matters and on documents (parties: AT, PL). 
27 For instance, Article 7 of the UNCRC stipulates that “the child shall be registered immediately after birth 
and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the 
right  to  know  and  be  cared  for  by  his  or  her  parents”;  and  Article  8(1)  specifically  provides  that:  “States 
Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name 
and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference”.  The UNCRC also establishes, in 
its Article 2(1), that the rights of all children shall be ensured without discrimination of any kind, irrespective 
of the  child’s or his or her parent’s […] birth or other status, and, in its  Article 3(1) provides that the best 
interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children.  

3 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
concerning the recognition of parenthood, mostly claiming a violation of Article 8 of the 
ECHR,  the  right  to  respect  for  private  and  family  life  (including  the  right  to  identity). 
Article 8 ECHR does not merely compel States to abstain from arbitrary interference with 
the exercise of the right to family life; it also imposes positive obligations on them, such as 
when  States  determine  in  their  domestic  legal  system  the  regime  applicable  to  certain 
family  ties,  they  “must  act  in  a  manner  calculated  to  allow  those  concerned  to  lead  a 
normal  family  life”28.  Based  on  these  human  rights  considerations,  States’  margin  of 
appreciation in cases of  parenthood recognition is limited, in particular under the ECtHR 
case  law  on  the  recognition  of  parenthood  of  children  after  foreign  adoptions29  or  born 
through surrogacy arrangements abroad30.  

However,  despite  the  existence  of  several  international  legal  instruments  concerning 
children’s rights and civil status, there are currently no international instruments ensuring 
the recognition of parenthood between countries.  

Legal context at the EU level  

Whilst  substantive  family  law  on  parenthood  falls  within  the  competence  of  Member 
States, the EU can adopt measures concerning family law with  cross-border implications 
pursuant to Article 81(3) TFEU. These measures can include the adoption of common rules 
of  jurisdiction,  applicable  law  and  procedures  for  the  recognition  of  judgments  and 
authentic  instruments*  (such  as  birth  certificates)  issued  in  other  Member  States. 
Currently, there is no EU legislation on the recognition of parenthood. As a result, not only 
the establishment of parenthood is currently governed by the national law of each Member 
State  but  so  are  also  all  cross-border  aspects  of  parenthood  (PIL  rules*,  such  as  law 
applicable to parenthood, jurisdiction rules and rules for recognition of parenthood). 

The existing EU law instruments, which are of direct relevance for children in cross-border 
situations  (the  Brussels  IIb  Regulation,  the  Maintenance  Regulation  and  the 
Succession Regulation), cover the recognition of judgments and authentic instruments in 
several areas of family law (for instance maintenance or parental responsibility) and also 
on succession; however, they do not deal with parenthood  as such31. Since parenthood is 
left  out  of  the  scope  of  these  instruments,  in  situations  where  a  (“incidental”)  question 
related to the determination of parenthood arises in the context of proceedings covered by 
existing EU instruments, national law on parenthood with cross-border elements is applied. 
Therefore,  EU  legislation  on  parenthood  with  cross-border  implications  would  not  only 
help  with  the  recognition  of  parenthood  in  the  EU  but  would  also  complete  the  current 
body of EU legislation on family matters with cross-border implications. In addition to the 
above  civil-law  instruments,  the  Regulation  on  Public  Documents  addresses  the 

28 See ECtHR, Marckx v. BE.  
29 ECtHR, Wagner & J.M.W.L. v. LU; Negrepontis-Giannisis v. EL; A.D.- K. & Others v. PL. 
30  ECtHR,  Mennesson  v.  FR;  Labassee  v.  FR;  Paradiso  and  Campanelli  v.  IT;  Advisory  Opinion;  Valdís 
Fjölnisdóttir v. Iceland; Schlittner-Hay v. PL; or S.-H. v. PL. 
31 In fact, the Brussels IIb, Maintenance and Succession Regulations explicitly exclude the status of persons 
from  their  scope  and/or  state  that  they  should  not  imply  the  recognition  of  the  family  relationship  or  of 
parenthood: respectively Art. 4(a), Art. 22, and Art. 1(2)(a). 

4 

 
 
                                                 
authenticity of public documents in certain areas, including parenthood, but does not cover 
the recognition of the contents or effects of such public documents32.  

The protection and promotion of the rights of the child is a core objective of the European 
Union (Article 3(3) and 3(5) TEU). It is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of 
the European Union (“Charter”), which guarantees, in the implementation of EU law, the 
protection  of  the  fundamental  rights  of  families  and  children.  These  rights  include, 
regardless of the age of the child, the right to respect for private and family life (Article 7 
of  the  Charter)  and  to  non-discrimination  (Article  21  of  the  Charter).  The  Charter  also 
protects  the  rights  of  children  (Article  24)  and  recognises  that  children  have  the  right  to 
maintain a regular and direct relationship with both parents, if it is according to their best 
interests. The best interests of the child, as laid down in Article 24(2) of the Charter, is one 
of the main principles of  the EU legal  order and was  recognised by the  CJEU  in  several 
cases.  The  close  links  between  these  rights  were  recently  confirmed  by  the  CJEU  in  the 
V.M.A.  case,  where  the  CJEU  held  that  it  would  be  contrary  to  children’s  rights  for 
children  to  be  deprived  of  the  relationship  with  their  parents  when  exercising  their  free 
movement rights.  

Box 1: V.M.A., C-490/20, 14 December 2021 

The case concerned a child born in Spain to a British mother and a Bulgarian mother (V.M.A.) living in 
Spain.  Spain  issued  a  birth  certificate  mentioning  both  mothers  as  the  child’s  parents.  Since  a  birth 
certificate  issued  by  the  Bulgarian  authorities  was  necessary  to  obtain  a  Bulgarian  identity  document  or 
passport,  V.M.A.  applied  for  the  issuance  of  a  birth  certificate  for  their  child  in  Bulgaria.  Without  an 
identity  document  or  a  passport,  the  child  would  not  be  able  to  exercise  its  free  movement  rights.  The 
Bulgarian authorities refused to issue a birth certificate, inter alia on the ground that the registration of a 
birth certificate with two female parents was contrary to Bulgarian public policy. The mothers challenged 
such a refusal. The court seised asked the CJEU whether EU law obliges a Member State to issue a birth 
certificate, a passport or an identity document, to its own citizens born in another Member State and whose 
birth certificate issued by the host Member State mentions two mothers. 

In  its  ruling,  the  CJEU  stated  that  EU  law  requires  all  Member  States  to  recognise  parenthood  for  free 
movement  purposes,  i.e.  to  enable  the  child  to  exercise,  with  each  of  her  parents,  her  right  of  free 
movement.  While  EU  law  does  not  require  the  Member  State  of  nationality  of  the  child  to  issue  a  new 
birth certificate for the child, it does require it to issue a passport or an identity document enabling the 
child  to  exercise  free  movement  rights  with  both  parents.  The  parents  must  also  be  issued  with  a 
document that enables each of them to travel alone with the child. 

The CJEU held in V.M.A. that Member States are obliged to recognise parenthood for the 
purposes of rights that the child derives from EU law, including the right of the child to 
exercise free movement with each of its parents33. The notion of “rights derived from EU 

32 In addition, see below fn. 33 on the CJEU case law in relation to citizenship and free movement. 
33 V.M.A., para. 57. The rights derived from EU law include the child’s right to exercise, with each of its 
parents, the right of free movement and the right of parents to have a document which enables them to 
travel  with  the  child.  In  addition,  they  also  include  the  right  to  equal  treatment  with  citizens  of  the  host 
Member State as provided  for in  Art. 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC and in  Art.  7(2) of  Regulation (EU) No 
492/2011  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  5  April  2011  on  freedom  of  movement  for 
workers within the Union. EU citizens in free movement and their family members who fall within the scope 
of these provisions have a right to equal treatment with nationals of their host Member State within the scope 
of  the  Treaty,  which  includes  social  and  tax  advantages  (Cf.  judgments  Commission  v  Austria,  C-328/20; 
Meeusen,  C-337/97;  and  Even,  C-207/78).  For  example,  admission  to  education  (C-9/74,  Casagrande), 
scholarships (C-235/87, Matteucci) and reductions of public transportation costs for large families (C 32/75, 

5 

 
 
                                                 
 
law”, explained in fn. 33, is used in this impact assessment to delineate situations already 
covered by the CJEU’s case law. In V.M.A., the CJEU took an important step to ensure that 
the free movement of children with their families is not hindered. However, the judgment 
also  demonstrates  the  limits  of  EU  law  as  it  currently  stands  since  it  does  not  oblige 
Member States to recognise parenthood of a child for other purposes, namely for rights 
that  are  not  derived  from  EU  law34.  Therefore,  while  the  CJEU  judgments  on  free 
movement  of  persons,  and  partly  on  EU  citizenship,  imply  obligations  irrespective  of 
formal recognition of parenthood in the host Member State for some purposes35, Member 
States still apply their national law to recognise parenthood for other purposes. These other 
purposes  include  the  legal  status  of  persons  and  the  rights  derived  from  parenthood 
under Member States’ law, for example succession and maintenance rights. Measures 
are thus still needed to facilitate the recognition of parenthood for these other purposes. 

Simultaneously, the CJEU noted that such obligation does not undermine national identity 
of Member States or pose a threat to their public policy36. 

Another case, K.S.37, factually and legally similar to V.M.A., was brought before the CJEU 
in  2021.  The  recurring  nature  of  these  existing  problems  with  parenthood  recognition  is 
also  shown by the ECtHR case law38, by  petitions addressed to  the European Parliament 
and by  citizen letters addressed to  the Commission39. Also the Open Public Consultation 
(“OPC”)  demonstrates  that  improvements  are  still  possible  in  the  implementation  of  the 
legal  obligations  concerning the protection of  children’s rights  stemming  from  the CJEU 
and  ECtHR  case  law.  As  these  binding  obligations  do  not  need  to  be  implemented  in 
national statutory law and often are not, the application of the CJEU and ECtHR case law 
in individual cases is often left to national courts, which results in practical difficulties as 
the  case  law  requires  a  certain  outcome  without  specifying  how  recognition  should  be 
achieved.  As  a  result,  while  national  authorities,  in  particular  courts  must  follow  the 
obligations laid down in the case law, they struggle to come to a decision that balances the 
best  interests  of  the  child  and  the  policy  goals  of  their  Member  State.  The  reasoning 
applied  by  national  courts  to  strike  such  balance  in  their  decisions  is  therefore  highly 

Cristini) have already been recognised by the CJEU as a part of the rights derived from EU law. The CJEU 
has also decided on recognition of surnames in a number of cases (for example, C-148/02, Garcia Avello and 
C-41/15 Freitag).  
34 See fn. 33. 
35 Ibid.  
36 V.M.A., paras 56, 57. The recognition of the child-parent relationship does not undermine national identity 
or  pose  a  threat  to  the  public  policy  of  that  Member  State  since  it  does  not  require  the  Member  State 
concerned to provide, in its national law, for the parenthood of persons of the same sex, or to recognise, for 
purposes  other  than  the  exercise  of  the  rights  which  the  child  derives  from  EU  law,  the  child-parent 
relationship. 
37 Case C-2/21, Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich. 
38 See the ECtHR case law, fn. 29, 30. 
39  See  for  instance  petition No  0513/2016,  petition  No  0657/2020,  petition  No  0712/2020,  petition  No 
0911/2020, petition No 1038/2020, petition No 1056/2020, petition No 1179/2020, petition No 0214/2021, 
etc.  Cf.  also  the  Study  requested  by  the  PETI  committee  of  the  European  Parliament.  Tryfonidou  A., 
Wintemute, R. (2021). Obstacles to the Free Movement of Rainbow Families in the EU. These petitions and 
letters addressed to the institutions are only a tip of the  iceberg as regards problems with the recognition of 
parenthood across the EU, as arguably not all families would resort to using them. 

6 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                    
unpredictable40, which negatively affects legal certainty for cross-border families and often 
requires  that  families  have  to  appeal  before  national  courts  against  an  initial  refusal  of 
parenthood recognition41.  

2.2. 

1.2 

Political and policy context  

At EU level, the recognition of civil status has been on the Commission’s agenda for some 
years. Already  a 2010 Green Paper42 discussed whether it would be appropriate to adopt 
measures on the recognition of civil status records, including parenthood, issued in another 
Member State.  

More recently, following the Commission President’s announcement in her 2020 State of 
the  Union  speech  of  the  Commission’s  intention  to  propose  measures  to  improve  the 
recognition  of parenthood  among Member  States, this  commitment  was  confirmed in  the 
EU Strategy on the rights  of  the child43 and the LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-202544. 
The President’s political pledge for an initiative on the recognition of parenthood between 
Member States was also included in the 2022 Commission Work Programme under the 
policy ambition of A New Push for European Democracy45. 

The  Commission’s  commitment  to  adopt  a  proposal  on  the  mutual  recognition  of 
parenthood was welcomed by the European Parliament in its resolutions of 14 September 
202146 and of 5 April 202247. This is consistent with the long-term support by Parliament 
for an action in this area: e.g. in 2017, the Parliament adopted a resolution on cross-border 
aspects of adoption, highlighting a “clear need for European legislation to provide for the 
automatic  cross-border  recognition  of  domestic  adoption  orders”48.  Preliminary  views  on 
the  Parenthood  initiative*  were  exchanged  between  Member  States  at  the  Justice  and 
Home Affairs Council on 4 February 2022 and at a dedicated technical meeting organised 
by the Commission as part of its consultation strategy on the initiative49. 

40 Gössl S., Melcher M. et al.  (2022). Recognition of a status acquired abroad in the EU  – a challenge for 
national laws. Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional. Vol 14, No.1, 1012-1043.  
41 In contrast, a legislative text would provide much greater legal certainty as to the conditions and procedure 
under which the recognition of parenthood can be expected. 
42 European Commission (2010). Green Paper - Less bureaucracy for citizens: promoting free movement of 
public documents and recognition of the effects of civil status records, COM/2010/0747. Respondents to the 
2011 public consultation on the Green Paper (over 20 public authorities, 50 civil society groups and 11 000 
EU  citizens)  generally  viewed  the  recognition  of  parenthood  as  problematic  and  favoured  introducing  EU 
rules that would grant automatic recognition of parenthood. 
43 European Commission (2021). EU Strategy on the rights of the child, p.18. 
44 European Commission (2020). LGBTIQ Equality Strategy 2020-2025, p. 17.  
45 See Annex 1 of the Commission work programme 2022. COM(2021)645 final.  
46 European Parliament resolution of 14 September 2021 on LGBTIQ rights in the EU (2021/2679(RSP)). 
47 European Parliament’s  own initiative report - Protection of the rights of the child in civil, administrative 
and family law proceedings (2021/2060(INI)), adopted on 5 April 2022 by a vast majority of the Members of 
the Parliament. 
48  European  Parliament,  Resolution  of  2  February  2017  with  recommendations  to  the  Commission  on 
cross-border aspects of adoptions, 2015/2086(INL), para. 23.  
49 As to the consultations organised in the context of this impact assessment, see Annex 2.  

7 

 
 
 
                                                 
2.  2. 

PROBLEM DEFINITION 

Families are increasingly mobile as they move and travel between Member States50. Yet, 
given the differences in Member States’ laws, families may face difficulties in having the 
parenthood  of  their  children  recognised  when  crossing  borders  within  the  EU.  Through 
citizens’ complaints, petitions to the European Parliament51 and judicial proceedings52, the 
attention of the Commission has been drawn to the precarious situation that families face in 
these circumstances. Non-recognition in a Member State of the parenthood established in 
another  Member  State  (where  recognition  is  required  for  children  to  benefit  from  rights 
other  than  those  derived  from  EU  law53)  can  have  significant  adverse  consequences  for 
children  and  their  families  when  moving  to  another  Member  State  or  returning  to  their 
Member  State  of  origin.  Non-recognition  of  parenthood  may  have  a  negative  impact  not 
only on children’s rights, such as right to an identity, status and nationality but may also 
have  derived  legal,  economic  and  psychological  consequences  for  children  and  their 
families.  

The CJEU partially addressed the recognition of parenthood between Member States in the 
V.M.A. case  (see  Box 1). However, as this CJEU case law  only  obliges parenthood  to  be 
recognised  for  some  purposes,  families  will  continue  to  face  difficulties  in  cross-border 
situations  for  other  purposes,  such  as  civil  status  and  rights  derived  from  that  status 
(succession,  maintenance  rights,  parental  representation  rights  etc.).  Therefore,  where  a 
reference  is  made  in  this  report  to  the  problem  of  the  non-recognition  of  parenthood 
between  Member  States,  this  refers  to  non-recognition  for  purposes  other  than  the 
rights  derived  from  EU  law*,  including  the  recognition  of  civil  status  and  the  rights 
derived  from  that  status  under  national  law,  such  as  maintenance  or  succession  rights, 
parental representation rights etc.  

The drivers (or causes) of the problem with recognition of parenthood  are threefold: 
(i)  differences  in  Member  States’  laws  on  the  establishment  of  parenthood  (substantive 
rules and applicable law rules); (ii) differences in Member States’ rules on the recognition 
of  parenthood  established  in  another  Member  State54;  and  (iii)  the  lack  of  any  EU  or 
international rules on the recognition of parenthood that would have a wide material scope 
and apply to all Member States. These problem drivers together lead to situations in which 
families  may  face  situations  where  their  parenthood  legally  established  in  one  Member 
State is not recognised in another Member State.  

The main issue to be addressed is thus the non-recognition of parenthood in the EU55.  

The  need  for  the  recognition  of  parenthood  may  arise  in  the  presence  of  a  cross-border 
element in the family, in particular where children and their family previously resident in 
one  Member  State  move  or  intend  to  move  to  another  Member  State,  or  return  to  their 

50 See fn. 17. 
51 See fn. 39.  
52 See for instance the preliminary references to the CJEU in V.M.A. and K.S., or the ECtHR case law on the 
recognition of parenthood (fn. 29, 30). 
53 See fn. 33. 
54 For purposes other than the rights derived from EU law*. See fn. 33. 
55 Ibid. 

8 

 
 
                                                 
Member  State  of  origin,  or  simply  travel56  within  the  EU.  In  addition,  recognition  of 
parenthood  may  be  necessary  in  situations  where  a  family  resident  in  one  Member  State 
applies for documentation in the Member State of the nationality of the child57. 

In  the  majority  of  Member  States,  if  formal  recognition  of  parenthood  is  needed,  it  is 
entrusted  to  administrative  authorities,  such  as  civil  registrars58.  Most  Member  States 
reported  that  the  process  and  costs  for  the  recognition  of  parenthood  before  the 
administrative  authorities  are  not  burdensome  as  such59.  However,  should  recognition  be 
refused for any reason, the family may need to seek legal remedies, meaning that they need 
to appeal against the decision of the administrative authority before another administrative 
authority  or directly before the  national  courts of the  Member State where recognition  is 
sought.  In some cases, they may have to  go through several  court instances, even before 
constitutional  courts,  involve  human  rights  defenders  or  finally  file  a  complaint  with  the 
ECtHR.  All  these  legal  procedures  require  legal  counselling  and  are  burdensome,  costly 
and lengthy60. In the meantime, the rights of children are suspended and the outcome of the 
proceedings is uncertain.  

These lengthy, costly, and burdensome procedures following the initial non-recognition of 
parenthood may result in situations where either: 

- 
- 

the parenthood of a child established abroad is eventually recognised; or  
the parenthood of a child is eventually not recognised, despite the effort, costs, and 
burden of the litigation process.  

Given  the  unpredictable  outcome  of  these  lengthy,  costly,  and  burdensome  court 
proceedings, families may decide that they cannot afford initiating them in the first place 
and the parenthood of the child will thus remain not recognised61.  

Because  many  rights  and  obligations  are  derived  from  the  parenthood  status,  the 
recognition of parenthood in cross-border situations, particularly where a family moves to 
another  Member  State  or  returns  to  its  Member  State  of  origin,  ensures  that  the  child 
enjoys  the  same  rights  under  the  national  law  of  that  Member  State  as  other  children 

56 While recognition of parenthood is mostly needed in cases where family moves to another Member State, 
the need for recognition of parenthood may in some instances also arise when a family is travelling to another 
MS. For example, V.M.A. dealt, inter alia, with the need to ensure that the child be able to travel with each of 
her  parents  individually.  Other  example  may  arise  in  situations  of  medical  emergencies  abroad  where 
medical decisions concerning the child need to be made. Another case was described by a respondent to the 
OPC: “Every time we travel to Greece, we have to think that if something happens to me, the children will be 
considered orphans”. Moreover, as recalled by another OPC respondent, the recognition of family ties was 
also important during the COVID-19 pandemic when people were prohibited from crossing borders save for 
limited exceptions, such as reunification with family members. 
57 Illustrative examples of the problems experienced by families with the recognition of parenthood are given 
in Annex 7. 
58  On  the  other  hand,  e.g.  in  CZ,  it  is  the  courts  that  are  competent  to  recognise  parenthood  established 
abroad. Information based on Country reports*. 
59 See the table in Annex 6. 
60 More details about the costs borne by cross-border families in cases of non-recognition of parenthood are 
below and in Annex 4. 
61 There  may be several reasons for not pursuing a legal battle over the child’s  status, for instance reasons 
related to a lack of information or of legal advice, to a lack of financial resources, or to a wish to avoid the 
psychological burden of such proceedings on the child and family.  

9 

 
 
                                                 
residing  in  that  Member  State62.  Families  aware  of  the  parenthood  recognition  problems 
are faced with legal uncertainty and may fear that the parenthood of their child and rights 
derived from it might not be recognised in some Member States. As a result, they may be 
deterred from moving or travelling to these Member States, thereby possibly foregoing 
personal  and  professional  opportunities.  This  deterrent  effect  on  the  right  to  free 
movement,  although  its  size  cannot  be  quantified  exactly,  is  borne  out  by  the  OPC 
results63.  

The problem tree depicted below in Figure 1 shows how the problem of non-recognition of 
parenthood  arises  from  the  three  key  problem  drivers  (further  developed  in  Section  2.3 
below) and leads to various consequences (detailed in Section 2.2 below). 

Figure 1: Problem Tree  

2.3. 

2.1 

What is the problem? 

The  problem  addressed  in  this  report  is  the  non-recognition  in  a  Member  State  of 
parenthood established in another Member State. It may result in one of two outcomes: 
(i) after initial non-recognition of parenthood, parenthood is eventually recognised but only 
after lengthy, costly and burdensome procedures; and (ii) parenthood is not recognised in 
the  end  (possibly  despite  lengthy,  costly  and  burdensome  procedures).  This  second 
outcome is more serious, since it entails that the child is placed in the undesirable state of a 
limping  parenthood64  in  another  Member  State  for  an  indeterminate  period.  Under  both 

62 In this report, the recognition of parenthood refers only to the recognition of the child-parent status, not of 
the legal effects derived from such status. The rights and obligations flowing from parenthood are determined 
by  the  national law of each  Member State. These rights  usually include (but are not limited to) the child’s 
right to inheritance from each parent, the child’s right to maintenance from a parent, or rights related to legal 
representation of the child. For more details, see the Section 2.2 on the consequences of the problem. 
63 See below, the Section 6.2.1.1 Impact on the exercise of the right to free movement. 
64 In situations of non-recognition of parenthood, it is usually the parenthood of the non-biological parent that 
is not recognised. Children thus on paper lose at least one legal parent. In rare cases, the parenthood of both 
parents can be put in question, e.g. in some cases where a child was born through a surrogacy arrangement, 
especially where none of the intending parents is genetically connected to the child. See for instance ECtHR, 
Paradiso and Campanelli v. IT; or ECtHR, Valdís Fjölnisdóttir v. Iceland. 

10 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
scenarios, families face legal uncertainty as to whether or not their child’s parenthood will 
be recognised in another Member State. 

2.4. 

2.2 

What are the consequences of the problem?  

Non-recognition in a Member State of the parenthood established in another Member State 
can  have  significant  adverse  consequences  for  children  and  their  families.  These 
consequences  may  be  temporary  (until  the  parenthood  is  recognised  at  a  later  stage,  e.g. 
subsequent to a court decision) or lasting. 

 

Interference with children’s (fundamental) rights 

Where  authorities  in  one  Member  State  refuse  to  recognise  parenthood  established  in 
another  Member  State,  the  child’s  rights  derived  from  parenthood  may  be  denied. 
Non-recognition of parenthood can lead to either of the parents losing parental rights to act 
as  the  legal  representative  of  the  child  in  matters  such  as  enrolment  in  school,  various 
administrative procedures, opening of a bank account on behalf of the child, giving consent 
to  medical  treatment  or  authorising  the  child  to  travel  alone65.  As  a  result  of  the 
non-recognition of parenthood, the child may lose maintenance entitlements, succession 
rights, or the custody and visiting rights by the parent(s) whose parenthood has not been 
recognised.  The  OPC  confirms  the  existence  of  such  consequences  resulting  from  the 
non-recognition of parenthood66. 

Non-recognition  of  a  child’s  parenthood  also  has  negative  consequences  on  the  child’s 
fundamental rights, in particular the rights to respect for private and family life, and to 
non-discrimination67. Given that, under the Charter, the ECHR and the UNCRC, children 
have  a  right  to  have  a  relationship  with  each  of  the  persons  with  whom  they  have  an 
effective family life68, it is contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 7 
and 24 of the Charter to deprive them of the relationship with one of their parents because 
their parenthood was established in another Member State69. Indeed, as a general rule, the 
best interests of children entail maintaining family unity70, as well as their right to maintain 
on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both their parents, unless 
that is contrary to their interests. In addition, severing the parenthood links of children with 
their  parents  in  cross-border  situations  may  also  have  a  negative  impact  on  the  child’s 

65 59% of the OPC respondents indicated that where parenthood was not recognised, the parental rights to act 
as the legal representative(s) of a child were denied to parents. 
66 Indeed, in cases known to the OPC respondents where parenthood was not recognised, the child or parents 
were reportedly denied the following rights:  

the right to act as (a) legal representative(s) of a child (59% of respondents); 

(i) 
(ii)  child’s inheritance rights (29% of respondents); 
(iii)  custody  rights  (24%  of  respondents)  and  visitation  rights  to  a  child  by  a  parent  (17%  of 

respondents); 

(iv)  maintenance obligations (14% of respondents). 

67 Including discrimination by association on the basis of the sexual orientation of the child’s parents. 
68 See above the ECtHR case law or Articles 7(1) and 8(1) UNCRC.  
69 See paras. 59-65 of the V.M.A.  
70 See V.M.A. Opinion, para. 112, referring to Art. 24(2) and (3) of the Charter and other sources, including 
EU  secondary  law.  The  V.M.A.  Opinion  further  states  in  its  para.  126:  “Moreover,  the  right  to  respect  for 
family life is characterised, in essence, by the possibility of living together in conditions broadly comparable 
to those of other families. In other words, what is important in order to respect the essence of that right is to 
guarantee an effective family life.” 

11 

 
 
                                                 
right  to  an  identity71,  including  on  its  nationality  (when  in  national  law  nationality  is 
based on ius sanguinis)72 and – in spite of the clear CJEU case law - a surname73.74 

  Repercussions on the nationality of children and statelessness  

The  attribution  of  nationality  falls  within  the  competence  of  the  Member  States.  Where 
parenthood  of  children  is  not  recognised,  they  may  face  hurdles  in  obtaining  the 
nationality  of the  parent  whose parenthood  has not  been recognised75. This may  prevent 
the child from having access to the nationality of a Member State and thus, among others, 
to EU citizenship and rights attached to it. In some cases, the impossibility to determine the 
child’s nationality can render children born in the EU (temporarily) stateless or place them 
at risk of statelessness76. While cases of statelessness are rare77, the impact of statelessness 
can be severe. 

  Denial of rights related to education, healthcare, social security and taxation  

Where  authorities  in  one  Member  State  refuse  to  recognise  parenthood  established  in 
another  Member  State,  this  may  also  have  consequences  for  the  child  under  the  national 
law of the Member State in which recognition is sought. Where a family lacks necessary 
documents  as  a  result  of  parenthood  non-recognition,  a  parent  may  be  refused  access  to 
medical information about the child or even the right to be present in a hospital where a 

71  Indeed,  as  the  ECtHR  recalled  in  Mennesson  v.  FR,  para.  96:  the  respect  for  private  life  requires  that 
everyone be able to establish the details of their identity as human beings, which includes their parenthood. 
72  The  rules  governing  the  attribution  of  nationality  remain  a  Member  States’  competence.  In  many  MS,  a 
child acquires nationality based on the nationality of the child’s parent (descent-based, ius sanguinis). Hence, 
the conditions for acquiring nationality in these countries turn on the question of the parenthood of the child. 
Based on the Study by an external contractor*, parenthood is a prerequisite for being granted nationality in at 
least 17 MS. In contrast, this problem does not arise in ius soli countries, where nationality is granted by birth 
in their territory. 
73  With  respect  to  surname,  MS  are  obliged,  irrespective  of  any  recognition  of  parenthood,  to  recognise  a 
surname as it was legally acquired in another MS (see e.g. the CJEU case law C-148/02 Garcia Avello, and 
C-353/06  Grunkin-Paul). In addition, the  CJEU clarified in  V.M.A.,  para. 44, that the identity document or 
passport to be issued by the requested state should state the surname of the child as it appears on the birth 
certificate  drawn  up  by  the  state  of  birth  and  residence.  In  practice,  36%  of  OPC  respondents  indicated 
practical problems, i.e. that in the cases where parenthood was not recognised, nor was the child’s surname.  
74 The right to a name and nationality is protected under Art. 7 UNCRC. 
75  As  to  the  OPC,  52%  of  respondents  indicated  that  in  the  cases  where  parenthood  was  not  recognised,  a 
child was denied the issuance of documentation by the MS of nationality necessary to obtain documentation 
proving nationality of the child.  
76  As  happened  for  instance  in  the  K.S.  The  situation  of  stateless  children  raised  concerns  also  where 
surrogacy  is  involved  and  the  state  of  origin  of  the  intending  parents  prohibits  or  does  not  recognise 
surrogacy. Cf. Verona Principles, Principle 13 Prevention of statelessness, p. 22.   
77  Cases  where  children  are  rendered  stateless  as  a  result  of  the  non-recognition  of  parenthood  should  not 
occur when the MS comply with the  UN 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.  Most MS are 
parties  to  this  Convention  (with  the  exception  of  EE,  EL,  FR,  SI,  and  PL).  However,  according  to  the 
European  Network  on  Statelessness  in  the  OPC,  this  is  not  always  the  case:  “the  risk  of  statelessness  is 
heightened  because,  contrary  to  international  norms,  few  MS  have  a  full  safeguard  in  law  to  ensure  that 
children born in their territory who would otherwise be stateless can acquire the nationality of that MS. Even 
where  such  a  safeguard  is  in  place,  the  child  must  demonstrate  that  they  are  unable  to  acquire  any  other 
nationality. This poses a challenge for the child to provide evidence that they are effectively prevented from 
acquiring  another  nationality,  particularly  when  the  authorities  of  another  MS  do  not  explicitly  refuse  to 
acknowledge  that  the  child  is  a  national  of  that  country,  but  still  hinder  access  to  birth  registration 
certificates or identity documents.” (August 2021). 

12 

 
 
                                                 
child  is  hospitalised.  The  child  may  also  lose  the  rights  associated  with  having  a  legal 
relationship  with  a  sibling  (for  example,  the  right  to  be  enrolled  in  the  same  school).  In 
addition, the OPC results78 show that where parenthood was not recognised, some families 
faced  problems  with  the  access  to  family-  or  child-  related  social  or  tax  advantages79. 
Nevertheless,  the EU  acquis  grants  equal  treatment  to  EU citizens in free movement  and 
their family members with respect to these advantages80.  

 

Impact on exercising the right to free movement  

While the consultation activities showed that the right to free movement of families in the 
EU  is  one  of  the  most  commonly  compromised  rights  in  the  cases  of  non-recognition  of 
parenthood81,  a  positive  trend  can  be  expected  following  the  recent  V.M.A.  judgment.  In 
this and other cases concerning free movement, the CJEU specified several rights that EU 
citizens  must  be  allowed  to  exercise,  irrespective  of  any  recognition  of  the  underlying 
status82.  While  the  CJEU  case  law  provides  for  an  obligation  to  respect  these  rights,  it 
leaves the means to implement those obligations to Member States. Therefore, resorting to 
a  national  court  to  ensure  that  these  rights  under  EU  law  are  respected  may  still  be 
necessary even with respect to the rights derived from EU law83.  

More importantly, the lack of parenthood recognition (for purposes other than the exercise 
of  the  rights  derived  from  EU  law*)  may  deter  families  with  children  from  exercising 
their  right  to  free  movement  within  the  EU.  Failure  to  recognise  parenthood  by  a 
Member State and to grant children and their families rights derived from such status can 
create a serious obstacle to family life in that  country. These circumstances can no doubt 
deter a family from moving to that Member State and thus deter the exercise of the right to 
free  movement.  As  families  are  dissuaded  from  moving  or  returning  to  Member  States 
where  their  child-parent  link  may  not  be  preserved84,  the  number  of  requests  for 
parenthood  recognition  and  thus  the  number  of  cases  that  reach  the  courts  in  the  EU  are 

78 In cases known to the OPC respondents where parenthood was not recognised, the child or parents were 
reportedly denied:  
(i) 
(ii) 
(iii)  rights associated with having a sibling legal relationship (13% of respondents).  

social advantages (35% of respondents); 
tax advantages (24% of respondents); 

79  These  may  include  financial  advantages  or  for  instance  parental  leave  rights  or  access  to  housing  for 
families with children.  
80  See  fn.  33.  However,  the  recognition  of  such  rights  would  not  extend  for  example  to  third-country 
nationals who are not family members of EU citizens exercising free movement rights. 
81 42% of respondents to the OPC indicated that the non-recognition of parenthood by the MS of the child’s 
nationality had a negative impact on the right of issuance of passport or identity card for the child and 44% 
replied  that  the  right  of  a  parent  to  travel  alone  with  a  child  or  to  authorise  a  child  to  travel  alone  was 
impaired as a result of a non-recognition. 
82 See V.M.A. and fn. 33. 
83 Where the relevant CJEU case law is not clearly reflected in legislation at the national level, it may happen 
that public authorities requested to grant the rights derived from free movement may not sufficiently take it 
into  account,  especially  given  its  complexity  and  case-specific  nature.  As  announced  in  the  2020  EU 
Citizenship  Report  and  the  LGBTIQ  Equality  Strategy  2020-2025,  the  Commission  will  review  the  2009 
Free Movement Guidelines to improve legal certainty for EU citizens exercising their free movement rights, 
and to ensure a more effective and uniform application of the free movement legislation across the EU. 
84  Out  of  185  respondents  who  replied  to  this  question  in  the  OPC,  79%  stated  that  the  possible 
non-recognition  of  parenthood  has  dissuaded  the  family  from  travelling  within  the  EU  or  from  moving  to 
another MS. 

13 

 
 
                                                 
considerably  lower  than  the  actual  scale  of  the  problems  with  the  recognition  of 
parenthood85.  It  can  thus  be  reasonably  assumed  that  for  every  case  concerning 
non-recognition of parenthood that reaches a court, there is a multiplicity of similar cases 
where court action is not brought. 

All  the  above  problem  consequences  mostly  affect,  but  are  not  limited  to,  children  and 
families when they return or take up residence in a Member State that does not recognise 
their legal relationship and that simultaneously requires formal recognition of parenthood 
before granting some or all of the rights under national law – as illustrated in Figure 2. 

Figure 2: Number of Member States where formal recognition of parenthood established in another MS is a 
prerequisite for obtaining certain rights (Source: Study by an external contractor*) 

Being granted succession rights
Being granted maintenance entitlements
Acquisition of a nationality
Giving consent to medical treatment for a child
Being granted parental responsibility rights
The right to be enrolled in the same school as a sibling

  Psychological effects 

14
14

14

13

17

10

The  psychological  importance  of  parenthood  status  being  recognised  from  a  legal 
viewpoint  should  not  be  underestimated.  Non-recognition  of  a  family  relationship  can 
cause  serious  inconvenience  for  the  family  at  administrative,  professional  and  private 
levels  and  pose  serious  obstacles  in  daily  life.  The  uncertainty  about  the  status  may  in 
particular  give  rise  to  doubts  as  to  the  person’s  identity  or  the  accuracy  of  his  or  her 
declarations.  Such  “limping  parenthood”*  resulting  from  non-recognition  of  parenthood 
can  also  have  a  psychological  dimension,  as  children  and  their  families  faced  with 
parenthood  recognition  problems  are  likely  to  experience  emotional  distress.  Legal 
uncertainty concerning parenthood may also have a negative impact on the emotional and 
psychological wellbeing of children and of other member of their families. 

  Costs, time and burden of the recognition procedures  

The  costs  and  length  of  a  procedure  for  recognising  parenthood  vary  significantly.  All 
estimates in this section rely on  the methodology described in Annex 4 and are based on 
several  assumptions  detailed  Figure  8.  The  initial  recognition  procedure  typically  takes 
place before administrative authorities of a Member State and lasts in most cases (80%) up 
to 6 months86. The costs of such administrative proceedings borne by families vary greatly 

85 As ascertained from the consultations with NGOs representing rainbow families undertaken in the context 
of  this  IA,  one  of  the  main  reasons  as  to  why  the  numbers  of  parenthood  recognition  cases  that  reach  the 
courts in the EU are considerably lower than the real scale of the problem is the fact that families are deterred 
from  moving,  despite  possible  professional  and  personal  advantages,  to  MS  where  they  would  experience 
problems with the recognition of their family status. Other reasons for avoiding litigation on the recognition 
of parenthood are e.g. the inherent costs and impact of the litigation on the family. 
86 As an exception, there also seems to be MS, where even the initial phase of the recognition of parenthood 
happens before courts (e.g. CZ). 

14 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
and may include: i) administrative fees87;  ii) other  administrative  costs, such as those for 
translation  of  documents,  postal  costs  and  costs  for  further  supporting  documents  and 
evidence; and iii) costs for legal representation. The average overall costs for recognition 
procedures*, including fees and other administrative costs, was estimated at EUR 280 to 
EUR  475  per  case  on  average  in  non-problematic  cases  where  parenthood  is  recognised 
without further difficulty. However, the procedure for recognising parenthood before civil 
registries may only be the first step in the whole recognition procedure.  

is 

initially  refused,  non-recognition  of 
In  problematic  cases  where  recognition 
parenthood  may  lead  a  family  to  appeal  the  decision  on  the  matter  (whether  before 
administrative  authorities  or  before  courts).  This  may  result  in  a  long  legal  battle  before 
several  administrative  or  judicial  instances  with  uncertain  results.  These  additional 
proceedings involve further considerable time, costs and burden for citizens. The length of 
such  court  proceedings  seems  to  vary,  ranging  from  a  few  (2-4)  months  in  the  easiest 
cases to up to 1-3 years, with outliers of up to 5 years88. During these periods, the rights of 
the  children  affected  are  in  a  legal  limbo.  In  cases  in  which  parenthood  recognition  is 
initially  refused  and  additional  procedures  are  required,  the  overall  costs  for  recognition 
procedures*  and  hassle costs* borne by families  increase drastically.  The major  costs 
for  recognition  procedures*  lie  with  legal  representation,  which  is  necessary  in  complex 
cases, sometimes not only at the judicial stage but already at the administrative stage of  a 
recognition procedure89. The additional costs may include, in particular: i) court fees90; ii) 
other  costs,  such  as  those  for  translations  and  evidence  (e.g.  DNA  tests  and  expert 
opinions). The overall costs for recognition procedures* in problematic cases (both at the 
administrative  and  judicial  stage)  amount  on  average  to  between  EUR  2 916  and  EUR 
8 795 per case, as quantified in Annex 4 based on several  assumptions91. These costs for 
recognition  procedures  are  thus  on  average  almost  16  times  higher  than  for 
non-problematic  cases  (with  an  average  difference  of  EUR 5 478).  Moreover,  in  some 
outlier cases described in the OPC, the overall costs for recognition procedures reportedly 
reached  even  EUR  25 000.  Where  a  preliminary  question  is  referred  to  the  CJEU  or  the 
case  is  taken  to  the  ECtHR,  additional  costs  of  EUR  4 000  to  8 000  are  reported.  Were 
problems  with  parenthood  recognition  smoothened  out,  most  of  these  costs  would  not 
materialise.  Therefore,  the  costs  savings  would  be  considerable  for  families  that  are 
currently affected by the problems. 

Moreover,  the  procedures  for  the  recognition  of  parenthood  also  generate  costs  for 
recognition  procedures*  that  are  borne  by  public  authorities  dealing  with  such 
parenthood recognition procedures. These costs result first and foremost from the time and 
effort spent by the personnel of civil registry authorities and courts to consider and process 

87  Overall,  about  half  of  MS  collects  administrative  fees  of  variable  amounts  for  the  recognition  of 
parenthood (most are between EUR 20 and 50, and never above EUR 150). For the breakdown of fees for 
administrative and judicial proceedings per MS, see Annex 6. 
88  The  estimate  stems  from  the  consultation  with  22  civil  registrars  from  12  MS  (online  survey),  a 
comparative legal analysis and the Summary Report of the OPC, p. 16, 17. 
89 The average costs for legal representation are difficult to generalise as they vary case-by-case and country 
to  country.  For  the  purposes  of  the  report  and  based  on  the  consultations,  the  costs  for  legal  advice  in 
problematic cases were estimated to be on average EUR 500 to EUR 1 000 for legal advice in administrative 
proceedings and EUR 2 000 to EUR 8 000 for legal advice in court proceedings.  
90 Most Member States have court fees of variable amounts but rarely above EUR 250.  
91 See the detailed list of assumptions used in the report in Figure 8. 

15 

 
 
                                                 
the cases. The costs for recognition procedures where parenthood is not recognised are on 
average 24 times higher than those for non-problematic cases.  

In addition  to  the burden placed on families and public authorities by the lengthy, costly 
and  burdensome  proceedings  required  for  the  recognition  of  parenthood,  the  families 
whose family status  are  not  recognised  also face further  transactional  costs  and litigation 
costs in relation to rights, duties and entitlements derived from the parenthood status of the 
child (such as costs related to maintenance or inheritance disputes). 

2.5. 

2.3 

What are the problem drivers? 

The  problem  stems  from  (i)  diverging  Member  States’  laws  on  the  establishment  of 
parenthood in cross-border situations (substantive rules and applicable law rules), and (ii) 
diverging  Member  States’  rules  on  the  recognition  of  parenthood  established  in  another 
Member  State92.  In  addition,  (iii)  the  fact  that  there  are  no  legal  instruments  at  EU  or 
international  level  guaranteeing  the  recognition  of  parenthood  that  would  have  a  wide 
material scope and apply to all Member States is the last problem driver.  

As explained in Section 1, the national substantive law for the establishment of parenthood 
differs between Member States. Currently, there is a patchwork of inconsistent substantive 
family legislations in the various Member States. Each national law may therefore answer 
the question “who is the parent of this child?” differently. While this reflects the diversity 
of  cultural  and  social  values  of  the  Member  States  and  is  in  line  with  the  division  of 
competences  between  the  EU  and  the  Member  States,  it  may  raise  problems  when  the 
reality of a family is linked to more than one Member State.  

In situations with a cross-border element, Member States typically establish parenthood by 
determining the law applicable to the situation by reference to the connecting factor set out 
in  their  PIL  rules*.  Member  States’  PIL  rules*  may  differ  because  they  may  designate 
different laws (for example, the law of the nationality of the child or the law of the country 
where  the  child  has  its  habitual  residence)  to  establish  the  parenthood  of  a  child  in 
cross-border situations.  Moreover, in  a few Member States93, the courts  would not  apply 
foreign law to the establishment of parenthood in cross-border situations but directly their 
national substantive law, therefore refusing the application of a foreign law.  

Where  parenthood  is  established  in  one  Member  State,  a  family  may  request  another 
Member State to recognise the legal situation as such, usually by presenting a foreign birth 
certificate94. When it comes to the recognition of parenthood established abroad, Member 
States  usually  have  different  internal  rules  and  procedures  for  recognition  of  parenthood 
according to whether the recognition of parenthood is sought on the basis of a judgment or 
of  an  authentic  instrument*  (such  as  a  birth  certificate).  Some  Member  States  recognise 
parenthood automatically, just subject to certain  safeguards (such as public policy refusal 
ground)95.  Other  Member  States  determine  parenthood  de  novo  based  on  their  national 

92 For purposes other than the rights derived from EU law*. See fn. 33. 
93 CY, IE and generally also other countries whose legal systems are based on common law.  
94 Based on consultations with public registries, in vast majority of cases (about 99%), families use foreign 
birth certificates as a basis for the request for a parenthood recognition. This applies even in situations where 
parenthood has been initially established by a court decision.  
95 In the EU, NL applies this approach. 

16 

 
 
                                                 
rules  and  thus  accept  the  parenthood  determined  abroad  only  if  it  corresponds  with  the 
result achieved under their national rules96. Some Member States apply an applicable law 
test97, others apply a jurisdiction test98 and others apply both tests, and where parenthood 
established abroad has not been established in line with these tests, the recognition may be 
refused. The replies of national experts in the context of consultations undertaken to inform 
this  impact  assessment  confirm  that  this  variety  of  tests  used  for  the  recognition  of 
parenthood may render the procedure unpredictable for families.  

In  addition  to  these  tests,  all  national  laws  include,  as  an  additional  safeguard,  the 
possibility  to  refuse  recognition  on  the  ground  of  public  policy,  that  is  where  the 
recognition of the foreign status would conflict with essential principles of their domestic 
law99.  While,  in  some  Member  States,  recognition  may  be  refused  where  specific 
circumstances  of  an  individual  case  raise  a  public  policy  objection  (such  as  procedural 
irregularities  in  those  particular  proceedings),  other  Member  States  apply  it  more 
generally, for example to systematically refuse the recognition of same-gender parenthood. 
The often unforeseeable use by public authorities and courts of the public policy exception 
also  creates  uncertainty  for  the  parties  involved.  Sometimes  children  and  their  families 
have  to  go  up  to  the  CJEU  or  the  ECtHR  (and  back  to  the  national  systems)  to  achieve 
clarity  on  whether  their  status  will  be  maintained  after  crossing  a  border.  In  addition  to 
public  policy,  other  refusal  grounds  may  exist  under  Member  States’  national  law.  With 
respect to the recognition of judgments, Member States law provides for  both the refusal 
ground of public policy and other grounds for refusal100. In general, some Member States 
also apply special proceedings to the registration of a status established abroad which do 
not necessarily lead to the recognition of the underlying status. 

Therefore,  the  divergent  substantive  and  PIL  rules  on  the  establishment  of 
parenthood,  and  the  divergent  rules  for  the  recognition  of  parenthood  established 
abroad  are  the  main  drivers  causing  the  current  problems  with  the  recognition  of 
parenthood. The harmonisation of the jurisdiction rules and the applicable law rules for the 
establishment of parenthood in cross-border situations, and of the rules for the recognition 
of parenthood established in another Member State, would facilitate the recognition of the 
parenthood  established  in  another  Member  State  even  if  the  Member  States’  substantive 
rules  on  the  establishment  of  parenthood  and  on  the  definition  of  family  remained 
divergent. 

96  In  some  MS,  this  may  mean  always  applying  the  national  substantive  law  on  the  establishment  of 
parenthood. See fn. 93.  
97 This means that the public authorities of the MS of recognition apply the law that is applicable according 
to their national PIL rules and if the result achieved under their PIL rules does not coincide with the result 
shown in the document brought for recognition, they may refuse the recognition of parenthood. 
98  This  means  that  the  public  authorities  of  the  MS  of  recognition  examine  whether  the  authority  that 
established parenthood or issued the document recording parenthood had competence to do so according to 
the jurisdictional rules of their Member State. If it did not, the recognition may be refused.  
99 This means that where there is a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society 
in  the  particular  case  where  recognition  of  parenthood  is  requested,  Member  State  may  refuse  such 
recognition which is an affront to their public policy. See for instance V.M.A., para. 44. 
100  All  national  laws  also  provide  for  a  refusal  where  there  is  another  judgment  on  parenthood  conflicting 
with  the  one  presented  for  recognition.  Other  refusal  grounds  present  in  national  laws  of  MS  include  for 
example that the court lacked jurisdiction or that the principle of fair trial was not respected. 

17 

 
 
                                                 
In  addition  to  problem  drivers,  there  are  also  external  (or  contextual)  factors  that 
themselves do not cause the problem with the recognition of parenthood but can, however, 
influence  it.  These  include:  (i)  changing  family  models101;  (ii)  scientific  progress  in  the 
field of reproductive technology102; and (iii) increased mobility of families in the EU.  

2.6. 

2.4 

Who is affected by the problem?  

The main parties affected by the problem are cross-border families with children as well as 
public authorities (public administrations and the judiciary). 

  Children and their families  

The problems of non-recognition affect children and their rights in cross-border situations. 
However,  children’s  families  are  likewise  affected  –  whether  their  parents  or  other 
relatives. It is estimated that there are 1 235 000 mobile couples with children in the EU, 
meaning  an  estimated  number  of  4  452  135  mobile  parents  and  their  children  (see 
Annex 4103). The prevalence, intensity, and effects of the problem with the recognition of 
parenthood may differ on a case-by-case basis and depending on the family structure. 

In  cases  of  opposite-gender  parents,  problems  with  the  recognition  of  parenthood  would 
typically not result in the non-recognition of parenthood. The difficulties would be caused 
by  administrative  hurdles  and  costs,  such  as  the  need  to  provide  specific  documentation, 
expenses relating to translation, legal representation, DNA tests or the delays and costs for 
recognition  procedures  themselves.  The  main  focus  of  this  report  will  not  be  on  these 
administrative difficulties but on the instances in which parenthood was not recognised. 

Non-recognition  of  parenthood  affects  mostly:  (i)  children  of  same-gender  parents, 
whether  or  not  in  cases  of  surrogacy,  and  (ii)  children  of  opposite-gender  parents, 
especially (but not only) in cases of surrogacy. The problem materializes mostly vis-à-vis 
Member  States  where  these  ways  of  family  formation  are  not  legally  accepted  in  their 
national law104.  

  Rainbow families 

It is estimated that there are around 100 000 mobile LGBTIQ parents and their children 
in the EU105. The parenthood of children to same-gender couples can be legally established 
in  some  13  Member  States  in  EU-26  –  for  example  through  joint  adoption,  step-parent 

101  There  is  already  a  growing  range  of  family  models  in  the  EU,  including  for  instance  single-parent 
families,  families  with  unmarried  parents,  reconstituted  families  and  families  comprising  step-parents,  and 
rainbow families. In addition, the mean age when couples tend to have children is growing, which could lead 
to higher infertility rates. See Eurostat (2021). Women in the EU are having their first child later, and as to 
the  growing  infertility  rates,  see:  Hague  Conference  on  Private  International  Law  (2012).  A  Preliminary 
Report on the Issues Arising from International Surrogacy Arrangements, p. 6. 
102 For instance advances in assisted reproduction techniques (“ART”*), such as artificial insemination or in 
vitro fertilization, cryopreservation of sperm or embryos, embryo transfer, fertility treatments.  
103 The methodology to calculate this estimate is explained in Annex 4. The figures refer both to EU nationals 
and non-EU nationals and cover only couples with children and their children. They cover mobile families 
which represent the overwhelming majority of cases where parenthood recognition is needed and thus a good 
conservative basis for the following estimates (conservative since other cross-border situations not requiring 
mobility, although not frequent, would have to be added). 
104 For the general overview of the legal situations in MS, see the Study of an external contractor*. 
105 See the methodology for the estimates in Annex 4 of this report.  

18 

 
 
                                                 
adoption, or automatic co-parent establishment106. Other Member States do not provide for 
the establishment of parenthood of children to same-gender couples in their national law.  

Problems arise in cross-border situations where the parenthood of a child to same-gender 
parents legally established in one Member State in any of the above ways is not recognised 
in  other  Member  States107.  The  refusal  of  recognition  usually  happens  in  Member  States 
whose  domestic  law  explicitly  reserves  the  rights  related  to  adoption  and  parenting  to 
opposite-gender  couples  (or single parents). The  refusal  to  recognise  the  parenthood  of  a 
child  in  a rainbow family  in  those Member States is  thus  mostly based on  public policy 
and/or constitutional identity grounds. As a result, the children born to rainbow families 
may  be  effectively  deprived  of  the  legal  relationship  with  one  (or  both)  of  their 
parent(s)108. Ultimately, as explained above, many rainbow families may be deterred from 
moving  or  returning  to  Member  States  where  their  family  relationship  would  not  be 
preserved in some important respects. It has been found, based on the consultations in the 
context  of  this  impact  assessment,  that  most  rainbow  families  in  fact  avoid,  despite 
possibly foregoing personal or professional opportunities, situations where the recognition 
of parenthood would be necessary. This deterrent effect may thus affect a large number of 
rainbow families109. 

  Families with opposite-gender parents 

Children  of  opposite-gender  parents  may  also  encounter  instances  of  non-recognition  of 
parenthood,  albeit  less  frequently.  Given  for  instance  the  differences  in:  (i)  legal 
presumptions of parenthood in the Member States’ substantive laws, or (ii) the assessment 
of  any  possible  incidental  questions,  such  as  the  validity  of  the  marriage  or  registered 
partnership  of  the  parents,  each  Member  State  may  determine  parenthood  differently  in 
cross-border cases. Therefore, problems with the recognition of parenthood stemming from 
the  differences  in  national  (PIL)  laws  may  happen  to  families  in  relation  to  all  Member 
States. These recognition problems can usually be solved in court and/or through genetic 
(DNA)  testing  of  children.  While  these  cases  may  involve  initial  non-recognition  of 
parenthood,  they  would  typically  end  with  a  recognition,  but  possibly  after  a  lengthy, 
costly, and burdensome process.  

Box 2: Example of a problem scenario for opposite-gender parents (from Annex 7):  

A  child  is  born  to  a  married  woman,  a  national  of  Member  State  B,  who  is  habitually  resident  with  her 
husband (also a national of Member State B) in Member State A. The husband is aware that the child is not 
genetically his. Substantive family law of Member State A uses a common legal presumption that husband 
of  the  child’s  mother  is  the  father  of  the  child  and  thus  attributes  paternity  to  him.  The  couple  divorces 
several  years  later  in  the  Member  State  A.  To  avoid  maintenance  obligations,  the  husband  disproves  his 

106 AT, BE, DE, ES, FI, FR, IE, LU, MT, NL, PT, SE, and SI. See ILGA Europe (2021).  Rainbow Europe 
(rainbow-europe.org). Section Family. 
107  For  a  detail  account  of  cases  where  rainbow  families  experience  problems  with  the  recognition  of 
parenthood,  see  Study  requested  by  the  PETI  committee  of  the  European  Parliament:  Tryfonidou  A., 
Wintemute,  R.  (2021).  Obstacles  to  the  Free  Movement  of  Rainbow  Families  in  the  EU  and  document  by 
NELFA entitled “Freedom of Movement in the European Union: Obstacles, cases, lawsuits” (2020). 
108 In fact, in such situations, parenthood of one parent, the biological one, is usually recognised and the child 
loses, from the legal viewpoint, the other legal parent. 
109 Since it  is impossible to  measure the number of  families  effectively deterred under the  status quo from 
travelling and moving to another MS, it was assumed for the purposes of the quantification of the problems 
that all rainbow families could be potentially affected by this deterrent effect. 

19 

 
 
 
                                                 
paternity to the child during the divorce proceedings. However, according to the law of Member State A, a 
parent can only contest their legally established parenthood within two years after he became aware of the 
facts which indicate that the child may not be biologically his. Given the time bar on contesting parenthood 
in the national law of Member State A, the husband cannot contest his paternity and remains the legal parent 
of the child.   

Following the  divorce,  mother of the child  moves  with the child to Member State B. Her former  husband 
brings  proceedings  in  that  Member  State  for  the  non-recognition  of  his  paternity  to  the  child. There  is  no 
time  bar  on  challenging  paternity  under  the  national  law  of  Member  State  B  and,  with  the  help  of  DNA 
testing proving that the child is not genetically his, he is successful with his non-recognition action. 

As a result, the child has two legal parents from the perspective of Member State A and only one parent, the 
mother, from the perspective of Member State B.   

For further examples of problem scenarios, see Annex 7.  

The results of the OPC, as well as case law110, point to another group of families affected 
by difficulties with the recognition of parenthood: families with children born as a result 
of  surrogacy  arrangements.  Surrogacy  is  a  sensitive  issue  that  raises  ethical  questions. 
Several  EU  Member  States  prohibit  surrogacy  in  their  national  law.  Other  EU  Member 
States  do  not  regulate  surrogacy  –  neither  prohibiting  it,  nor  allowing  it.  Where  families 
resort  to  surrogacy  abroad  to  avoid  the  restrictions  on  surrogacy  practices  in  their  home 
Member State or for other reasons, they may face problems with having the parenthood of 
their  child  recognised  upon  return.  Despite  the  existence  of  the  ECtHR  case  law  on  the 
matter111,  it  appears  that  such  problems  do  persist  and  may  be  even  growing  in  number 
given the global increase of the surrogacy phenomenon112. The legal complications related 
to the recognition of parenthood established through surrogacy arrangements may include 
difficulties  with  getting  the  documentation  for  the  child,  a  need  for  emergency  travel 
documents, genetic (DNA) testing to prove the genetic parenthood of the genetic parent(s), 
or adoption by an intending parent. The number of surrogacy arrangements in EU Member 
States is rather low as compared to global surrogacy trends113. However, statistics relating 
to  surrogacy  are not  available, as there  are  generally no formal  reporting mechanisms114. 
Consequently,  the  number  of  families  encountering  problems  with  the  recognition  of  the 
parenthood of a child born out of surrogacy in another Member State is difficult to assess.  

  Public administrations and the judiciary 

In  addition  to  children  and  their  families,  the  public  administrations  and  the  judiciary  of 
Member  States  are  affected  by  the  current  problems,  especially  by  the  burden  and  costs 

110 See the ECtHR case law in fn. 29, 30. 
111  The  ECtHR  case  law  in  principle  concluded  that  the  child’s  right  to  respect  for  private  life  within  the 
meaning of Art. 8 of the ECHR requires that domestic law recognises the genetically-related intended parent 
(a father) of a child born through surrogacy abroad, while it has to provide a possibility of establishment of a 
legal child-parent relationship with the intended parent (mother) who became legal parent in accordance to a 
law of another state. Adoption may also serve as a means of establishing that relationship. See the ECtHR, 
Advisory Opinion. 
112 See Hague Conference on Private International Law (2012).  A Preliminary Report on the Issues Arising 
from International Surrogacy Arrangements, p. 6-8. 
113 Indeed, all but one example given in the OPC and accounting for problems concerning the recognition of 
parenthood of children born out of surrogacy related to such arrangements undertaken in third countries. 
114  The  data  is  not  collected  neither  at  national,  nor  at  European  level.  Any  estimates  may  be  further 
complicated  by  the  fact  that  birth  certificates  often  do  not  record  the  fact  that  a  child  was  born  through  a 
surrogacy  arrangement.  Annex  4  refers  in  greater  detail  to  data  available  to  the  Commission  concerning 
surrogacy arrangements undertaken in the EU. 

20 

 
 
                                                 
generated  as  a  result  of  the  persisting  difficulties  with  the  recognition  of  parenthood  and 
the legal uncertainty115. 

2.7. 

2.5 

The scale of the problem  

The  scale  of  the  problem  can  be  defined  by  the  number  of  mobile  parents  and  their 
children affected by the non-recognition of parenthood. This number amounts to estimated 
103 000 people, the vast majority of which corresponds to same-gender parents and their 
children.  This  figure  should  be  taken  with  caution  as  it  is  quantified  based  on  several 
estimates  (as  to  which,  see  Annex  1  and  Annex  4)116.  Notably,  the  number  of  persons 
affected  by  the  problems  with  the  parenthood  recognition  would  be  higher  than  the 
estimate  made,  if  the  methodology  also  considered  single  parents  with  children117  and 
families that have more than two children.  

Nevertheless,  the  quantitative  size  of  the  problem  in  terms  of  the  absolute  number  of 
children and their families affected should not be considered as the prime or only indicator 
of  the  seriousness  of  the  problem,  or  as  the  basis  to  assess  the  need  for  the  EU  to  take 
action  to  address  the  problem.  This  is  because,  where  the  parenthood  of  a  child  is  not 
recognised,  severe  violations  of  the  child’s  fundamental  rights  take  place.  Under 
international  law,  EU  law  and  Member  States’  law,  all  children  without  distinction  are 
granted  the  same  rights.  Situations  in  which  the  children’s  fundamental  rights  are  not 
respected  in  cross-border situations pose  a  grave problem  in the  EU, which has set  itself 
the objective of creating, maintaining and developing an area of justice in which the free 
movement of persons is ensured. 

2.8. 

2.6 

How likely is the problem to persist? 

The definitions of parenthood and family have undergone rapid developments in the recent 
decades and these developments will continue. Member States are reacting and several are 
planning to revise or are revising their substantive and PIL rules* on parenthood118. These 
changes  may  increase  or  decrease  the  parenthood  recognition  problems  depending  on 

115 As revealed by the replies of public authorities to the OPC, mostly affected seem to be those from larger 
cities.  
116 As further detailed in Annex 4, since relevant data that would allow exact quantification of the problem is 
not collected, the estimate had to rely on several assumptions, for instance: (i) the number of mobile rainbow 
families in the EU and the assumption that all may in principle be affected by the deterrent effect resulting 
from  the  possible  parenthood  non-recognition;  (ii)  the  number  of  mobile  opposite-gender  parents  and  their 
children affected by the problems - whether due to the fact that parents had a recourse to surrogacy or due to 
other issues resulting  from the differences in Member States substantive and PIL rules.  Moreover, (iii) the 
methodology only considered couples  with children. Should also single parents  with children in relation to 
which  parenthood  is  not  recognised  be  considered,  the  number  of  affected  people  would  grow  further. 
Finally, (iv) the Eurostat data used as a basis for quantifying the number of children in cross-border families 
only included information about ‘families  with  more  than 2 children’,  without a detailed breakdown of the 
actual  number  of  children.  Therefore,  it  was  assumed  that  these  families  have  exactly  two  children.  If  the 
actual  number  of  children  in  these  families  could  be  determined,  the  number  of  affected  children  would 
further increase. 
117  For  an  example  of  a  problem  affecting  a  single  parent  and  his  child,  see  e.g.  judgment  of  the  Polish 
Supreme Administrative Court of 10.9.2020, No. II OSK 1390/18. 
118 According to the Country reports*, about half of the MS are (considering) amending their law in the area 
of parenthood. These changes mostly concern laws regarding surrogacy and its cross-border aspects as well 
as the recognition of parenthood established abroad in general. 

21 

 
 
                                                 
whether the national approaches to parenthood matters would be more or less convergent 
as a result of these changes. In any case, these changes to national law would not tackle the 
parenthood recognition problems.  

The consultations undertaken in the context of this impact assessment confirmed that the 
problems would indeed continue or increase119. The increased incidence of the problem in 
the future is also caused by the external factors, such as the greater diversity of families120, 
(likely)  leading  to  a  greater  divergence  of  national  family  laws;  future  advances  of 
reproductive  technology121;  or  growing  mobility  of  persons  in  the  EU.  The  mobility  of 
persons in the EU was influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic in the short term; however, 
as the situation will normalise after the pandemic, the mobility of families in the EU will 
continue growing (estimated 5% of citizens will be mobile in 2032). It is projected that the 
number of mobile couples with children will increase in the future and reach 1 936 558 in 
EU-26 in 2032, a 57% rise over 2020 estimates122. This will further increase the need for 
the  recognition  of  parenthood  abroad.  The  number  of  cross-border  families  experiencing 
problems with parenthood recognition in another Member State is also likely to increase, 
depending on the development of the other factors influencing the scale of the problem.  

With  the  possible  exception  of  the  HCCH  Parentage  /  Surrogacy  Project*,  there  are 
currently no international policy initiatives aimed to address all aspects of the recognition 
of parenthood (for details about the Project and why it does not eliminate the need for an 
action  concerning  recognition  of  parenthood  at  EU  level,  see  Section  3  below).  The 
problem  could  also  be  partially  mitigated  by  future  legislative  changes  at  national  level 
aimed to address the problems of parenthood recognition, and by strategic litigation efforts 
before national courts, the ECtHR and the CJEU, which could bring about more guidance 
and impose further obligations on Member States  regarding the  continuity of parenthood 
across borders. The guidance and obligations might be, however, implemented to diverging 
extents in the Member States. 

Overall,  in  the  reference  period  of  2022-2032,  cross-border  families  in  the  EU  would 
continue facing the risk that their parenthood would not be recognised (for purposes such 
as civil status and rights derived from it).  

3.  3.  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

2.9. 

3.1 

Legal basis 

The  aim  of  the  legislative  initiative  would  be  to  facilitate  the  recognition  of  parenthood 
between Member States. As in other EU instruments concerning family law, this would be 

119  All  13  national  ministries  that  replied  to  the  questionnaire  from  an  external  contractor*  indicated  that 
problems with the recognition of parenthood established abroad would continue in the future, seven of them 
further  noting  that  the  problems  were  likely  to  increase.  The  pressure  that  these  persisting  problems  and 
related disputes will likely put on the countries’ judicial system was also highlighted. The perception that the 
problems will continue or increase was also shared by the majority of the civil registrars (57%) that replied to 
the questionnaire circulated by the external contractor*. 
120 See fn. 101. 
121 See fn. 102. 
122  See  the  methodology  detailed  in  Annex  4  of  this  report.  Using  the  current  child  birth  rates,  this  would 
translate into approximately 3.1 mil. children of the mobile couples in EU-26 by 2032. 

22 

 
 
 
                                                 
done through the harmonisation of the Member States’ rules on private international law, 
that  is,  the  rules  on  international  jurisdiction,  applicable  law  and  the  recognition  of 
parenthood. Indeed, while the competence on substantive family law (such as the rules on 
the  definition  of  family  or  on  establishing  someone’s  parenthood)  lies  with  the  Member 
States,  pursuant  to  Article  81(3)  TFEU  the  EU  has  competence  to  adopt  measures  on 
family  law  with  cross-border  implications,  including  the  harmonisation  of  the  Member 
States’  PIL  rules*.  In  this  area,  the  EU  has  a  shared  competence  with  Member  States. 
Measures  pursuant  to  Article  81(3)  TFEU  must  be  adopted  through  a  special  legislative 
procedure  whereby  the  Council  acts  unanimously  after  consulting  the  European 
Parliament.  

The measures adopted by the EU under Article 81(3) TFEU to facilitate the recognition of 
parenthood  between Member States  will not  change the substantive  rules of the Member 
States  on  the  definition  of  family  or  on  the  establishment  of  parenthood  and  will  thus 
respect the Member States’ exclusive competence in substantive family law. 

2.10.  3.2 

Necessity and added value of EU action 

  Possible action by Member States  

The  problem  of  non-recognition  of  parenthood  and  its  consequences  have  an  EU 
dimension.  The  problem  with  the  recognition  in  one  Member  State  of  the  parenthood 
established  in  another  Member  State  is  cross-border  by  its  very  nature,  since 
(non-)recognition  requires,  by  definition,  the  involvement  at  least  of  two  states. 
Furthermore, problem consequences may deter children and their families from exercising 
their  right  of  free  movement.  Since  the  problem  described  in  Section  2  stems  from  the 
fragmentation  of  national  rules  regarding  cross-border  aspects  of  parenthood,  any 
uncoordinated  action  at  the  level  of  Member  States  that  would  not  have  a  harmonising 
effect on these rules and would not be capable of effectively and comprehensively tackling 
the  problem.  The  cross-border  nature  of  the  problem  means  that  it  cannot  be  solved  by 
means of national measures.  

The  aim  of  the  proposal  is  to  facilitate  recognition  through  the  adoption  of  harmonised 
rules on jurisdiction and applicable law. Member States cannot  by themselves harmonise 
the  currently  diverging  Member  State  rules  on  these  matters.  Only  EU  intervention  can 
effectively facilitate the recognition of parenthood between Member States, ensure mutual 
trust  between  them  and  legal  certainty  and  predictability  in  matters  of  parenthood  in  the 
EU,  while  reducing  costs  and  burden  of  the  recognition  procedures  for  cross-border 
families  and  public  authorities.  Therefore,  the  objectives  of  the  Parenthood  initiative,  by 
reasons of its scope and effects, would be best achieved at EU level in accordance with the 
principle of subsidiarity. 

  Possible action at international level  

A separate question also arises as to why the problem should be tackled at the EU level as 
opposed to finding a global international solution.  

As  indicated,  the  HCCH  is  currently  working  on  the  HCCH  Parentage/Surrogacy 
Project*.  An  expert  group  is  currently  examining  the  feasibility  of  an  international 
convention  on  the  recognition  of  legal  parentage  and  an  additional  protocol  concerning 
ISAs*. A global approach ensuring the recognition of decisions on parenthood would be an 
efficient means for ensuring the best interests of children worldwide. However, the Project, 

23 

 
 
while having started more than 10 years ago, is still in its preparatory phase as the HCCH 
members  are  still  to  decide  on  its  feasibility.  Given  the  marked  differences  between  the 
rules on parenthood among countries in the world, it may take considerable time before a 
consensus on an international instrument can be reached by all HCCH members and even 
longer before such an instrument is widely ratified.  

Since  EU  Member  States  share  a  similar  socio-cultural  framework  and  a  higher  mutual 
trust  than  with  third  countries,  any  instrument  concerning  the  recognition  of  parenthood 
can  garner  consensus  more  easily  among  EU  Member  States  than  among  all  HCCH 
members. This is supported by the recent CJEU ruling in  V.M.A., which already requires 
that  Member  States  recognise  parenthood  established  in  another  Member  State  for  some 
purposes123,  and  by  the  ECtHR  case  law  concerning  the  protection  of  private  and  family 
life in the context of the recognition of parenthood.  

4.  4. 

OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

The following objectives reflect the problem identified in Section 2 and set out goals which 
the policy options aim to achieve.  

2.11.  4.1 

Overall objective 

The overarching objective of the EU action is to create, maintain and develop an area of 
freedom, security and justice in which the free movement of persons is ensured.  
To achieve this  overall  objective enshrined in  the EU Treaties124, further objectives have 
been identified.  

2.12.  4.2 

General objective 

The  general  objective  of  the  initiative  is  to  facilitate  the  recognition  of  parenthood 
between Member States (“General policy objective”).  

2.13.  4.3 

Specific objectives 

To  achieve  the  general  objective,  it  is  essential  to  remove  or  significantly  reduce  the 
obstacles  to  the  recognition  of  parenthood  between  Member  States.  Thus,  three  specific 
objectives have been set, which correspond to the identified consequences of the problem: 

  Ensure  respect  for  the  fundamental  rights  of  children  in  matters  concerning 

parenthood recognition (“Specific policy objective 1”);  

  Ensure  legal  certainty,  predictability,  and  continuity  of  parenthood  (“Specific  policy 

objective 2”);  

  Reduce costs and legal and administrative burden for families, public administrations 

and courts (“Specific policy objective 3”). 

All  three  specific  objectives  are  mutually  compatible  and  attaining  any  one  of  them  also 
contributes  to  achieving  the  others.  These  objectives  should  be  achieved  within  the 

123 See fn. 33. 
124  See  Art.  3(2)  of  TEU providing  that  the  EU  should  create  an  area  of  freedom,  security  and  justice  and 
Art. 67 to 89 TFEU titled Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. 

24 

 
 
                                                 
reference  period  (2022-2032)  or,  depending  on  the  date  of  adoption  of  the  Parenthood 
initiative, in a reasonable time after that adoption. 

Since the EU action primarily aims at  safeguarding the fundamental  rights  of children in 
cross-border  situations,  the  first  specific  objective  (Ensure  respect  for  the  fundamental 
rights of children in matters concerning parenthood recognition) is the main driving force 
behind the Parenthood initiative.  

Figure 3: Intervention logic 

5.  5.  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

The following policy options will be considered:  

•  Option 0:  

Baseline scenario 

•  Option 1: 

Commission recommendation addressed to Member States 

•  Option 2:  

Legislative measure: proposal for a Regulation on the recognition of 
parenthood between Member States 

•  Sub-option 2.a: proposal for a Regulation on the recognition of parenthood 
between  Member  States  including  only  rules  on  the  recognition  of  court 
decisions 

•  Sub-option 2.b: proposal for a Regulation on the recognition of parenthood 
between  Member  States  including  rules  on  the  recognition  of  both  court 
decisions and authentic instruments*  

(The choice between both sub-options is detailed in Annex 5). 

•  Option 3:  

Legislative measure: proposal for a Regulation on the recognition of 
parenthood  between  Member  States  (policy  option  2),  including  in 
addition a European Certificate of Parenthood. 

25 

 
 
 
 
The  policy  options  would  not  affect  the  rights  that  a  child  derives  from  Union  law,  in 
particular  the  rights  that  a  child  enjoys  under  Union  law  on  free  movement,  including 
Directive 2004/38/EC. Under the baseline and  all policy options, CJEU and ECtHR case 
law would also continue to further evolve in the future. Under the baseline and all policy 
options,  Member  States  could  also  make  changes  to  their  national  law  regarding 
parenthood  and  participate  in  international  initiatives,  for  instance  in  the  context  of  the 
HCCH Parentage/Surrogacy Project*. 

All  policy  options,  including  the  baseline  option,  would  also  include  certain 
“non-legislative measures”, e.g. to raise awareness, promote good practices and improve 
cooperation  among  public  authorities  dealing  with  parenthood  issues.  Introducing 
non-legislative measures was also supported by a majority of stakeholders and authorities 
consulted125. These non-legislative measures would be, for instance: 

  organising thematic meeting(s) on the topic of the recognition of parenthood in the 
framework  of  the  EJN-civil*.  Such  thematic  meeting(s)  could  be  aimed  at 
exchanging  information,  pursuing  the  joint  analysis  of  existing  problems  and 
possible  solutions  thereto  and  developing  practical  solutions  and  good  practices. 
This  can  be  done  under  all  policy  options,  including  the  baseline.  In  addition, 
should  legislation  on  the  recognition  of  parenthood  be  adopted  by  the  EU  (under 
one  of  the  legislative  policy  options),  EJN-civil  would  be  tasked  with  facilitating 
the practical application of the legislation (as is the case for other EU legislation on 
civil law with cross border aspects); or 
including a section in the e-Justice Portal describing the national law of Member 
States  concerning  the  establishment  (and  recognition)  of  parenthood  in  order  to 
provide  clear  information  to  the  public  and  to  legal  practitioners  about  the 
applicable rules and procedures.  

 

2.14.  5.1 

What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 

Under the baseline scenario (Policy option 0), the European Union would make no policy 
change  to  address  the  existing  problems  with  the  recognition  of  parenthood  between 
Member  States  during  the  reference  period  (2022-2032).  The  Commission  could 
nevertheless  undertake  some  non-legislative  measures  (see  above),  since  exchanging  on 
the  topic  in  the  context  of  EJN-civil*  requires  no  change  of  the  current  policy126.  All 
international and EU instruments in the family-law area will continue to exist and the case 
law  of  the  CJEU  and  the  ECtHR  will  continue  to  oblige  Member  States  to  recognise 
parenthood  for  some  purposes  but  not  for  others.  Further  case  law  may  emerge  in  the 
future, as families will need to resort to litigation to protect the rights of their children and 
prevent situations of limping parenthood*127.  

Expected impact of the baseline scenario 

125  A  vast  majority  of  all  stakeholders  and  public  authorities  consulted  agreed  that  promoting  cooperation 
between public authorities would be beneficial to improving understanding of the problems and would help 
to find common solutions with a view to avoiding limping parenthood*. Their views however differed as to 
whether these non-legislative actions should be the only measure taken at EU level or whether they should 
accompany a legislation.  
126 While EJN-civil* meetings can help to raise awareness about the problems and possibly mitigate some of 
their consequences, they will not tackle the problem of non-recognition as such. 
127 E.g. the interpretation of the right to lead a normal family life could be further developed by the CJEU.  

26 

 
 
                                                 
A majority of respondents to the OPC (54%) stated that the current status quo is a serious 
problem.  This  proportion  was  even  higher  among  respondents  being  aware  of  cases  in 
which parenthood was not recognised (91% of these respondents considered the status quo 
to  be  a  serious  problem)128.  Without  any  action  at  the  EU  level,  the  problem  of 
non-recognition  of  parenthood  in  the  EU  would  persist  and  is  even  expected  to  grow 
between now and 2032, given the anticipated increase in the mobility of families and the 
influence of social, scientific and demographic changes on national family law. As a result, 
the  consequences  of  the  problem  would  keep  affecting  negatively  the  rights  and 
psycho-social wellbeing of children and their families. Indeed, the negative impact on the 
rights  of  children  and  their  family  members  (including  the  fundamental  rights  of 
children  and  civil-law  rights  such  as  the  right  to  maintenance  or  succession  etc.), 
psychological  impact  and  impact  on  exercising  free  movement  rights  are  expected  to 
continue and even increase. The persisting difficulties with the recognition of parenthood 
would  also  continue  to  cause  delays129  in  the  procedures  and  generate  costs  for 
recognition  procedures*  and  hassle  costs*  for  all  the  persons  involved.  The  costs  for 
recognition  procedures  were  estimated  based  on  methodology  detailed  in  Annex  4.  They 
are  based  on  several  assumptions  (detailed  in  Figure  8)  and  should  thus  be  taken  with 
caution. 

Figure 4: Estimated costs for recognition procedures* (EUR million) 
Lower bound* 
668 
603  
1 271 

Estimated costs for 
   - cross-border families 
 - public authorities 
Total 

Upper bound* 
1 299 
686 
1 985 

2.15.  5.2 

Description of the policy options 

Several policy options can be envisaged. The aim of any EU action, whether legislative or 
soft law, would be to meet the policy objectives, in particular to facilitate the recognition 
of parenthood between Member States and to ensure the protection of children’s rights in 
cross-border situations.  

The Parenthood initiative would focus on the recognition of parenthood of both  children 
and adults130. All possible measures envisaged under the Parenthood initiative would have 
the  protection  of  the  children’s  rights  and  their  best  interests  as  their  primary 
consideration.  The  scope  of  all  policy  options  should  be  broad  enough  to  cover  all 
children  affected  by  the  problems  with  the  recognition  of  parenthood,  regardless  of 
their  type  of  family.  This  should  ensure  that  all  children  are  treated  equally  and  all 
enjoy  equally  the  same  rights  under  a  possible  EU  measure.  Nonetheless,  as  the 
protection  of  children  in  the  context  of  intercountry  adoptions*  is  already  sufficiently 
governed by the HCCH 1993 Intercountry Adoption Convention among all Member States, 

128  In  contrast,  24%  of  OPC  respondents  stated  the  status  quo  does  not  constitute  a  problem.  See  the 
Summary Report of the OPC in Annex 9. 
129 The length of recognition procedures would remain constant, administrative proceedings would be mostly 
concluded  within 6 months and court proceedings,  wherever they  would be  necessary, would range  from a 
few (2-4) months in the easiest cases to up to 1-3 years, with outliers of up to 5 years.  
130 See the definition of the term “child” in the Glossary. 

27 

 
 
 
                                                 
intercountry adoptions could be left out of scope of a possible EU action131. By contrast, 
the  Parenthood  initiative  would  cover  the  recognition  of  parenthood,  as  established  by 
domestic adoption* (including both full and simple adoptions*), since the recognition of 
parenthood established through domestic adoptions is not yet regulated in any international 
or EU instrument132.  

The policy options, especially the legislative ones, would lay down rules applicable to the 
recognition of court decisions given and authentic instruments drawn up after the date of 
application of the instrument. In addition, the temporal scope could be extended, subject to 
certain  conditions,  to  the  recognition  of  parenthood  established  before  the  date  of 
application of the new instrument133.  

Moreover,  all  policy  options  will  only  concern  the  recognition  of  parenthood  between 
Member States (territorial scope), that is, they would not harmonise the rules governing 
the recognition of court decisions or authentic instruments on parenthood issued in a third 
country. The recognition of such documents would thus continue to be subject to Member 
States’  national  law.  The  Parenthood  initiative  would  in  principle  apply  to  all  Member 
States, except Denmark134.  In addition,  Ireland would only be covered by the legislative 
policy options if it decides to opt in135. The Parenthood initiative would not be based on 
the nationality of the people but on whether the court decision or authentic instrument on 
parenthood  has  been  issued  by  the  authorities  of  a  Member  State136.  It  would  thus  apply 
both to EU citizens and also non-EU citizens.  

Since the recognition of parenthood would only concern the recognition of the child-parent 
status, the policy options will not deal with the legal effects derived from that status under 
the  Member  States’  national  law  (for  example  parental  responsibility,  inheritance  rights, 
nationality  etc.).  These  rights  and  obligations  will  continue  to  be  determined  by  the 
national substantive and PIL rules of each Member State, subject to their obligations under 
EU  law  and  case  law,  but  following  parenthood  recognition,  such  rights  will  become 
equally applicable as for citizens who had their parenthood established domestically. The 

131 The possible exclusion of intercountry adoptions from the scope of the  policy options  would also be in 
line  with  the  proportionality  principle  and  the  objective  not  to  unintentionally  undermine  the  HCCH  1993 
Intercountry Adoption Convention. The HCCH Parentage/Surrogacy Project* also took that approach in the 
preparation of a draft Convention on legal parentage. See e.g. HCCH. Prel.Doc. No 2a of July 2021.  
132 The desirability and added value of an EU legislation in the area of domestic adoptions was endorsed by 
the  European  Parliament  through  its  Resolution  of  2  February  2017  with  recommendations  to  the 
Commission on cross border aspects of adoptions, 2015/2086(INL). Notably, the accompanying EAVA report 
on  the  recognition  of  adoptions*  notes:  “As  legislation  currently  stands,  within  the  EU,  there  is  no  legal 
protection  or  guarantee  that  domestic  adoptions  lawfully  carried  out  in  one  EU  Member  State  will  be 
recognised  in  another.”,  and  eventually  concludes  that  the  cost  resulting  from  lack  of  EU  rules  on  the 
recognition of adoption decisions is estimated to amount to approximately EUR 1.65 million per annum. 
133  For  instance,  it  was  discussed  in  the  COM  Expert  Group  that  the  scope  of  the  Regulation  could  be 
extended  to  apply  to  documents  relating  to  situations  predating  the  date  of  application  of  the  instrument 
subject  to  certain  conditions,  e.g.  compliance  with  provisions  equivalent  to  the  rules  on  jurisdiction  and 
applicable law laid down in the Regulation. 
134 See the explanation of Denmark’s opt-out in fn. 5. 
135 In accordance with Protocol (No 21) on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the 
area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the Treaties, IE would only be covered if it decides to opt in. 
136 I.e. a possible legislative initiative would cover for instance a birth certificate issued by BE authorities for 
a Canadian child who is born in BE and seeks recognition of its BE birth certificate in FR.  

28 

 
 
                                                 
legal effects of a recognised parenthood should nevertheless coincide with those that other 
children in that Member State derive from their parenthood status. 

  Option  1:  Commission  recommendation  addressed  to  the  Member  States 

(“PO1”) 

In line with Article 292 TFEU, the Commission can adopt a Commission recommendation 
addressed to the Member States (“Recommendation”).  

Under  this  option,  the  Commission  would  suggest  to  Member  States,  in  the  form  of  a 
Recommendation,  uniform  rules  on  the  establishment  of  parenthood  in  cross-border 
situations  and  on  the  recognition  of  parenthood.  The  recommended  measures  would  be 
similar to those that could be adopted in the form of a binding legislation under the Policy 
Option 2 and would include: (i) jurisdiction rules; (ii) applicable law rules; and (iii) rules 
on the recognition  of parenthood.  However, the  difference  between the legislative option 
and this soft law option is that the latter is not binding and directly applicable. Under PO1, 
Member  States  would  need  to  amend  their  national  law  so  as  to  adopt  the  uniform  rules 
proposed  in  the  Recommendation,  but  they  would  not  be  legally  required  to  do  so  as 
recommendations are not binding.  

Unless the Recommendation were effectively implemented by all Member States within a 
reasonable  timeframe,  the  heterogeneity  of  the  rules  concerning  parenthood  with 
cross-border element would persist and continue to cause problems in the future. If some 
but not all Member States implemented the Recommendation, this could result in partial 
increased coherence between national rules on the PIL aspects of parenthood and mitigate 
slightly  the  incidence  of  problems.  However,  it  would  be  decisive  how  many  and  which 
Member States take up the Recommendation137. Even in a very optimistic scenario where 
the Recommendation were implemented by 50% of Member States, the positive impact of 
the Parenthood initiative would be unevenly realised across the EU, and the situations of 
limping  parenthood*  and  deterrence  of  families  from  exercising  their  right  to  free 
movement  would  continue  in  the  EU.  The  problem  with  the  recognition  of  parenthood 
would thus not be solved. In fact, it is highly unlikely that the positive scenario of a 50% 
uptake would actually materialise as Member States have limited incentives to change their 
existing  national  law  in  line  with  a  Recommendation.  This  conclusion  is  based,  among 
others,  on  past  experience  with  Recommendations  to  Member  States  in  the  area  of  civil 
justice138 and on the limited interest shown by Member States in this policy option during 
the consultations. Finally, the lack of certainty that all Member States will implement the 
Recommendation may lead some Member States to decide not to invest in implementing a 
voluntary instrument which does not guarantee reciprocity between Member States.   

137 It would be decisive, for the assessment of whether PO1 meets the policy objectives, whether the MS in 
which mobile families most frequently experience problems would take up the Recommendation. 
138  The  Commission  issued  a  recommendation  concerning  insolvency  (Commission  Recommendation  of  12 
March 2014 on a new approach to business failure and insolvency (2014/135/EU), OJ L 74, 14.3.2014). The 
limited reception by MS of the recommended measures led to the adoption of a binding instrument several 
years  later  (Directive  (EU)  2019/1023).  The  tendency  of  MS  to  voluntarily  enter  into  legal  obligations 
concerning parenthood matters is expected to be at least limited, as evidenced e.g. by the few ratifications of 
the Council of Europe’s European Convention on the Adoption of Children (Revised) of 27 November 2008 
(8 MS).  

29 

 
 
                                                 
Only a few stakeholders or Member States representatives favoured this policy option139. 
In addition, this PO would not be entirely compatible with the existing political context at 
EU  level.  In  2017,  the  European  Parliament  requested  the  Commission  to  submit  a 
legislative  proposal  on  the  cross-border  recognition  of  adoption  orders140  and  in  2022,  it 
welcomed  that  the  Commission  announced  to  put  forward  a  legislative  proposal  on  the 
recognition of parenthood between Member States141. 

Given the uncertainty that Member States would implement the Recommendation in their 
national  law,  it  is  unclear  whether  the  Recommendation  would  address  effectively  the 
present problems of parenthood recognition between Member States and whether it would 
meet the objectives of the initiative. Based on the above considerations, this policy option 
was discarded.  

  Option 2: Legislative measure (proposal for a Regulation on the recognition of 

parenthood between Member States) (“PO2”) 

The  competence  of  the  EU  to  adopt  measures  concerning  family  law  with  cross-border 
implications  is  based  on  Article  81(3)  TFEU.  Under  this  policy  option,  the  Commission 
would propose a regulation on the recognition of parenthood between Member States 
(“Regulation”,  “Parenthood  regulation”).  The  Parenthood  regulation  would  not  affect  the 
rights derived from EU law*, in particular the rights that a child enjoys under EU law on 
free movement, including Directive 2004/38/EC142. 

Such  Regulation  would  ensure  legal  certainty,  predictability,  and  the  continuity  of 
parenthood in cross-border situations, ensuring the respect of children’s rights and the best 
interests  of  the  child.  It  would  appeal,  as  a  policy  objective,  to  the  need  to  protect 
children’s rights in cross-border situations regardless of how they were conceived or born 
and of the children’s type of family.  In order to do away with the divergences in national 
PIL  rules  that  currently  cause  problems  with  parenthood  recognition  and  in  line  with 
existing EU instruments on private international law, the legislation would take the form of 
a regulation rather than of a directive143. 

It  is  particularly  relevant  for  shaping  this  legislative  policy  option  to  assess  whether  the 
Regulation  should  include  only  the  recognition  of  court  decisions  on  parenthood  (Policy 
Option 2a) or also the recognition of parenthood recorded in authentic instruments (such as 
a birth certificate or a notarial deed on domestic adoption)* (Policy Option 2b). In order to 
determine  the  most  suitable  scope  of  the  Regulation,  these  sub-options  were  assessed 

139 Ten out of 19 ministries that shared their views on this subject with the external contractor were of the 
view that soft law measures would not resolve the current problems linked to the recognition of parenthood 
and, according to additional five, the problems would not be resolved entirely. 
140 See the European Parliament resolution of 2 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on 
cross-border aspects of adoptions (2015/2086(INL)) and the EAVA report on the recognition of adoptions*. 
141 European Parliament. Own-initiative report on Protection of the rights of the child in civil, administrative 
and family law proceedings. 2021/2060 (INI) adopted on 5 April 2022 by a vast majority of the MEPs.  
142 Like  all policy options, the Parenthood regulation  would  not affect the  rights derived from EU law*, in 
particular the rights that a child enjoys under Union law on free movement, including Directive 2004/38/EC. 
See fn. 33. 
143  In  contrast  with  the  leeway  left  by  a  directive  to  Member  States  to  achieve  its  binding  results,  the 
uniformity  of  the  rules  needed  to  facilitate  the  recognition  of  parenthood  can  only  be  achieved  through  a 
regulation. Only a regulation ensures a fully consistent interpretation and application of the rules.  

30 

 
 
                                                 
separately  in  Annex 5 of this  report  and the chosen sub-option became  PO2. Given that 
parenthood is in the vast majority of cases established by operation of law (that is, by birth 
and by a legal presumption of parenthood by the spouse or partner of the mother) and then 
proven  by  means  of  a  birth  certificate,  and  that  parenthood  is  established  by  a  court 
decision only rarely (typically in case of dispute), it was concluded that  PO2 would be a 
regulation  on  the  recognition  of  parenthood  between  Member  States  including  the 
recognition of both court decisions and authentic instruments144.  

To  ensure  the  circulation  of  authentic  documents,  it  would  be  imperative  that  all  public 
authorities follow the same applicable law rules for the establishment of parenthood with 
cross-border  implications,  it  would  thus  become  necessary  to  harmonise  applicable  law 
rules on the matter.  

The regulation would thus harmonise the PIL aspects of parenthood, that is: (i) jurisdiction 
rules;  (ii)  applicable  law  rules;  and  (iii)  rules  on  the  recognition  of  parenthood.  These 
common  rules  would  ensure  that,  once  parenthood  is  established  in  compliance  with  the 
Regulation,  it  would  be  recognised  throughout  the  EU.  A  Member  State  should  thus 
recognise the parenthood established in another Member State (i) where such parenthood 
was  established  in  accordance  with  the  applicable  law  designated  by  the  instrument;  and 
(ii) if relevant, where the decision was given by a court which had jurisdiction based on the 
rules of the Regulation.  

Suitable  connecting  factors  designating  the  law  applicable  to  parenthood  would  be 
chosen,  for  instance,  the  law  of  the  State  of  the  habitual  residence  of  the  person  giving 
birth or the law of nationality of a parent. The choice of applicable law would be excluded. 
The uniform connecting factors, especially if based on habitual residence, would also not 
increase  the  instances  of  forum  shopping  or  contribute  to  the  circumvention  of  national 
rules  on  the  establishment  of  parenthood.  Courts  and  public  authorities  would  have  to 
respect  these  rules  on  applicable  law  when  establishing  parenthood  in  cross-border 
situations and when issuing national certificates of parenthood or the ECP. 

Appropriate grounds for the refusal of recognition would also be included. For example, 
if  recognition  is  manifestly  contrary  to  the  public  policy  of  the  Member  State  where 
recognition  is  invoked145,  or  the  decision  was  given  in  default  of  appearance  and  the 
defendant  was not  served with  the documents instituting the proceedings, or the decision 
on  recognition  is  irreconcilable  with  a  decision  between  the  same  parties  in  the  Member 
State  where  recognition  is  invoked.  The  principle  of  mutual  recognition  would  be  the 

144 In a nutshell, while the recognition of court decisions is a standard technique in the EU PIL legislation, the 
inclusion of rules on the recognition or acceptance of foreign authentic instruments is less common. On the 
other  hand,  the  practical  importance  of  authentic  instruments  is  high  in  matters  of  parenthood,  as  families 
mostly  produce  authentic  instruments  (a  birth  certificate  in  the  vast  majority  of  cases)  rather  than  court 
decisions when requesting the recognition of parenthood in another Member State (about 99% of cases). In 
conclusion, to ensure that the Regulation does not exclude the vast majority (99%) of cases where families 
request the recognition of parenthood on the basis of authentic instruments, the scope of PO2 should include 
the  recognition  of  both  court  decisions  and  authentic  instruments  on  parenthood.  For  more  arguments 
concerning the choice between the sub-options, see Annex 5. 
145 Public policy is a standard refusal ground included in the  EU’s family-law instruments. It may cater for 
exceptional  circumstances  justifying  refusal  of  parenthood  recognition,  such  as  cases  involving  child 
trafficking or violations of fundamental rights or cases in which there has been no fair trial due to a breach of 
fundamental procedural rights.  

31 

 
 
                                                 
default  principle.  Such  possible  legislation  would  not  undermine  the  national  identity  of 
Member States as  it would not  require Member States to  change their substantive family 
law  on  parenthood,  including  on  the  definition  of  family.  Measures  adopted  pursuant  to 
Article 81(3) TFEU must be adopted by unanimity in Council, which will ensure that all 
national sensitivities have to be taken into account.  

In  the  consultation  activities  undertaken  in  the  context  of  this  impact  assessment,  the 
opinions as to the desirability of legislative measures varied. For instance, 60% of the OPC 
respondents  fully  agreed  to  the  Commission  proposing  a  legislation  on  parenthood; 
however, the second highest number of respondents (33%) fully disagreed, mostly stating 
that the recognition of parenthood should be regulated only by Member States. A similar 
diversity of views was observed in other consultation activities (see Annex 2). It emerged 
from  OPC and other  consultations that those who were aware of the existing parenthood 
recognition problems also generally supported a legislation at EU level146. 

  Option  3:  Legislative  measure  (Regulation  on  the  recognition  of  parenthood 
between  Member  States,  including  a  European  Certificate  of  Parenthood) 
(“PO3”) 

Option  3  is  the  same  as  Option  2  defined  above,  but  includes  in  addition  a  European 
Certificate of Parenthood (“ECP”).  

Box 3: European Certificate of Parenthood  

The ECP would be a certificate of parenthood issued by national authorities pursuant to the conditions 
and procedures laid down in the possible instrument on the recognition of parenthood.  

The ECP would be an optional certificate as the national authorities would only be required to issue it if 
a person asks for it and a person would not be required to use it. Both national certificates of parenthood 
and  the  ECP  would  circulate  within  the  EU  under  the  conditions  and  procedures  laid  down  in  the 
Regulation.  The  ECP  would  not  therefore  replace  the  national  certificates  of  parenthood  issued 
pursuant  to  national  law.  Instead,  citizens  would  be  able  to  choose  between  requesting  a  national 
certificate of parenthood or an ECP147.  

Parenthood would continue to be established in accordance with the national substantive law designated 
by  the  applicable  law  rules  of  the  Regulation,  and  the  ECP  would  only  provide  evidence  of  the 
parenthood established under that applicable law. The ECP would thus only have evidentiary (and not 
constitutive) effects. 

The  ECP  would  have  some  advantages  over  a  national  certificate  of  parenthood. The  contents  of  the 
ECP and the effects that the ECP  would produce in another Member State  would be laid down in the 
legislative  instrument.  In  contrast,  the  contents  and  the  effects  of  a  national  certificate  of  parenthood 
would  continue  to  be  laid  down  in  national  law  and  would  therefore  vary  from  one  Member  State  to 
another. The ECP would thus provide for greater legal predictability as its contents and effects would be 
uniform  throughout the  EU.  The ECP  would be a  valid document to record parenthood in  the  civil or 
population  register  of  a  Member  State  without  the  need  to  first  transpose  its  contents  into  a  national 

146  For  example,  89%  of  those  OPC  respondents  who  indicated  that  they  were  aware  of  parenthood 
recognition  problems  fully  agreed  with  a  possible  EU  legislation  and  only  8%  of  those  respondents  fully 
disagreed.  In  contrast,  64%  of  respondents  who  indicated  that  they  were  not  aware  of  any  parenthood 
recognition  problems  fully  disagreed  with  a  possible  EU  legislation  and  26%  of  those  respondents  fully 
agreed. A similar tendency was also observed at the meeting with stakeholders (see Annex 2). 
147 As detailed in  Annexes 1 and 4, when calculating the cost savings introduced by the ECP, a proxy was 
used  that  70%  of  cross-border  families  would  request  an  ECP.  This  is  in  line  with  the  generally  positive 
response to a possible ECP received in consultations.  

32 

 
 
 
                                                 
document. In addition, the ECP would exist in all EU languages, which would do away with translation 
requirements and related costs for citizens.  

Including the ECP in the scope of the possible legislation was supported by stakeholders 
consulted  in  the  context  of  this  impact  assessment.  For  instance,  85%  of  those  OPC 
respondents  who  generally  supported  EU  legislation  on  the  recognition  of  parenthood 
between Member States also favoured the idea of introducing an ECP, and 62% deemed it 
a  priority148.  The  COM  Expert  Group  also  agreed  that  introducing  the  ECP  would  have 
added value as it would have several advantages over national certificates on parenthood.  

A  similar  idea  of  introducing  a  “European  Civil  Status  Certificate”  to  facilitate 
cross-border  formalities  was  floated  already  in  the  2010  Green  Paper149.  A  “European 
Certificate  of  Adoption”  was  suggested  in  the  Parliament’s  resolution  on  cross-border 
aspects of adoptions150. 

2.16.  5.3 

Discarded policy options – Policy Option 1  

Based on the explanation above, in particular the uncertainty concerning the uptake of the 
Commission recommendation to Member States and the related likelihood that this policy 
option would not meet the objectives of the initiative, Policy Option 1 was discarded.  

6.  6.  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 

This  section  assesses  the  impact  of  each  policy  option  (such  as  economic  and  social 
impact, impact on fundamental rights, impact on digitalisation). It also assesses the extent 
to which each policy option is likely to achieve the policy objectives.  

2.17.  6.1 

Achievement of policy objectives by the Policy Options 2 and 3 

It should first be examined whether the policy options are “fit for purpose”, that is, whether 
they  achieve  the  General  Policy  Objective  of  facilitating  the  recognition  of  parenthood 
between Member States as well as the Specific Objectives 1, 2 and 3151.  

The  Parenthood  regulation  that  forms  the  basis  of  Policy  Option  2  (PO2)  and  Policy 
Option 3  (PO3)  would  tackle  the  problem  drivers  as  it  would  provide  uniform  rules  on 
applicable  law,  jurisdiction  on  and  recognition  of  parenthood  with  cross-border 
implications.  Since  parenthood  would  be  established  in  accordance  with  harmonised 
applicable law  rules, each national authority  would apply the same national law and thus 

148 In addition, 57% of consulted civil registries viewed the ECP as useful and 29% found including it in the 
Parenthood regulation as a priority. Likewise, 73% or 16 ministries responded that the ECP would facilitate 
the recognition of parenthood between MS.  
149  See  European  Commission  (2010).  Green  Paper  -  Less  bureaucracy  for  citizens:  promoting  free 
movement  of  public  documents  and  recognition  of  the  effects  of  civil  status  records,  COM/2010/0747, 
p. 10,11.  
150  European  Parliament  resolution  of  2  February  2017  with  recommendations  to  the  Commission  on 
cross-border aspects of adoptions (2015/2086(INL)). 
151  These  are:  to  ensure  respect  for  fundamental  rights  of  children  and  other  family  members  in  matters 
concerning  parenthood  recognition  (Specific  Policy  Objective  1),  to  ensure  legal  certainty,  predictability 
and continuity of parenthood (Specific Policy Objective 2), and to reduce costs and legal and administrative 
burden for families and public administrations and courts (Specific Policy Objective 3).  

33 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
reach  the  same  result  as  to  the  parenthood  of  a  child.  At  the  same  time,  the  recognition 
rules in the Regulation would be simplified.  

This  system  would  facilitate  the  cross-border  portability  of  the  child’s  parenthood  and 
ensure  harmony  of  decisions  of  public  authorities  in  the  EU.  POs  2  and  3  would  thus 
significantly  contribute  to  facilitating  recognition  of  parenthood  between  Member  States 
and  would  thereby  reduce  legal  uncertainty  and  unpredictability  concerning  the 
preservation of parenthood in another Member State. This positive effect would materialise 
for all cross-border families that strive to have the parenthood of their children recognised 
in another Member State152. Moreover, these options would also safeguard the fundamental 
rights  of  children  and  other  family  members  in  cross-border  situations,  in  particular  of 
those  that  currently  experience  the  most  serious  problems  with  the  recognition  of 
parenthood.  Both  PO2  and  PO3  would  thus  achieve  the  Specific  Policy  Objectives  1 
and  2,  while  the  PO3  would  be  more  effective  than  PO2  in  achieving  the  General 
Policy Objective.  

In  addition,  they  would  contribute  to  reducing  the  costs  and  legal  and  administrative 
burden for families and public authorities (Specific Policy Objective 3)153. In the absence 
of diverging rules on the law applicable to the establishment of parenthood in cross-border 
situations,  families  would  no  longer  need  to  rely  on  expensive  legal  advice  or  resort  to 
litigation.  This  would  in  turn  translate  in  a  lower  caseload  and  lower  costs  for  national 
judiciaries.  

2.18.  6.2 

Impact of legislative Policy Options 2 and 3 

This section assesses the impact of the two legislative options (PO2 and PO3).  The impact 
of PO1 is not assessed as this policy option was discarded. Since PO2 is a basis for PO3, 
the assessment of PO3 will focus on the differences in impacts between the POs.  

The  assessment  covers  the  impact  on  all  EU  Member  States,  except  Denmark154.  As 
explained  above  (Section  5.2),  the  policy  options  only  concern  the  recognition  of 
parenthood  between  Member  States,  they  would  thus  not  impact  the  recognition  of 
parenthood in third countries or of parenthood established in third countries. The reference 
period for the assessment of the impacts is 2022-2032. While the biggest  difference  with 
the current status quo would be felt by the children and families that currently experience 
the problems with the recognition of parenthood, all families stand to benefit from policy 
options  2  and  3  as  the  harmonisation  the  jurisdiction  and  applicable  law  rules  on 
parenthood  and  simplified  recognition  rules  would  result  in  increased  legal  certainty, 
simplification  and  costs  savings.  The  main  impact  is  expected  with  respect  to  Member 
States  which  currently  have  a  more  restrictive  regime  for  recognising  parenthood 
established abroad. 

152 However, as explained in  Section 5, all policy option  would only concern the  recognition in a Member 
State of parenthood established in another Member State, not in third countries or in Denmark. 
153 59% out of 22 consulted ministries expect positive effect of PO2 on families in reducing costs and burden 
inherent to recognition procedures (of which 8 expect mildly positive effect and 5 very positive effect), 55% 
expect positive effect on public authorities (of which 8 expect a mildly positive impact and 4 a very positive 
impact).  
154 See fn. 5.  

34 

 
 
                                                 
The following main impacts will be assessed: (1) legal impacts (impact on fundamental 
rights  and  children’s  rights,  including  impact  on  exercising  free  movement  rights,  and 
impact  on  the  legal  environment);  (2)  social  impact  (including  the  impact  on  emotional 
and  psychological  wellbeing  of  children  and  their  families,  their  economic  welfare  and 
equality);  and  (3)  impact  regarding  administrative  burden  and  simplification.  In 
addition,  macro-economic  impact  (4),  and  other  minor  impacts  will  also  be  briefly 
explained.  No  relevant  environmental  impact  is  expected.  All  the  impacts  described 
below are intended ones155.  

2.19.  6.2.1 

Legal impacts  

Legal  impacts  can  be  divided  into  two  categories:  (i)  legal  impact  on  children  and  their 
families; and (ii) impact on the legal environment.  

2.20.  6.2.1.1  Legal impact on children and their families 

By  providing  uniform  jurisdiction  and  applicable  law  rules  and  thereby  facilitating  the 
recognition of parenthood in the EU, the PO2 and PO3 ensure that the negative effects on 
children’s rights described in Section 2 do not materialise. In addition, the policy options 
would  simplify  the  current  legal  patchwork  of  incoherent  national  PIL  rules  and  thereby 
increase legal certainty. The policy options would thus have a clear positive impact on the 
protection of children’s rights in cross-border situations. 

Impact on fundamental rights 

Above  all,  the  Parenthood  regulation  would  contribute  to  preventing  the  violation  of 
children’s  fundamental  rights.  It  is  contrary  to  the  children’s  best  interests  and  their 
rights  anchored in  the Charter,  UNCRC, ECHR, and other instruments  to be deprived of 
civil  status  and  of  the  genuine  family  life  in  cases  where  parenthood  was  validly 
established in another State. In addition, fundamental rights of other family members may 
likewise be at stake in situations of limping parenthood*. By streamlining the recognition 
of  parenthood  in  the  EU,  PO2  and  3  stand  to  effectively  enhance  the  parenthood  status 
continuity  across  borders  within  the  EU  and  to  protect  the  fundamental  rights  that  are 
undermined under the current  status quo. More precisely, PO2 and 3 would  significantly 
uphold the respect of fundamental rights of children, such as the right to personal and 
family life156, and non-discrimination157 and rights of the child, such as the best interests 
of the child158 and the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct 
contact with both parents (unless that is contrary to his or her interests) in cases involving 
the  recognition  of  parenthood  status  in  the  EU.  In  addition,  as  the  non-recognition  of 

155  Any  possible  unintended  effects  could  be  mitigated  as  the  legislation  could  provide  for  a  public  policy 
refusal ground  which  may be used in individually justified cases, including for example in cases involving 
child trafficking, fraud, or breach of fundamental rights of the parties involved. 
156 As enshrined in Art. 7 of the Charter, Art. 8 ECHR, including the right to an identity. 
157 As enshrined in Art. 21 of the Charter, Art. 2 UNCRC and Art. 14 ECHR.  
158 As enshrined in Art. 24 of the Charter, and Art. 3 UNCRC. 

35 

 
 
                                                 
parenthood  leads  to  unequal  treatment  between  families,  remedying  this  situation  would 
indirectly help to promote equality in the EU159. 

Moreover,  besides  remedying  the  existing  breaches  of  fundamental  rights  and  principles, 
the proposal for the Regulation itself would be based on the protection of fundamental 
rights,  including  non-discrimination  and  the  best  interests  of  the  children  as  its 
primary considerations. This includes, most notably, that the proposal would be based on 
the principle of strict equality of the rights of children, irrespective of the circumstances of 
their  conception,  birth  and  type  of  family.  Indeed,  it  is  considered  vital  that  the 
circumstances of the child’s family formation should not justify the violation of the child’s 
rights  or  their  discrimination.  The  proposal  would  thus  have  a  broad  scope  not  to  leave 
children in vulnerable situations.  

Finally,  as  regards  children’s  right  to  know  their  origins  (including  the  collection  and 
preservation of, and access to, this information), in the absence of the EU’s competence to 
regulate matters of substantive family law, it remains the obligation of Member States to 
ensure  the  protection  of  children’s  right  to  know  their  origins  in  compliance  with  their 
international commitments160.  

Both PO2 and PO3 will have the above-described positive impact on fundamental rights. 
PO3 would likely promote equality and inclusiveness to a greater extent since the uniform 
ECP could prevent many situations of discrimination resulting from the current  gendered 
birth certificates161.  

Impact on children’s rights and parental obligations derived from parenthood 

In addition to the fundamental rights of children, the streamlined recognition of parenthood 
under POs 2 and 3 would also have a positive impact on other children’s rights derived 
from  parenthood  and  the  parental  obligations  owed  to  children.  Under  both  policy 
options,  children  would  no  longer  experience  problems  with  the  recognition  of  their 
parenthood  status  and  would  thus  not  be  deprived  of  the  legal  effects  derived  from  such 
status.  This  includes  in  particular  all  civil-law  rights  and  obligations,  such  as  parental 
rights to act as the legal representative(s) of a child (in matters such as giving consent for 
medical  treatment  of  the  child,  enrolling  the  child  in  school,  opening  a  bank  account  on 
behalf of the child), child’s maintenance entitlements and inheritance rights, visiting rights 
and  custody  rights  by  a  parent.  The  Parenthood  regulation  would  also  increase  legal 

159 This will particularly affect the existing inequalities on the grounds of the sexual orientation  of parents, 
since  same-gender  couples  with  children  face  disproportionally  more  problems  under  the  status  quo  than 
opposite-gender couples with children.  
160 The right to know one’s origins amounts to the right to know one’s parentage, i.e., one’s biological family 
and ascendance, and one’s conditions of birth. The right to know one’s origins is recognised as an important 
legal  and  ethical  issue  closely  relating  to  the  child’s  best  interests  and  fundamental  rights  (Art.  7  and  8 
UNCRC, Art. 8 ECHR), which may however also clash with the interests and rights of the other parties (such 
as  the  right  to  privacy  and  protection  of  personal  data)  and  public  interest.  In  particular,  the  ECtHR  has 
recognised the right to obtain information in order to discover one’s origins and the identity of one’s parents 
as  an  integral  part  of  identity  protected  under  the  right  to  private  and  family  life  and  that  Article  8  ECHR 
requires States to strike a faire balance between the competing rights and interests at stake.  
161 In the ECP, the parents of the child would be indicated in a gender-neutral way. This was highlighted as 
particularly important by some respondents to the OPC (e.g. the reply of Transgender Europe, August 2021). 

36 

 
 
                                                 
certainty  of  families  concerning  the  parenthood  status  continuity  in  cross-border 
situations.  

Impact on the exercise of the right to free movement 

Similarly,  as  the  non-recognition  of  a  child’s  parenthood  may  deter  families  from 
exercising  their  right  to  free  movement  (See  Section  2.2),  both  PO2  and  3  will  have  a 
positive impact on the right to free movement162. Indeed, by laying down uniform PIL 
rules  for  the  establishment  and  recognition  of  parenthood  in  cross-border  situations,  the 
legislative  policy  options  would  provide  legal  certainty  to  families  that  the  status  and 
civil-law  rights  of  their  children  would  be  protected  throughout  the  EU.  While  it  is  not 
possible  to  quantify  this  impact,  it  will  be  one  of  the  main  impact  of  the  Parenthood 
regulation. 

 Impact on legal environment  

As  the  Parenthood  regulation  would  align  the  existing  disparate  PIL  rules  on  the 
establishment and recognition  of  parenthood  with cross-border elements, it would ensure 
that parenthood would be established throughout the EU based on the same applicable law 
and  by  authorities  having  international  jurisdiction  based  on  previously  agreed  uniform 
rules.  This  would  contribute  to  the  harmony  of  decisions  (by  avoiding  conflicting 
decisions  given  by  courts  in  different  Member  States)  and  avoid  situations  of  limping 
parenthood*. Besides that, it will also  simplify the  patchwork of rules  and increase  legal 
certainty  for  all  children  and  families  involved,  and  for  public  authorities163.  Families 
would  no  longer  need  to  seek  professional  legal  assistance  so  frequently  or  engage  in 
litigation  to  achieve the recognition  of parenthood.  Ultimately,  the Parenthood regulation 
would “build bridges” between legal systems and increase mutual trust among Member 
States in matters of parenthood.  

2.21.  6.2.2 

Social impact  

Through  the  uniform  rules  in  the  Regulation,  the  PO2  and  PO3  would  decrease  the 
incidence of limping parenthood*. The legislation is thus expected to alleviate the negative 
impact on the welfare of children in relation to which parenthood is not recognised and on 
their families. The PO2 and 3 would contribute to the general wellbeing of children, both 
long-term and short-term  and both  from  the  psychological  and  economic dimensions. As 
regards the psychological dimension, in the absence of problems with the recognition, the 
emotional distress would be alleviated. As regards the economic dimension, even though 
the  Regulation  would  only  address  the  recognition  of  parenthood  as  a  civil  status  and 
would  not  regulate  the  rights  derived  from  it  (as  the  legal  effects  of  parenthood  would 
remain subject to national law), it may nevertheless have an indirect positive impact on 
other  rights  for  which  the  recognition  of  the  parenthood  status  is  relevant.  These  may 
include, for example, social security rights (family allowances, other social advantages), 
child-related tax advantages, receiving parental leave rights, access to housing, rights 

162  68%  of  the  OPC  respondents  indicated  that  a  Parenthood  regulation  would  have  a  positive  impact  on 
facilitating the exercise of the right of children to travel and  move  within the EU  with  their  families. 11% 
indicated that it would have negative effect and 12% that it would have no effect. 
163 67% of the OPC respondents believed that a Parenthood regulation would have a positive impact on the 
legal certainty for families as regards the parenthood of their children in another MS and 65% believed that it 
would have a positive impact on legal certainty for public authorities and simplification of their procedures. 

37 

 
 
                                                 
related to education and healthcare where such rights are not derived from EU law. 
This may ultimately lead not only to an improved wellbeing and reduction of poverty of 
the  affected  families,  but  also  to  the  promotion  of  socio-economic  equality.  The 
legislation will thus combat social exclusion and discrimination and promote social justice 
and protection. 

These  impacts  are  highly  individual,  depend  on  the  family  situation  and  differ  in  each 
jurisdiction.  Therefore,  the  approach  was  taken  in  this  report  not  to  quantify  the  social 
impacts164.  However,  they  may  be  significant  for  those  families  that  currently  do 
experience  problems  with  the  recognition  of  parenthood  and  may  translate  into 
considerable financial costs and losses. 

2.22.  6.2.3 

Impact on costs and administrative burden 

The  Parenthood  regulation  under  PO2  and  PO3  would  significantly  simplify  the  current 
system of diverse (and often contradictory) national PIL rules concerning the establishment 
and recognition of parenthood with a cross-border element. Due to this simplification and 
increased  consistency  and  clarity,  cross-border  families  and  Member  States’  public 
authorities  (administrative  authorities  and  judiciary)  will  experience  considerable  cost 
savings under both policy options.  

Figure 5: Estimated costs and costs savings for recognition procedures* under PO2 and PO3165 

Estimated costs of PO2 for 

Cross-border families with children 
(w.r.t. baseline) 

Public administrations and judiciary 

(w.r.t. baseline) 
Total 
(w.r.t. baseline) 

Estimated costs of PO3 for 

Cross-border families with children 
(w.r.t. baseline) 
Public administrations and judiciary 
(w.r.t. baseline) 
Total 
(w.r.t. baseline) 

Costs and costs savings (EUR million) 

Lower bound* 
543 
- 125  
465 
- 137 
1 008 
- 263 

197 
- 471 
296 
-307  
493  
- 778 

Upper bound* 
932 
- 367 

483 
- 203 
1 416  
-570 

365 
- 934 
305 
- 381 
670 
- 1 315 

164 In contrast, the Parliament’s EAVA report on the recognition of adoptions* estimated the emotional costs 
at EUR 10 000 per case for situations where litigation is needed for the recognition of parenthood.  
165 The methodology for the calculation of costs and costs savings for recognition procedures is detailed in 
Annex 4. Notably, in the absence of data, several assumptions had to be used to enable this quantification. 
This includes the assumption that under PO3, the ECP would be requested by 70% of cross-border families 
or  the  assumption  about  the  proportion  of  cross-border  families  currently  experiencing  problems  with  the 
recognition  of  parenthood  which  would  bring  their  case  to  a  court.  See  Figure  8  for  more  details  on  the 
assumptions used.   

38 

 
 
 
                                                 
2.23.  6.2.3.1  Costs borne by cross-border families  

First,  the  costs  for  recognition  procedures*  borne  by  families  that  currently  experience 
problems with the recognition of parenthood would decrease substantially since:  

- 

- 
- 

the  cases  of  non-recognition  of  parenthood  would  be  less  common  and  severe  and 
therefore less families would need to launch court proceedings to ensure the continuity 
of the parenthood status of their child across borders (this resulting in further significant 
costs  savings  on  court  fees,  other  documents,  translations  and  legal  representation 
before the court)166; 
there would be a lesser need for legal advice throughout the recognition procedure167;  
less documentation would have to be produced and translated by the families requesting 
the recognition of parenthood168.  

Notably, the average costs for recognition procedures* borne by families that currently 
experience  problems  with  the  recognition  of  parenthood  would  decrease  from  estimated 
EUR 5 856 per case by approximately 83% under PO2 (to EUR 981 per case on average) 
and 90% under PO3 (to EUR 578 per case on average).  

Second,  besides  the  families  that  are  currently  affected  by  the  problems  with  the 
recognition of parenthood, all other families would also save on the costs for recognition 
procedures*, although to a lesser extent than those families currently affected by problems 
since  their  initial  costs  are  not  so  high169.  In  particular  the  ECP  (under  the  PO3)  would 
substantially  facilitate  the  recognition  process  not  only  for  families  that  currently 
experience problems but for all 4 452 135 cross-border parents and their children in 
the EU, reducing their costs for recognition procedures more than three times as compared 
to the baseline.  

Taken  together,  the  costs  for  recognition  procedures*  borne  by  cross-border  families 
would be significantly reduced under both PO2 and PO3 (see the Figure 5 above). Families 
thus  undoubtedly  stand  to  benefit  from  the  policy  options.  In  addition,  POs  2  and  3  can 
lead  to  other  indirect  cost  savings  for  families  that  currently  experience  recognition 
problems, as they would reduce (or eliminate) the transactional costs and/or the likelihood 

166 It is estimated that under PO2 only 15% of those families that currently experience parenthood recognition 
problems would need to bring their case to a court (as compared to 80% of these families under the baseline 
scenario). Under the PO3, this proportion would further decrease to 10%.  
167 Major costs currently lie with legal counselling (amounting to approx. EUR 500 to EUR 1 000 per case at 
the  administrative  stage  and  EUR  2 000  to  EUR  8 000  per  case  at  the  judicial  stage  under  the  baseline 
scenario) for those families that currently experience problems with the recognition of parenthood in another 
Member State. It is estimated that 60% of these families have to bear the above costs at the administrative 
stage and 100% at the judicial stage. In contrast, these families would save costs under PO2 and PO3 since: 

- 

- 

the legal advice and representation costing on average EUR 500 to EUR 1 000 per case would only 
be needed in 10% of administrative proceedings under PO2 and 5% under PO3; and  
the legal advice and representation would still be needed in all court proceedings but would cost on 
average only EUR 2 000 to EUR 5 000 per case under PO2 and EUR 1 200 to EUR 3 800 per case 
under PO3. 

168 This is in particular pertinent for PO3. As the ECP would exist in all languages, it would do away with the 
need  for  translations,  notarisation  and/or  additional  documents  recording  parenthood.  The  costs  for  these 
formalities can amount to several hundred euros per case under the baseline scenario. 
169 In fact, their costs for recognition procedures* are on average 16 times lower (EUR 280 to EUR 475 per 
case  – lower and upper bound*)  under the  baseline than  those of  families currently experiencing problems 
with  the  recognition  of  parenthood  (on  average  EUR  2  916  to  EUR  8  795  per  case  –  lower  and  upper 
bound*). 

39 

 
 
                                                 
of civil litigation in relation to rights, duties and entitlements derived from the parenthood 
status  of  the  child,  such  as  costs  related  to  maintenance  or  inheritance  disputes170.  All 
families  also  stand  to  benefit  from  the  overall  reduction  of  hassle  costs*  related  to  the 
recognition procedures171. 

Cross-border families are not expected to incur compliance costs under PO2 and 3.  

2.24.  6.2.3.2  Costs borne by public authorities  

As an effect of the clearer legal framework and the lower incidence of court litigation, POs 
2  and  3  are  estimated  to  generate  a  reduction  in  the  time  and  effort  needed  by  public 
authorities in EU-26 to process the cases concerning recognition of parenthood172 (see the 
Figure  5  above).  It  is  estimated  that  this  would  translate  into  the  reduction  of  costs  for 
recognition  procedures*  borne  by  public  authorities  of  about  26%  under  PO2  (as 
compared to the baseline) and of 53% under PO3173.  

As regards compliance costs for public authorities under PO2 and PO3, the Parenthood 
regulation may generate one-off adjustment costs174. 

-  For instance, financial costs for Member States could arise for the introduction of 
the  new  rules  concerning  applicable  law  and  jurisdiction  in  matters  concerning 
parenthood  with  cross  border  implications.  However,  the  Regulation  would  not 
oblige Member States to create any new bodies, to change the functioning of their 
public  registers,  internal  procedures  or  the  forms  of  national  certificates  of 
parenthood they issue.  

-  As is  the case with  any  legislation, costs would also  arise for the familiarization 
with  a  new  legal  framework  and  training  of  judges,  civil  registrars  and  legal 
professionals.  PO3,  as  compared  to  PO2,  is  expected  to  generate  additional  small 
training costs for public authorities as regards the use of the ECP. 

-  The  full  realisation  of  the  benefits  from  the  ECP  may  also  require  some 
accompanying measures such as communication campaigns; these costs however 
have not been quantified.  

-  Finally,  Member  States  would  incur  moderate  additional  IT-related  costs  as  the 
Parenthood  regulation  would  introduce  the  possibility  of  digital  communication 
between  individuals  and  Member  States’  authorities  in  relation  to  the 
procedures under the Parenthood regulation175.  

In  addition,  minor  recurrent  adjustment  costs  (such  as  those  for  the  issuance  of  ECPs, 
regular training of staff about the new rules, upkeep of IT system) can be expected. These 
are expected by more than half of the consulted ministries and are generally anticipated to 
be moderate176. It is also possible that some Member States would decide to request a fee 

170 These indirect costs could not be calculated as they largely differ case by case.  
171 Hassle costs are costs resulting from delays, unnecessary waiting times, costs for travel, etc.  
172 Indeed, 56% respondents anticipated a very positive impact of a Parenthood regulation on improving the 
legal certainty for public authorities and a further 9% (or 34) indicated a mildly positive impact. 
173 This corresponds to the average costs per case between EUR 235 and EUR 246 under PO2 and between 
149 and EUR 154 under PO3. 
174 One-off costs were anticipated by a majority of ministries consulted in the preparation of this report.  
175 See Annex 4. 
176 Based on the consultation of ministries conducted in the preparation of this report.  

40 

 
 
                                                 
for  issuing  the  ECP  (like  for  a  national  birth  certificates)  to  recoup  some  of  the  costs 
related  to  the  introduction  and  issuance  of  the  ECP177.  However,  the  Regulation  would 
include a provision the fee collected for issuing the ECP should not be higher than the fee 
collected for issuing of similar national certificates recording parenthood. 

The enforcement costs* associated with activities such as monitoring of the  application 
of the Regulation would be marginal.  

Overall, the compliance and enforcement costs for public authorities associated with PO2 
and 3 would not be significant and  would be offset by the  efficiency gains generated by 
these policy options178.  

2.25.  6.2.4 

Other economic impacts 

The economic benefits of the PO2 and PO3 would be mostly at the level of the individual 
families  that  are  currently  affected  by  problems  with  the  recognition  of  parenthood  and 
partially at the level of public authorities. The families currently affected by the problem 
would benefit from the costs saved for the recognition procedures themselves (as estimated 
above)  but  also  from  the  reduction  of  other  indirect  economic  impacts  and  costs  and  the 
social opportunity costs, such as those for travelling to take part in the legal procedures and 
the related loss of productivity. The families may also obtain some other indirect economic 
benefits as a result of the parenthood status recognition (for example, social and tax-related 
benefits for families, as estimated above). This may lead to an overall improved welfare.  

Nevertheless,  despite  the  substantial  positive  (microeconomic)  impact  on  individual 
families,  the  overall  macroeconomic  benefits  of  the  PO2  and  PO3  will  be  rather 
limited due to the limited share of cross-border families impacted by the problem. 

2.26.  6.2.5 

Other impacts 

2.27.  6.2.5.1 

Impact on digitalisation of justice and data protection 

PO2  and  3  are  both  in  line  with  the  “digital  by  default”  principle  and  the  EU  policy  on 
digitalisation  of  justice179.  In  particular,  the  Regulation  would  provide  for  specific 
provisions on digitalisation of those procedures that are introduced by this Regulation and 
include the possibility of digital communication between individuals and Member States’ 
competent  authorities.  For  instance,  the  ECP  (under  the  PO3)  and  the  procedure  for  its 
issuance would be digital-ready. As a result, individuals would be able (but not obliged) to 
communicate through electronic means with national authorities competent to establish or 
recognise parenthood under the Regulation. 

177  In  addition,  based on  the  experience  with  similar  forms  provided  for  in  other  EU  instruments,  Member 
States either charge no fee or charge only a very small fee. 
178  A  great  majority  of  ministries  consulted  in  the  preparation  of  this  report  perceived  that  the  adjustment 
costs  resulting  from  the  introduction  of  the  Parenthood  regulation  would  be  compensated  by  the  positive 
impact on the cross-border recognition of parenthood in the medium or long term.  
179  See  the  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Digitalisation of justice in the European 
Union A toolbox of opportunities, COM/2020/710 final. 

41 

 
 
                                                 
Moreover,  the  introduction  of  the  new  EU  rules  concerning  the  Parenthood  recognition 
could  also  be  a  stimulus  for  the  digitalisation  of  these  processes  at  the  Member  States’ 
level,  both  by  using  less  paper-based  documents  and  moving  to  a  fully  electronic 
population registers180. The digitalisation of the procedure would further result in a higher 
security  of  the  procedure  and  increased  transparency  as  to  the  validity  of  the  documents 
submitted when seeking recognition.  

In  addition,  where  the  Regulation  would  provide  a  legal  basis  for  the  processing  of 
personal data of natural persons (e.g. children or their parents with regard to the issuance 
and  the  use  of  the  ECP),  the  protection  of  such  data  would  be  ensured  in  line  with  the 
General Data Protection Regulation181. The Member States’ authorities and the European 
Commission would act as data controllers responsible for the lawfulness of the processing. 
The Regulation would observe the principles applicable to the processing of personal data, 
including data minimisation182 and purpose limitation. 

2.28.  6.2.5.2 

Impact on the national identity of Member States  

In the consultation activities undertaken in the context of the impact assessment, especially 
in  the  feedback  to  the  IIA,  some  respondents  voiced  their  concern  that  the  Parenthood 
initiative  would  negatively  affect  the  prerogative  of  Member  States  in  the  area  of  family 
law183. The reasons given were a claimed lack of EU competence, the sensitive nature of 
this area and a possible interference of the Parenthood initiative with the constitutional and 
legal  orders  of  Member  States  which  do  not  regulate  certain  family  formations  (such  as 
rainbow families) in their national law184. 

The EU is based on the principle of respect for the social, historical and cultural diversity 
of the Member States, which is particularly manifested in the area of family law. It is thus 
for  the  Member  States  to  define  under  their  national  law  the  concept  of  family  and  the 

180  For  the  moment,  based  on  the  information  from  civil  registrars,  only  some  MS  authorities  have  the 
capacity  to  issue  and  sign  electronic  documents  and  to  send  and  receive  documents  issued  and  signed 
electronically  in  another  MS.  Many  authorities  still  require  that  documents  recording  parenthood  are 
presented in paper form.  
181 Regulation (EU) 2016/679 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal 
data  and  on  the  free  movement  of  such  data.  In  the  context  of  digitalisation,  see  also  the  Regulation  (EU) 
2018/1725 that concerns data protection obligations for the EU institutions when they process personal data. 
182 The Regulation should not require the processing of special category of personal data. In particular, the 
voluntary ECP (under PO3) would not include information about the sex or sexual orientation of the child’s 
parents. 
183 See the summary of IIA feedback in Annex 2. During the consultations, two MS specifically highlighted 
that  constitutional  identities  and  traditions  need  to  be  respected.  Cf.  also  a  petition  submitted  to  the 
Commission  President  in  November  2021  “Petition  of  21  NGOs  in  defense  of  natural  parenthood”  which 
opined, for instance, that the Member States in which the national law does not allow for homosexual couples 
to  adopt  children  will  find  themselves  under  procedural  pressure  to  accept  such  adoptions  which  are 
contrary to their national legal systems and be forced to ignore their own legal principles.  
184 As to why family law touches on national identity, see the explanation by AG Kokott in para. 77 of her 
V.M.A. Opinion: “[…] family law is a particularly sensitive legal area which is characterised by a plurality 
of concepts and values at the level of the Member States and the societies within them. Family law – whether 
based on traditional or more ‘modern’ values – is the expression of a State’s self-image on both the political 
and  social  levels.  It  may  be  based  on  religious  ideas  or  mark  the  renunciation  of  those  ideas  by  the  State 
concerned.  To  that  end,  however,  it  is  in  any  event  an  expression  of  the  national  identity  inherent  in 
fundamental political and constitutional structures.” 

42 

 
 
                                                 
rights  and  obligations  derived  from  parenthood185.  The  measures  adopted  under  Article 
81(3)  TFEU  on  family  law  with  cross-border  implications  would  thus  not  affect  the 
competence of Member States to legislate in the family law area. To protect the rights of 
the children and their best interests in cross-border situations186, the Parenthood regulation 
would  only  propose  rules  to  facilitate  that,  once  parenthood  has  been  established  in  one 
Member  State  under  the  applicable  law  designated  by  the  Regulation,  it  is  recognised  in 
other  Member  States.  These  changes  would  not  entail  a  harmonisation  of  the  concept  of 
family  or  harmonisation  as  to  who  can  be  considered  a  parent  under  the  substantive 
national  law  of  the  Member  State  of  recognition.  In  conclusion,  the  recognition  of  the 
child-parent  relationship  established  abroad  does  not  undermine  the  national  identity  or 
pose a threat to the public policy (as already pronounced by the CJEU in the context of free 
movement187)188.  The  Parenthood  regulation  thus  heeds  the  principle  that  the  EU  is  to 
respect the national identities of its Member States as laid down in Article 4(2) TEU.  

2.29.  6.2.5.3 

Impact on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 

The  POs  2  and  3  would  have  a  minor  positive  impact  on  SDG  No.10  –  Reduced 
inequalities and on SDG No. 16 – Peace, justice and strong institutions. For details on how 
the policy options would contribute to progress on these goals, see Annex 3. 

7.  7. 

HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

Based on the detailed assessment of the policy options above, the table below provides an 
overview of the rating of each policy option.  In multi-criteria decision analysis, the score 
was given to each policy option from -1 (negative impact) to 2 (very positive impact), (0 
being the baseline), based on three criteria189. 

The  first  criterion,  effectiveness  was  defined  as  the  extent  to  which  the  policy  options 
achieve  the  policy  objectives  of  the  Parenthood  initiative.  Moreover,  effectiveness  also 
covers  the  impact  on  fundamental  rights,  social  and  psychological  impact  and  impact  on 
the  exercise  of  the  right  to  free  movement  of  children  and  their  families.  Efficiency  was 
defined  as  the  extent  to  which  the  benefits  of  the  policy  option  exceed  its  costs  and 

185 For a summary of existing national substantive and PIL rules on parenthood matters and national rules on 
the recognition of parenthood established abroad, see the Comparative analysis of EU Member States’ legal 
frameworks in Annex 4 of the Study by an external contractor*.  
186  As  for  the  explanation  why  it  is  in  the  best  interests  of  children  to  have  the  legal  relationship  to  their 
parents recognised and not to end up with a limping parenthood* or parentless in cross-border situations, see 
Sections  1  and  2.  See  also  the  reasoning  in  Mennesson  v.  FR,  para.  99:  “[…]  the  effects  of  the 
non-recognition of the parent-child relationship do not affect only the intending parents who made the choice 
of  the  method  of  procreation  [and  had  a  recourse  to  it  abroad  as  it  is  prohibited  in  the  territory  of  their 
state]:  they  also  affect  the  children  themselves,  whose  right  to  respect  for  private  life,  which  implies  that 
everyone  can  establish  the  substance  of  their  identity,  including  their  parentage,  is  found  significantly 
affected. A serious question therefore arises as to the compatibility of this situation with the best interests of 
the children, respect for which must guide any decision concerning them”. [citation was shortened] 
187 Cf. V.M.A. case, para. 56 (fn. 36); V.M.A. Opinion, para. 150; and, similarly, Coman, paras. 45,46. 
188 The CJEU has also already established the principle that the concept of “public policy” as a justification 
for a derogation from a fundamental freedom must be interpreted strictly: V.M.A, para. 55 with a reference to 
earlier case law. 
189 In the matrix, all assessment criteria were given the same weight. As an alternative, a greater weight could 
be  given  to  the  criterion  of  how  effective  the  policy  option  is  in  achieving  the  policy  objectives  (the 
effectiveness). However, the result of the analysis would remain the same, PO3 staying the preferred option.  

43 

 
 
                                                 
includes  the  indicators  such  as  compliance  costs,  and  economic  impact  (excluding 
compliance  costs  and  costs  for  recognition  procedures,  which  are  discussed  separately). 
Finally,  the  last  criterion  of  coherence  assesses  to  which  extent  the  policy  options  are 
aligned with other EU instruments, law and policies.  

As  regards  effectiveness  and  efficiency  of  the  policy  options,  the  previous  section 
includes  a  detailed  explanation  and  assessment  of  these  two  criteria.  As  regards 
coherence, all policy options  would be coherent  with EU law (including the Charter and 
the CJEU case law) and the EU policies. 

Figure 6: Comparison of options 

Policy options 

Effectiveness 

Specific obj. 1 To ensure respect for the fundamental rights of 
children in matters concerning parenthood recognition 

Specific  obj.  2  To  ensure  legal  certainty,  predictability,  and 
continuity of parenthood 

Specific  obj.  3  To  reduce  costs  for  recognition  procedures* 
and  legal  and  administrative  burden  for  families  and  public 
authorities190 

-  Total reduction of costs for recognition procedures* (both 

for cross-border families and public authorities) 

Social and psychological impact 

Impact on free movement rights of families 

Efficiency  

Impact on costs and administrative burden  – costs savings for 
cross-border families and public authorities  

  see above Obj.3 under “Effectiveness” 

Compliance costs for families 

Compliance costs for public authorities  

Other economic impacts191  

Coherence  
Coherence with EU legal and policy framework 

8.  8. 

PREFERRED OPTION 

PO2 

+1 

+1 

+1 

PO3 

+1 

+2 

+2 

(estimated cost 
savings of EUR 416 
mil.) 

(estimated cost savings 
of EUR 1 047 mil.) 

+1 
+2 

/ 

/ 
- 0.5 
+ 0.5 

2 

+1 
+2 

/ 

/ 
- 1 
+ 0.5 

2 

Based on the above analysis, Policy Option 3, whereby the EU would adopt a Regulation 
on  the  recognition  of  parenthood  between  Member  States  harmonising  rules  on 
jurisdiction,  applicable  law  and  recognition  and  including  a  European  Certificate  of 
Parenthood, is the preferred option. 

190  NB:  This  also  includes  the  impact  on  simplification  and/or  administrative  burden  on  families  and 
public authorities (the reductions of costs for recognition procedures* explained in the Section 6.2.3). While 
these cost savings are relevant for both the effectiveness and efficiency criteria, they will only be considered 
under effectiveness to avoid double counting. 
191 See the explanation of Other economic impacts in Section 6.2.4. In particular, this indicator excludes costs 
for recognition procedures, compliance costs and social impact which are discussed separately. 

44 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
This policy option would tackle the existing problems with the recognition of parenthood 
in the EU by harmonising both the PIL rules* on the establishment of parenthood with a 
cross-border  element  and  the  rules  on  the  recognition  of  parenthood  in  the  EU.  The 
Regulation  would  ensure that all children can benefit from  the streamlined procedure for 
the recognition of parenthood regardless of the circumstances of their conception, birth or 
type of family. The Regulation would thus significantly simplify the current patchwork of 
often  inconsistent  national  rules  in  the  matter  and  would  provide  legal  certainty  to 
cross-border  families.  The  Regulation  would  include  rules  on  the  recognition  of 
parenthood as recorded both in court decisions and in authentic instruments, and introduce 
a  European  Certificate  of  Parenthood  as  an  option  to  provide  evidence  of  parenthood  in 
another Member State. Especially through the introduction of the ECP that would do away 
with much paperwork, the Parenthood regulation could be a game changer not only for 
families  that  currently  experience  problems  with  the  recognition  of  parenthood  but 
potentially  for  all  cross-border  families  (estimated  4  452  135  mobile  parents  and  their 
children)192.  However,  it  is  especially  all  those  children  and  their  families  who  are 
currently  affected  by  the  problems  with  the  recognition  of  parenthood  that  are  poised  to 
benefit  the  most  from  the  Parenthood  regulation  (estimated  103 000  mobile  parents  and 
their children). 

Since the children’s fundamental rights may be jeopardised under the current situation and 
it  is  a  priority  to  remedy  this  situation,  the  decisive  focus  should  not  be  on  the  precise 
quantitative  dimension  of  the  problem  or  other  quantitative  considerations  but  on  the 
protection  of  children’s  fundamental  rights  in  cross-border  situations.  The  preferred  PO3 
achieves  this  general  objective  best  in  that  it  facilitates  the  recognition  of  parenthood 
between  Member  States,  guarantees  the  respect  for  the  fundamental  rights  of  children  in 
matters concerning parenthood recognition  and ensures legal certainty, predictability, and 
continuity  of  parenthood.  In  addition,  through  the  provision  of  an  ECP  that  would  have 
direct  access  to  the  national  civil  and  population  registers  and  do  away  with  the  current 
translation  requirements,  the  PO3  is  the  most  efficient  option  in  reducing  costs  for 
recognition procedures and legal and administrative burden for both cross-border families 
and public administrations  and judicial authorities. As a result, the  costs for recognition 
procedures* for all children and their families in the EU are estimated to be about 71% 
lower under PO3 than under the status quo and this percentage grows to 90% for families 
currently  experiencing  the  problems  with  parenthood  recognition.  As  the  Parenthood 
Regulation  would  reduce  administrative  burden  on  families  and  create  no  new  one,  it 
would represent a ‘one out’ initiative (For details, see the OIOO* methodology in Annex 3 
and Annex 4)193.  

In  terms  of  the  other  expected  impacts,  the  preferred  policy  option  would  have  in 
particular:  

  A  positive  impact  on  the  protection  of  fundamental  rights  of  children  and  their 

families, including the exercise of the free movement rights; 

192 For further explanation of how different types of families may be affected by the problem, see the Section 
2.4: Who is affected by the problem? and Annex 4.  
193  Total  cost  savings  for  cross-border  families  on  costs  related  to  ‘one  in,  one  out’  approach  amount  to 
approximately  EUR  545  mil.  under  the  PO3  as  compared  to  the  baseline.  These  cost  savings  concern  all 
families that are currently cross-border and are one-off and aggregate, not annual. They represent a saving of 
EUR 275 per a child in a cross-border family. 

45 

 
 
                                                 
  One-off adjustment costs for public authorities to adapt to the new rules provided in 

the Regulation and negligible recurring administrative costs194; 

  Positive social and psychological impact on children and their families. 

While it is not possible to put a price tag on the added value of the Parenthood regulation, 
the  quantifiable  benefits,  in  particular  those  for  children,  are  demonstrable  and  real. 
Besides  the  benefits  for  cross-border  families  and  public  authorities  that  the  preferred 
policy  option  would  bring  about,  rules  on  parenthood  with  cross-border  implications  are 
the  missing  piece  of  puzzle  in  the  existing  EU  legislation  on  family  matters  and  the 
Parenthood regulation would thus complement the existing EU acquis. 

The EU action would comply with the principles of subsidiarity, as detailed in Section 3. 
The  PO3  would  also  fully  respect  the  principle  of  proportionality.  In  that  regard,  the 
content and form of the Regulation would not go beyond what is necessary to achieve the 
recognition of parenthood between Member States and to protect children’s rights and best 
interests. There are no milder means that would achieve the policy objectives as effectively 
as the ones proposed under PO3195. The substantive scope of the Regulation would also be 
limited  to  what  is  necessary.  For  instance,  the  Regulation  would  only  apply  to  the 
recognition  of  parenthood  status  and  would  leave  out  the  recognition  of  the  relationship 
between parents. The Regulation would not affect the rights that a child derives from EU 
law, in particular the rights that a child enjoys under EU law on free movement, including 
Directive 2004/38/EC196.  The ECP that would be introduced by the Regulation would be 
an  optional  certificate  that  would  not  replace  the  national  certificates  of  parenthood.  The 
Regulation would also treat matters concerning parenthood as cultural-sensitive issues that 
may touch on national identity of Member States and would thus not provide for any rules 
going beyond the PIL aspects of parenthood197. 

9.  9. 

HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

A  robust  system  for  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the  application  of  the  Parenthood 
regulation would be implemented to ensure that the legislation is efficient in addressing the 
current  problems  and  achieving  its  main  objectives,  as  well  as  to  assess  what  its  actual 
impacts  would  be.  To  do  so,  continuous  monitoring  and  regular  evaluation  by  the 
Commission would take place after the Regulation comes into application.  

194 The overall costs for public authorities would be offset by the expected cost savings due to the facilitation 
of the parenthood recognition procedures. Also public authorities are poised to benefit from PO3. 
195  Therefore,  the  Regulation  would  propose  rules  concerning  (i)  applicable  law,  (ii)  jurisdiction  and  (iii) 
recognition of parenthood between Member States.  
196 See fn. 33. 
197 For instance, it would not change the methods of the establishment of parenthood and the rules on who the 
parent  is  under  the  substantive  national  laws,  or  authorise  new  family  formations.  It  would  also  not 
harmonise  the  form  and  content  of  national  certificates  of  parenthood,  or  legal  effects  that  derive  from 
parenthood  under  national  laws  (such  as  the  acquisition  of  nationality  by  descent,  residence  rights,  other 
entitlements,  parental  responsibility).  It  would  also  not  define  the  national  authorities  before  which  the 
recognition of parenthood should be sought.  

46 

 
 
                                                 
In particular, the Commission would:  

-  discuss the application of the Regulation and exchange best practices with Member 

States in the framework of the EJN-civil*;  

-  continue monitoring latest trends and national law related to parenthood; and 
-  prepare evaluation reports as necessary on the application of the Regulation. 

First, as a rule, the application of the EU legislation in the area of civil justice is monitored 
through  regular  meetings  of  EJN-civil*  and  the  Parenthood  regulation  would  not  be  an 
exception.  Thematic  meetings  of  EJN-civil  where  the  EJN  contact  points  from  Member 
States discuss the practical aspects of the application of the Parenthood  regulation would 
be essential for assessing how the Regulation is applied in practice and what its impact is. 
EJN-civil would also help to address any potential practical problems that would arise with 
the application of the Regulation198.  

Second,  to  keep  the  Regulation  up-to-date  and  fit  for  purpose,  the  Commission  would 
continue monitoring the latest trends in the Member States concerning the establishment 
of parenthood199.  

Finally, a full evaluation of the application of the Regulation would be carried out by the 
Commission  seven  years  after  the  Regulation  enters  into  force  with  a  view  to  assess  the 
evolution of the impacts of the Regulation200. The evaluation would be done on the basis of 
input  collected  from  the  authorities  of  the  Member  States,  external  experts,  and  relevant 
stakeholders and literature, as necessary. As is the case for other EU legislation on family 
law  with  cross-border  aspects,  a  legal  requirement  on  Member  States  to  provide  specific 
information relevant for the evaluation of the operation and application of the Parenthood 
regulation will be included in the Regulation201. In addition, the evaluation would be based 
on case law and, if available, on the findings from academic literature on the topic.  

Figure 15 in Annex 8 provides suggested indicators for the evaluation of the functioning of 
the Regulation202.  

198 The regular exchanges of knowledge and best practices in the context of EJN-civil* would also enhance 
mutual trust between MS and could have an approximation effect of national substantive family law. 
199 Whether resulting from the new scientific developments or changing societal trends. 
200 This period of time will allow the Commission to collect a critical mass of information about the practical 
application of the Regulation.  
201 As to which, see e.g. Art. 101(2) of the Brussels IIb Regulation. 
202 In particular, the monitoring and evaluation of the Parenthood regulation could benefit from the results of 
the  monitoring  of  the  implementation  of  the  other  related  EU  initiatives,  such  as  the  EU  Strategy  on  the 
rights  of  the  child  and  the  LGBTIQ  Equality  Strategy  2020-2025.  As  the  Parenthood  regulation  would  not 
apply to Denmark (see fn. 5), Denmark could be used, wherever appropriate, as a reference point (a “control 
group”)  to  compare  the  effects  of  the  Parenthood  regulation.  This  would  allow  to  factor  in  any  external 
drivers affecting the effects of the Regulation. 

47 

 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

10. 1. 

LEAD DG, DECIDE PLANNING/CWP REFERENCES 

Lead DG: DG JUSTICE AND CONSUMERS (“DG JUST”) 

Decide Planning: PLAN/2021/10134 – Recognition of parenthood 

11. 2. 

ORGANISATION AND TIMING 

A Commission inter-services steering group (ISSG) was established in February 2021 for 
preparing  the  Parenthood  initiative.  It  was  chaired  by  Directorate-General  Justice  and 
Consumers (DG  JUST).  The following DGs  and  services participated at  the inter-service 
group: Legal Service (SJ), Secretariat-General (SG) and DG JUST (several relevant units). 
The ISSG met three times in the period from March 2021 to November 2021 and approved 
the Inception Impact Assessment on 30 March 2021.  

Given  the  fact  that  the  Parenthood  initiative  was  included  in  the  Commission  work 
programme  2022,  the  previous  ISSG  was  replaced  in  November  2021,  in  line  with  the 
Commission working methods, with a new  ISSG chaired by the Secretariat-General. The 
new  ISSG  had  the  same  members.  The  new  ISSG  discussed  and  validated  the  Impact 
Assessment report at its meeting on 2 May 2022.  

12. 3. 

CONSULTATION OF THE RSB 

Before  the  finalisation  of  the  Impact  Assessment  report,  DG  JUST  received  advice  from 
the members of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (“RSB”) at an upstream meeting organised 
on 7 January 2022.  

The Impact Assessment  report was then examined by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board and 
received  a  positive  opinion  on  8  June  2022.  In  its  opinion,  the  Board  also  provided 
suggestions  as  to  possible  improvements  of  the  report.  The  table  below  shows  how  this 
report takes into account the main comments of the RSB. 

The  report  details  the  size  of  the  problem  in  its 
Section 2.5 - The scale of the problem. A table which 
elaborates  on  the  assumptions  used  when  preparing 
the  report  was  added  to  Annex  1  below  (Figure  8  – 
Main assumptions used in the report).  References to 
this  table  were  included  in  the  report.  The  report 
works  with  ranges  thoroughly  (lower  and  upper 
for 
bounds),  especially  with 
recognition  procedures*.  As  regards 
legal 
situations  in  Member  States,  the  impact  assessment 
report now specifically refers (fn. 104 and 209) to the 
detailed  overview  of  the  legal  situations  in  the  EU 
included in the Study of an external contractor*.  

to  costs 
the 

respect 

Figure 7: Opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board  
(1)  The  description  of  the  problem  should  more 
directly address the core issues. The different types of 
parenthood issues likely to be affected by the problem 
should be more clearly identified from the outset. The 
report should be open about the lack of available data 
on the scale of the problem and where assumptions are 
made, these should be clearly explained. In view of the 
uncertainty of the estimates, the report should consider 
to  present  estimates  in  ranges.  As  background  to  the 
problem  description,  an  annex  should  provide  an 
overview of the legal situations in Member States. 

48 

 
 
 
 
(2) The report should present the cost and cost saving 
estimates  in  more  succinct  ways,  clearly  setting  out 
assumptions made. In particular, it should clarify how 
the  costs  and  cost  savings  for  affected  families  were 
calculated.  The  time  horizon  of  estimates  should  be 
also clarified. The report should also better distinguish 
between  the  overall  estimates  and  the  specific  ones 
required for the one in, one out (OIOO) approach. The 
OIOO  estimates  should  be  revised  to  make  sure  that 
only  costs  and  cost  savings  considered  within  the 
scope of OIOO are included. 

(3) The issue of potentially abusive practices (such as 
‘forum shopping’) and other unintended  consequences 
of  opportunistic  uses  of  parenthood  certifications 
should  be  assessed  more  thoroughly  and  presented 
more transparently. First, the report should provide an 
assessment  of  the  degree  of  forum  shopping  (and 
similar  practices)  occurring  under 
the  baseline. 
Secondly, the options should spell out more concretely 
how  unintended  forum  shopping  will  be  prevented. 
This  should  include  how  requirements  of  ‘habitual 
residence’  will  be 
for  national  birth 
required 
certificates  and 
the  European  Parenthood 
Certificate  and  how  this  will  interplay  with  Member 
States’ prerogative in family and civil law. 

for 

(4) The report should better present the  simplification 
potential  of  the  initiative  given  the  significant  cost 
savings  identified  and  since  the  principle  of  mutual 
recognition  of  parenthood 
is  already  accepted 
jurisprudence  in  EU  law.  The  subsidiarity  section 
should  better  explain  how  the  initiative  respects 
Member States’ competence in substantive family law. 

A  table  which  elaborates  on  the  assumptions  which 
were  used  when  preparing  the  report  was  added 
below  (Figure  8  –  Main  assumptions  used  in  the 
report).  References  to  this  table  were  included 
throughout  the  report.  It  was  clarified  that  the  costs 
for recognition procedures are one-off and aggregate, 
as  they  relate  to  the  overall  number  of  cross-border 
families  in  2020  that  may  require  recognition  of 
parenthood in another Member State at one point. 
Costs  savings  that  qualify  as  savings  under  the  one 
in,  one  out  approach  were  quantified  separately  and 
are  now  presented in  Annex  3. A section  was added 
to  Annex  4  explaining  the  calculation  of  OIOO  cost 
savings.  
Instances  where  families  seize  more  favourable 
jurisdiction  to  establish  their  family  relations  cannot 
and will not be prevented altogether under any policy 
option  or  baseline.  However, 
forum  shopping 
practices  would  be  reduced  under  the  Regulation  as 
compared  to  the  current  situation.  This  is,  among 
others,  because  all  Member  States  would  use  the 
harmonised  applicable  law  rules  designated  by  the 
to  a  child. 
to  establish  parenthood 
Regulation 
Moreover,  the  applicable  law  would  be  based  on 
habitual  residence  as  connecting  factors.  Choice  of 
law would not be allowed. This was further explained 
in Section 5.2 (p. 31). 

In  addition, 
the  application  of  EU  civil-law 
instruments  is  continuously  followed  through  the 
regular  meetings  of  the  EJN-civil*  with  a  view  to 
monitor  and  resolve  any  unintended  effects  of  the 
legislation. 
The  report  is  now  clearer  in  its  Sections  6  and  9 
concerning  the  simplification  that  the  Regulation 
would  bring  into  the  current  system  of  (often 
incoherent)  national  rules.  The  subsidiarity  section 
(Section  3)  has  also  been  revised  to  clarify  that  the 
Regulation  would  not  affect  substantive  family  law 
rules  and  would  respect  Member  States’  exclusive 
competence on the matter and subsidiarity. 

13. 4. 

EVIDENCE, SOURCES AND QUALITY 

In the preparation of this impact assessment, DG JUST consulted a wide range of experts 
and stakeholders and used several different methods to gather evidence.  

 

In  particular,  a  Study  by  an  external  contractor*  was  commissioned  to  support 
the  preparation  of  the  impact  assessment.  The  Study  also  included  extensive 
overview  of  the  law  and  practice  concerning,  among  others,  the  national 
substantive law and PIL rules related to parenthood (Country reports*).  

  Moreover,  evidence  used  in  this  impact  assessment  was  gathered  based  on  a 
Commission’s  consultation  strategy,  which  included:  (i)  public  feedback  to  the 
inception  impact  assessment;  (ii)  an  open  public  consultation;  (iii)  a  meeting 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
with  stakeholders203;  and 
(iv)  and  a  meeting  with  Member  States 
representatives.  The  results  of  these  consultation  activities  are  presented  in 
Annex 2 of this report. In addition, DG JUST also considered, in the preparation of 
this  report,  the  information  and  opinions  provided  by  the  public  and  stakeholders 
through letters addressed to the Commission and petitions.  

  The  external  contractor  employed  the  following  stakeholder  consultation  tools 
specifically  designed  for  the  purposes  of  the  study:  (i)  online  survey  targeting 
civil registrars in the EU; (ii) written questionnaires targeting national ministries 
and judiciary and (iii) targeted semi-structured interviews with judiciary and key 
stakeholders and NGOs204. 

  DG  JUST  also  received  expertise  through  a  collaboration  with  a  COM  Expert 
Group  on  the  recognition  of  parenthood  between  Member  States205.  In  2021 
and  early  2022,  the  Commission  held  seven  meetings  with  the  experts,  which 
helped to inform the development of policy options, especially the legislative ones.  

  DG  JUST  also  participated  in  meetings  of  an  Experts’  Group  on  the  HCCH 

Parentage / Surrogacy Project. 

  Finally, DG JUST also gained further insight into the subject of this report with the 

help of available resources, such as existing literature, reports and studies.  

Assumptions used in the report and its robustness 

In  general,  the  report  was  based  on  solid  theoretical  understanding  gained  in  particular 
through  desk  research,  collaboration  with  participants  of  the  expert  groups  and  research 
and data collection by the external  contractor.  Moreover, many stakeholders have shown 
great  interest  and  willingness  to  share  their  views  through  the  consultation  activities 
described  above.  The  report  thus  draws  on  that  thorough  feedback.  All  EU  jurisdictions, 
except of Denmark, were represented in the consultations. 

In  contrast,  the  main  difficulty  in  the  preparation  of  the  report  was  the  limited 
availability of data on the subject matter, especially disaggregated data. For instance, the 
numbers  of  cross-border  families  affected  by  the  existing  problems  had  to  be  estimated 
based  on  several  assumptions.  The  estimations  were  complicated  by  the  fact  that  certain 
data  is  not  collected  at  EU  level  either  at  all  (such  as  the  data  concerning  surrogacy 
arrangements)  or  not  systematically  given  the  sensitivity  of  the  subject  matter  and  data 
protection  considerations  (information  concerning  sexual  orientation  of  persons206  and 
consequently  data  concerning  rainbow  families).  Representative  data  thus  cannot  be 
obtained.  Moreover,  the  fact  that  most  of  the  processes  leading  to  the  recognition  of 
parenthood  take  place  before  local  administrative  authorities  of  Member  States  further 
complicated  the  collection  of  data.  Indeed,  while  many  Member  States  record  statistical 

203 Among others, organisations representing children and their interests were also consulted.  
204  For  the  summary  of  the  consultations  conducted  by  the  contractor,  see  Annex  3  of  the  Study  by  an 
external contractor*.  
205 For more information, see the Register of Commission Expert Groups and Other Similar Entities.  
206 As a rule, this data is collected only voluntarily and based on self-identification. 

50 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
data  concerning  judicial  proceedings,  this  is  usually  not  done  for  administrative 
proceedings.  It  follows  that  data  regarding  the  current  number  of  cases  as  well  as  other 
relevant statistics is not readily available.  

A lack of data was especially significant in relation to the existing problems related to the 
recognition of parenthood, in particular:  

- 

- 

the number of children and families affected by the problems related to the cross-border recognition 
of  parenthood  (in  each  family  constellation  or  scenario207  and  both  before  Member  States’ 
administrative authorities and courts); the evolution of the number in the next decade; 

the current costs borne by cross-border families, public administrations, and the judiciary needed to 
process  the  requests  for  cross-border  recognition  of  parenthood;  breakdown  of  these  costs;  the 
evolution of the costs in the next decade;  

-  Member-State  specific  data  that  would  allow  credible  assessment  of  the  distribution  of  problems 

and impacts of the policy options in each Member State individually.  

o  First,  problems  with  non-recognition  of  parenthood  may  stem  from  the  existing 
discrepancies  between  Member  States’  applicable  law  rules  on  the  establishment  of 
parenthood  in  cross-border  situations208.  The  problem  of  the  parenthood  non-recognition 
may thus arise between all Member States.  

o  Besides  the  first  point,  difficulties  may  further  materialize  where  certain  ways  of  family 
formation  are  not  legally  accepted  in  national  law  of  a  Member  State.  However,  in 
individual  cases,  it  is  Member  States’  public  authorities  (administrative  or  judicial 
authorities) that apply national law (or bilateral and multilateral agreements). They often 
do  so  in  a  way  to  comply  with  the  obligations  stemming  from  international  law  and  to 
protect  the  best  interests  of  children.  Therefore,  while  national  laws  concerning 
parenthood  could  be  an  indication  of  Member  States,  which  are  more  restrictive  in 
recognising  parenthood  from  other  countries209,  the  differences  between  the  letter  of  the 
law and the application of these laws make any such conclusions imprecise.  

o  Making  any  definitive  conclusions  about  the  distribution  of  problems  among  Member 
States would also be complicated by the fact that parenthood recognition cases often take 
place  before  administrative  authorities  that  often  do  not  keep  centralised  records  of  the 
cases.  

The work with data related to the problem definition was also complicated by the fact that 
the  existing  problems  with  the  recognition  of  parenthood  are  diverse  in  their  nature  and 
often involve complex legal considerations.  

These  limitations  as  to  the  availability  of  accurate  data  were  not  surprising  as  they  were 
also reported in other reports in the field210. 

207 For instance, number of domestic adoptions or domestic surrogacy cases. 
208 See e.g. examples 1 and 2 in Annex 7. 
209 For an overview of the legal situation in Member States, see the Study of an external contractor*. 
210  For  instance,  the  EAVA  report  on  the  recognition  of  adoptions*  notes  on  p.26,  Annex  I:  “In  an  ideal 
world the writers would have wished to have included in this report real life stories of practical implications 
of  the  current  legal  framework.  We  would  have  liked  to  have  been  able  to  have  regard  to  data  from 
quantitative surveys of the incidence, outcome, and cost of recognition in all EU MSs, but this data does not 
currently exist and was outside of the scope of our report because:  

- 

the financial cost of bringing recognition proceedings will vary from firm to firm and in country to 
country, and will depend on a number of factors, including but not limited to, the legal process of 
the MS concerned. […].“ 

51 

 
 
 
                                                 
Assumptions used in the report 

Given the existing data limitations, following assumptions and estimates have been used to 
inform the conclusions of the report: 

Figure 8: Main assumptions used in the report 

Assumptions / Estimates 

Explanation of the assumptions / estimates 

The  number  of 
cross-border  
families 
children in EU-26 

with 

About  3.2%  of 
families  with 
children  are  mobile  in  EU-26,  this 
proportion  is  likely  to  grow  to  5% 
in the coming years. 

The overwhelming majority of cases where parenthood recognition 
is sought is where a family or a child have moved between Member 
States.  The  report  thus  works  with  data  and  estimates  concerning 
mobile families. However, should the other cross-border situations 
not requiring mobility be added to the number of mobile families, 
the estimates for people affected by the problems with parenthood 
recognition would slightly increase. 

The  percentage  of  families  that  are  mobile  was  based  on  the 
number of mobile citizens in the EU-26 in 2020211. The assumption 
was  used  that  families  have  the  same  behaviour  with  respect  to 
mobility  as  the  rest  of  the  population.  In  2020,  the  mobility  of 
persons  in  the  EU  was  influenced  by  the  COVID-19  pandemic. 
Once the situation normalises after the pandemic, the percentage of 
mobile families in the EU will increase back to 5%. 

Only  mobile  couples  with  children 
were  considered,  not  single  parents 
with children. 

In  most  cases,  problems  with  parenthood  recognition  arise  in 
relation  to  a  couple  where  the  parenthood  of  one  (or  rarely  both) 
parents is not recognised.  

However, the recognition of parenthood of a single parent can also 
be  refused  in  some  cases212.  Since  there  is  no  data  about  the 
prevalence  of  the  recognition  problem  among  single  parents,  this 
problem  scenario  was  not  included  in  the  overall  quantification. 
Should also single parents with children be considered, the number 
of  people  affected  by  the  problems  with  parenthood  recognition 
would grow further. 

Families  that  have  two  and  more 
children  were  calculated  as  having 
two children. 

The Eurostat’s data on family composition in the EU does not give 
information  about  the  exact  number  of  children  in  families  that 
have ‘two and more children’213. Therefore, all families  with ‘two 
and more children’ were calculated as having exactly two children.  

This  means  that  in  reality  the  number  of  children  in  cross-border 
families is slightly higher than the figure used.  

The  number  of 
cross-border 
families 
by 
with 
recognition  

affected 
the  problems 
parenthood 

All  cross-border  families  will  need 
to have their parenthood recognised 
in  another  Member  State  at  least 
once over the lifetime of each child. 

All  these  cross-border  families  will 
thus  start  recognition  procedures  – 
mostly  before  Member  States’ 
administrative  authorities,  in  some 
cases also before courts. 

While  data  is  not  available  on  the  number  of  parenthood 
recognition  cases  in  each  Member  States  per  year,  it  is  assumed 
that all cross-border families would need to request the recognition 
of parenthood in another Member State at least once – whether that 
is e.g. in  the Member State of their residence  or Member State of 
nationality.  If  only  some  cross-border  families  requested  the 
recognition of parenthood abroad, the actual number of parenthood 
recognition  cases  would  be  lower  than  the  one  estimated.  In 
contrast,  should  those  families  need  recognition  of  parenthood  in 
more than one Member State, the number of cases would increase.  

The estimate of the number of cases thus relies on the assumption 
that  each  child  in  cross-border  families  will  need  parenthood 
recognition once in its lifetime. The exact year when those children 
needed  (or  will  need)  the  recognition  of  parenthood  cannot  be 

211 Eurostat – Statistics explained. Migration and migrant population statistics. The figure also corresponds 
to: European Commission (2020). Annual Report on Intra-EU Labour Mobility 2020, p. 13. 
212  For  an  example  of  a  problem  affecting  a  single  parent  and  his  child,  see  e.g.  judgment  of  the  Polish 
Supreme Administrative Court of 10.9.2020, No. II OSK 1390/18. 
213 Eurostat. Household composition statistics. 

52 

 
 
 
                                                 
determined. The overall number of parenthood recognition cases in 
the EU thus cannot be broken down per year.  

Finally,  it  was  estimated  that  out  of  those  families  whose 
parenthood  is  not  recognised  at  the  administrative  stage  of  the 
recognition process,  about 80%  appeal  against  that  decision.  (The 
remainder  of  families  may  choose  not  to  pursue  a  legal  battle  for 
various  reasons,  including  related  to  a  lack  of  information  or  of 
legal advice, to a lack of financial resources, or to a wish to avoid 
the  psychological  burden  of  such  proceedings  on  the  child  and 
family.) 

In the absence of EU population data on the matter, the estimate of 
the  percentage  of  rainbow  families  was  extrapolated  from  a  U.S. 
census  and  other  studies  and  estimates.  Likewise,  the  number  of 
children  in  rainbow  families  was  estimated  based  on  information 
from  the  U.S.  census214.  This  information  was  compared  with  the 
population  data  collected  through  EU-SILC  as  received  from 
Eurostat. 

It is not feasible to measure the actual number of families that are 
deterred  from  moving  to  (a)  certain  Member  State(s)  for  fear  that 
the parenthood of their child will not be recognised (as explained in 
the Section on the Problem Definition). However, it should not be 
necessary, as the deterrent effect may potentially affect all rainbow 
families and not only those that move to such Member States since 
their freedom to consider moving within the EU is affected in any 
event.  It  can  be  assumed  that  as  long  as  there  are  Member  States 
where  parenthood  of  a  rainbow  family  validly  established  in  one 
Member  State  is  not  recognised,  such  a  “deterrent  effect”  is 
present.  The  report  thus  works  with  the  assumption  that  the 
problem  with  the  recognition  of  parenthood  affects  all  rainbow 
families even if some may not experience the problem first-hand. 

It  was  estimated  that  about  6%  of 
cross-border  families  are  rainbow 
families.  

Same-gender couples are 38.89% as 
likely  to  have  at  least  one  child  as 
opposite-gender couples. 

While  it  cannot  be  estimated  how 
many of these rainbow families face 
or  will  face  parenthood  recognition 
problems  in  another  Member  State, 
all  these  families  are  in  principle 
affected  by  the  problem  and  its 
deterrent effect on free movement.  

About 0.05% to 0.1% of children of 
mobile  opposite-gender  parents  are 
affected  by  the  problems  with  the 
recognition of parenthood.  

Children  of  mobile  opposite-gender  parents  may  be  affected  by 
parenthood recognition problems due to the existing discrepancies 
among  the  PIL  rules  of  Member  States  that  may  each  establish 
parenthood to a single child differently.  

Problems 
parenthood 
with 
recognition  were  not  broken  down 
the  differences  between 
despite 
Member States.  

In  addition,  among  children  born  to  mobile  opposite-gender 
parents,  children  born  through  surrogacy  are  some  of  those  most 
frequently 
recognition  problems. 
Comprehensive data on surrogacy in the EU are not available215.  

affected  by  parenthood 

In the absence of data, a conservative estimate was made that about 
0.05%  to  0.1%  of  all  children  of  mobile  opposite-gender  parents 
are affected by the problems with the recognition of parenthood. 
For  simplicity  and  data  availability  reasons,  the  assumption  was 
made  that  it  is  equally  difficult  to  have  parenthood  recognised 
throughout the EU. The report did not differentiate among Member 
States.  

As  explained  above,  problems  with  parenthood  recognition  may 
arise  in  relation  to  any  Member  State  given  the  differences  in 
national PIL rules.  

In  addition,  data  about  the  parenthood  recognition  cases  (as 
collected  from  petitions,  letters  and  through  the  consultation 
activities  undertaken  in  the  context  of  this  impact  assessment)  is 
not  representative  enough  to  make  a  well-informed  assessment  in 
which Member States parenthood recognition problems arise more 

214 For details, see Annex 4.  
215 The limited data that could be collected are presented in Annex 4, section 1.3.2. 

53 

 
 
 
 
  
 
  
 
 
                                                 
frequently. National laws concerning parenthood with cross-border 
aspects could be an indication of such Member States; however, the 
differences between the letter and the application of national laws 
make  any  conclusions  skewed.  The  estimates  were  thus  made  for 
the EU as a whole without differentiating on a country basis.  

Costs for 
parenthood 
recognition 
procedures 

 - baseline 

Costs  for  parenthood  recognition 
procedures*  were  calculated  using 
the number of cross-border families 
that  experience  problems  with 
parenthood recognition.  

The number of cross-border families that experience problems with 
parenthood recognition was estimated based on the assumptions set 
out  above.  This number  however  includes  also  those  families  that 
are  affected  by  the  problems  indirectly,  through  the  deterrence 
effect  on  free  movement216.  For  these  families,  the  costs  for 
recognition procedures* and hassle costs* do not arise.  

The  estimated  costs  for 
recognition  procedures  borne  by 
cross-border families and by public authorities would thus be lower 
if  it  was  possible  to  measure  the  number  of  affected  families 
accurately.  

As  detailed  in  Annex  4,  the  costs  were  broken  down  into  several 
categories,  including  administrative  and  court  fees,  costs  for  legal 
representation  and  other  costs,  such  as  those  for  evidence, 
translations  etc.  The  legal  representation  makes  up  a  significant 
proportion of the overall costs borne by families.  

The assumptions as to the size and prevalence of these costs were 
consulted  with  the  notaries  and  public  registrars  in  the  context  of 
the consultation activities conducted by the European Commission 
or the external contractor*. 

Since  the  time  needed  for  recognition  procedures  differs  largely 
case-by-case, the hassle costs were not quantified.  

Therefore,  besides  costs  for  recognition  procedures*  quantified 
above,  hassle  costs  would  also  add  to  the  overall  costs  borne  by 
families, if quantified.  

As detailed in Annex 4, the costs for recognition procedures borne 
by  public  authorities  were  based  on  the  assumed  labour  costs  of 
administrative  and  court  authorities  and  the  assumed  number  of 
FTE days that these authorities spend on a case.  

for 

Costs  for  parenthood  recognition 
procedures* 
families  differ 
largely  Member  State  to  Member 
State  and  family  to  family.  Several 
assumptions had to be made in that 
regard. 

certainly 

While 
non-negligible, 
hassle  costs,  i.e.  costs  for  families 
and 
that 
unnecessary waiting times were not 
quantified. 

from  delays 

result 

largely  Member  State 

Costs  for  parenthood  recognition 
procedures*  for  public  authorities 
differ 
to 
Member  State  and  case  by  to  case. 
Several assumptions had to be made 
in that regard. 

Costs for 
parenthood 
recognition 
procedures 

 - policy options 

It  was  estimated  that  the  European 
Certificate  of  Parenthood  would  be 
used  by  70%  of  cross-border 
families.  

While  consultations  suggest  a  high  demand  for  ECP  among 
cross-border  families  (close  to  100%  of  the  cases),  a  rather 
conservative  estimate  was  applied  when  calculating  the  cost 
savings  introduced  by  the  ECP,  i.e.  that  70%  of  cross-border 
families would request an ECP. 

An extensive effort was made to address the data limitations and to provide a solid basis 
for  this  report.  The  data  and  evidence  were  obtained  from  multiple  sources  and  through 
various tools217. Estimates were made based on the extrapolation of the available data and 
refined  taking  into  account  the  insights  gained  through  consultations  and  from  other 
sources. The estimates were further validated based on discussions with experts. To factor 

216 As explained above, this cannot be credibly established in the absence of relevant data. 
217  This  also  included  a  request  to  Eurostat  for  a  breakdown  of  the  population  data  collected  through 
EU-SILC. 

54 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
in the ranges in costs volumes and other uncertainties, the report worked with ranges (with 
lower and upper bounds) to better reflect the reality. 

The data limitations and assumptions did not have an impact on the selection of the 
preferred  option  as  the  preferred  policy  option  was  chosen  based  on  multi-criteria 
analysis,  with  a  particular  focus  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  initiative  in  achieving  its 
objectives, rather than on quantitative criteria.  

55 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION (SYNOPSIS REPORT) 

The  Commission  conducted  a  consultation  strategy  to  gather  information  from  key 
stakeholders and Member State authorities on the prevalence of the current problems with 
the recognition of parenthood and their views on the possible EU-level solutions to address 
these problems.  

14. 1. 

CONSULTATION STRATEGY  

The  Commission  used  multiple  channels  to  target  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders  and  a 
variety  of  tools  to  interpret  the  results218.  Input  was  received  from  a  wide  range  of  key 
stakeholders representing EU and non-EU citizens, public authorities, academics, research 
institutions, legal professionals, NGOs and other relevant interest groups.  

The Commission’s consultation strategy included four main consultation activities, each 
of  them  having  a  different  running  period,  recipient  and/or  object.  The  consultation 
activities  included  (i)  an  Open  Public  Consultation  (“OPC”);  (ii)  the  evaluation  of  the 
feedback  given  to  the  Commission’s  Inception  Impact  Assessment;  (iii)  meeting  with 
stakeholders with a particular interest in the parenthood initiative; and (iv) a meeting with 
national experts from the Member States. Moreover, further consultations were undertaken 
in the context of the external study supporting the impact assessment219. 

15. 2.  MAIN STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK PER CONSULTATION ACTIVITY 

a)  Open Public Consultation  

OPC  published  on  the  Commission’s  ‘Have  your  say’  portal  from  19  May  to  25  August 
2021  resulted  in  390  replies  from:  the  public  (352  individual  respondents),  public 
authorities (29 respondents), non-governmental organisations (19 respondents), academics 
or research institutions (5 respondents), business organisations (3 respondents), trade union 
(1 respondent) and other organisations (7 respondents)220.  

The questionnaire was organised around four main pillars. The first concerned the current 
situation and problems relating to the non-recognition of parenthood in the absence of any 
EU level action. Most respondents were aware of instances where parenthood established 
in a Member State was not recognised in another Member State while a minority were not. 

218  Although  the  consultation  activities  organised  in  the  context  of  the  Parenthood  initiative  gathered 
significant interest and response rate, the results are still not statistically representative. For instance, one 
third of the replies to the Open Public Consultation came only from citizens of Slovakia. 

219  This  includes  online  survey  targeting  civil  registrars,  and  questionnaire  and  interviews  targeting  public 
authorities,  judicial  representatives,  NGOs  and  legal  professionals  working  on  topics  concerning 
cross-border aspects of parenthood.  

220  For  a  detailed  summary  of  the  results  of  the  OPC,  please  see  the  Summary  Report  available  at 

Cross-border family situations - recognition of parenthood (europa.eu). 

56 

 
 
                                                 
The  majority  of  respondents  stated  that  the  current  status  quo  is  a  serious  problem221, 
whereas, the second highest share of respondents stated that it is not.  

Some respondents noted that the non-recognition of parenthood leads to the denial of rights 
of  the  child  and/or  obligations  derived  from  parenthood.  Among  the  most  commonly 
mentioned consequences of the non-recognition of parenthood were the denial of parental 
rights  to  act  as  the  legal  representative(s)  of  the  child,  problems  with  the  issuance  of 
documentation  necessary  for  a  child  to  obtain  nationality,  and  a  negative  impact  on  the 
social advantages or on the child’s inheritance were also reported. Ultimately, as a result of 
the non-recognition of parenthood, families were reportedly dissuaded from travelling with 
their child within the EU or from moving to another Member State. 

The second block of questions concerned the procedural hurdles in the procedures for the 
recognition  of  parenthood.  The  majority  of  respondents  that  replied  to  these  questions 
indicated that the main problem was that the recognition procedures before administrative 
authorities  was  excessively  lengthy,  mostly  stating  that  the  length  of  the  administrative 
procedure  was  12  to  24  months.  The  average  estimated  costs  for  recognition  procedures 
before administrative authorities varied significantly from recognition being free of charge 
in  some  Member  States  to  reaching  12.000  EUR  in  some  cases222.  Respondents  also 
reported that some cases required bringing a case to court. 27% indicated that the estimated 
length  of  court  proceedings  for  the  recognition  of  parenthood  was  more  than  two  years. 
The costs for such proceedings ranged between 0 and 25.000 EUR. 

The  third  pillar  was  dedicated  to  the  reactions  on  the  possible  EU  initiative  to  facilitate 
cross-border recognition. The majority of respondents, essentially EU-citizens and public 
authorities, agreed to the Commission proposing a legislative initiative on the recognition 
of  parenthood  between  Member  States.  However,  a  considerable  minority  (33%  of 
respondents,  most  of  which  were  Slovak  citizens)  disagreed,  mostly  stating  that  the 
recognition of parenthood should be a matter regulated only by Member States.  

Regardless of their views on the possible adoption of EU legislation on the recognition of 
parenthood,  most  of  the  respondents  considered  that  the  EU  should  play  a  role  in 
promoting  cooperation  on  the  matter  between  public  authorities  (such  as  by  organising 
judicial  training  or  thematic  meetings  in  the  framework  of  the  EJN-civil,  by  issuing 
guidance  on  parenthood  recognition  to  Member  States  or  by  raising  citizens’  awareness 
about the existing problems). Nevertheless, a minority (30% of respondents) indicated that 
the EU should play no role in such matters. 

221  Of  those  respondents  who  indicated  that  they  were  aware  of  instances  where  parenthood  was  not 
recognized, 91% specified that the lack of EU harmonised rules on the recognition of parenthood in the 
EU poses a serious problem or somewhat serious problem.  

222  The respondents were asked to include, wherever applicable, also the costs for legal advice. 

57 

 
 
                                                 
As  regards  questions  concerning  the  details  of  the  possible  EU  legislative  initiative  (for 
instance the applicable law), the views showed no particular convergence. Finally, 41% of 
the  respondents  considered  that  an  introduction  of  a  possible  European  Certificate  of 
Parenthood (“ECP”) would be useful and its inclusion in the legislative instrument should 
be a priority. On the other hand, 37% of the respondents (almost all of them being Slovak 
citizens) indicated that they would not support an ECP, as the currently available national 
documentation is sufficient. 

The  fourth  and  final  pillar  examined  the  impact  of  the  possible  EU  legislation  on  the 
recognition  of  parenthood  between  Member  States.  A  majority  of  respondents  indicated 
that  such  legislation  would  have  a  very  positive  impact  on  children’s  fundamental  rights 
and  welfare  (including  emotional  and  psychological  wellbeing)  and  in  facilitating  the 
exercise of the right of children to travel and move within the EU with their families. Legal 
certainty, for both families and public authorities, would also be ensured as a result of the 
introduction  of  the  legislation  according  to  the  majority  of  the  respondents.  Finally, 
according to the majority of the respondents, the legislation would decrease the costs, time 
and burden for families as well as for national judicial systems. 

b)  Feedback on the Inception Impact Assessment  

In  addition  to  the  OPC, the  Commission  also  collected  feedback  to  the  Inception  Impact 
Assessment  (“IIA”),  which  was  published  in  April  2021  with  a  double  objective:  (i)  to 
inform  citizens  and  stakeholders  about  the  Commission’s  plans  to  adopt  an  initiative  on 
parenthood recognition in cross-border situations and (ii) to allow them express their views 
on the Commission’s understanding of the problem and possible solutions.  

The  feedback  to  the  IIA  consisted  of  760  responses  from  a  wide  range  of  stakeholders 
composed  of  EU  and  non-EU  citizens  (725  respondents),  academic  and  research 
institutions  (3  respondents),  business  associations  (2  respondents),  non-governmental 
organisations (27  respondents) and other organisations (32 respondents).  The majority of 
respondents  came  from  Central  Europe.  At  least  one  e-mail  and  one  online  campaigns 
encouraging  the  public  to  criticise  the  initiative  in  the  context  of  IIA  feedback  were 
detected.  

The  overall  tendency  of  the  received  feedback  was  rather  negative.  A  majority  of 
respondents,  mostly  from  Hungary,  the  Czech  Republic,  Slovakia,  Poland  and  Germany 
disagreed  with  the  Commission’s  intention  to  adopt  a  legislative  measure  on  the 
recognition of parenthood between Member States. The reason for such disagreement was 
most often the opinion that the EU does not have a competence to adopt such a legislation 
or should not do so given the sensitivity of the area. Some of those respondents also opined 
that  the  initiative,  if  adopted,  would  interfere  with  substantive  family  law,  which  is  a 
national  competence  of  Member  States.  According  to  some  of  those  respondents, 
parenthood  should  only  be  recognised  in  cases  where  the  family  is  composed  of 
opposite-gender parents.  

58 

 
 
In contrast, other respondents to the IIA highlighted that an initiative on the recognition of 
parenthood  between  Member  States  would  be  crucial  to  ensuring  children’s  rights  and 
fundamental  rights.  The  contributions  supporting  the  parenthood  initiative  came  mainly 
from  Luxembourg,  Belgium,  Spain,  Croatia,  Finland  and  France.  Some  of  these 
respondents  considered that  the parenthood  initiative would be  important in  guaranteeing 
non-discrimination  and  facilitating  free  movement  in  the  EU.  Other  respondents  pointed 
out that this initiative is crucial for the protection of child’s fundamental rights. The most 
frequently mentioned consequences of non-recognition of parenthood were those related to 
the  acquisition  of  nationality,  to  the  exercise  of  parental  rights  and  rights  derived  from 
parenthood, to social security, health care, travelling and free movement. 

Many contributions from both citizens and organisations touched upon  surrogacy. Mixed 
opinions  were  expressed.  Some  participants  argued  that  no  distinction  or  discrimination 
should  be  made  between  children  based  on  the  way  in  which  they  were  born,  whereas 
others  expressed  their  disagreement  to  recognising  parenthood  in  cases  of  surrogacy 
mostly  referring  to  human  dignity  and  the  violation  of  women’s  fundamental  rights  as  a 
result of surrogacy. 

c)  Meeting with stakeholders 

As  a  part  of  the  Commission’s  consultation  strategy,  an  informal  meeting  with 
stakeholders was organised on 14 December 2021. It gathered participants from around 25 
umbrella  organisations  representing  a  variety  of  interests,  such  as  organisations 
representing children, rainbow families and families composed of opposite-gender parents, 
religions, legal practitioners and registrars, and participants from the European Parliament 
and  from  international  organisations,  such  as  the  Council  of  Europe,  the  ICCS  and  the 
International  Social  Service.  The  discussion  focused  on  two  main  blocks:  (i)  existing 
problems with the recognition of parenthood in the EU and (ii) possible solutions to those 
existing problems. 

Regarding  the  first  part  of  the  meeting,  the  participants  were  encouraged  to  elaborate  on 
the  problems  existing  with  the  recognition  of  parenthood  between  Member  States.  Most 
participants agreed that problems with the recognition of parenthood exist; however, they 
were  of  different  views  regarding  the  scale  of  the  problem.  In  particular,  participants 
representing  children,  legal  professionals  and  rainbow  families  considered  the  existing 
problems and its consequences as particularly serious.  

In  the  second  part  of  the  meeting,  possible  solutions  to  tackle  the  non-recognition  of 
parenthood  between  Member  States  were  addressed.  It  was  discussed  whether  and  how 
children’s  rights  can  be  protected  in  cross-border  situations  involving  the  recognition  of 
parenthood in the absence of any EU-level action. 

As regards the possible EU-level measures to tackle the problems with the non-recognition 
of  parenthood,  no  convergence  could  be  found.  The  participants  from  the  European 
Parliament  and  representatives  of  lawyers  and  registrars  were  of  the  view  that  EU 

59 

 
 
legislation  is  needed  to  facilitate  the  recognition  of  parenthood.  In  their  view,  the 
legislative  measure  would  ensure  legal  certainty  and  clarity  for  families  and  public 
authorities and reduce costs and length of recognition procedures. Participants representing 
children and rainbow families welcomed the EU action in this area, highlighting that they 
considered  crucial  to  solve  the  adverse  consequences  caused  by  the  non-recognition  of 
parenthood.  

On the other side of the spectrum, stakeholders representing mostly heterosexual families 
were  sceptical  towards  any  initiative  and  in  particular  the  legislative  policy  option. 
Reasons  given  for  such  disagreement  were  the  claimed  interference  of  an  EU  initiative 
with national family law systems, the sensitive nature of this area, as well as the concerns 
related to surrogacy arrangements. Some participants questioned whether a “one-size-fits-
all”  legislation  was  needed,  given  recent  CJEU  case  law,  as  well  as  other  instruments  at 
international and EU level on child-related matters.  

It  was  generally  acknowledged  that  non-legislative  measures,  such  a  greater  cooperation 
between  public  authorities  could  be  desirable  regardless  of  the  possible  adoption  of  a 
legislation  on  the  recognition  of  parenthood;  however,  many  participants  believed  that 
these measures would not solve most of the problems with recognition of parenthood. 

d)  Meeting with Member States 

On  25  January  2022,  the  Commission  organised  a  meeting  with  experts  from  Member 
States’  public  authorities  to  provide  information  about  the  parenthood  initiative  and  to 
exchange initial views thereon. Almost 100 participants from 26 Member States attended 
the meeting, representing various public authorities and ministries. 11 Member States took 
the floor during the meeting.  

In a similar way to the meeting with stakeholders, the Commission structured the meeting 
along the following blocks: (i) existing problems with the recognition of parenthood in the 
EU and (ii) possible solutions to those existing problems.  

In  the  first  block,  Member  States  explained,  from  their  national  point  of  view,  how  they 
deal  with  the recognition  of parenthood and whether they had encountered any problems 
with the recognition. Several Member States noted that formal recognition of parenthood is 
mostly  needed  in  procedures  for  granting  a  nationality  to  a  child  that  was  born  to  (a) 
national(s) of that Member State abroad. Several intervening Member States reported that 
they  were  not  aware  of  particular  problems  related  to  parenthood  recognition  in  their 
jurisdiction.  However,  a  number  of  Member  States  mentioned  that  they  were  aware  of 
problems  that  their  citizens  encountered  abroad.  Some  mentioned  that  parenthood  would 
not  be  recognised  under  certain  circumstances  in  their  jurisdiction.  The  main  problems 
with  the  recognition  were  seen  in  cases  involving  rainbow  families  and/or  in  relation  to 
surrogacy arrangements.  

60 

 
 
During  the  second  part,  Member  States  expressed  their  initial  positions  regarding  the 
possible  solutions  to  the  existing  problems  with  the  recognition  of  parenthood  between 
Member States. Most agreed that children and their rights and best interests need to be in 
the  focus  of  any  initiative  at  the  EU-level.  Non-legislative  measures,  such  as  more 
cooperation  and  exchanges  between  authorities,  were  also  supported  by  most  Member 
States  –  whether  to  complement  a  legislation  or  as  the  only  measure  undertaken.  In 
contrast, the views on the desirability of an EU legislation on the recognition of parenthood 
between Member States were divided. The following two trends were identified: 

First,  a  majority  of  Member  States  that  intervened  in  the  meeting  supported  legislation. 
Most  took  the  view  that  any  legislation  should  cover  both  court  decisions  and  authentic 
instruments  (such  as  birth  certificates).  Some  advocated  the  adoption  of  the  ECP. 
According to those Member States, a legislative instrument at EU level would be desirable 
especially in view of the increasing number of cross-border families that may experience 
problems with the recognition of parenthood.  

In  contrast,  some  Member  States  adopted  a  sceptical  position  towards  legislation.  They 
were either of the opinion that problems with the recognition of parenthood in the EU are 
not  significant  or  that  their  national  law  addresses  them  sufficiently.  One  Member  State 
stated that EU legislation would be contrary to its Constitution.  

More than half of participating Member States did not express their views concerning the 
parenthood  initiative  during  this  meeting223.  All  views  expressed  in  the  meeting  were 
preliminary and served solely to inform the preparation of the initiative. 

223 However, the Commission received views of most Member States through other means, whether through 
the  OPC,  through  replies  to  a  questionnaire  circulated  by  an  external  contractor,  or  in  the  context  of  an 
informal exchange at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 4 February 2022.  

61 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? 

16. 1. 

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE 

17. 1.1 

 CROSS-BORDER FAMILIES AND THEIR CHILDREN IN THE EU 

The problems with the recognition of parenthood affect children and their families in 
cross-border  situations.  The  103 000  mobile  parents  and  their  children  that  are 
affected by the problem of non-recognition may face precarious situations in Member 
States which are refusing to recognise their civil status. As a result, children and their 
families  may  be  deprived  of  rights  related  to  parenthood  status  (such  as  the  child’s 
succession  or  maintenance  rights),  fundamental  rights,  or  social  and  economic 
advantages  derived  from  parenthood.  They  may  also  be  deterred  from  pursuing 
personal and professional advantages on the internal market and moving freely within 
the EU for the fear that their status would not be recognised in some Member States. 
They may have to bear large costs for recognition procedures that are on average 16 
times higher than those in non-problematic cases.  

Under  the  preferred  policy  option,  the  problems  with  parenthood  recognition  would 
be significantly mitigated through the adoption of uniform rules on the establishment 
of  parenthood  with  cross-border  implications  and  on  the  recognition  of  parenthood 
between Member States. The preferred option would thereby significantly reduce the 
incidence of problems and their negative consequences.  

In  addition,  through  the  introduction  of  the  European  Certificate  of  Parenthood,  all 
families  stand  to  benefit,  not  only  those  that  currently  experience  problems  with 
parenthood  recognition.  The  ECP  would  do  away  with  most  current  costs,  thus 
reducing  the  costs  for  recognition  procedures  by  almost  70%  for  all  cross-border 
families. 

18. 1.2  MEMBER  STATES’  PUBLIC  AUTHORITIES  (PUBLIC  ADMINISTRATIONS  AND 

JUDICIARY) 

The  Member  States’  public  authorities  currently  bear  increased  costs  related  to  the 
parenthood  recognition  procedures.  The  current  recognition  procedures  are  much 
longer and more burdensome than they would have been should there be no problems 
with parenthood recognition. This situation results in an increased demand on the staff 
of  public  administrations  and  courts,  increased  workload  and  thus  more  costs  for 
public authorities.  

Under  the  preferred  policy  option,  the  procedures  for  the  recognition  of  parenthood 
and other PIL rules* would be harmonised at EU level. As a result, the problems with 
the recognition of parenthood would be mitigated and costs reduced. In addition, the 
uniform  rules  introduced  in  the  Regulation  would  increase  mutual  trust  between 
Member States in matters of parenthood and legal certainty for public authorities.  

Moderate compliance costs borne by public authorities, consisting of adjustment costs 
for  the  familiarization  with  the  new  rules,  training  costs,  information  campaign, 
digitalisation of the procedures etc., are expected to adjust the current processes to the 

62 

 
 
Parenthood  regulation.  These  costs  would  however  be  offset  by  the  cost  reductions 
resulting from the streamlined parenthood recognition procedures. 

19. 2. 

SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 

Figure 9: Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 
I. Overview of Benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 

Description 

Amount (one-off) 

Comments 

The recognition of parenthood 
between the  Member States is 
facilitated  

protection 

Increased 
of 
fundamental rights of children 
and their families 

Improved  access  to  justice, 
increased 
certainty, 
legal 
predictability  and  continuity 
of parenthood 

Reduced  costs  for  recognition 
for 
procedures* 
families 
seeking 
recognition  of 
the 
parenthood in the EU  

Direct benefits 

Not quantifiable  

Beneficiaries: cross-border families and their children and 
public authorities of Member States 

Not quantifiable 

Beneficiaries:  cross-border  families  and  their  children  in 
the EU 

Not quantifiable 

Beneficiaries: cross-border families and their children 

Total  cost  reductions  for 
cross-border 
families 
amount 
to  approximately 
EUR  703  mil.  under  the 
PO3  as  compared  to  the 
baseline.  

Beneficiaries: cross-border families and their children  

The current average costs for recognition procedures* are 
EUR  337  to  EUR  656  per  case  (lower  and  upper 
bounds*)  for  both  families  that  do  and  do  not  currently 
experience problems  with the recognition of parenthood. 
Under  PO3,  it  is  expected  that  the  average  costs  for 
recognition procedures borne by families would decrease 
by 71% to EUR 99 to EUR 184 per case (lower and upper 
bounds*). 

the 

savings 

While 
are 
overall  macroeconomic 
considerable,  the  difference  is  even  more  marked  in 
relation to the families currently affected by the problem 
with  the  non-recognition  of  parenthood.  The  costs  for 
recognition  procedures  to  be  borne  by  these  families 
would be approximately 10 times smaller under PO3 than 
under the baseline.  

Reduced  costs  for  recognition 
procedures 
public 
authorities of Member States 

for 

Total  cost  reductions  for 
public authorities amount to 
approximately  EUR  344 
mil.  under 
the  PO3  as 
compared to the baseline. 

Beneficiaries: public authorities of Member States 

The current average costs borne by public authorities  for 
recognition procedures are EUR 304 to EUR 346 per case 
(lower  and  upper  bounds*).  Under  PO3,  it  is  expected 
that the average costs for recognition procedures borne by 
public authorities would decrease by 53% to EUR 149 to 
EUR 154 per case (lower and upper bounds*). 

proceedings 

Decreased  length  and  burden 
of 
the 
recognition  of  parenthood  in 
the EU 

for 

Not quantified  
due to a significant variance 
in available data 

Beneficiaries:  cross-border  families  and  their  children  in 
the EU and public authorities of Member States 

The current average length of the parenthood recognition 
procedures varies greatly - between a few months or even 
weeks  in  the  easiest  cases  up  to  several  years  (1  to  3 
years, some outlier cases even 5 years) in the problematic 
ones. Delays in the procedure create a significant burden 
on families and public authorities.  

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Promotion  of  equality  and 
non-discrimination in the EU 

Not quantifiable 

those 

Under  the  PO3,  the  time  needed  to  achieve  parenthood 
recognition would decrease radically and for all families, 
including 
that  currently  do  not  experience 
parenthood  recognition  problems.  In  some  cases,  formal 
recognition  of  parenthood  may  not  even  be  needed, 
because  the  ECP  could  be  used  in  other  MS  directly,  as 
evidence of parenthood.  

Indirect benefits 

As  rainbow  families  (approximately  100 000  mobile 
LGBTIQ parents and their children) are disproportionally 
affected  by 
to 
particularly  benefit  from  the  Regulation.  Consequently, 
the  Regulation  would 
current 
inequalities. 

the  current  problems, 

they  stand 

indirectly 

reduce 

Increased 
children  

wellbeing 

of 

Not quantifiable224 

Beneficiaries: children of cross-border families  

Beneficiaries: all rainbow families  

The existing problem with the recognition of parenthood 
may  cause  emotional  distress  and  have  a  negative  effect 
on  the  (psychological)  wellbeing  of  children  in  the  EU. 
The  Regulation  stands  to  tackle  the  existing  problems, 
thereby improving the wellbeing of children. 

Positive impact on the right to 
free movement  

Not quantifiable 

Beneficiaries: cross-border families and their children 

PO3  would  reassure  mobile  families  that  their  civil-law 
rights  would  be  protected  throughout  the  EU  and  that 
they could thus take a full advantage of their right to free 
movement.  The  deterrent  effect  on  the  right  to  free 
movement stemming from the fear that parenthood status 
would not be recognised abroad would be diminished. 

Figure 10: Overview of costs and cost savings related to OIOO – Preferred Option 

Administrative costs and cost savings related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach* 

Reduced costs for 
recognition procedures 
for  cross-border families 

Total cost savings  for cross-border families on 
costs  related  to  ‘one  in,  one  out’  approach 
amount  to  approximately  EUR  545  mil.  under 
the  PO3  as  compared  to  the  baseline.  These 
cost  savings  concern  all  families  that  are 
currently  cross-border  and  are  one-off  and 
aggregate, not annual. They represent a saving 
of  EUR  275  per  a  child  in  a  cross-border 
family. 

Beneficiaries: estimated 1 981 735 children 
of cross-border families and their families. 

224 Notably, the European Parliamentary Research Service estimated in 2016 the emotional costs of resolving 
disputes on recognition of parenthood and / or of legal uncertainty at  EUR 10 000 per case. See European 
Added  Value  Assessment  by  the  European  Parliamentary  Research  Service.  As  noted  in  the  report,  this 
estimate  is  very  moderate  and  does  not  include  costs  of  problematic  situations  that  do  not  end  up  under 
litigation.  While  this  estimate  related  only  to  disputes  on  the  recognition  of  parenthood  after  domestic 
adoptions, it can be expected that the cases that disputes concerning parenthood established by other means 
than domestic adoption would result in similar emotional costs. 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Not quantified. 

Beneficiaries:  cross-border  families  and 
their children and legal practitioners. 

the 

resulting 
Cost  savings 
from  the  simplification 
of 
regulatory 
environment  in  the  EU 
and from the reduction of 
hassle  and  time  needed 
for 
parenthood 
the 
procedures 

  Application of the ‘one in, one out’ approach  

In line with the Better Regulation Toolbox, it needs to be considered whether the preferred 
policy option would have significant cost implications for businesses and citizens and if so, 
how these costs would be offset (the “one in, one out” or “OIOO” approach).  

One of the specific objectives of the Parenthood regulation is to mitigate or do away with 
the costs for recognition procedures  currently borne by children and their families as a 
result  of  the  existing  problems  with  the  recognition  of  parenthood.  In  addition,  the 
Regulation  introduces  no  new  compliance  requirements  that  would  affect  families  in  the 
EU225. Thus, as the Parenthood regulation would not introduce any new burden on families 
(or on businesses for the fact) and would reduce the existing one, the Regulation would be 
a “one out” initiative. The methodology to quantify the OIOO costs savings* is detailed 
in Annex 4.  

Figure  11:  Overview  of  costs  imposed  or  caused  directly  or  indirectly  by  the  preferred  option  (the 
Parenthood Regulation) 

Cross-border families 

Administrations 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

Parenthood 
regulation  

Direct adjustment 
costs 

Direct administrative 
costs 

Direct regulatory 
fees and charges 

Direct enforcement 
costs 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Minor adjustment costs 
borne by MS for:  
- the adjustment to new 
rules in a Regulation and 
to the issuance of ECP; 
- training of staff as 
regards the new rules 
- information campaigns 
addressed to the public 
and legal practitioners 

Minor adjustment costs 
borne by MS related to 
training for staff about 
the Regulation and 
related new 
developments and 
digitalisation of the 
procedures 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Negligible costs 
(related to monitoring of 
the application of the 

- 

- 

- 

- 

225  No  administrative  costs  or  adjustment  costs  for  individuals  or  businesses.  For  instance,  the  Parenthood 
regulation would not introduce any fees for the provision of ECPs (however, Member States would have the 
discretion to do so). In addition, the ECP would only be optional in that it would only be issued at a request 
and would not replace national authentic instruments.  

65 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Regulation and judicial 
cooperation) 

Those introduced 
voluntarily by MS in 
relation to the Regulation, 
such as changes in 
national law, digitalisation 
of the parenthood 
establishment and 
recognition procedures 
etc. 

Indirect costs 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Direct adjustment 
costs  

Total   

Indirect adjustment 
costs 

Administrative costs 
(for offsetting) 

20. 3. 

RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS 

Figure 12: Overview of relevant SDGs  

III. Overview of relevant Sustainable Development Goals – Preferred Option 
Relevant SDG 

Expected progress towards the Goal 

Comments 

SDG  No.  10  –  Reduced 
inequalities 

the 

The  Parenthood  regulation  would  mitigate  the 
existing  problem  with 
recognition  of 
parenthood between Member  States.  As rainbow 
families  are  disproportionally  affected  by  the 
current  problems,  they  stand  to  particularly 
benefit  from  the  Regulation.  Consequently,  the 
Regulation  would 
reduce  current 
inequalities  and  discrimination  based  on  sexual 
orientation and thereby contribute to the SDG. 

indirectly 

Particularly relevant would be the following 
UN targets: 
-  10.2  (By  2030,  empower  and  promote  the 
social,  economic,  and  political  inclusion  of 
all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, 
ethnicity,  origin,  religion  or  economic  or 
other status) and  
-  10.3  (To  ensure  equal  opportunity  and 
reduce inequalities of outcome, including by 
eliminating  discriminatory  laws,  policies 
and  practices  and  promoting  appropriate 
this 
legislation,  policies  and  action 
regard). 

in 

SDG No. 16 – Peace, justice 
and strong institutions 

regulation  could 

The  Parenthood 
indirectly 
contribute  to  the  indicators  concerning  the  birth 
registration  of  children  under  5  years  old,  even 
though  the  results  of  all  EU  Member  States  as 
regards this target are already remarkably high226. 
In  addition,  by  streamlining  the  process  for  the 
recognition of parenthood, the Regulation  would 
improve  the  equal  access  to  justice  and  promote 
non-discriminatory laws and policies. 

Particularly relevant would be the following 
UN targets: 
-  16.3  (Promote  the  rule  of  law  at  the 
national and international levels and ensure 
equal access to justice for all) and  
-  16.9  (By  2030,  provide  legal  identity  for 
all, including birth registration) and  
- 
enforce 
(Promote 
non-discriminatory  laws  and  policies  for 
sustainable development). 

16b 

and 

226  See  the  SDG  indicator  16.9.1  -  Birth  registration  at  the  SDG  tracker  where  the  EU  countries  achieve 
100% complete birth registration rates. Source: UNICEF. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS 

Methodology used in the impact assessment 

1.  Estimate  of  the  number  of  persons  that  may  be  affected  by  the 

problem with the recognition of parenthood  

The definition of the problem required quantifying the number of cases where recognition 
in one Member State of parenthood established in another Member State may be needed, in 
other  words,  the  number  of  cross-border  families  with  children.  Out  of  this  estimate,  the 
number of cross-border families with children that are likely to experience problems with 
the recognition of parenthood was calculated.  

The quantification worked with several assumptions and estimates. All data used were as 
of  2020227  (except  for  the  rate  of  same-gender  couples,  which  have  children,  which  is  of 
2019).  

1.1  The number of cross-border families with children in the EU 

For the purposes of this report, the  cross-border families were defined as a family with 
children consisting of one or more “mobile persons”, i.e. of: (i) EU citizens who have their 
habitual  residence  in  a  Member  State  which  is  not  their  Member  State  of  origin,  and/or 
(ii) non-EU  citizens who  have  their  habitual  residence  in  a  Member  State  and  move  to 
another Member State. It follows that “cross-border families” include not only EU citizens 
but  also  non-EU  citizens.  This  is  because  a  possible  legislative  initiative  would  not  be 
based on the nationality of the people in relation to which parenthood is to be recognised 
but on whether the court decision or authentic instrument on parenthood has been issued by 
the authorities of a Member State228. 

The  number  cross-border  families  with  children  in  the  EU  was  quantified  based  on  the 
figures on mobile population in the EU (including both EU citizens and non-EU citizens, 
without  the  population  of  Denmark229).  For  the  purposes  of  this  quantification,  the 
assumption was made that  non-EU citizens with their habitual residence in the EU are as 
mobile as EU citizens with their habitual residence in the EU.  

227 The data used for the calculations reflected the population statistics after Brexit. For the purposes of the 
Parenthood  initiative,  the  United  Kingdom  was  considered,  as  of  its  withdrawal  from  the  EU,  as  a  third 
country and British nationals living in the EU were considered as any other third-country nationals, despite 
the fact that certain parts of EU law continued to apply to and in the UK and for the benefit of UK nationals 
until 31 December 2020. 
228  I.e.  the  possible  legislative  initiative  would  cover  for  instance  a  birth  certificate  issued  by  Belgian 
authorities for a Canadian child who is born in Belgium and seeks recognition of its Belgian birth certificate 
in France.  
229 As Denmark would not take part in the adoption and application of the Parenthood initiative, Denmark is 
not  considered  for  the  purposes  of  this  impact  assessment.  Therefore,  wherever  relevant,  the  population  of 
Denmark of 5.8 mil. (i.e. 1.3% of the EU population) was detracted from the overall EU population figures. 

67 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Relevant data: 

The EU mobile population was calculated based on the statistics provided by Eurostat 
for  the  overall  EU  population  in  2020  (447.3  mil.  inhabitants230),  the  number  of 
non-EU  citizens  living  in  the  EU  in  2020  (23  mil.  citizens231)  and  the  number  of  EU 
mobile citizens in 2020 (13.5 mil. citizens232), 

Calculation: 

To get the proportion of EU mobile population, the number of EU citizens in the EU 
was calculated by detracting the number of non-EU citizens living in the EU in 2020 
(23 million people) from the overall EU population, i.e. 424 million.  

Based on the Eurostat data, 13.5 million EU citizens (from the 424 million) are mobile. 
This represents 3.2% of EU citizens. This proportion is also in line with the latest EU 
Labour Mobility Report233.  

It is expected that non-EU citizens with their habitual residence in the EU are as mobile 
as  EU citizens with  their  habitual  residence  in  the  EU,  therefore,  their  mobility  rate 
would also be 3.2%. 

Subsequently,  the  number  of  mobile  couples  with  children  in  the  EU-26  in  2020  was 
calculated. The figures only cover opposite-gender and same-gender mobile couples with 
children and exclude single parents  with  children. For the purposes of the quantification, 
the assumption was used that families have the same behaviour with respect to mobility as 
the rest of the population. 

Relevant data:  

According to Eurostat, there were 39 million couples with children in the EU-27 in 2020234 
(both  EU  and  non-EU  citizens)  and  38.6  million  couples  with  children  in  the  EU-26 
(without Denmark235) in 2020.  

Calculation: 

38.6  million  couples  with  children  in  EU-26  in  2020  *  3.2%  of  mobile  families  = 
1 235 200 mobile couples with children in EU-26 in 2020. 

230 Eurostat (2020). EU population in 2020: almost 448 million. 
231 Eurostat – Statistics explained. Migration and migrant population statistics, Chapter Migrant population: 
23 million non-EU citizens living in the EU on 1 January 2020. 
232 Eurostat – Statistics explained. Migration and migrant population statistics, Chapter Migrant population: 
23 million non-EU citizens living in the EU on 1 January 2020, which states that “there were 13.5 million 
persons  living  in  one  of  the  EU  Member  States  on  1  January  2020  with  the  citizenship  of  another  EU 
Member State”. 
233 European Commission (2020). Annual Report on Intra-EU Labour Mobility 2020, p. 13. While the report 
estimated the proportion of EU-27 movers of working age at 3.7%, this impact assessment calculated slightly 
lower percentage of 3.2% for the overall population including economically inactive people. 
234  Eurostat.  Household  composition  statistics,  figure  3.  Interestingly,  couples  with  children  are  becoming 
less common in many parts of the world, including the EU, as they represented, in 2019, less than 20 % of 
the total number of households in the EU-27 (19.7 %). See: Eurostat (2020). Being young in Europe today - 
family and society. 
235 444 100 couples with children in Denmark in 2020. See Eurostat data browser. 

68 

 
 
                                                 
1.2  The  number  of  persons  affected  by  the  problem  of  non-recognition  of 

parenthood in the EU 

According to Eurostat, 29% of all households in the EU have children and about 20% were 
composed of couples with children236. There is no holistic statistical breakdown in terms of 
family  composition  of  the  families  in  the  EU  based  on  either  the  sexual  orientation  of 
parents237  or  on  the  type  of  family  formation  (surrogacy,  adoptions  etc.).  Representative 
data thus cannot be obtained and several estimates had to be made.  

1.2.1  LGBTIQ parents and their children (rainbow families) 

For the purposes of this impact assessment, it was estimates that LGBTIQ people represent 
6%  of  the  EU  population238.  The  proportion  of  LGBTIQ  people  differs  per  Member 
State; however, as data sources are either not available or could be heavily skewed due to 
the limited number of respondents and/or the voluntary nature of this type of information, 
the report will work with the average assumed above. The assumptions were systematically 
contrasted with the available data239 to ensure the robustness of the calculations.  

It  was  further  assumed  that  LGBTIQ  people  with  habitual  residence  in  the  EU  are  as 
mobile as heterosexual people with habitual residence in the EU and are in a couple in the 
same proportion as heterosexual people. These assumptions are intended to be non-biased. 

As regards rainbow families with children, the U.S. Census, while not directly applicable, 
provides a point of comparison240:  

- 

- 

“14.7% of same-gender couples had children, 54.7% of same-gender couples only 
had one child”;  
“Fifteen percent (14.7%) of the 1.1 million same-sex couples in the United States in 
2019 had at least one child under 18 in their household, compared with 37.8% of 
opposite-gender couples.”;  

-  “Same-sex  couples  also  tended  to  have  smaller  families.  Among  couples  with 
children, 54.7% of same-gender couples only had one child, compared with 39.2% 
of opposite-gender couples.” 

236 See Eurostat (2019). Being young in Europe today - family and society.  
237  As  a  rule,  information  about  sexual  orientation  is  collected  only  voluntarily  and  based  on  self-
identification. Reliable statistics are thus not available. It follows that data on the number of rainbow families 
are also not available. 
238 This estimate was made as an approximate average of the following sources: 

- 10% is the traditional estimate based on the Kinsey’s studies of the 1950s (“10% of males were more 
or less exclusively homosexual”). The estimate of 10% of LGBTIQ people would seem to be too high 
and the Kinsey Institute itself has reviewed its older figures and its 2010-2011 figures range from 1 to 
8%; 
- The Guardian (2015). Is 10% of the population really gay?; 
-  UCLA  (2011).  How  Many  People  are  Lesbian,  Gay,  Bisexual,  and  Transgender?:  “An 
estimated 3.5% of adults in the United States identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual and an estimated 0.3% 
of adults are transgender”; 
-  UK  Office  for  National  Statistics  (2019).  Sexual  orientation,  UK:  2019.  “An  estimated 2.7% of  the 
UK population aged 16 years and over identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB)”; 
- Gallup (2021). LGBT Identification Rises to 5.6% in Latest U.S. Estimate. 

239  For  instance,  the  breakdown  of  the  population  data  collected  through  EU-SILC  was  received  from 
Eurostat (distribution variables: RB240: partners in the same household and RB090: partners of same sex). 
240  United  States  Census  Bureau  (2020)  –  analysis  of Current  Population  Survey (CPS).  Equivalent 
information for the EU is not available from the reasons explained above. 

69 

 
 
                                                 
  The number of LGBTIQ couples with children in EU-26 in 2020 

The following calculation was done:  

1 235 200 mobile couples with children in EU-26 in 2020 * 6% LGBTIQ people in the EU 
= 74 112 LGBTIQ mobile couples with children. 

This  number was adjusted  in  line with the rate  calculated based on the information  from 
the U.S. census (14.7% of the same-gender couples in the US in 2019 had at least one child 
under 18 years old in their household, while 37.8% of opposite-gender couples in the US in 
2019  had  at  least  one  child  under  18  years  old  in  their  household.  This  means  that 
same-gender  couples  are  38.89%  as  likely  to  have  at  least  one  child  as  opposite-gender 
couples.). 

74 112 LGBTIQ mobile couples with children * 38.89% adjusted rate =  
28 822 LGBTIQ mobile couples with children. 

  The number of children of LGBTIQ mobile parents in the EU-26 in 2020 

The  number  of  children  in  rainbow  families  was  estimated  based  on  the  above  census 
statistics: 

Rainbow families with one child:  

-  54.7%  of  same-gender  couples  with  exactly  one  child  *  28 822  LGBTIQ  mobile 
couples  with  children  =  15 766  children  of  LGBTIQ  mobile  couples  with  exactly 
one child. 

Rainbow families with more children:  

-  The  source  does  not  give  information  on  LGBTIQ  couples  with  more  than 
one child so for this calculation it is assumed that all LGBTIQ couples with more 
than one child have exactly two children. This means that in reality the number of 
children  affected  is  slightly  higher  than  what  is  calculated  here,  but  it  is  not 
possible to tell accurately by how much.  

-  100% - 54.7% of LGBTIQ couples with exactly one child among LGBTIQ couples 
with  children  =  45.3%  of  LGBTIQ  couples  with  more  than  one  child  among 
LGBTIQ couples with children. 

-  45.3% of LGBTIQ couples with more than one child among LGBTIQ couples with 
children  *  28 822  LGBTIQ  mobile  couples  with  children  *  2  children  =  26 113 
children of LGBTIQ mobile couples with exactly two children. 

15 766 children  of  LGBTIQ  mobile  couples  with  exactly  one  child  + 26 113 children  of 
LGBTIQ mobile couples with exactly two children = 41 879 children of LGBTIQ mobile 
couples with children. 

  The number of mobile LGBTIQ couples with children and their children in the EU-26 

in 2020 

70 

 
 
 
 
28 822 LGBTIQ mobile couples with children * 2 parents in each couple = 57 644 parents 
in LGBTIQ mobile couples with children.  

57 644  parents  in  LGBTIQ  mobile  couples  +  41 879  of  their  children  =  99 523  mobile 
LGBTIQ parents and their children. 

1.2.2  Opposite-gender families 

There was 1 235 200 mobile couples with children in EU-26 in 2020. The opposite-gender 
couples with children are calculated by deducting the number of same-gender couples with 
children (28 822 LGBTIQ mobile couples with children) from the overall number. 

1 235 200 mobile couples with children - 28 822 LGBTIQ mobile couples with children = 
1 206 378 mobile opposite-gender couples with children 

The number of mobile opposite-gender parents and their children in EU-26 in 2020 would 
then be calculated based on the same methodology as above.  

1 206  378  mobile  opposite-gender  couples  with  children  *  39.2%  of  opposite-gender 
couples  with  exactly  one  child  among  opposite-gender  couples  with  children  =  472 900 
children of mobile opposite-gender couples with exactly one child. 

100% - 39.2% of opposite-gender couples with exactly one child among  opposite-gender 
couples with children = 60.8% of opposite-gender couples with more than one child among 
opposite-gender couples with children. 

1 206  378  mobile  opposite-gender  couples  with  children *  60.8%  of  opposite-gender 
couples  with  more  than  one  child  among  opposite-gender  couples  with  children  *  2 
children  = 1 466 956  children  of  mobile  opposite-gender  couples  with  exactly  two 
children.  

472 900  children  of  mobile  opposite-gender  couples  with  exactly  one  child  +  1 466  956 
children  of  mobile  opposite-gender  couples  with  exactly  two  children  =  1 939  856 
children of opposite-gender mobile couples.  

1 206  378  mobile  opposite-gender  couples  with  children  *  2  parents  per  couple  = 
2 412 756 mobile opposite-gender parents. 

2 412 756  mobile  opposite-gender  parents  + 1 939  856 children  of 
= 4 352 612 mobile opposite-gender parents and their children. 

these  parents 

1.3 The number of persons affected by the problems with the recognition of 

parenthood  

For  the  purposes  of  this  impact  assessment,  it  was  calculated  that  there  are  4  452  135 
(4 352 612 opposite-gender parents and their children + 99 523 LGBTIQ parents and their 
children)  mobile  parents  and  their  children  in  the  EU-26  (“cross-border  families”)241. 

241  Notably,  this  figure  only  covers  couples  with  children  and  their  children,  not  single  parents  with  their 
children. 

71 

 
 
 
                                                 
Based on the explanation in  Section 2.3,  the problem affects mostly mobile same-gender 
couples with children in the Member State where same-gender parenthood is not accepted 
and mobile opposite-gender couples with children, which had a recourse to surrogacy.  

1.3.1  Mobile rainbow families 

It was calculated for the purposes of this impact assessment that there are  99 523 mobile 
LGBTIQ  parents  and  their  children  (due  to  a  heavy  use  of  various  assumptions  and 
estimates, this number however has to be taken very carefully).  

The  question  arises  as  to  what  proportion  of  these  people  is  actually  affected  by  the 
non-recognition  of  parenthood  in  practice.  It  should  be  noted  that  each  situation  of  the 
non-recognition of parenthood is individual in its nature and no data exist on the proportion 
of problematic cases. In addition, one can only look at the laws of Member States as data 
as to how authorities apply their problematic laws in each particular case is not available. It 
follows  that  no  reliable  estimates  can  be  made  of  the  actual  number  of  the  affected 
LGBTIQ people and their children.  

However,  as  explained  in  the  Section  on  the  Problem  definition,  the  (anticipated) 
non-recognition of the parenthood of a child may deter a family from moving freely in the 
EU.  In  can  be  assumed  that  as  long  as  there  are  Member  States  where  parenthood  of  a 
rainbow  family  validly  established  in  one  Member  State  is  not  recognised,  such  a 
“deterrent  effect”  is  present.  As  this  deterrent  effect  may  potentially  concern  all  rainbow 
families,  the  estimated  figure  of  99 523  persons  (mobile  LGBTIQ  parents  and  their 
children)  that  may  be  affected  by  the  problem  of  non-recognition  is  considered 
reasonable.  

1.3.2  Mobile opposite-gender parents and their children   

Given the lack of official statistical sources and the paucity of information on the scale of 
the parenthood recognition problems that affect opposite-gender parents and their children, 
it  was  decided  to  use  a  range  representing  the  likely  number  of  these  people  rather  than 
attempting  at  a  calculation.  This  quantification  includes  both  families  composed  of 
opposite-gender  couple  and  their  children  born  out  of  surrogacy  arrangements  and  those 
that are currently affected by the problems with parenthood recognition for other reasons. 

Children born through surrogacy to mobile opposite-gender couples 

The  OPC  revealed  that,  besides  rainbow  families,  some  of  the  most  serious  cases  of 
non-recognition of parenthood happen to families who had a recourse to surrogacy. Several 
EU  Member  States  prohibit  surrogacy  in  their  national  law.  Where  opposite-gender  or 
rainbow  families  resort  to  surrogacy  abroad,  they  may  face  problems  with  having  the 
parenthood  of  their  child  recognised  upon  the  return  to  their  home  Member  State.  As 
mobile  LGBTIQ  couples  that  had  a  recourse  to  surrogacy  are  covered  in  the  calculation 
above,  this  section  only  relates  to  opposite-gender  couples  with  a  recourse  to 
surrogacy242. 

242 As several countries limit the access of same-gender couples to surrogacy, the surrogacy arrangements by 
opposite-gender couples are expected to be more numerous.  

72 

 
 
                                                 
A  global  rise  in  the  practice  of  surrogacy  including  cross-border  arrangements  has  been 
observed243. However, it follows from the available information and from the consultations 
conducted in the context of this impact assessment that the recognition in a Member State 
of  the  parenthood  of  children  born  out  of  surrogacy  most  often  concerns  international 
surrogacy arrangements implemented outside the EU rather than in another Member 
State244.  The  distinction  between  international  surrogacy  arrangements  implemented  in  a 
third country and in a Member State is key as the Parenthood initiative would only concern 
the recognition of parenthood established in another Member State.  

Based on available information, only four Member States (Cyprus, Greece, Portugal and, 
to  some  extent,  the  Netherlands245)  out  of  EU-26  have  adopted  rules  governing  in  their 
national  law  altruistic  (non-commercial)  surrogacy  (the  legislation  in  Portugal  would 
however  appear  to  be  currently  suspended  further  to  a  decision  of  the  Portuguese 
Constitutional  Court246).  Some  other  EU  Member  States  do  not  regulate  surrogacy  – 
neither  specifically  prohibiting  it,  nor  specifically  allowing  it247.  However,  even  the  four 
Member  States  that  allow  surrogacy  restrict  it  by  conditions  and  eligibility  criteria.  For 
instance, in Cyprus and Greece, surrogacy is only allowed with a prior authorization from a 
court and/or a specialised board and there are requirements concerning the residence of the 
surrogate or the intending parents in these Member States. Among the countries that do not 
expressly ban surrogacy, several figures have emerged as to the incidence of the surrogacy 
arrangements248.249 

243  The  factors  that  signal  a  rise  in  the  practice  of  surrogacy  across  borders  are  the  increasingly  frequent 
stories  in  the  media  about  surrogacy  arrangements,  a  growing  presence  online  of  agencies  and  clinics  that 
openly seek to facilitate surrogacy arrangements or the recent surge in reported case law relating to surrogacy 
across  a  number  of  jurisdictions.  See  for  instance  cases:  judgment  of  the  Austrian  Constitutional  Court  of 
14.12.2011, No. B 13/1; judgments of the Belgian Court of appeal Ghent of 20.4.2017 (No. 2014/EV/87) and 
of 4.2.2021 (No. 2019/FE/17); judgment of the Court of Sector 4 Bucharest, No. 10984/2015; judgment of 
the Court of Sector 1 of Bucharest, No. 5200/2017; judgment of the Italian Constitutional Court of 28.1.2021, 
No.  33.  See  also  European  Parliament  (2013).  A  comparative  study  on  the  regime  of  surrogacy  in  EU 
Member States; Hague Conference on Private International Law (2012). A Preliminary Report on the Issues 
Arising from International Surrogacy Arrangements, p. 6-8.  
244 Indeed, all but one example given in the replies to the OPC and accounting for problems concerning the 
recognition of parenthood of children born out of surrogacy related to such arrangements undertaken in third 
countries. 
245 Even though the Dutch civil code does not include a specific text on surrogacy, based on information from 
Government.nl, surrogacy is permitted in the Netherlands under certain conditions. However, in line with the 
Dutch Criminal Code, it is illegal to advertise or promote of surrogacy, including to publically announce, for 
instance  on  social  media  that  someone  is  looking  for  a  surrogate.  Arguably,  this  can  make  it  difficult  for 
intending parents to find a surrogate.  
246  As  to  Portugal,  cf.  the  judgments  of  the  Portuguese  Constitutional  Court  repealing  the  Portuguese 
legislation  concerning  surrogacy:  judgments  of  the  Portuguese  Constitutional  Tribunal,  No.  465/2019  and 
No. 225/2018. 
247 However, substantive law of all these countries considers the mother who gave birth to a child as the legal 
mother of that child (“mater semper certa est” principle), not the intending mother.  
248  In  Greece,  where  a  prior  court  authorization  is  needed  before  the  surrogacy  can  be  effectuated,  data 
compiled from 256 of those court decisions issued between 2003-2017 shows that there were on average 18 
such pre-arrangement court decisions granting surrogacy per year, with an increasing trend observed towards 
the year 2016. See: Ravdas P. (2017). Surrogate Motherhood in Greece: Statistical Data Derived from Court 
Decisions, Bioethics 3 (2). 
249 In the Netherlands reportedly only one clinic carried out surrogacy arrangements between 1997 and 2019. 
According  to  the  website  of  this  clinic,  all  the  IVF  treatment  at  that  clinic  led  to  the  birth  of  16  children 

73 

 
 
                                                 
 
Overall, the number of opposite-gender couples that had a recourse to surrogacy is difficult 
to assess. Statistics relating to surrogacy are not available, as there are generally no formal 
reporting  mechanisms250.  The  data  is  collected  neither  at  national  nor  at  European  level. 
Calculating estimates is also complicated as birth certificates do not indicate how the child 
was  conceived  or  born.  The  available  figures  are  thus  not  likely  to  provide  a  complete 
picture.  In  any  case,  the  vast  majority  of  surrogacy  arrangements  that  EU  cross-border 
families  undergo  are  in  third  countries  and  the  number  of  surrogate  children  born  to 
opposite-gender couples in the EU every year is thus limited. Even less of these surrogacy 
arrangements  performed  in  the  EU  are  cross-border  cases  that  would  require  the 
recognition  of  parenthood  abroad.  Furthermore,  only  in  some  of  these  cases  parenthood 
would not be recognised (as it is often not discernible from a birth certificate that the child 
in question was born through surrogacy). 

Mobile  opposite-gender  couples  and  their  children  affected  by  parenthood  recognition 
problems 

Besides  the  parenthood  recognition  problems  concerning  children  born  out  of  surrogacy, 
these problems  are  also  experienced  by other  opposite-gender couples and their children, 
due  to,  among  others,  the  differences  in  national  substantive  and  PIL  laws*  of  Member 
States. The examples 1, 2 and 6 in Annex 7 illustrate cases where different Member States’ 
PIL rules resulted in situations where each Member State attributed parenthood to different 
person(s) creating situations of limping parenthood*. 

The  number  of  these  mobile  opposite-gender  couples  and  their  children  affected  by  the 
problems with the recognition of parenthood cannot be calculated or estimated due to the 
lack  of  official  statistical  sources.  In  addition,  the  court  cases  known  and  citizen  letters 
addressed  to  the  Commission  giving  account  of  the  problems  with  the  recognition  of 
parenthood, are most likely only a tip of the iceberg.  

Total  figure  –  mobile  opposite-gender  parents  and  their  children  affected  by  the 
parenthood recognition problems 

To obtain the number of mobile opposite-gender couples and their children affected by the 
non-recognition of parenthood in EU-26  (concerning both  families that had a recourse to 
surrogacy  and  other  opposite-gender  families  that  experience  problems  with  the 
recognition of parenthood for other reasons), the following ranges have been estimated:  

- 

- 

if, for example, we assume that 0.05% of opposite-gender parents and their children 
have  problems:  4  352  612  mobile  opposite-gender  parents  and  their  children  * 
0.05% = 2 176 people.  

if, for example, we assume that  0.1% of mobile opposite-gender parents and their 
children  have  problems:  4  352  612  mobile  parents  and  their  children  *  0.1%  = 
4 353 people.  

between  1997  and  2004.  Information  available  at:  https://fiom.nl/kenniscollectie/draagmoederschap/cijfers-
feiten.  
250 The data is not collected neither at national nor at EU level. 

74 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                    
1.3.3  Final figure: affected parents and children in EU-26 

With  the  above  estimated  rates,  the  total  parents  (heterosexual  and  LGBT)  and  their 
children that may be affected by the current problems with the recognition of parenthood 
was estimated at 99 523 plus 2 176, or at 99 523 plus 4 353. 

The overall conclusion would thus be that the total number of mobile parents and their 
children in EU-26 that may be affected by the current problems with the recognition 
of parenthood  is  about  103  000,  almost  all  of which  are  LGBTIQ parents  and  their 
children.  

It should be highlighted that this number was based on several estimates and has to be thus 
taken  cautiously.  The  number  of  affected  families  may  differ  in  particular  based  on  how 
the proportion of rainbow families in the EU population is estimated or on the proportion 
of  opposite-gender  parents  and  their  children  affected  by  the  parenthood  recognition 
problems.  The  estimates  worked  with  the  hypothesis  that  all  rainbow  families  may  be 
potentially  affected  by  the  parenthood  recognition  problems,  since  they  may  be  deterred 
from  moving  and  travelling  freely  within  the  EU  for  the  fear  that  their  child-parent 
relationship  would  not  be  recognised  abroad.  In  addition,  in  some  cases,  Member  State 
courts  may  be  able  to  somewhat  mitigate  the  effect  of  recognition-unfriendly  laws  and 
guarantee (some of) the rights to a child. However, this differs on a case-by-case basis.  

In  addition,  the  number  of  persons  affected  by  the  problems  with  the  parenthood 
recognition would be higher than the estimate made, should the above calculation include 
also single parents with children and families that have more than two children. 

2.  Ten-year projections (reference period 2022-2032)  

In  the  absence  of  a  legislative  action,  the  problems  relate  to  parenthood  recognition  will 
continue  and  further  increase  in  the  reference  period  of  2022  to  2032.  In  line  with  the 
population projections by Eurostat, the EU-26 population is estimated to slightly increase 
by 2032251. The mobility of families in the EU is expected to return to 5% as in the 2007-
2015 period before Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic252. It is thus estimated that there 
will be about 1 936 558 mobile couples with children in EU-26 in 2032, representing a 
57% increase as compared to 2020. Using the current child birth rates, this would translate 
into 3 106 979 children of the mobile couples in EU-26 by 2032. 

Some  of  the  parameters  affecting  the  number  of  these  families  that  would  face,  in  the 
absence of a legislative action, the parenthood recognition problems are:  

  a greater diversity of families and a growing divergence of national family laws; 
 

future advances of reproductive technology and ART*; and  

251  Eurostat,  EUROPOP2019  -  Population  projections  at  national  level  (2019-2100),  Population  on  1st 
January  by  age,  sex  and  type  of  projection.  The  EU-26  population  is  thus  expected  to  be  about  44.3  mil. 
persons by 2032. 
252 The pandemic has temporarily affected the mobility of EU citizens but the level of mobility as well as its 
increasing  trend  is  expected  to  return.  Eurostat  (2021).  EU  citizens  living  in  another  Member  State  - 
statistical overview.  

75 

 
 
                                                 
  a  growing  mean  age  when  individuals  tend  to  have  children253,  higher  infertility 

rates254 and corresponding developments. 

Given  the  above  unknown  variables,  the  number  of  persons  affected  by  the  parenthood 
recognition  problems  by  2032  cannot  be  credibly  quantified.  Predictions  nevertheless 
reveal that the number is about to increase.  

3.  Costs/Cost savings related to the recognition of parenthood 

This  section  presents  the  methodology  for  the  assessment  of  the  costs/cost  savings  for 
families  and  public  authorities  under  the  status  quo  and  all  policy  options.  It  focuses 
primarily on “costs for recognition procedures” (i.e. costs borne by cross-border families 
for the recognition of parenthood or costs borne by public authorities of Member States for 
these procedures).  It  also considers  hassle costs  borne by families and  direct  compliance 
and enforcement costs resulting from the policy options255. 

Figure 13: Costs related to the recognition of parenthood and costs of policy options 

Nature of the costs 

Costs for 
recognition 
procedures 

Direct  costs  related  to  administrative  and  court  procedures  for 
the  recognition  of  parenthood,  incurred  under  the  baseline  and 
all policy options, by: 
-  cross-border  families  (e.g.  translation  costs,  administrative 
and court fees for recognition procedures, fees for evidence 
and DNA tests, costs for legal representation etc.); 

-  Member  States’  public  authorities  (e.g.  staff-related  costs, 

costs for translations and interpreters etc.). 

Hassle costs  Costs resulting from delays, unnecessary waiting times etc.  

Compliance 
costs  

Direct  costs  related  to  a  possible  EU  intervention.  These  costs 
include  in  particular  adjustment  costs,  i.e.  investments  and 
expenses  that  public  authorities  have  to  bear  to  adjust  their 
activity to the provisions included in the EU policy intervention 
(in  particular  training  costs  for  public  administrations  and 
lawyers, digitalisation of the procedures). 

Borne by 

cross-border 
families and public 
authorities 

cross-border 
families  

public authorities 
only 

Enforcement 
costs 

Costs associated with activities linked to the implementation of 
the  Parenthood  initiative  (such  as  monitoring  and  judicial 
cooperation). 

public authorities 
only 

Monetary results are expressed in current prices. 

20.1 

Baseline costs  

Costs  for  recognition  procedures*  borne  by  cross-border  families  and  by  administrative 
and judicial authorities were quantified using a tailored Standard Cost Model approach256. 
The  analysis  identified  the  key  steps  undertaken  for  the  recognition  of  parenthood  under 
the  different  scenarios  and  the  related  costs  currently  borne  by  cross-border  families 
(including fees, legal representation costs, translation costs and other costs) and by public 

253 Eurostat (2021). Women in the EU are having their first child later. 
254  As  to  the  growing  infertility  rates,  see:  Hague  Conference  on  Private  International  Law  (2012).  A 
Preliminary Report on the Issues Arising from International Surrogacy Arrangements, p. 6. 
255 Better Regulation Guidelines, Tool #56. 
256 Better Regulation Guidelines, Tool #57. 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
authorities  (including  staff  costs).  The  average  fees  imposed  by  Member  States  for  the 
administrative  and  court  procedures  were  quantified  using  data  on  the  current  fees 
(presented in Annex 6).  

It  should  be  noted  that  the  calculation  of  costs  works  with  proxies  and  significantly 
simplifies the reality to be able to quantify the costs for families and public authorities. As 
Member  States  have  different  procedures  for  the  recognition  of  parenthood  and  the 
situation of each cross-border family is individual, the figures below should be taken with 
caution.  

In addition to costs for recognition procedures*, both public authorities and cross-border 
families also currently face hassle costs resulting from delays and time needed to complete 
recognition procedures. These will not be monetised. 

Costs for cross-border families  

The costs  for  recognition procedures were estimated  based on the number of  children in 
cross-border families (1 981 735 children) for two scenarios:  

- 

- 

(1)  non-problematic  cases  where  there  is  no  refusal  of  the  recognition  of 
parenthood (1 938 735257 children of mobile families, scenario 1);  
(2)  problematic  cases  where  the  recognition  of  parenthood  is  refused  (43  000258 
children of mobile families, scenario 2). 

While  the  second  scenario  (families  affected  by  parenthood  recognition  problems)  is 
important for this impact assessment report, the first scenario (families not affected by 
parenthood recognition problems) serves as a reference point. 

Arguably, not all families would in practice apply for a formal recognition of parenthood. 
However, all cross-border families may in principle need to have their parenthood formally 
recognised abroad at some point, they were thus all included in the calculation below. 

In  the  case  of  quantification  of  costs  for  recognition  procedures  borne  by  cross-border 
families, the quantification and monetisation of costs followed the following formula:  

Total costs for cross-border families = (Fees + Other costs, incl. translation costs and 
costs for evidence + costs for transposition and notarisation + costs for legal 
representation) * Number of cases processed  

The quantification of costs and the percentage of cases where they are applicable presented 
below is based on the Study by an external contractor* and validated with the help of the 
contractor’s Country reports*, consultations and research. For administrative and court fees 
applicable to recognition procedures in various Member States, see Annex 6. 

257  1 939 856  children  of  mobile  opposite-gender  parents  in  EU-26  without  0.05%  to  0.1%  of  children  of 
mobile opposite-gender parents affected by the problems with the recognition of parenthood.  
258 41 879 children of mobile rainbow families plus children of mobile opposite-gender parents affected by 
the problem with the recognition of parenthood (0.05% – 0.1% from 1 939 856 children). 

77 

 
 
                                                 
In  scenario  1,  the  cross-border  families  have  the  following  costs  for  recognition 
procedures at the administrative stage:  

  Administrative  fees  between  EUR  20  and  EUR  50  per  case  (lower  bound  and  upper  bound 

respectively*), applicable in 50% of the cases259;  

  Other  administrative  costs,  such  as  translation  of  documents,  postal  costs,  further  supporting 
documentation,  etc.,  quantified  between  EUR  150  and  EUR  250  per  case  (lower  bound  and 
upper bound respectively*), applicable in 100% of cases;  

  Transposition  and  notarisation  of  documents  from  the  Member  State  of  origin,  quantified 
between  EUR  300  and  EUR  500  per  case  (lower  bound  and  upper  bound  respectively*), 
applicable in 40% of cases260;  

In scenario 2, the cross-border families would have both costs for recognition procedures 
at the administrative stage and, as the recognition of parenthood is refused and the family 
challenges that decision in court, also costs at the judicial stage. In scenario 2, the families 
would have the following costs for recognition procedures at the administrative stage:  

  Administrative  fee  between  EUR  20  and  EUR  50  per  case  (lower  bound  and  upper  bound 

respectively*), applicable in 50% of the cases261;  

  Other  administrative  costs,  such  as  translation  of  documents,  postal  costs,  further  supporting 
documentation, etc., quantified between EUR 150 and EUR 250 (lower bound and upper bound 
respectively*), applicable in 100% of cases;  

  Transposition  and  notarisation  of  documents  from  the  Member  State  of  origin,  quantified 
between  EUR  300  and  EUR  500  per  case  (lower  bound  and  upper  bound  respectively*), 
applicable in 40% of cases;  

  Legal representation, costs quantified between EUR 500 and EUR 1 000 per case (lower bound 

and upper bound respectively*), applicable in 60% of cases.  

They would also have the following costs for recognition procedures at the judicial stage 
(80%)262: 

  Court fees, estimated between EUR 200 and EUR 250 per case (lower bound and upper bound 

respectively*), applicable in 100% of the cases263; 

  Other costs, including translations (quantified between EUR 500 and EUR 1 000 per case) and 
proofs such as DNA tests (quantified between EUR 400 and EUR 750 per case), applicable in 
80% of cases);  

  Legal  representation,  between  EUR  2 000  and  EUR  8 000  per  case  (lower  bound  and  upper 

bound respectively*), applicable in 100% of cases.   

259 See Annex 6. 
260 Based on the information collected by the external contractor via a survey to civil registries, it is estimated 
that about 40% of administrative procedures for the recognition of parenthood require further documentation 
and/or transposition of foreign documents.  
261 See Annex 6. 
262 No all cross-border families bring their case to a court, given the costs and impact on the emotional 
wellbeing of the family. Therefore, an 80% proxy was used. 
263 See Annex 6. 

78 

 
 
                                                 
Once  court  proceedings  are  concluded,  a  court  judgment  may  in  most  cases  be  further 
reported in civil and population registers, requiring additional, albeit simple, administrative 
procedure. 

Overall, the estimates  indicate that domestic litigation from  the first  to  the third instance 
can vary between EUR 5 000 and EUR 10 000 per case in legal fees and representation, to 
which translation expenses must be added. As a general consideration, the major costs for 
families  lie  with  legal  representation,  which  is  necessary  in  complicated  cases.  Most 
other reported costs (e.g., translation costs, postal costs, court fees, notarisation) are rather 
low. Where a preliminary question is referred to the CJEU or the case taken to ECtHR, it 
costs  additional  EUR  4  000  to  EUR  8  000.  These  expenses  are  however  not  counted  as 
they affect a minority of families.  

Based  on  the  methodology  above,  it  was  calculated  that  the  overall  costs  for  recognition 
procedures for all cross-border families (with 1 981 735 children) are EUR 668 233 800 to 
EUR 1 299 084 125 (lower and upper bound*), on average EUR 337 to EUR 656 per case 
(lower and upper bound*). Notably, the average costs for recognition procedures for cross-
border families  experiencing problems  with  the recognition  of parenthood (scenario 2264) 
are almost 16 times higher than in non-problematic cases (scenario 1265). This difference 
amounts to 5 478 EUR per case on average.  

In  addition,  the  hassle  costs*  borne  by  cross-border  families  for  going  through  the 
administrative  and  court  procedures  (red  tape,  unnecessary  waiting  time)  and  costs  for 
travel  and  productivity  loss  need  to  be  considered.  As  regards  time  needed  for  the 
parenthood recognition, there is a very large variance in the length of proceedings. The 
vast  majority  of  administrative  procedures  (about  80%)  is  concluded  within  6  months  – 
this  relating  to  the  scenario  1  where  families  do  not  experience  parenthood  recognition 
problems.  On  the  other  hand,  especially  where  court  proceedings  are  brought,  the  time 
needed to  conclude the  case  may  grow radically. The length  of court proceedings ranges 
from a few months (2-4 months) in the easiest cases up to 1-3 years, with outliers up to 5 
years. Such variance in the length of the proceedings depends on many factors, including 
the complexity of the proceedings, the  costs and functioning on the legal  system in  each 
Member State, the likelihood to appeal the court decision etc. The results of the OPC, even 
though not representative, illustrate well this variance in the length of the proceedings: 

-  As  regards  the  administrative  proceedings,  13%  of  the  OPC  respondents  who 
provided estimates of the length of recognition procedures before administrative 
authorities indicated that the estimated length of recognition procedures was less 
than  6  months,  28%  respondents  indicated  6  to  12  months,  54%  respondents 
indicated 12 to 24 months and 6% more than 24 months.  

-  As  regards  the  court  proceedings,  22%  of  these  respondents  reported  an 
estimated length of recognition procedures before courts of less than one year, 
33% reported one to two years and 45% reported more than two years.  

Costs for public authorities 

Under the baseline scenario, the public authorities incur costs for time needed to carry out 
the administrative procedures and/or carry out the court proceedings for the recognition of 

264 Between EUR 2 916 and EUR 8 795 per case.  
265 Between EUR 280 and EUR 475 per case.  

79 

 
 
                                                 
parenthood under the different scenarios and the related staff costs and other costs (e.g. 
translations and interpreters). 

These  costs  for  recognition  procedures  are  borne  both  by  administrative  authorities  and 
judiciary.  As  above,  in  the  absence  of  data  as  to  the  number  of  cases  where  a  formal 
recognition  of  parenthood  is  needed  in  another  Member  State,  a  proxy  was  used  that  all 
cross-border  families  with  children  may  need  to  have  parenthood  of  their  children 
recognised abroad at some point.  

The quantification of costs for recognition procedures borne by administrative authorities 
and judiciary includes  an estimation  of the number of days (FTE) necessary to  process  a 
case  of  recognition  of  parenthood  and  is  monetised  using  labour  costs  estimated  as 
described below.  

Box 4 : Labour costs - estimate 

The labour costs were estimated using the average estimated salary costs of relevant 
staff across EU-26. Blended EU daily labour costs were then derived from:  

  Average  remuneration  of  civil  servants  in  public  administrations  in  the 

EU-26, provided by Eurostat266; 

  Applying an assumption of 20 working days per month; 
  Applying an uplift of 100% to cover non-salary employer costs (pensions, 

benefits) and overheads267. 

Daily labour cost are thus: relevant staff monthly salary/20 x 2 = EUR 216/day.  

As  the  labour  costs  for  judges  and  court  staff  are  higher  than  those  of 
administrative authorities, a 25% top-up was added to the FTE days for courts, i.e. 
EUR 270/day. 

The  quantification  of  costs  for  public  authorities  (both  in  the  baseline  and  in  each  PO) 
followed the following formula:  

Total costs for public authorities = Number of days per FTE * number of FTEs * daily 
wages * Number of cases processed 

While  data  about  the  total  length  of  recognition  procedures  is  available  from  the 
consultation  activities,  the  length  certainly  does  not  reflect  the  time  actually  worked  on 
each  of  the  cases  by  public  authorities.  Should  that  be  the  case,  the  costs  for  public 
authorities  to  process  a  single  request  for  the  recognition  of  parenthood  would  be 
extremely  high  (the  procedure  before  administrative  authorities  takes  on  average  several 
months and court proceedings take even longer). In the absence of granular data about the 

266 Eurostat, Remuneration of civil servants – key indicators (Art. 65), Average remuneration of national civil 
servants in central public administration. 
267 The uplift factor is not specified in Better Regulation Guidance (no guidance on unit time cost build-up, 
allowing for overheads, is provided) but has been accepted when used by the external contractor in previous 
impact assessment support studies. 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
working  days  spent  by  public  authorities  on  each  case,  the  number  of  days  (Full-Time 
Equivalent, or FTE) had to be estimated. 

As to the administrative proceedings, it was quantified that administrative authorities need 
on average one FTE day to process non-problematic cases (scenario 1) and 4 to 8 FTE 
days  to  process  cases  under  scenario  2  where  the  recognition  of  parenthood  is  initially 
refused. Administrative fees were treated as transfers.  

As  to  the  costs  for  recognition  procedures  for  the  judiciary,  it  was  estimated  that  court 
proceedings are more complex and take on average 15 to 20 FTE days to conclude. It is 
also  considered  that  the  court  decisions,  once  finalised,  are  usually  reported  back  to  the 
civil registries, with additional one FTE day for administrative authorities. 

As a result, the following baseline costs for public authorities were calculated: The average 
costs  per  case  is  between  EUR  304  and  EUR  346  per  case,  this  including  both 
unproblematic  and  problematic  cases  (scenario  1  and  2)  and  the  overall  costs  borne  for 
these  cases  by  administrative  and  judicial  authorities  of  EU-26  Member  States  are 
EUR 602 669 160 to EUR 686 261 160. 

Nevertheless,  the  costs  for  recognition  procedures  borne  by  public  authorities  differ 
significantly, depending on whether the  cases  are problematic or not.  In non-problematic 
cases,  the  average  costs  per  case  was  calculated,  based  on  the  above  methodology,  at 
EUR 216.  In  comparison,  in  problematic  cases  involving  non-recognition  of  parenthood, 
the  calculated  costs  vary  between  EUR 4 277  and  EUR  6  221  per  case  on  average, 
representing 24 times higher demand on public resources.  

20.2 

Costs of policy options 

The  different  policy  options  would  affect  the  current  costs  linked  to  the  problem  of 
non-recognition of parenthood and possibly generate minor new costs.  

The  quantification  of  the  costs  for  each  of  the  POs  followed  the  same  basic  principles 
described  above.  Regarding  costs  for  recognition  procedures  and  hassle  costs,  the 
assessment  includes  the  cost  savings  brought  about  by  the  simplification  effect  that  the 
POs would have on the current procedures for the recognition of parenthood abroad. 

In  addition,  it  will  also  be  assessed  what  compliance  costs  the  policy  options  would 
generate when implemented, including adjustment costs and enforcement costs for public 
authorities. No compliance costs are expected for cross-border families or any other private 
parties.  

20.2.1  Costs of the policy option 1 (discarded option) 

Given the several uncertainty elements characterising this PO (e.g. the voluntary nature of 
the  measure  and  the  share  of  cross-border  families  residing  in  the  participating  Member 
States), the costs of the policy option 1 could not calculated.   

20.2.2  Costs of the policy option 2 

PO2 envisages  the adoption  of a legislative measure on the recognition in  other Member 
States  of  both  court  decisions  and  authentic  instruments  on  parenthood.  The  PO2  would 
introduce  a  simplification  and  partial  harmonisation  of  the  PIL  rules  used  in  the 
administrative and judicial procedures dealing with parenthood recognition. By this overall 

81 

 
 
 
simplification  of  the  legal  framework,  the  PO2  would  reduce  costs,  length  and 
administrative burden of recognition of parenthood procedures both for national authorities 
and for most cross-border families.  

  PO2: Costs reduction for cross-border families  

The simplification effects will have a particularly positive impact on the families currently 
experiencing  the  non-recognition  of  parenthood  (scenario  2)  but  would  also  be  relevant 
for all other cross-border families (scenario 1). Therefore, for scenario 1, a conservative 
5% reduction in costs for recognition procedures was applied to reflect the effect of the 
overall simplification of the administrative procedures for the cross-border recognition of 
parenthood. This limited 5% reduction was drawn from the fact that the Regulation would 
provide  a  uniform  standard,  available  in  all  EU  official  languages,  for  the  recognition  of 
parenthood throughout the EU and would thus slightly reduce the need to invest time and 
resources in getting familiar with specific national rules on the recognition of parenthood 
and the legal uncertainty as to their content. 

For scenario 2, it is expected that the costs reduction for cross-border families would be 
generated both at the level of administrative procedures and court procedures. At the level 
of administrative procedures, there would be lesser need for legal support to navigate the 
recognition  process  and  potentially  fewer  documents  would  have  to  be  produced. 
Administrative  fees  (when  applied)  and  translation  costs  are  expected  to  remain 
unchanged. The following parameters were changed:  

  Transposition  and  notarisation  of  documents  from  the  Member  State  of  origin,  quantified 
between EUR 300 and EUR 500 (lower bound and upper bound respectively*), applicable in 
10% of cases (compared to 40% in the baseline scenario).  

  Legal  representation,  costs  quantified  between  EUR  500  and  EUR  1 000  (lower  and  upper 
bound respectively*), applicable in 10% of cases (compared to 60% in the baseline scenario). 

Concerning the costs for court proceedings in scenario 2, it was considered that the PO2 
would reduce the instances of the non-recognition of parenthood and would thus lower the 
need  to  recourse  to  litigation  to  have  parenthood  recognised  abroad.  The  share  of  court 
proceedings  would  thus  be  lower  (quantified  at  15%  compared  to  80%  in  the  baseline 
scenario). In addition, where court proceeding would take place, the following parameters 
would change as compared to the baseline scenario:  

  Lower  additional  expenses  for  cross-border  families  (between  EUR  500  and  EUR  1 000  per 

case, applicable to 80% of cases);  

  Lower  legal representation  costs,  due  to  simpler  procedures  and  a  lower  share  of  parenthood 

cases requiring an appeal:  

-  between  EUR  2 000  and  EUR  5 000  per  case  (lower  bound  and  upper  bound 

respectively*), applicable in 100% of cases.  

Based on the methodology above, it was calculated that the average costs for recognition 
procedures  borne  by  families  for  the  recognition  of  parenthood  would  be  on  average 
between  EUR  275  to  EUR  470.  In  cases  where  families  currently  experience  problems 
with  the  recognition  of  parenthood  (scenario  2),  the  costs  for  recognition  procedures 
would decrease approximately six times to EUR 630 and EUR 1 333 per case (lower and 
upper bound*) on average. 

82 

 
 
The PO2 would also  slightly  facilitate the recognition  of parenthood  for the cross-border 
families  in  scenario  1,  resulting  in  5%  saving  and  thus  average  costs  for  recognition 
procedures  between  EUR  266  and  EUR 451  per  case.  Notably,  the  difference  between 
costs  for  recognition  procedures  in  scenario  1  and  2  would  thus  be  much  smaller  than 
under the baseline.  

The hassle costs* and time needed to achieve parenthood recognition  would decrease 
under  PO2,  as  the  Parenthood  regulation,  by  introducing  uniform  EU  rules  on  the 
recognition  of  parenthood  between  Member  States,  would  reduce  the  length  and 
administrative  burden.  This  simplification  of  the  parenthood  recognition  procedures  and 
the  reduction  of  their  length  would  be  particularly  felt  by  all  families  affected  by  the 
parenthood recognition problems (and by public authorities).  

  PO2: Costs reductions for public authorities 

It was considered that the simpler and clearer legislative framework for the recognition of 
parenthood  introduced  by  this  PO  would  impact  positively  the  time  and  effort  necessary 
for  processing  the  requests  for  the  recognition  of  parenthood.  Indeed,  56%  (or  204 
responses  out  of  367)  of  OPC  respondents  anticipated  a  very  positive  impact  of  a  future 
Parenthood regulation on improving the legal certainty for public authorities and a further 
9% (or 34) indicated a mildly positive impact. 

As  to  the  administrative  proceedings,  it  would  take  on  average  one  FTE  day  to  process 
non-problematic cases (scenario 1) and 3 to 4 FTE days (as compared to 4 to 8 under the 
baseline) to process cases under scenario 2 where the recognition of parenthood is initially 
refused.  The  share  of  requests  for  recognition  of  parenthood  requiring  court  decisions 
would be lower under the PO2 (quantified overall at 15 % compared to 80% in the baseline 
scenario). As to the costs for the judiciary, it was estimated that it would take on average 
10  to  15  FTE  days  to  conclude  a  case.  The  additional  one  FTE  day  for  the  final 
registration of the court  decision by the administrative authorities would be also  relevant 
here.  

Consequently, the average costs for recognition procedures borne by public authorities for 
a case under PO2 would be between EUR 235 and EUR 244 per case, this including both 
unproblematic and problematic cases (scenario 1 and 2). The overall costs for recognition 
procedures borne by administrative and judicial authorities of EU-26 Member States would 
be from EUR 465 438 960 to EUR 483 434 460. This represents average costs reductions 
of EUR 170 028 450, i.e. 26% costs reductions as compared to the baseline.  

  PO2: Compliance costs related to the Parenthood regulation  

There  would  be  limited  compliance  costs  related  to  the  introduction  of  the  Parenthood 
regulation. They would affect only public authorities as no compliance costs are expected 
for cross-border families. 

The compliance costs borne by public  authorities would consist  of  one-off  and recurrent 
adjustment costs. 

o  One-off adjustment costs 

 First,  as  regards  the  former,  financial  costs  for  Member  States  could  arise  for  the 
introduction  of  the  new  rules  concerning  applicable  law  and  jurisdiction  in  matters 

83 

 
 
 
 
concerning  parenthood  with  cross-border  implications.  The  Parenthood  regulation  would 
not require Member States to create any new public authorities or bodies. It would also not 
oblige them to change the functioning of their public registers, internal procedures, or the 
forms of national certificates of parenthood they currently issue. Moreover, costs may also 
be  needed  for  the  familiarization  with  the  new  legal  framework  and  trainings  for 
judges and civil registrars. It is reasonable to assume that these compliance costs would be 
comparable to those for other EU’s PIL regulations.  

Information campaigns at both EU a national level to inform the general public, families 
and  legal  professionals  about  the  existence  of  the  Regulation  and  the  rules  contained 
therein  could  be  envisaged  but,  given  the  technical  nature  of  the  Regulation,  they  would 
most  likely  be  limited  in  their  scale  and  thus  not  particularly  costly.  Legal  professionals 
regularly need to absorb and learn the consequences of new laws, so the costs related to the 
familiarization  with  the  new  legal  framework  would  be  limited  and  one-off  as  the 
Regulation and related practice would rapidly become the norm.  

Additional adjustment costs can be expected for digitalisation. In line with the “digital by 
default”  principle  and  the  EU’s  policies  for  the  digitalisation  of  justice,  the  Regulation 
would  provide  for  specific  provisions  on  digitalisation  of  those  procedures  that  are 
introduced  by  the  Parenthood  regulation  and  would  include  the  possibility  of  digital 
communication  between  individuals  and  Member  States’  authorities.  As  a  result, 
individuals would be able (but not obliged) to communicate through electronic means with 
national authorities competent to establish or recognise parenthood  under the Regulation. 
In contrast, as the Regulation would not include specific provisions on the communication 
between  national  competent  authorities  of  different  Member  States,  it  would  also  not 
include an obligation that any such communication should be through digital means.  

The  proposal  for  a  regulation  on  the  digitalisation  of  judicial  cooperation  (‘digitalisation 
proposal’)268  already  envisages  the  creation  of  a  decentralised  IT  system  and  of  an 
European  electronic  access  point  that  aims  to  effectively  digitalise  procedures  in  various 
areas  of  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  in  civil  and  family  matters269.  This  IT 
infrastructure developed for other legal acts in civil matters could be readily expanded to 
include also the Parenthood regulation. In particular, the existing reference implementation 
software270  developed by the Commission for the use by Member States and used for other 
legislations  could  be  adapted  for  the  purposes  of  the  Parenthood  regulation  and  (some) 
authorities already connected to  the decentralised  IT system could  also  deal  with  matters 
related to the Parenthood regulation. Whether any other new authorities would have to be 
additionally  connected  to  the  decentralised  IT  system  (including  the  European  access 
point)  would  depend  on  Member  States,  as  the  Parenthood  regulation  would  leave  it  to 
them to decide, in line with their internal organisation. The costs for these possible new IT 

268 See the Commission’s proposal for a regulation on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation and access to 
justice in cross-border civil, commercial and criminal matters, COM (2021) 759. 
269  Including  in  matters  of  parental  responsibility  under  the  Brussels  IIb  Regulation  or  in  succession  and 
maintenance matters under the Succession and Maintenance Regulations respectively. 
270 An user interface software developed by the European Commission to be used by each Member State for 
communication  with  the  public  as  regards  the  matters  related  to  the  Parenthood  regulation.  Reference 
implementation  system  could  be  used  by  each  Member  State  as  an  alternative  to  the  national  back-end 
systems that may already exist in some Member States. 

84 

 
 
                                                 
deployments  were  however  assessed  as  one-off  and  moderate271,  in  particular  given  the 
cost savings arising from possible economies of scale as elaborate above. In any case, these 
costs  would  be  a  fraction  of  the  overall  costs  for  setting  up  the  whole  decentralised  IT 
system under the digitalisation proposal272. 

o  Recurrent costs 

In addition to one-off adjustment costs, minor recurrent costs could be expected as a result 
of the Parenthood regulation. These would include the costs for regular training of national 
authorities’  staff  concerning the Regulation and  negligible  enforcement  costs* associated 
with  activities  such  as  monitoring  of  the  application  of  the  Regulation  and  judicial 
cooperation could also be expected. 

Furthermore,  each  Member  State  would  have  to  bear  the  costs  for  the  operation  and 
maintenance  of  its  access  points  that  enable  digital  communication.  These  costs  would 
however  be  shared  with  other  legislations  operating  under  the  same  decentralised  IT 
system and is thus not expected to be significant. 

Overall, all the costs that the public authorities would have to bear as a result of the 
Regulation are not expected to be significant, especially in the long-term273. 

20.2.3  Costs of the policy option 3 

The  PO3  would  introduce  a  European  Certificate  of  Parenthood  (ECP)  to  the  provisions 
already  included  in  the  PO2.  As  the  ECP  would  have  a  direct  access  to  the  population 
registers,  in  most  cases  it  would  do  away  with  the  need  to  produce  translations  and/or 
additional  documents  recording  parenthood  or  other  evidence  of  parenthood.  The 
procedural  efficiency  generated by  this  PO would further simplify the procedures  for the 
recognition of parenthood, so that legal support would only rarely be needed.  

The  magnitude  of  such  benefits  would  depend  on  the  share  of  cross-border  families  that 
would  request  the  ECP,  which  would  remain  a  voluntary  instrument.  While  the 
consultations  suggest  a  high  demand  for  an  ECP  among  cross-border  families  (close  to 
100%  of  the  cases),  a  rather  conservative  estimate  was  applied,  i.e.  that  70%  of  cross-
border families would request an ECP. 

Therefore, under the PO3, it was considered that 70% of cross-border would request the 
ECP. For the remaining 30% of cross-border families, the same parameters as under 
PO2 apply.  

271  See  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  Impact  Assessment  Report  accompanying  the  digitalisation 
proposal*. SWD/2021/392 final. 
272  As  assessed  in  the  Impact  assessment  accompanying  the  digitalisation  proposal,  SWD(2021)  392  final, 
Annex  7  and  Table  13,  p.  151.  If  it  was  not  for  the  uncertainties  related  to  the  extent  to  which  solutions 
existing  under  the  digitalisation  proposal  could  be  used  for  the  Parenthood  regulation,  the  methodology  of 
that impact assessment could be used to produce an estimate of the costs for digitalising the procedures under 
the Parenthood regulation. 
273 For instance, if the same methodology was used to estimate the compliance costs as in previous impact 
assessment on the Succession Regulation (COM(2009)154 final), these costs would be less than 0.5% of the 
current  costs  for  recognition  procedures,  i.e.  less  than  EUR  3  mil.  This  figure  should  however  be  taken 
cautiously. 

85 

 
 
                                                 
  PO3: Costs reduction for cross-border families  

Where  the  ECP  is  issued  and  used,  further  costs  reductions  are  expected  for  all 
cross-border  families  as  compared  to  PO2.  Therefore,  the  following  parameters  were 
changed regarding administrative proceedings to calculate costs for recognition procedures 
(the remaining parameters described for the baseline costs remain unchanged):  

  Legal representation, costs quantified between EUR 500 and EUR 1 000 per case (lower bound 
and upper bound respectively*), applicable in 5% of cases in scenario 2 (compared to 60% in 
the baseline for scenario 2).  

  No  costs  for  translation  nor  for  transposition  and  notarisation  of  documents  from  another 

Member State.  

Concerning  the  families’  costs  for  recognition  procedures  for  court  proceedings,  the 
following parameters were changed compared to the baseline scenario:  

  Lower share of requests for the recognition of parenthood requiring court decisions in scenario 

2 (quantified at 10% compared to 80% in the baseline scenario). 

  Lower fees for legal representation, due to simpler procedures and a lower share of parenthood 

cases rejected by the second Member State and thus requiring an appeal:  

-  between  EUR  1 200  and  EUR  3 800  per  case  (lower  bound  and  upper  bound 

respectively*) applicable in 100% of cases.  

Even if the assumption is applied that only 70% of all cross-border families would get an 
ECP,  the  overall  costs  for  recognition  procedures  under  the  PO3  are  significantly 
reduced as compared to PO2 and especially as compared to the baseline: 

-  Under  the  PO3,  the  cross-border  families  in  scenario  1  would  spend  on  average 
EUR 94 to EUR 170 per case for the recognition of parenthood (as compared to EUR 
280 to EUR 475 per case under the baseline scenario). This means that their costs 
for  recognition  procedures  would  be  reduced  approximately  3  times  as 
compared to the baseline. 

-  Most  notably,  under  the  PO3,  the  cross-border  families  in  scenario  2  currently 
experiencing problems  with  the recognition  of their parenthood  in  another Member 
State  would  experience  drastic  cost  savings  as  compared  to  the  baseline.  Under 
scenario 2, the cross-border families would spend on average EUR 347 to EUR 809 
per  case  (lower  and  upper  bound  respectively*)  for  the  cross-border  recognition  of 
parenthood.  This  means  that  their  costs  for  recognition  procedures  would  be 
reduced approximately 10 times as compared to the baseline (by 90%). 

-  Overall,  under  PO3,  cross-border  families  would  spend  on  average  EUR  100  to 
EUR 184  per  case  (lower  and  upper  bound*)  on  a  case  of  parenthood  recognition. 
This represents 72% reduction in costs for recognition procedures as compared 
to the baseline.  

It is possible that public authorities will apply fees for issuing the ECP which would then 
somewhat  reduce  the  costs  savings.  However,  as  the  Regulation  would  not  include  an 
obligation on Member States in this regard, no quantification of these fees is made. In any 
case,  given  the  large  reduction  of  costs  that  the  ECP  would  generate,  the  impact  of 
ECP-related fees on cross-border is expected to be minor.  

86 

 
 
The hassle costs* and time needed to achieve parenthood recognition would decrease 
even  further  under  PO3  as  compared  to  PO2,  since  the  ECP  would  significantly 
automatize the whole process of parenthood recognition. In some cases, formal recognition 
of parenthood may not even be needed, because the ECP could be used abroad directly, as 
evidence  of  parenthood.  While  the  changes  introduced  by  PO2  would  make  the  most 
notable positive difference to the situation of families currently affected by the parenthood 
recognition  problems,  PO3  would  significantly  streamline  and  shorten  the  parenthood 
recognition process for all families.  

  PO3: Costs reductions for public authorities  

It  was  considered  that  70%  of  cross-border  families  would  apply  for  an  ECP  and  30% 
would  not.  Overall,  for  both  cases,  it  would  take  on  average  half  FTE  day  to  process 
non-problematic cases (scenario 1) and 1 to 2 FTE days (as compared to 4 to 8 under the 
baseline) to process cases under scenario 2 where the recognition of parenthood is initially 
refused. The share of requests for the recognition of parenthood requiring court decisions 
would  be  even  lower  than  under  the  PO2  (quantified  overall  at  10  %  compared  to  80% 
under the baseline and 15% under PO2). As for the costs for the judiciary, it was estimated 
that it would take on average 7 to 12 FTE days to conclude a case. The additional one FTE 
day for the final registration of the court decision by the administrative authorities would 
be also relevant here.  

Consequently, the average costs for recognition procedures borne by public authorities for 
a case under PO3 would be between  EUR  149  and  EUR  154 per  case  (lower and upper 
bound*), this including both unproblematic and problematic cases (scenario 1 and 2). The 
overall costs for recognition procedures borne by administrative and judicial authorities of 
EU-26  Member  States  would  be  from  EUR  295  789  914  to  EUR  305  252  064.  This 
represents average costs reductions of EUR 343 944 171, i.e. 53% costs reductions as 
compared to the baseline.  

  PO3: Compliance costs for the implementation of the ECP 

As  compared  to  PO2,  the  introduction  of  the  ECP  would  generate  additional  costs  for 
public  authorities.  There  would  be  no  additional  costs  for  cross-border  families 
(However,  Member  States  would  not  be  prevented  by  the  Regulation  from  introducing  a 
fee for the issuance of ECP). It would be for each Member State to determine in its internal 
legislation  which  authorities  are  to  have  competence  to  issue  the  ECP,  whether  they  be 
administrative authorities, courts or other authorities. 

There would be no need for changes to the national systems as the ECP would not replace 
national certificates of parenthood. In addition, the ECP would be significantly shorter and 
user  friendlier  than  the  European  Certificate  of  Succession.  As  is  the  case  for  other  EU 
civil-law legislation, the forms related to the Parenthood regulation, such as the ECP form, 
would be available at the e-Justice Portal.  

As  for  the  adjustments  needed  to  ensure  that  families  can  communicate  with  national 
authorities  of  Member  States  digitally  in  matters  related  to  the  application  of  the 
Parenthood regulation, the costs will be comparable to PO2.  

The introduction of the ECP under the PO3 may require training for the administrative 
and  judicial  authorities  and  the  full  realisation  of  the  ECP’s  benefits  may  also  require 
some  accompanying  measures  such  as  information  campaigns  at  the  national  level  and 

87 

 
 
 
EU  level.  These  are  however  expected  to  be  low  and  could  be  covered  by  the  same 
information and training streams as the ones already considered under PO2.  

Overall,  all  these  costs  will  be  compensated  by  the  reductions  of  costs  for  recognition 
procedures borne by public authorities.  

4.  Costs reduction estimates under the ‘One in, one out’ approach 

In  line  with  the  Better  Regulation  Toolbox274,  it  needs  to  be  considered  whether  the 
preferred policy option would have significant cost implications for businesses and citizens 
(the  “one  in,  one  out”  or  “OIOO”  approach).  The  costs  considered  under  OIOO  are 
‘adjustment costs’275 and ‘administrative costs’276. 

OIOO  does  not  concern  cost  implications  borne  by  Member  States  and  public 
authorities277,  only  those  borne  by  businesses  and  citizens.  Businesses  would  not  be 
affected by the Parenthood initiative.  

With regard to citizens, the Parenthood initiative would not introduce any new compliance 
requirements that would affect families in the EU278 (i.e. no adjustment costs for children 
and  their  families).  The  parenthood  initiative  would  also  not  create  any  other  additional 
costs for children and their families. On the contrary, the initiative would mitigate the costs 
currently borne by them (see the estimation of costs for recognition procedures and hassle 
costs in the section above). Not all these costs reductions qualify as costs savings under the 
OIOO approach.  

To estimate the families’ savings that do qualify as costs savings under the OIOO approach 
(“OIOO costs savings*”), only the following costs were used:  

-  Other  administrative  costs,  such  as  for  translation  of  documents,  postal  costs, 

further supporting documentation, evidence (such as DNA tests), etc.  

-  Costs for transposition and notarization of documents from the Member State of 

origin.  

To quantify the costs relevant for OIOO, the same methodology as described above for the 
quantification of the  costs  for  recognition  procedure* was used;  however, administrative 
fees,  court  fees  and  costs  of  legal  representation  were  left  out  of  the  calculation.  The 
overall OIOO costs savings were calculated as the difference between OIOO costs under 
the baseline scenario and those under the policy option 3.  

274 Tool #59, Better Regulation Toolbox (November 2021).  
275 Adjustment costs refer costs relating to adjusting to the substantive legal requirements of proposals. For a 
detailed definition, see Better Regulation Toolbox (November 2021). 
276  Administrative  costs  are  costs  that  result  from  administrative  activities  performed  to  comply  with 
administrative  obligations  included  in  legal  rules.  They  concern  costs  for  providing  information,  such  as 
notification  of  activities,  submission  of  reports,  information  labelling  and  certification  of  products  or 
processes. For a detailed definition, see Better Regulation Toolbox (November 2021). 
277 See Tool #59, Better Regulation Toolbox (November 2021), fn. 850. 
278  No  administrative  costs  or  adjustment  costs  for  individuals  or  businesses.  For  instance,  the  Parenthood 
regulation  would  not  introduce  any  fees  for  the  provision  of  ECPs.  In  addition,  the  ECP  would  only  be 
optional in that it would only be issued at a request and would not replace national authentic instruments.  

88 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 5: POLICY OPTIONS 2A AND 2B  

The legislative policy option 2 envisages the adoption of a regulation on the recognition 
of parenthood between Member States.  

The  parenthood  of  a  child  can  be  established  by  a  court  decision  or  an  authentic 
instrument and can be proved by an authentic instrument279.280 A family may in principle 
use either a court decision or an authentic instrument to seek recognition of parenthood in 
another Member State.  

Therefore,  to  determine  the  scope  of  the  Parenthood  regulation,  it  should  be  decided 
whether the legislative policy option should cover: 

- 

- 

only court decisions (Policy Option 2a), or  

both court decisions and authentic instruments (Policy Option 2b).  

The  Experts’  Group  working  on  the  HCCH  Parentage  /  Surrogacy  Project*  considered 
that  the  scope  of  a  possible  international  HCCH  instrument  on  the  recognition  of  legal 
parentage should be determined bearing in mind the differences in the legal systems of the 
various States as to the recognition of court decisions and other public documents, and that 
this distinction might influence the feasibility of such an instrument281. Experts agreed that 
the  HCCH  instrument  should  apply  to  court  decisions  on  legal  parentage  and  that  the 
recognition  of  legal  parentage  recorded  in  a  foreign  public  document  should  be  further 
discussed282.  

Background on the rationale of the sub-options 

Under the national law of the Member States, parenthood may be established, inter alia, by 
a  court  decision.  However,  this  happens  rarely283.  Parenthood  is  usually  established  by 
operation of law (for example, by birth and by a presumption of parenthood of the spouse 
or partner of the mother). Therefore, only a small number of children have a court decision 
establishing their parenthood.  In contrast,  almost  all children have a birth certificate or  a 

279  In  the  context  of  the  recognition  of  parenthood,  authentic  instruments  can  be  administrative  documents 
(for  example,  a  birth  certificate  or  an  administrative  decision  establishing  parenthood  following  an 
acknowledgment  of  paternity),  and  notarial  acts  (for  instance,  a  notarial  act  of  adoption  or  an 
acknowledgment of paternity).  
280  Other  methods  of  the  establishment  of  parenthood  may  exist  in  the  national  law  of  MS  (such  as 
extra-judicial agreements on parenthood); however, since these are of low practical relevance, they will not 
be specifically addressed in the context of this impact assessment.  
281 See for instance HCCH Permanent Bureau, Preliminary Document No 2B of February 2019, Report of the 
Experts’  Group on the Parentage / Surrogacy Project (meeting of 29 January  – 1 February 2019), para. 31 
that  states:  “The  possibility  remains  open  at  this  stage  of  making  further  provisions  in  relation  to  legal 
parentage  when  there  is  no  judicial  decision.  The  feasibility  of  providing  for  such  matters  should  be  the 
subject of further discussion.” 
282 HCCH Permanent Bureau, Preliminary Document No 2 November 2019. Report of the Experts’ Group on 
the Parentage / Surrogacy Project (meeting from 29 October to 1 November 2019), p.3. 
283 Parenthood of a child may be established by a court decision for instance in cases of domestic adoption or 
where parenthood has been disputed.  

89 

 
 
                                                 
similar  authentic  instrument  issued  by  a  competent  authority.  Even  where  parenthood  is 
established by court decision, a birth certificate is usually issued for a child thereafter.  

Consequently, 99% of children and their families seek the recognition of parenthood on the 
basis of an authentic instrument, typically a birth certificate, rather than a court decision284. 
Therefore, the practical importance of including the recognition of authentic instruments in 
any instrument on the recognition of parenthood is high. 

The recognition of parenthood established abroad is mostly entrusted to the administrative 
authorities  of  Member  States  (for  example,  civil  registries);  however,  in  some  Member 
States, recognition procedures are vested with courts285. Where parenthood is recognised in 
a Member State, whether on the basis of a court decision or an authentic instrument, some 
Member  States  register  the  information  about  the  status  of  the  child  in  their  national 
population or civil registers. Some Member States issue a new birth certificate, that is, they 
transcribe the foreign document into a domestic one286, in particular where the parenthood 
of  a  national  of  that  Member  State  is  concerned.  It  may  thus  happen  that  children  have 
birth  certificates  from  various  countries  (for  instance  from  the  country  where  they  were 
born and from the country of their nationality). 

  Court decisions on parenthood and their recognition 

Many  EU instruments  in the area of  civil  justice  deal  with  the recognition of judgments. 
Court  decisions  usually  establish  parenthood287.  In  contrast,  authentic  instruments 
sometimes establish parenthood (for example, a notarial deed of adoption) and sometimes 
only  provide  evidence  of  the  parenthood  established  by  other  means  (for  example,  by 
operation  of  law).  Court  decisions  and  authentic  instruments  that  establish  parenthood 
typically involve a thorough assessment of the legal and factual situation at hand, are based 
on evidence288 and are issued after having heard all relevant parties.  

  Authentic instruments on parenthood and their recognition  

In line with the definition of authentic instrument in existing EU instruments, an authentic 
instrument  in  the  area  of  parenthood  is  a  document  on  parenthood  formally  drawn  up  or 
registered as an authentic instrument in any Member State and the authenticity of which:  

(a)  relates to the signature and the content of the instrument; and  
(b) has  been  established  by  a  public  authority  or  other  authority  empowered  for  that 

purpose.  

There  are  two  main  types  of  documents  on  parenthood  that  can  qualify  as  authentic 
instruments:  administrative  documents  (such  as  a  birth  certificate,  an  administrative 

284  Based  on  the  results  of  the  consultations  of  civil  registrars  undertaken  in  the  context  of  this  impact 
assessment. 
285 The  competent authority  may also depend on  whether the parenthood is recorded in a foreign authentic 
instrument or in a foreign court decision. 
286 Such transcription was at the core of the V.M.A. and K.S. cases before the CJEU. 
287  This  may  or  may  not  mean  that  the  decision  is  final  and  can(not)  be  changed  if  new  facts  appear, 
depending on the national law applied by the court.  
288 For instance, the judicial determination of parenthood is usually based on oral or documentary evidence or 
medical evidence, including blood and genetic (DNA) testing. 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
document  recording  an  acknowledgement  of  paternity  or  an  administrative  decision 
establishing parenthood) and notarial acts (such as a notarial deed of adoption or a notarial 
act recording an acknowledgement of paternity). Authentic instruments are often issued by 
administrative authorities (such as civil registrars) or notaries of the Member States.  

Depending  on  the  national  law  of  the  issuing  Member  State,  authentic  instruments  on 
parenthood may have, in the Member State in which they are drawn up, constitutive effects 
or only evidentiary effects. Authentic instruments on parenthood have constitutive effects if 
they  establish  parenthood.  This  may  be  the  case  for  example  of  a  notarial  deed  on 
adoption. Sometimes authentic instruments on parenthood do not have constitutive effects 
but  have  only  evidentiary  effects289,  that  is,  they  provide  evidence  of  the  parenthood 
established through other means  (for example, by operation of law or by court decision). 
The most characteristic example of such authentic instruments would be a birth certificate, 
which typically provides evidence of the factual circumstances of the birth of a child.   

Whether  a document on parenthood  has  constitutive  effects  or only  evidentiary  effects  is 
not  relevant  for  the  purposes  of  the  definition  of  authentic  instrument.  It  is,  however, 
relevant as regards the recognition of the effects of the authentic instrument.  

The practice of Member States as regards the effects to be given to an authentic instrument 
issued in another Member State varies. Some Member States apply a public policy test to 
decide  whether  they  can  accept  the  effects  of  the  foreign  authentic  instrument;  other 
Member  States  also  check  the  competence  of  the  issuing  authority  under  the  law  of  the 
country of issuance or under their own law; other Member States apply also an applicable 
law test, that is, they check whether the parenthood of the child as recorded in the foreign 
authentic instrument would be the same as the parenthood resulting from the application of 
the law designated as applicable by their own applicable law rules; finally, some Member 
States  apply  their  own  law  (lex  fori)  to  determine  parenthood  anew  and  they  rely  on  the 
foreign birth certificate only as evidence of the facts recorded therein. 

The choice of the preferred sub-option 

There  are  several  compelling  reasons  for  including  authentic  instruments  in  the  scope  of 
the Regulation.  

-  Most importantly, only a fraction of children have their parenthood established by a 
court  decision  and,  even  where  that  is  the  case,  children  or  their  families  mostly 
present  an  authentic  instrument  when  they  seek  the  recognition  of  parenthood 
abroad  (typically,  a  birth  certificate  containing  the  information  registered  in  the 
civil or population register). Thus, should authentic instruments be excluded from 
the scope of the Regulation, a vast majority of children would not be able to benefit 
from the uniform EU rules on recognition of parenthood. Given that the objective 
of  the  Parenthood  initiative  is  to  facilitate  the  recognition  of  parenthood  and  to 
ensure  that  children’s  rights  are  protected  in  cross-border  situations,  it  would  go 

289 The evidentiary effects may also differ in Member States’ law.  

91 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
against the rationale of the initiative to exclude from the scope the documents that 
children  or  their  families  use  in  most  cases  when  seeking  recognition  in  another 
Member State.  

-  Moreover, should the Regulation cover only court decisions, cross-border families 
might have the incentive to obtain a court decision on parenthood only to facilitate 
its  recognition  in  another Member State, which  could  create a ‘rush to  court’ and 
thus  place  an  unnecessary  burden  and  unnecessary  costs  on  both  cross-border 
families and national authorities.  

-  The  desirability  of including  authentic instruments  in  the scope of the Regulation 
was  confirmed  by  the  Commission’s  consultation  activities290.  The  recognition  of 
authentic instruments on parenthood would be facilitated by the introduction in the 
Regulation of harmonised applicable law rules.  

Based on the above analysis, it can be concluded that the legislative policy option should 
include not only the recognition of parenthood established in a court decision but also the 
recognition of parenthood established or proved by an authentic instrument.  

It  follows  that  the  preferred  sub-option  under  the  Policy  Option  2  should  be  the 
sub-option 2b: Regulation including rules on the recognition of parenthood as established 
in  court  decisions  and  also  as  established  or  proved  by  an  authentic  instrument  (Policy 
Option 2b).  

This conclusion on the scope of the Regulation is also relevant for Policy Option 3 which 
has the same scope as Option 2 but also includes the ECP.  

290  For  instance,  the  highest  percentage  of  respondents  (42%)  indicated  that  in  the  case  the  EU  should 
legislate on the cross-border recognition of parenthood, the legislative instrument should include rules on the 
parenthood recorded in judicial decisions and authentic instruments (birth certificates). 

92 

 
 
 
 
 
 
     
                                                 
ANNEX 6: FEES FOR RECOGNITION PROCEDURES 

The table illustrates the existing regulatory fees for the recognition of parenthood before administrative and judicial authorities. These quantifications were used to estimate the current costs for recognition procedures* 
in Member States. However, as explained and quantified in Annex 4, on top of the regulatory fees for initiating the recognition procedures, the costs for recognition procedures include also other expenses, such as legal 
representation, translation costs or other costs (such as for DNA tests etc.).  

This  table  was  drawn  up  by  an  external  contractor*  in  its  Study*  on  the  basis  of  research,  consultations  and  Country  reports*.  The  Commission  cannot  be  held  responsible  for  any  incorrect  or  partially  incorrect 
information contained therein. 

Figure 14: Average fees for recognition procedures (prepared by external contractor*) 

MS  Avg. fees for recognition procedure before administrative authorities 

Avg. fees for recognition procedure before judicial authorities 

AT  Free of charge. 

BE  Free of charge. 

BG  Free of charge. 

In non-contentious proceedings, the basic principle of the ‘obligation to reimburse costs’ (Kostenersatz) applies, although the law itself provides for exceptions, for various matters.  

165 EUR fee to initiate judicial proceedings. 

A fee of 25 EUR collected for the application for recognition of a judgment or an authentic instrument. 

CY  Usually low in uncontested cases as it involves a submission of a written request. Cost 

Uncontested proceedings usually cost 500 - 1 000 EUR. Costs for contested proceedings are dependent on a number of factors. 

dependent on whether the recognition would be requested in conjunction with other procedures. 

CZ  N/A (no parenthood recognition procedure before administrative authorities). 

Free of charge. In case of proposal for the recognition of foreign decisions in matters of determination of parenthood, CZK 2 000. 

DE  Approx. 10 EUR (however there is no formal recognition procedure, and the cost differs 

No data available. 

between the several German States). 

EE  10 EUR. 

EL  Free of charge. 

ES  No data available. 

FI  No data available. 

FR  Free of charge. 

HR  No data available. 

HU  Free of charge. 

IE  No data available. 

IT  No data available. 

LT  6-25 EUR. 

LV  Free of charge. 

MT  9.95 EUR for full copy of birth certificate, 2.25 EUR for abridged version. 

NL  No data available.  

PL  50 EUR  

PT  Free of charge if Portuguese citizen, 180 EUR, if not. 

RO  No data available. 

SE  No data available. 

SI  Free of charge.  

SK  No data available. 

10 EUR for making a family law petition. 

No data available. 

No data available. 

No data available. 

No data available. 

33 EUR (first instance proceeding). 

The rate of duty is 1%, or not less than 5 000 HUF and not more than 350 000 HUF. 

No data available. 

No data available. 

No data available. 

Fee of 30 EUR. 

No data available. 

No data available. 

100 PLN – claim to administrative court for cases concerning civil status and citizenship; similar amount is due with respect to an appeal to Supreme Administrative Court. 

300 PLN – proceeding concerning recognition of a foreign judgment as well as filing an appeal and appeal in cassation. 

Average cost of court fees – 306 EUR per part if the value of the case is 30 000. For forensic examinations, between 204 to 714 EUR per sample obtained from the interested parties. 
Less expensive if the Public Prosecutor’s Office intervenes as the child’s representative, as it is exempt from costs. 

The taxes for initiating court proceedings in this type of matters related to family law would be fairly standard and very affordable (around 12 EUR). Moreover, there is always a 
possibility to be exempted from paying legal fees in certain conditions according to the law as the state could provide financial help. However, when parenthood is contested in court, 
given that DNA evidence would need to be provided almost always, the costs will most likely include the DNA evidence costs which are fairly expensive. 

No data available.  

Following the regulation in the Slovenian Court Fees Act, the fee is 45 EUR. 

No information. 

 
 
ANNEX 7: EXAMPLES OF PROBLEMS AND THEIR IMPACT 

This  annex  illustrates  (1)  examples  of  some  of  the  problems  that  EU  families  may 
encounter with the recognition of parenthood in another Member State and (2) the impact 
that  the  non-recognition  of  parenthood  may  have  on  cross-border  families  in  the  EU 
(based  on  the  feedback  received  by  the  Commission  to  the  IIA  and  in  response  to  the 
OPC).  

1.  Examples of the problems with the recognition of parenthood in the EU 

The examples that follow show how the different national laws of the Member States on 
the establishment of parenthood in cross-border situations may lead to problems with the 
recognition in one Member State of the parenthood established in another Member State.  

These  examples  are  not  exhaustive.  Further  case  examples  illustrating  cross-border 
problems with the recognition of parenthood were developed e.g. by the HCCH291. 

 

Example  No  1  292:  different  legal  presumptions  of  parenthood  following  a 
divorce  

A  woman  was  married  to  a  man  at  the  time  when  she  conceived  a  child  with  another 
man. The spouses divorced and the woman married the biological father of the child. The 
woman and her new husband now live together with the child in Member State A, where 
the child was born in the course of the woman’s new marriage.  

The national law of some Member States presumes the husband of the woman at the time 
when the child was conceived to be the father of the child.  
In contrast, under the national law of other Member States, after the mother’s divorce:  

- 

- 

there  is  a  legal  presumption  that  the  mother’s  new  husband  is  the  father  of  the 
child, or  
the new husband can recognise the child as his without recourse to a court.  

As  a  result  of  the  differing  legal  presumptions  of  paternity  in  the  national  laws  of  the 
Member  States,  each  national  law  may  attribute  the  paternity  of  a  child  to  a  different 
man.  

In this case, the authorities of Member State A considered the mother’s current husband, 
who is the biological father of the child, as the father of the child. In the birth certificate 
issued in Member State A, the child has the last name of the mother’s current husband.  

291  See  the  2016  Background  Note  for  the  Meeting  of  the  Experts’  Group  on  the  Parentage  /  Surrogacy 
Project,  Annex  1,  including  nine  further  examples  of  the  existing  problems  with  the  non-recognition  of 
parenthood. 
292 Example 1 is based on a complaint from a citizen received by the Commission in September 2021. A 
similar problem is described in the judgment of the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) 
of 20 June 2018 (ECLI:DE:BGH:2018:200618BXIIZB369.17.0). 

94 

 
 
                                                 
However, as the child was conceived before the mother was divorced from her previous 
husband,  the  authorities  of  Member  State  B,  which  is  the  mother’s  country  of  origin, 
consider that her former husband is the child’s father. The authorities of Member State B 
did not recognise the birth certificate issued in Member State A and obliged the child to 
have the family name of the former husband293. The mother complained that she does not 
have  the  financial  means  to  start  court  proceedings  in  Member  State  B  and  pay  for  a 
DNA paternity test proving the paternity of her current husband.  

 

Example  No  2  294:  relationship  between  the  parents  as  a  preliminary 
question, acknowledgment of parenthood 

A child was born in Member State A to nationals of Member State B and C who were in 
an  opposite-gender  registered  partnership.  Under  the  law  of  Member  State  A,  the 
paternity is based on the presumption that the father of a child is the person with whom 
the mother was in a registered partnership at the time when the child was born. Under the 
law of Member State A, in such a case an acknowledgement of the child by its father is 
not necessary.  

However,  when  the  mother  applied  to  the  authorities  of  Member  State  B  for  the 
recognition  of  parenthood,  the  recognition  was  refused  because  the  authorities  of 
Member State B did not recognise the registered partnership between the couple and, as a 
result, the legal presumption that the father of the child was the registered partner of the 
mother was not accepted as a basis for the establishment of parenthood295.  

Since  the  presumption  of  parenthood  was  not  applicable  in  Member  State  B,  the 
acknowledgement of the paternity by the father was necessary to establish his paternity. 
In the absence of such a previous acknowledgement, the authorities of Member State B 
refused to recognise the birth certificate and consequently the parenthood of the child.  

 

Example No 3 296: co-motherhood 

A married couple of two women, both nationals of Member State A, had a child through 
reciprocal  IVF297  in  Member  State  B,  their  Member  State  of  residence.  In  the  birth 
certificate issued by the authorities of Member State B the two women are designated as 
mothers  of  the  child.  However,  the  birth  certificate  issued  in  Member  State  B  did  not 
entitle  the  child  to  receiving  the  nationality  of  Member  State  B  as  none  of  the  child’s 
parents were nationals of that Member State.  

The spouses asked the authorities of Member State A, their Member State of nationality, 
to register the birth of their child and issue documentation for the child. The authorities 
of  Member  State  A  first  rejected  the  mothers’  application  for  documentation  and 

293 The CJEU case law concerning surnames is relevant in this situation (see in particular fn. 73). 
294 Example 2 is based on a problem described by a respondent to the OPC in May 2021.  
295  There  are  no  uniform  EU  rules  on  the  recognition  of  registered  partnerships,  each  MS  thus  regulates 
these rules in their national (PIL) law. 
296 Example 3 is based on a reply of an EU citizen to the Open Public Consultation from June 2021. 
297  A  reciprocal  in  vitro  fertilization  is  a  fertility  treatment  for  same-gender  couples  that  allows  both 
partners  to  have  a  physiological  connection  to  their  baby.  In  reciprocal  IVF,  the  eggs  of  one  partner  are 
retrieved  and  inseminated  with  donor  sperm.  The  resulting  embryo(s)  would  then  be  transferred  to  the 
second partner’s uterus to carry the pregnancy and give birth to the baby. 

95 

 
                                                 
nationality for the child, since the national law of Member State A does not provide for 
two women to be indicated as parents.  

The  parents  reported  that  given  the  refusal  of  the  authorities  of  Member  State  A  to 
recognise  the  parenthood  of  the  child,  the  child  had  no  identity  documents  and  was 
temporarily  deprived  of  the  nationality  of  Member  State  A  and  consequently  left 
temporarily  stateless.  The  family  sought  legal  representation  and,  eventually,  the 
authorities of Member State A registered one of  the mothers (the birth mother) in  their 
register  as the only  parent  of the  child. The  family reported that  the  child’s surname298 
was changed in the birth certificate of Member State A by eliminating the surname of the 
second mother, the child thus having a different identity in different Member States.  

The family also reported a fear to  travel  or move  to  Member State A or other Member 
States as their child could be taken away if found with the non-recognised parent. Should 
the  family  relocate  to  Member  State  A,  further  problems  would  arise.  The  parents 
reported  that  the  non-recognised  parent  may  not  be  allowed  to  represent  the  child  in 
administrative  and  other  matters,  including  in  hospitals,  schools  and  public  services  in 
Member State A, and she would not be able to cover the child under her insurance or take 
advantage  of  taxation  benefits  in  Member  State  A.  Should  one  of  the  parents  die,  the 
child would either not inherit from the non-recognised parent as her direct descendant in 
Member State A or it would be parentless from the legal viewpoint of Member State A in 
case  of  death  of  the  recognised  parent.  The  parents  also  feared  that  the non-recognised 
parent could be accused of abducting the child in Member State A.  

In conclusion, should the family move to Member State A or other Member States that 
do  not  recognise  the  parenthood  of  both  parents  of  the  child,  the  family  would  be 
effectively prevented from continuing the family life they led in Member State B. That 
would deter the family from moving to those Member States. 

 

Example No 4 299: surrogacy in another Member State 

A woman is married to a man, both are nationals of Member State A, living in Member 
State  B.  She  cannot  carry  a  child  to  term  naturally,  and  the  couple  has  recourse  to  a 
surrogacy arrangement in Member State B, where surrogacy is regulated.  

Under  the  law  of  Member  State  B,  if  all  legal  conditions  and  safeguards  are  met, 
surrogacy  agreements  are  legal  and  the  intended  parents  are  considered  as  the  legal 
parents of the child by operation of law. Under the law of Member State B, the woman is 
thus considered as the legal mother of the child and her husband as the legal father.  

However, under the law of Member State A, surrogacy is not permitted, and the surrogate 
is regarded as the mother of the child by operation of law.  

Upon  the  birth  of  the  child,  the  spouses  would  like  to  return  with  their  child  to  their 
Member  State  of  origin,  Member  State  A,  and  apply  for  a  birth  certificate  and  for  the 

298 The CJEU case law concerning surnames is relevant in this situation (see in particular fn. 73). 
299  Example  4  is  inspired  by  the  existing  cases  concerning  the  recognition  of  the  parenthood  of  children 
born as a  result of a  surrogacy arrangement heard by  the  European Court of Human Rights. See ECtHR 
Press Unit (2021). Factsheet – Gestational surrogacy.  

96 

 
                                                 
citizenship of Member State A for the child. They are worried about what steps they will 
have  to  undergo  to  be  considered  as  the  legal  parents  in  their  Member  State  of  origin, 
including a possible need to have to adopt their child, and how long their child will be 
without nationality documents. In general, they are concerned that the administrative and 
judicial authorities of their Member State of origin will refuse to recognise and register 
the parenthood of their child. 

  Example No 5 300: joint domestic adoption by a same-gender couple 

Two married women, nationals of Member State A and B with an habitual residence in a 
Member State A, apply jointly for the adoption of a child in accordance with the national 
law of Member State A. They are found suitable to adopt a child and a court of Member 
State A, after hearing all the parties and assessing the best interests of the child, issues an 
adoption order. The child is also habitually resident in Member State A.  

According to the law of Member State A, both mothers are the legal parents of the child. 
However, Member State B, of which one of the mothers is national, would not recognise 
the adoption and their parenthood because they are a same-gender couple. Under the law 
of Member State B, the child’s birth parents would still be treated as its legal parents. As 
a  consequence,  the  child  is  not  entitled  to  claim  nationality  of  Member  State  B301.  In 
addition, if the family relocated to Member State B, the child would not be able to enjoy 
the rights derived from parenthood in that Member State, such as the right to inherit from 
both  of  its  parents  or  to  be  represented  by  both  of  its  parents  in  matters  such  as 
authorising medical treatment and making arrangements for its education.  

In  contrast,  if  the  family  decided  to  relocate  to  Member  State  C,  which  recognises  the 
domestic  adoption  order  from  Member  State  A  automatically,  the  family  would  not 
experience  any  such  problems.  If  the  family  decided  to  relocate  to  Member  State  D,  it 
would have to file, according to the requirements of that Member State, an application to 
the public authorities of that Member State for the recognition of the domestic adoption 
or for some form of registration of the adoption302. 

  Example  No  6:  differences  between  time  periods  when  parenthood  can  be 

challenged  

A  child  is  born  to  a  married  woman,  a  national  of  Member  State  B,  who  is  habitually 
resident with her husband (also a national of Member State B) in Member State A. The 
husband is aware that the child is not genetically his. Substantive family law of Member 
State A uses a common legal presumption that husband of the child’s mother is the father 
of the child and thus attributes paternity to the child to him. The couple divorces several 
years  later  in  the  Member  State  A.  To  avoid  maintenance  obligations,  the  husband 
disproves his paternity to the child during the divorce proceedings. However, according 
to  the  law  of  Member  State  A,  a  parent  can  only  contest  their  legally  established 

300 A similar scenario can also arise in a situation of step-parent adoption if the child was a biological child 
of one of the women and the other one adopted it.  
301 Assuming that the law of Member State B grants the nationality of that Member State to children of its 
nationals (based on the usual ius sanguinis rules). 
302 This may involve, in some Member States, the need to apply for the recognition of a foreign adoption 
order to a court, a procedure that can cause unnecessary burden and/or costs. 

97 

 
                                                 
parenthood within two years after they became aware of the facts which indicate that the 
child may not be biologically theirs. Given the time bar on contesting parenthood in the 
national  law  of  Member  State  A,  the  husband  cannot  contest  his  paternity  and  remains 
the legal parent of the child.   

Following the divorce, mother of the child moves with the child to Member State B. Her 
former husband brings proceedings in that Member State for the non-recognition of his 
paternity  to  the  child.  There  is  no  time  bar  on  challenging  paternity  under  the  national 
law of Member State B and, with the help of DNA testing proving that the child is not 
genetically his, he is successful with his non-recognition action. 

As a result, the child has two legal parents from the perspective of Member State A and 
only one parent, the mother, from the perspective of Member State B.  

2.  Reported consequences of the existing problems on families 

The  following  account  of  the  consequences  of  the  non-recognition  of  parenthood  is  a 
selection from the replies received by the Commission from the public and academia and 
represents solely the experience of the respondents.  

  Denial  of  the  child’s  rights  and/or  obligations  derived  from  parenthood, 
interference  with  the  child’s  right  to  respect  for  private  and  family  life,  the 
right  to  non-discrimination  and  the  right  to  an  identity,  repercussions  on  the 
child’s surname 

o  “My first daughter was born in Spain in January 2014.  Her birth certificate has two 
mothers.  Her  birth  certificate  was  not  accepted  in  the  UK,  since  under  UK  law  her 
British  mom  was  not  recognised  because  we  were  not  married  at  the  time  of  birth. 
Greece also refused to register the birth and issue a passport. After almost 10 months 
and  because  my  daughter  was  diagnosed  with  cancer,  the  Greek  Consulate  in 
Barcelona  decided  to  help  us  and  register  the  birth  partially,  only  one  mother  and 
changing  her  surname.  That  was  the  only  way  to  have  a  passport.  If  my  daughter 
hadn’t  been  seriously  ill,  we  will  still  be  without  a  passport.  My  daughter  is  now  7 
years old, she is healthy but in Greece she still has only one parent and her surname is 
not the same as in Spain. […] 

So in my family the two sisters are sisters in Spain but not in the UK. My children lose 
one parent every time we go to Greece, and in the UK my oldest loses one parent and 
her sister too. This situation is stopping us of planning to go and live to Greece or the 
UK,  since  we  know  that  our  children  will  lose  basic  rights.  Every  time  we  travel  to 
Greece,  we  have  to  think  that  if  something  happens  to  me,  the  children  will  be 
considered orphans or that one of their parent will not have any parental rights over 
them.” 

(Reply to the Commission’s open public consultation, May 2021)303 

o  “I am married with a Spanish citizen and have a common son born by our friend. For 
this reason, our son has a Spanish birth certificate with both names, and our friend is 

303 While this OPC reply refers both to EU Member States and to the United Kingdom, it should be noted 
that  any  problems  with  parenthood  recognition  in  the  UK  would  not  be  affected  by  the  Parenthood 
initiative as the initiative would not apply to third countries. 

98 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
not  mentioned  at  all  on  the  birth  certificate.  As  we  lived  in  Belgium,  we  had 
considerable problems with the Belgian authorities, who refused to recognise the birth 
certificate  and  was  therefore  listed  for  two  and  a  half  years  as  an  ‘unconnected 
person’ living under our roof. Whenever we return to my home country, Croatia, I am 
afraid that we will have problems at the border because Croatia is not very open to 
LGBTI people. I also did not apply for a Croatian passport for my son, as I anticipate 
huge  problems.  […]  The  worst  thing  is  not  that  I  and  my  spouse  are  discriminated 
against, but that my son has been discriminated against, because of the way in which 
he was born. He did not choose this. A big issue here is children’s rights, which many 
of those who are against LGBTI families do not understand. These children, including 
my  son,  have  parents,  have  family  relationships  and  it  is  in  their  best  interest  to  be 
with their parents. It is in their best interest to live like all other EU citizens. We really 
need  this  regulation,  because  this  is  the  right  path.  We  cannot  have  second-class 
citizens in Europe. 

(Feedback to the Commission’s Inception Impact Assessment, April 2021) 

o  “[The non-recognition of parenthood] has as a result that my daughter cannot inherit 
any of my fortune in Greece as her legal right. I am not allowed to travel with the child 
on  my  own,  or  even  have basic rights  as  a  parent  for  example  in  hospitals,  schools, 
public services and in the case of the first mother’s death, I will not be able to legally 
have my daughter and she will be given to social services as I am not her legal mother 
in Greece, in case this happens to Greece. Also I am not able to relocate with the child 
to Greece and have her covered under my insurance or take advantage of any taxation 
benefits.  The  worst  is  that  the  child  has  a  different  name  in  the  UK  and  a  different 
name  in  Greece  which  will  cause  even  more  issues  in  the  future,  in  healthcare, 
education, etc.” 

(Reply to the Commission’s open public consultation, June 2021) 

  Denial of rights related to education, social security, taxation and healthcare 

o  Children  born  abroad  in  same-sex  couples,  although  unquestionably  Polish  citizens, 
face  refusals  to  issue  Polish  identity  cards,  passports  and  registration  in  the  public 
register,  in  particular  PESEL  (the  system  for  assigning  a  special  number  to  all 
citizens, which is of great practical importance). Without ID card and PESEL number, 
children’s  right  to  public  and/or  private  health  care  and  other  social  services  is  at 
risk. 

The  right  of  a  minor  child  to  health  care,  education  (registration  in  an  appropriate 
educational  institution),  safety  and  social  welfare  is  at  risk  when  recognition  of  the 
parenthood of a non-biological parent is refused. This may include situations such as 
loss of life, absence or illness of a biological parent 

(Reply  to  the  Commission’s  open  public  consultation,  the  Office  of  the  Polish 
Commissioner for Human Rights, August 2021) 

o  “Our daughter, as a kid with same-sex parents will be heavily discriminated and she 
won't  be  having  access  to  basic  rights,  such  as  social  security,  health  and  care, 
traveling etc. The problem is bigger if I die or become extremely ill and cannot take 
care of our daughter.” 

(Feedback to the Commission’s Inception Impact Assessment, May 2021) 

  Impact on emotional and psychological wellbeing of children and families 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
o  “In practical terms, [the non-recognition of parenthood] leads to a lack of recognition 
of  people  who  are  parents,  hence  leading  to  a  lack  of  all  rights  with  respect  to 
parenthood.  This  creates  unimaginable  difficulties,  including  health  issues,  family 
breakup, stigmatisation of the parent and the child, and knock on effects on parental 
and child wellbeing, education and all other aspects of parenthood, notably access to 
the  child.  This  state  discrimination  makes  cross  border  travel  particularly  complex 
[…].” 

(Reply to the Commission’s open public consultation, July 2021) 

o  “I personally had to get married in a rush in Belgium (my same-sex spouse is Belgian 
and we reside in Belgium) to ensure that my spouse would be in our children's Spanish 
birth certificate (I am of Spanish nationality). If we had not been married and had our 
Belgian  marriage  recognised  by  Spanish  authorities  before  our  children's  birth  in 
Spain,  I  was  informed  that  Spain  would  not  recognise  my  spouse  in  the  birth 
certificates  (we  had  twins)  and  then  probably  Belgium  would  not  either.  It  was  very 
stressful  and  expensive,  as  well  as  emotionally  very  difficult  to  face  this  sort  of 
difficulty.” 

(Reply to the Commission’s open public consultation, July 2021) 

  Deterrence of the right to free movement  

o 

 “It  is  not  right  that  I  am  unable  to  live  where  I  would  like,  under  the  pretext  of 
non-recognition of a parental relationship.” 

(Reply to the Commission’s open public consultation, June 2021) 

o  “While we have not tried to recognize the parenthood in my home country Slovakia, 
we are certain that this would not be possible and if we decide to move there we would 
put our children at risk as we would not be recognized as a family. This way we can 
only live in a limited number of countries (and I guess always request recognition of 
parenthood),  separated  from  the  grandparents  that  are  deprived  from  their 
grandchildren. I was informed of cases when during the pandemic restrictions, people 
were  prevented  from  crossing  the  regions  unless  for  family  reunification.  Some 
same-sex couples with children were put in a difficult situation, when for example one 
partner had to take care the grandparents that lived in another region and they were 
not allowed to travel back to their families. Therefore non recognition of partnership 
also deprives children of their rights.” 

(Reply to the Commission’s open public consultation, July 2021) 

o  Where refusal to recognise legal ties between parents and their children results in a 
child  being  rendered  stateless,  this  impacts  the  rights  of  the  child  in  various  ways. 
Without personal or national identification documents, the child cannot leave its birth 
country (e.g, to visit relatives in other MS), and cannot enrol in kindergarten, school, 
or university.  

There is a recent case from Greece concerning recognition of adoption certificates of 
twins  born  via  IVF  in  Germany,  where  the  parents,  Greek  nationals,  reside  and  got 
married.  The  non-biological  mother  adopted  the  twins  shortly  after  their  birth  to 
formalise the kinship. All family members (mothers and children) have both Greek and 
German citizenship.  As the family is looking to move to Greece, the non recognition of 
the family unit is an obstacle for their freedom of movement and enjoyment of rights as 
EU  citizens.  The  family  is  currently  appealing  the  rejection  of  recognition  of  the 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
German  judicial  decision,  establishing  kinship  of  the  non-biological  mother  with  the 
children, in Greek courts. 

(Reply by ILGA-Europe to the Commission’s open public consultation, August 
2021) 

o  “[The non-recognition of parenthood] prevents us from travelling back to Greece and 
any other EU states as we are afraid that anyone can at any point take the child away. 
In  an  even  worse  scenario,  the  second  mother  can  easily  be  accused  in  Greece  for 
kidnapping and the child to be taken by social services as she is not recognised as the 
legal parent of the child.” 

(Reply to the Commission’s open public consultation, June 2021) 

o 

It is simply unacceptable that our children can be stripped of one of their legal parents 
when moving from one EU Member State to another, or that some children can be left 
effectively  'stateless'  based  on  the  way  they  were  conceived.  My  two  children  have 
recently gone from having 2 legal parents (mothers) in Belgium, to having one legal 
parent in Ireland due to the non-recognition of my wife (their biological mother). The 
impacts of this are potentially far-reaching and damaging. What will happen if I die 
and my wife is left with no legal tie to the children in Ireland? What if the children are 
sick and I cannot be with them and a hospital refuses access to them to my wife? There 
are  so  many  questions  like  these  that  are  simply  unfair  and  are  surely  against  the 
principle of Free Movement in the EU. 

(Feedback to the Commission’s Inception Impact Assessment, April 2021) 

  Problems with obtaining identity and travel documents reflecting parenthood of 
a  child,  interference  with  the  child’s  entitlement  to  a  nationality  and  risk  of 
statelessness of the child 

o  “In  many  EU  countries,  same-sex  couples  married  abroad  and  their  children  are 
denied  access  to  civil  registration  in  their  country  of  nationality.  Such  cases  have 
occurred  across  several  countries  in  Europe  (including  Poland,  Bulgaria,  and 
Ireland). […] The risk of statelessness in these cases is heightened because, contrary 
to international norms and good practice, few Member States have a full safeguard in 
law  to  ensure  that  children  born  in  their  territory  who  would  otherwise  be  stateless 
can acquire the nationality of that Member State. Even where such a safeguard is in 
place,  the  child  must  demonstrate  that  they  are  unable  to  acquire  any  other 
nationality.  This  poses  a  challenge  for  the  child  to  provide  evidence  that  they  are 
effectively  prevented  from  acquiring  another  nationality,  particularly  when  the 
authorities  of  another Member  State do not  explicitly  refuse to  acknowledge that the 
child  is  a  national  of  that  country,  but  still  hinders  access  to  birth  registration 
certificates or identity documents.” 

(Feedback to the Commission’s Inception Impact Assessment, May 2021) 

o  “The  jurisprudence  of  Polish  courts  and  consequently  also  legal  literature  indicate 
that  there  are  practical  problems,  which  arise  in  case  of  children  born  to  same-sex 
couples  and/or  through  surrogacy  arrangements.  The  jurisprudence  reveals  that 
practical  problems  might  include  refusal  of  transcription,  refusal  of  confirmation  of 
Polish citizenship, obstacles in obtaining the national identification number (PESEL), 
which  in  turn  is  needed  in  order  to  apply  for  identification  documents,  including  a 
passport.”  

(Country Report* - Poland, October 2021) 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  Costs,  time,  and  burden  of  administrative  and  judicial  proceedings  related  to 

the recognition of parenthood 

o  30% of respondents who provided estimates of the length of the recognition procedure 
before  the  administrative  authorities  indicated  that  the  estimated  length  of  the 
recognition procedure was 12 months to 24 months. In addition, 15% specified that the 
estimated  length  was  6  months  to  12  months.  The  average  estimated  costs  for  the 
recognition  procedure  before  the  administrative  authorities  varied  significantly 
between  the  numbers  reported  by  respondents,  with  the  recognition  being  free  of 
charge in some Member States to reaching 12.000 EUR in others. 

27% (or 27 responses) of respondents indicated that in the case where the parenthood 
was recognised but the recognition required bringing a case to court, the length of the 
recognition proceedings before the court was more than 2 years. In addition, 21% (or 
21  responses)  specified  that  the  procedure  was  between  1  and  2  years.  In  the  cases 
where the parenthood was recognised but the  recognition required bringing a case to 
court,  the  average  estimated  costs  for  the  recognition  proceedings  before  the  court 
varied significantly, with some respondents reporting that there were no court fees in 
some Member States, while others indicating the costs were more than 25.000 EUR. 

(Summary Report of the OPC, October 2021304) 

o  “In  the  case  above-mentioned,  I  (as  biological  mother  from  France)  still  have  to 
declare the child with the French authorities. When I asked for legal advice about the 
procedure  (requiring  first  to  declare  the  child  with  just  my  last  name,  then  to  go 
through a procedure of adoption of the spouse's child, then to request a change of last 
name so the child would bear the two names of her two mothers, just like in Belgium), 
the specialised lawyer gave me a quote for 1.500 euros.” 

(Reply to the Commission’s open public consultation, July 2021) 

  Legal uncertainty for families 

o  “In  complicated  cases  [concerning  the  recognition  of  parenthood],  it  is  extremely 
difficult  for  a  person  to  know  precisely  in  advance  the  legal  framework  and  what  a 
court or public authority might decide.”  

(Country report* - Cyprus, October 2021) 

o  “It  is  difficult  to  take  certain  steps  for  the  child,  as  long  as  the  documents  are  not 
recognised. This requires recourse to lawyers and court decisions that differ from one 
judge  to  another:  While  the  law  is  the  same  for  all,  their  interpretation  differs 
according to the judges and case law fluctuates over time.” 

(Feedback to the Commission’s Inception Impact Assessment, May 2021) 

304 For details see questions 12 to 15, p. 16-18. However, please note that the statistics should have only 
illustrative  value. The Summary report provides an overview of the responses to the OPC and cannot be 
considered as a representative of the experience and views of the EU population as a whole. Moreover, the 
above  statistics  do  not  sufficiently  factor  in  the  differences  in  the  length  and  costs  of  recognition 
procedures in individual Member States.  

102 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 8: POTENTIAL EVALUATION INDICATORS 

Figure 15: Examples of potential evaluation indicators 
Assessment criterion 

Examples of potential indicators 

To facilitate the 
recognition of 
parenthood between 
Member States 

To ensure respect for 
the fundamental rights 
of children in matters 
concerning 
parenthood 
recognition  

To ensure legal 
certainty, predictability 
and continuity of 
parenthood 

  The number of cross-border families in the EU; 
  The  number  of  cross-border  families  that  benefited  from  the  streamlined  procedure 

for the recognition of parenthood under the Regulation: 

  The  number  of  proceedings  for  cross-border  recognition  (per  Member 

State); 

  The  number  of  ECPs  issued  and  related  fees  (if  applied)  and  of 

proceedings where it was used305; 

  The  perception  of  the  Regulation  by  civil  society,  NGOs  and  public 

authorities of Member States 306; 

  The  number  of  cross-border  families  that  continue  experiencing  problems  with  the 
recognition in one Member State of parenthood established in another Member State: 
  The  number  of  petitions  and  citizen  letters  complaining  about  the 
problems  with  the  recognition  of  parenthood  received  by  the  EU 
institutions; 

  The  number  of  cases  concerning  the  non-recognition  of  parenthood 

brought before national courts, the CJEU and the ECtHR; 

  The  perception  of  the  Regulation  by  civil  society,  NGOs  and  public 

authorities of Member States; 

  The practical application of the Regulation: 

  Case law concerning the Regulation, possible preliminary ruling requests 

to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of the Regulation; 

  The  cases  where  public  policy  objection  was  raised  by  a  recognising 

Member State; 

  The  extent  to  which  the  children’s  rights  and  fundamental  rights  of 
children  and  their  families  were  considered  in  the  proceedings  for  the 
recognition of parenthood; 

  The  perception  of  the  Regulation  by  civil  society,  NGOs  and  public 

authorities of Member States; 

  The  views  of  the  Regulation  in  academic  literature  and  in  reports  by 

individuals, organisations and international organisations; 

  The  share  of  requests  of  recognition  of  parenthood  using  national 

authentic instruments and using ECP; 

To reduce costs and 
legal and administrative 
burden for families, 
public administrations 
and courts 

  The  incidence  of  conflicting  judgments  and  conflicting  documents  on 

parenthood after the Regulation became applicable. 

  Costs and administrative burden on families before and after the Regulation became 

applicable 

  The  number  of  instances  where  families  had  to  resort  to  (i)  a  legal 
assistance  and  (ii)  court  proceedings  to  have  parenthood  recognised  in 
another Member State after the Regulation became applicable; 

  The difference between the costs and the length of recognition procedures 

before and after the Regulation became applicable307; 

305  If  possible,  the  factors  determining  whether  cross-border  families  take  up  the  ECP  or  use  national 
certificates of parenthood could be studied.  
306  The  perception  by  these  stakeholders  could  be  assessed  for  instance  through  targeted  interviews, 
questionnaires or through publically available publications.  
307  Ideally,  this  data  should  be  disaggregated  comparing  the  length  and  costs  of  the  procedure  in 
comparable cases. 

103 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
  The difference in costs  for the recognition of parenthood on the basis of 
ECP as compared to national authentic instruments and court decisions; 
  Qualitative  evidence  concerning  the  types  of  documents  needed  for  the 

proceedings, as well as the associated costs. 

  Costs  and  burden  for  public  authorities  before  and  after  the  Regulation  became 

applicable; their level of satisfaction with the Regulation308;  

  Adjustment costs for public administrations and courts309.  

An  indicator  of  success  of  the  Parenthood  regulation  would  be  the  fact  that  the 
initiative meets its objectives and thus facilitates the recognition of parenthood between 
Member  States  (thus  reducing  the  instances  where  the  recognition  of  parenthood  is 
refused).  However,  as  this  would  likely  not  be  empirically  measurable  as  such,  a 
combination of the above indicators could  be used instead to  assess the  success  rate of 
the Regulation. In addition, the number of ECPs issued to cross-border families in the EU 
could also be an additional means to measure the success of the Parenthood regulation in 
quantitative terms. 

308  This  data  could  be  collected  from  Member  States  and  their  public  authorities  through  targeted 
interviews or questionnaires.  
309 Ibid. 

104