COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT Accompanying the documents Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of measures and cooperation in matters relating to the protection of adults and proposal for a Council decision authorising Member States to become or remain parties, in the interest of the European Union, to the Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults
Date: 2023-05-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission
Subjects: adult, enforcement of ruling, equal treatment, fundamental rights, international convention, judicial cooperation, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, legal capacity, private international law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 31.5.2023  SWD(2023) 155 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT  Accompanying the documents Proposal for  a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of measures and cooperation in matters relating to the protection of adults              and                      proposal for a Council decision authorising Member States to become or remain parties, in the interest of the European Union, to the Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults {COM(2023) 280 final} - {SEC(2023) 208 final} - {SWD(2023) 154 final} - {SWD(2023) 156 final} - {COM(2023) 281 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................................... 4 

1 

2 

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

PROBLEM DEFINITION ..................................................................................................................... 6 

3  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? ......................................................................................................... 21 

4 

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

5  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? ..................................................................... 26 

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

7 

8 

9 

HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? ............................................................................................ 44 

PREFERRED OPTION ....................................................................................................................... 45 

HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................................. 48 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................................................ 50 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION (SYNOPSIS REPORT) ................................................ 57 

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

ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................ 67 

ANNEX 5: THE HCCH 2000 PROTECTION OF ADULTS CONVENTION ......................................... 106 

ANNEX 6: EU REGULATION .................................................................................................................. 112 

ANNEX 7: PROBLEM DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN CONTRACTING PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION 
AND NON-CONTRACTING PARTIES .......................................................................................... 122 

ANNEX 8: MONITORING – POTENTIAL EVALUATION INDICATORS .......................................... 126 

ANNEX 9: CONSULTATIONS BY THE EXTERNAL CONTRACTOR ................................................ 129 

ANNEX 10:  NATIONAL  PROVISIONS  ON  JURISDICTION,  APPLICABLE  LAW  AND  RECOGNITION
 ........................................................................................................................................................... 133 

 
 
 
Table of figures and tables  

Figure 1: Problem Tree............................................................................................................................................. 7 
Figure 2: Intervention Logic  .................................................................................................................................. 26 
Figure 3: Objectives tree ........................................................................................................................................ 26 
Figure 4: The effectiveness of the baseline scenario (Policy Option 1) in achieving the policy objectives of the PA 
initiative .................................................................................................................................................................. 27 
Figure 5: The effectiveness of the PO2 in achieving the policy objectives of the PA initiative* as perceived by 
stakeholders ............................................................................................................................................................ 34 
Figure 6: The effectiveness of the PO3 in achieving the policy objectives of the PA initiative* as perceived by 
stakeholders ............................................................................................................................................................ 35 
Figure 7: The effectiveness of the PO4 in achieving the policy objectives of the PA initiative* as perceived by 
stakeholders  ........................................................................................................................................................... 35 
Figure 8: Opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board .............................................................................................. 50 
Figure 8: Methods to estimate the population of vulnerable adults in the EU ....................................................... 69 
Figure 9: Number of Contracting Parties bound by the core HCCH Conventions .............................................. 109 

Table 1: Costs borne by adults in cross-border context: current situation - illustrations per various scenarios ................... 28 
Table 2: Overview of costs related to each policy option ....................................................................................................... 39 
Table 3: Total procedural cost savings per case averaged across all Member States in Option 3 and 4 (EUR) ................... 40 
Table 4: Overview of costs for each policy option .................................................................................................................. 41 
Table 5: Comparison of costs and benefits per option (thousands EUR)................................................................................ 42 
Table 6: Comparison of policy options ................................................................................................................................... 45 
Table 7: Overview of benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option ........................................................................... 63 
Table 8: Overview of costs – Preferred Option ....................................................................................................................... 65 
Table 9: Overview of relevant Sustainable Development Goals – Preferred Option .............................................................. 66 
Table 10: Sources used for the calculations of protection measures ...................................................................................... 69 
Table 11: Estimates of the current number of vulnerable adults involved in cross-border situations – analysis based on 
protection measures ................................................................................................................................................................ 73 
Table 12: Estimates of the number of vulnerable adults involved in cross-border situations in 2030 – analysis based on 
protection measures ................................................................................................................................................................ 74 
Table 13: Estimates of current number of vulnerable adults involved in cross-border situations – analysis based on self-
perceived health difficulties .................................................................................................................................................... 75 
Table 14: Estimates of a number of vulnerable adults involved in cross-border situations in 2030 – analysis based on self-
perceived health difficulties .................................................................................................................................................... 76 
Table 15: Estimated number of vulnerable adults in non-EU Contracting States .................................................................. 77 
Table 16: Overview of the estimated numbers of vulnerable adults in the EU-26 and in non EU Contracting States ........... 79 
Table 17: The typology of costs related to the cross-border protection of adults per policy option ....................................... 80 
Table 18: Description of typical illustrative examples and related costs ................................................................................ 81 
Table 19: Assumptions regarding the costs incurred by adults and competent authorities .................................................... 82 
Table 20: Cost estimates per category .................................................................................................................................... 83 
Table 21: Average Procedural costs for vulnerable adults and competent authorities per case in Option 1 (baseline) ........ 84 
Table 22: Aggregate of the procedural costs borne by vulnerable adults, per illustrative example under the baseline 
scenario (thousands EUR) ...................................................................................................................................................... 85 
Table 23: Estimate of annual costs for running a Central Authority under the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention 
(in selected MS) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 86 
Table 24: Estimate of annual costs for running a Central Authority under the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults per MS 
(PO1) ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 86 
Table 25: Average procedural costs* for adults and competent authorities per case and savings per case in Option 2 as 
compared to the baseline ........................................................................................................................................................ 87 
Table 26 Total procedural cost savings per case averaged across all Member States in Option 2 ........................................ 88 
Table 27: Comparison of aggregate cost-savings on Procedural costs under PO1 and PO2 ................................................ 88 
Table 28: Estimate of annual costs for running a Central Authority under the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults per MS 
(PO2 as compared to PO1) ..................................................................................................................................................... 89 
Table 29: Average procedural costs for adults and competent authorities per case and savings per case in Option 3 as 
compared to the baseline ........................................................................................................................................................ 90 
Table 30: Total procedural cost savings per case averaged across all Member States in Option 3 ....................................... 91 

2 

 
 
 
Table 31: Comparison of aggregate cost-savings on procedural costs under PO1 and PO3 ................................................. 92 
Table 32: Aggregate costs for establishment of a digital interconnected register (one-time costs) ........................................ 96 
Table 33: Costs of interconnection of registries under the Insolvency Regulation ................................................................. 96 
Table 34: Aggregate maintenance costs of a digital interconnected register for insolvency (annual costs) .......................... 97 
Table 35: Costs of setting up a digital register per Member State  ......................................................................................... 97 
Table 36: Comparison of aggregate cost-savings on procedural costs under PO1 and PO4  ................................................ 99 
Table 37: Additional costs and cost savings of Option 4 as compared to the baseline, 10 years and 15 years scenario ....... 99 
Table 38: Procedural costs pertaining to the illustrative examples according to the policy options .................................... 100 
Table 39: Comparison of aggregate cost-savings on Procedural costs under POs 1, 2, 3 and 4  ........................................ 102 
Table 40: Annual adjustment and enforcement costs related to the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention by MS .. 102 
Table 41: Comparison of costs and benefits per option ........................................................................................................ 103 
Table 42: Possible EU measures under POs 3 and 4 – description and benefits.................................................................. 113 
Table 43: Problems that would and would not be solved if all Member States become a Contracting Party to the Convention
 .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 123 
Table 43: Examples of potential evaluation indicators ......................................................................................................... 126 
Table44: Consultation activities per stakeholder group – external contractor .................................................................... 129 
Table 45: Jurisdiction and applicable law in the Member States that are not party to the Convention ............................... 133 
Table 46: Rules applicable to parallel proceedings in the Member States ........................................................................... 135 
Table 47: Recognition in Contracting States of protection measures taken in Non-contracting States ................................ 135 
Table 48: Recognition in Non-Contracting States ................................................................................................................ 135 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
GLOSSARY 

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

Term or acronym 

Adjustment costs  

Meaning or definition 
In  this  report,  direct  costs  borne  by  competent  authorities  related  to  a  possible  EU 
intervention.  

Advance directives 

Adult 

They include costs related to the implementation of new policy instruments and related 
procedures.  These  costs  would  imply  working  time  but  possibly  also  other  costs,  e.g. 
costs of software, hardware, and training1. 

Instructions given or wishes made by a capable adult concerning issues that may arise in 
the  event  of  his  or  her  incapacity*.  They  concern,  most  commonly,  matters  of  health, 
end-of-life decisions, or other personal matters, such as the place of care/treatment of the 
adult. They may be addressed to the world at large, without necessarily identifying who 
should carry them out, or be addressed to (a) specific person(s).  

Advance directives may be included in powers of representation* or not. 

In  this  report,  person  aged  18  years  old  or  more  who  (i) has  established  powers  of 
representation*  or  (ii) is  a  vulnerable  adult,  i.e.  not  in  a  position  to  protect  his  or  her 
financial and personal interests, regardless of whether the powers of representations have 
been confirmed (see the definition) or a measure has been ordered. 

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. 

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 (recast). 

The Brussels IIb Regulation establishes PIL rules* governing cross-border cases in matters 
such as divorce, parental responsibility or child abductions. 

Call for evidence 

Consultation activity conducted through the Commission’s ‘Have your say’ portal between 
21 December 2021 and 29 March 2022. It presented the initial thinking of the Commission 
behind the PA initiative* and gathered the public’s views.  

See the replies here: Civil judicial cooperation – EU-wide protection for vulnerable adults 
(europa.eu). 

Charter 

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

Central Authorities 

Article 26 of the Charter provides that  ‘The Union recognises and respects the  right of 
persons with disabilities to benefit from measures designed to ensure their independence, 
social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community.’ 

Public agencies or organisations (mostly ministries of justice) that have been designated 
by Contracting Parties to the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention* in accordance 
with Article 28 of the Convention. They play a key role in facilitating the implementation 
and operation of the Convention. 

1 For details regarding costs and  methodology for their calculation, see  Annex 4. See also the typology of costs in  Better 
Regulation Toolbox (November 2021). 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Choice of jurisdiction 

In  this  report,  an  agreement  or  a  unilateral  act  by  an  adult,  which  provides  that  future 
proceedings concerning his or her protection should be resolved by a particular court or a 
court in a particular Member State.  

Choice of law 

CJEU 

CNUE 

Competent authority 

In  this  report,  an  agreement  or  a  unilateral  act  by  an  adult,  which  provides  that  future 
proceedings  concerning  his  or  her  protection  should  be  resolved  under  the  law  of  a 
particular State.   

Court of Justice of the European Union. 

Council of the Notariats of the EU (Conseil des notaires de l’Union européenne). CNUE 
represents 24 national notariats and 45 000 civil law notaries in the EU. 

A  public  authority  of  a  Member  State,  or  an  entity  acting  in  an  official  capacity  and 
authorised  under  national  law  to  establish,  control,  terminate  or  register  a  protection 
measure*,  or  powers  of  representation*  in  the  field  of  adults’  protection.  Competent 
authorities can be public bodies, courts or notaries for example. 

Confirmed powers of 
representation 

In some States, powers of representation* only enter into force when they are confirmed, 
i.e.,  when  a  judicial  or  administrative  authority,  a  public  body  or  an  appropriate 
professional confirm that they are in force and in conformity with the law applicable2. 

Powers of representation* are established when the adult concerned is still in a position to 
protect his or her interests (full legal capacity).  Depending on the applicable legislation, 
they  do  not  necessarily  enter  into  force  immediately,  but  only  when,  for  instance,  the 
insufficiency of the faculties of the adult is established. 

Contracting States/Parties 

States/Parties  who  have  ratified  or  acceded  to  the  HCCH  2000  Protection  of  Adults 
Convention* and where it is applicable.  

Council decision on adults /  
Council decision 

Cross-border situations / 
Cross-border cases /  
Cases with cross-border 
implications 

This  includes  the  following  Member  States:  Belgium,  the  Czech  Republic,  Germany, 
Estonia, Greece, France, Cyprus, Latvia, Austria, Portugal and Finland. It also includes the 
following  non-EU  Contracting  States:  Monaco,  the  United  Kingdom  (in  respect  to 
Scotland) and Switzerland. 

A decision that would be proposed by the Commission and adopted by the Council of the 
EU (with the consent of the European Parliament) and which would oblige Member States 
to  join  the  HCCH  2000  Protection  of  Adults  Convention*  within  an  agreed  timeframe. 
Those  Member  States  that  are  already  party  to  the  Convention  would  be  authorised  to 
remain parties to the Convention. 

The adoption of the Council decision on adults is included as a part of policy options 2 and 
4.  

Situations  and/or  judicial  or  administrative  proceedings  which  are  connected  to  two  or 
more States.  

In the context of this report, a case with cross-border implications arises, for instance, in 
the following situations: 

-  where a protection measure taken by the authority of one State has effect in another 

State (where the adult owns assets for instance); 

-  where powers of representation*  established in one  State have effect or are  to be 

confirmed* in another State;  

-  where measures aimed at the protection of an adult who lives in one State, or has the 

nationality of one State, are sought in another State; 

2 Conclusions and Recommendations n° 43 and 44 of the 2022 Special Commission. 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
-  where an adult who benefits from measures of protection taken in one State plans to 
move to another State, or where placement in an establishment or residential facility 
in another State is contemplated. 

DG JUST 

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

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). 

Legal Aid Directive, or the 
Directive 

This  proposal  builds  on  the  precedent  of  the  recasts  of  the  Service  of  Documents*  and 
Taking of Evidence  Regulations*,  which  have, inter alia, improved the transmission of 
cooperation  requests  by  obliging  authorities  to  use  secure  electronic  channels  of 
communication. The  mandatory digitalisation part of both  Recast  Regulations  will start 
applying from 1 May 2025. 

Council  Directive  2003/8/EC  of  27  January  2003  to  improve  access  to  justice  in 
cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such 
disputes. The Directive applies to cross-border cases as defined in its Article 2. Among 
others,  it  establishes  the  right  of  people  habitually  resident  in  a  Member  State  who  are 
unable  to  meet  the  costs  of  judicial  proceedings  to  benefit  from  legal  aid  in  another 
Member State.  

EAVA Study 

European  Parliament’s  study  accompanying  the  European  Parliament’s  Legislative 
Initiative  Report:  Salm  Ch.  (2016).  Protection  of  Vulnerable  Adults  –  European  Added 
Value Assessment.  

ECR 

European Certificate of Representation.  

EJN-civil 

e-Justice Portal  

EJTN 

For details of this Certificate to be introduced under policy options 3 and 4, see Annex 6 
of this report. 

The  European  Judicial  Network  in  civil  and  commercial  matters,  set  up  by  Council 
Decision 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001 establishing a European Judicial Network in civil 
and commercial matters. It is a network of contact points (one or more contact point in 
each Member State) replying  to  daily requests  for assistance in cross-border cases. The 
members of the network are, in addition to the contact points, judicial authorities and other 
national  authorities,  representatives  of  the  legal  professions  (lawyers,  notaries,  bailiffs) 
who are involved in the application of the EU instruments. EJN-civil meets several times 
a year to discuss the application of these EU instruments (plenary meetings) and also to 
solve difficulties in sensitive or complex individual cases (bilateral meetings). EJN-civil 
also prepares factsheets on national law and practice guides on EU instruments. 

European e-Justice Portal. A EU website that provides information to the public and the 
practitioners in all official EU languages on EU law and national justice. In addition, the 
e-Justice Portal provides multilingual forms, most of them in a dynamic format, which can 
be completed online, and generated in any official EU language. 

European Judicial Training Network. Platform and promoter for training and exchange of 
knowledge of the European judiciary. The EJTN has 36 members representing  Member 
States and other bodies. The EJTN aims to foster a common legal and judicial European 
culture, by coordinating judicial training exchanges and programmes. 

ELI 

European Law Institute. 

(cross-border) Enforcement  

In this report, the process by which the consequences of a protection measure taken by a 
competent  authority  in  one  State  are  given  effect  in  another  State,  through  the  use  of 
coercive action. For the sake of simplicity, the term ‘enforcement’ covers (i) the procedure 
required for a decision enforceable in the country of origin to be declared enforceable in 
the  State  where  enforcement  is  sought  (also  called  declaration  of  enforceability, 
registration, or exequatur*), and (ii) the actual procedure of forced execution. 

6 

 
 
 
 
Enforcement is rarely needed in cases involving the protection of adults, and may only be 
necessary to implement medical treatments or to manage assets in case a third party refuses 
to cooperate (transferring money from an account or selling a property). 

Enforcement costs 

Costs borne by Member States associated with activities linked to the implementation of a 
possible EU initiative. They may include costs for monitoring and possible inspections or 
litigation. They may also include costs for running the Central Authorities*3. 

EU 

EU-26 

EUDPR 

European Union. 

All Member States of the European Union with the exception of Denmark4. 

Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 
2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by 
the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data. 

This Regulation lays down rules relating to the protection of natural persons with regard 
to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions and bodies.  

EUR/€  

Euro. 

Ex lege powers of 
representation 

Exequatur  

In  some  Member  States,  the  protection  of  an  adult  by  a  spouse  or  by  other  relative  is 
provided by law. In those cases, the spouse or the relative is automatically vested with the 
power to represent the adult in the event that the latter is not in a position to protect his or 
her interest. 

Formal  court  procedure  by  which  a  foreign  judgment  is  declared  enforceable  (i.e. 
‘validated’  before  it  can  be  enforced)  in  the  State  where  enforcement  is  sought.  In  this 
report, it is also included in the term enforcement*. 

Explanatory Report  

Explanatory Report on the Hague Convention* of 13 January 2000 on the International 
Protection of Adults by Paul Lagarde.  

External contractor 

Milieu  Consulting  SRL.  The  external  contractor  prepared  a  study*  that  supported  the 
preparation of this report.  

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 

Full-Time Equivalent. 

Focus group(s) 

Focus groups with key stakeholders were organised in September 2022 in the context of 
the consultations by the Study by an external contractor* to complete the data collection.  

The first focus group gathered Member States’ competent authorities and EU level NGOs, 
primarily to collect information on the available policy options.  

The  second  focus  group,  gathering  practitioners  and  academic  experts,  collected 
quantitative  data  on  the  costs  of  the  existing  procedures  on  the  basis  of  8  illustrative 
scenarios. 

3 For details regarding costs and  methodology for their calculation, see  Annex 4. See also the typology of costs in  Better 
Regulation Toolbox (November 2021). 
4 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 PIL* initiative aimed at the protection of adults. Since the Protection of adults initiative* 
would not apply in Denmark, this Member State is excluded from this report. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
For details, see Annex 9 – Consultations by the external contractor. 

GDPR, General Data 
Protection Regulation 

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. 

Ground for refusal, refusal 
ground 

A reason that can be invoked by the courts (or the competent authorities*) to refuse the 
recognition* or enforcement of a measure or of authentic instrument*. 

HCCH, Hague Conference on 
Private International Law 

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 currently has 91 members: 90 States and the EU. 

HCCH 2000 Protection of 
Adults Convention / the 
Convention   

Since  its  inception,  over  40  conventions  and  instruments  have  been  adopted  under  the 
auspices of the HCCH, including the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention*. 

The Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults.  

The  Convention  was  adopted  on  13  January  2000  under  the  auspices  of  the  Hague 
Conference on Private International  Law*. The Convention deals with the cross-border 
protection of vulnerable adults in cases with cross-border implications*. The Convention 
provides a set of rules that determine, in cross-border cases, the State whose authorities 
have jurisdiction to take protection measures and the law to be applied. It also ensures the 
automatic  recognition  and  rapid  enforcement  of  protection  measures  between  its 
Contracting  States.  Finally,  it  establishes  cooperation  between  the  authorities  of  those 
States. It has been ratified by 11 EU Member States, as well as Monaco, Switzerland and 
the United Kingdom (in respect to Scotland only). 

IA 

Impact Assessment. 

For details about the Convention, see Annex 5.  

(legal) Incapacity 

The  legal  status  of  an  adult  who  is  living  with  mental,  intellectual,  physical  or  sensory 
impairments and is not in a position to protect their own interests by reason of such an 
impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties, and whose legal capacity to act is 
limited or supported. 

ISG 

Inter-Services Steering Group. 

Jurisdiction/international 
jurisdiction  

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. 

2021 Legal Study  

L. Adriaenssens, C. Borrett, S. Fialon, P. Franzina, N. Rass-Masson and I. Sumner (2021). 
Study on the cross-border legal protection of vulnerable adults in the EU. 

The 2021 Legal Study was commissioned by DG JUST* to examine the national laws and 
practices of Member States and evaluate the current main legal difficulties and practical 
challenges in the field of the protection of vulnerable adults. 

MS, Member State 

Member State of the European Union. 

NGO 

Non-governmental organisation. 

Non-EU countries 

Countries which are not members of the European Union. 

Non-EU Contracting Parties 
/ States 

Contracting Parties to the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention*, i.e. States which 
have ratified, or acceded to, this Convention and which are not EU Member States. 

Non-contentious matter(s) 

Legal matter(s) that do(es) not involve a dispute, a conflict or a litigation between two or 
more parties, but where courts may still be required to issue a decision, in order to achieve 
the protection of a single (vulnerable) party (protection of children or adults), and/or the 
protection of overriding social interests (adoption, nationality). 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
OIOO / One in, one out 

One in, one out.  

OIOO costs savings 

The  ‘one  in,  one  out’  approach  requires  offsetting  new  burdens  resulting  from  a 
Commission proposal by reducing existing burdens in the same policy area5. 

Costs saved by adults and their representatives and families under the Policy Option 4 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. 

OPC, Open Public 
Consultation  

Open  Public  Consultation  conducted  through  the  Commission’s  ‘Have  your  say’  portal 
between 21 December 2021 to 29 March 2022 to gather data and the views of stakeholders 
with regard to a possible initiative on the protection of adults in cross-border situations. 

See the Summary Report here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-
say/initiatives/12965-Civil-judicial-cooperation-EU-wide-protection-for-vulnerable-
adults/public-consultation_en.  

PA initiative / Protection of 
adults initiative 

For  the  purposes  of  this  report,  it  refers  to  any  of  the  possible  policy  options  that  the 
Commission  may  undertake  to  enhance  the  legal  protection  of  vulnerable  adults  in 
cross-border situations in civil matters in the EU, in particular the PA Regulation* and the 
Council decision on adults*. 

PA Regulation / Protection of 
adults Regulation / 
Regulation 

A regulation that would be proposed by the Commission and adopted by the co-legislators 
which  would  lay  down  EU-wide  harmonised  rules  concerning  the  PIL*  aspects  of  the 
protection of vulnerable adults.  

PIL, Private International 
Law 

The adoption of a PA regulation is included in the policy options 3 and 4. The possible 
scope of such regulation is detailed in Section 5 and Annex 6 of this report. 

A branch of law governing the rules to be applied in cases with an international dimension, 
to solve conflicts of jurisdiction and conflicts of law (e.g. where the laws of two different 
States could potentially apply, or the courts of two different States could have jurisdiction). 
Those rules also govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions. They 
also often establish judicial and administrative cooperation between the authorities of the 
States concerned.  

Within the same State, PIL rules differ depending on the matter (for instance courts will 
have jurisdiction based on the nationality of the applicant for the protection of an adult but 
they  will  have  jurisdiction  based  on  the  habitual  residence  of  a  spouse  for  divorce 
proceedings).  

Despite the adjective ‘international’, PIL is the national law (legislation or case-law) that 
governs  cases  with  a  cross-border  element.  However,  EU  regulations  and  international 
conventions (whether bilateral or multilateral, such as the HCCH conventions) may replace 
these national PIL rules in certain matters and areas. 

PO  

Policy Option. 

Powers of representation 

A document (unilateral act or agreement) which enables the adult to plan, in advance, how 
they want to be supported in the exercise of their legal capacity and autonomy when such 
adult  is  not  in  a  position  to  protect  their  interests.  The  powers  of  representation  often 
involve  the  conferral  of  particular  powers  on  one  or  several  natural  persons,  or  an 
institution, charged with representing and/or assisting the adult concerned regarding his or 

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

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
her  personal  or  financial  interests.  Powers  of  representation  may  contain  a  choice  of 
jurisdiction* and a choice of law*. They may also contain advance directives*. 

Depending on the national law, powers of representation may be established without any 
formal requirement (in  writing on a  simple sheet of paper) or  have to be drawn up and 
registered by a specific authority (such as notary). 

Depending on the national law, powers of representation must or can be registered, either 
when they are established or at a later stage when they are confirmed. See also Confirmed 
powers of representation*. 

Procedural costs 

In  this  report,  costs  related  to  administrative  and  court  procedures  borne  by  competent 
authorities and by vulnerable adults and their representatives under the  baseline and all 
policy options 6. 

Protection measures 

The procedural costs borne by competent authorities relate to handling administrative and 
judicial procedures involving vulnerable adults in need to arrange cross-border cases and 
correspond primarily to the working time needed to implement these procedures, as well 
as translation in the language of the requested State*. 

The  procedural  costs  borne  by  vulnerable  adults  and  their  representatives  encompass 
charges  and  other  costs  in  relation  to  various  judicial  procedures  and  administrative 
arrangements. These include for instance the costs of arranging recognition of powers of 
representation*, various certificates, exequatur, sworn translation of documents, sending 
registered letters, etc. Vulnerable adults or  their families often hire  representatives  who 
make all or some of these arrangements for them, which implies costs of legal assistance. 
These costs can be very substantial and, in some cases, may include also costs of medical 
assessment and travel abroad.  

Protection measures are those measures directed at the protection of the person or property 
of a vulnerable adult. They could be imposed on the basis of judicial decisions, but can 
also be taken by administrative authorities or any competent authority under the law of the 
State where the measure is taken. They include inter alia: 

- 
- 

- 

- 

- 
- 

the determination of incapacity* and the institution of a protective regime; 
the  placing  of  the  adult  under  the  protection  of  a  judicial  or  administrative 
authority; 
guardianship,  curatorship  and  analogous  institutions,  including  the  designation 
and  functions  of  any  person  or  body  having  charge  of  the  adult’s  person  or 
property, representing or assisting the adult; 
the placement of the adult in an establishment or other place where protection can 
be provided; 
the administration, conservation or disposal of the adult’s property; 
the  authorisation  of  a  specific  intervention  for  the  protection  of  the  person  or 
property of the adult. 

Competent authorities 

In  this  report,  judicial  and  /  or  administrative  authorities  which  are  competent  in 
accordance with national law in the field of the protection of adults to: 

- 

take  (and  terminate)  protection  measures  and  /  or  decisions  (depending  on  the 
context) in individual cases; 
draw up powers of representation; 
confirm powers of representation; 
register powers of representations; 

- 
- 
- 
-  monitor or implement protection measures or powers of representation. 

6 For details regarding costs and  methodology for their calculation, see  Annex 4. See also the typology of costs in  Better 
Regulation Toolbox (November 2021). 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Recognition  

For  the  purposes  of  this  report,  recognition  should  be  understood  broadly  as  any  legal 
technique that makes a measure taken or authentic instrument drawn up in one State valid 
also as regard another (‘Requested’) State*. For the purposes of this report, ‘recognition’ 
should thus include also ‘acceptance’ (of authentic instruments).  

Recognition may require a formal (judicial) procedure for recognition, or can be automatic.  

REIO 

Regional Economic Integration Organisation.  

Requested State 

The State in which the protection measure* or powers of representation* are invoked, or 
where recognition, enforcement or assistance from other authorities is sought. 

RESIJ fact-finding mission   A  fact-finding  mission  commissioned  by  DG  JUST  and  conducted  by  the  European 
Network  of  Justice  Inspection  Services  (RESIJ)  to  assess  European  civil  judicial 
cooperation in the field of the protection of adults in 7  Member States. The fact-finding 
mission  is  based  on  visits  to  courts,  interviews  of  adults’  representatives,  stakeholders 
(including judges, lawyers and notaries) and governmental experts. 

Representative 

For  the  final  report  from  the  mission  and  its  annexes  including  reports  from  Bulgaria, 
Spain,  France,  Italy,  Portugal  and  Romania,  see:  https://www.i-justitia.eu/en/network-
news/.  

In this report, any person who has been entrusted with the protection and the support of an 
adult, in relation to financial or personal interests. The extent of the powers conferred or 
the support provided vary depending on the faculties of the protected adult, and the national 
legislation. A representative may carry out (on behalf of the adult) the acts of disposal of 
his or her assets, or may provide support in decision making. A representative may also 
take all financial and personal decisions, if the adult is not at all able to express his or her 
will (for instance, when the adult is in a coma). 

A representative can be a partner, a family member, a third party or an organisation/public 
institution.  

RSB 

Regulatory Scrutiny Board. 

Service of Documents 
Regulation 

Regulation  (EU)  2020/1784  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25 
November  2020  on  the  service  in  the  Member  States  of  judicial  and  extrajudicial 
documents  in  civil  or  commercial  matters  (service  of  documents)  (recast).  OJ  L  405, 
2.12.2020, p. 40. 

SDGs 

United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.  

2022 Special Commission  

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

Special Commission on the practical operation of the  HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults 
Convention* held in The Hague from 9 to 11 November 2022. During the 2022 Special 
Commission,  the  practical  operation  of  the  Convention  was  discussed  by  the 
representatives of the Contracting States and legal practitioners.  

For  details,  see:  HCCH  |  First  meeting  of  the  Special  Commission  on  the  practical 
operation of the 2000 Protection of Adults Convention. 

State of origin  

The State in which the court that rendered a judgment is situated. 

Study supporting the impact 
assessment / Study / Study by 
an external contractor  

Milieu Consulting SRL (2022). Final Report – Civil aspects of the cross-border protection 
of vulnerable adults. This study supporting the impact assessment was commissioned by 
DG JUST to inform the preparation of this report.  

Substantive law(s) 

Set of legislation governing purely domestic cases. The term substantive law is used in this 
report as opposed to private international law (‘PIL’) rules*. 

11 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In the field of the protection of adults, substantive law rules include the rules governing 
the conditions and consequences of a protection measure, as well as, where applicable, the 
rules governing the establishment, the extent, the validity and the termination of powers of 
representation*. They also include procedural rules (how to seize a court, how to serve a 
decision etc.). 

Regulation  (EU)  2020/1783  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  25 
November 2020 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of 
evidence in civil or commercial matters (taking of evidence) (recast). OJ L 405, 2.12.2020, 
p. 1. 

Treaty on European Union.  

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

United Nations. 

The  United  Nations  Convention  of  13  December  2006  on  the  Rights  of  Persons  with 
Disabilities. The UNCRPD aims to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoy their human 
rights and are treated as full and equal members of society. 

Taking of Evidence 
Regulation  

TEU 

TFEU 

UN 

UNCRPD 

Vulnerable adult(s) 

Adults who are unable to protect their interests because of an impairment or insufficiency 
of their personal faculties. In this report, included in the term adult*. 

The vulnerability of the persons concerned may result from several factors. These include 
mental or physical impairments affecting the ability  to  make decisions, or to assess the 
implications (e.g. the financial implications) of those decisions. 

In  practice,  there  are  several  situations  triggering  the  need  for  legal  protection,  in 
particular:  a) cognitive  disability;  b) physical  disability  preventing  the  adult  to  express 
his/her  opinion;  c) temporary  physical  illness  preventing  the  adult  to  express  his/her 
opinion and d) temporary mental illness requiring the adult to be placed under a protection 
measure (crisis phase in a psychiatric illness such as schizophrenia or paranoia). 

WHO 

World Health Organisation. 

12 

 
 
 
 
 
1 

1  INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

Vulnerable  adults  are  defined  as  persons  aged  18  or  more  who  are  not  in  a  position  to  protect  their 
interests, due to an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties7. They are dependent on others 
for actions or decisions concerning their health and welfare, and/or their property. If not organized in 
advance  (through  powers  of  representation*),  their  protection  involves  the  adoption  of  court  or 
administrative measures (protection measures*) to provide the support they need to exercise their legal 
capacity (from signing rental contracts to opening bank accounts or consenting to medical treatments). 
The  support  provided  preserves  vulnerable  adults  from  significant  risks,  such  as  undue  influence  or 
neglect.  

Over the last two decades, an Area of Justice has been established in the EU. More than 20 EU regulations 
harmonising  rules  of  Private  International  Law*  (‘PIL’)  have  been  adopted  in  the  field  of  civil  and 
commercial matters to provide full legal certainty to people and companies crossing EU borders, who 
thus benefit from the same legal protection as the nationals of the EU Member State in which they happen 
to be. Those EU regulations do not affect Member States’ domestic substantive legislation, they simply 
determine  which  rules  apply  to  cross-border  contexts.  In  particular,  these  PIL*  rules  aim  to  provide 
efficient  solutions  to  determine  i) the  courts  of  which  Member  State  have  jurisdiction  (‘international 
jurisdiction’);  ii) which  law  is  applicable  (‘rules  on  applicable  law’);  iii) the  rules  governing  the 
recognition and enforcement of decisions made in one Member State in other Member States; and iv) the 
rules on cooperation among authorities of Member States. Finally, for instance in cases of parental child 
abduction  or  child  support  recovery,  Central  Authorities*  have  been  established  and  provide  their 
assistance to the most vulnerable people, who are even more vulnerable in an international situation. 

Questions relating to the legal capacity of adults  and in particular protection measures for  vulnerable 
adults have however been excluded from the scope of all those EU instruments to date. As a result, no 
EU common PIL rules governing the cross-border cases involving the protection of adults exist and 
this area continues to be regulated by Member States’ national PIL rules. This creates a patchwork of 
(often diverging) PIL rules applicable to the protection of adults throughout the EU. As a result of these 
discrepancies, vulnerable adults and their representatives currently face multiple barriers when they 
move abroad, buy or sell property, or simply manage their bank accounts in another Member State. 

Due to the ageing of the population and a frequent decline in the faculties of elderly people, as well as 
the increasing number of persons with disabilities of all ages8, the number of persons in need of legal 
protection  is  increasing  and  will  continue  to  increase.  Combined  with  the  mobility  of  the  European 
population within the internal market, the number of adults in the need of protection in cross-border cases 
will only grow. A significant part of the persons needing legal support to handle their personal or financial 
interests are persons with disabilities9. Their rights, including their right to autonomy, access to justice, 
or right to property, are safeguarded by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with 
Disabilities (UNCRPD*). Their rights must be protected also in cross-border cases to afford continued 
protection and full legal certainty within the EU.  

The right to self-determination10 is the cornerstone of the rights of persons with disabilities, in particular 
those with mental impairments or psychiatric diseases. However, this right may be violated for example 

7 Like many other legal concepts in the EU, the concept of vulnerable adult varies among the Member States. This report uses 
the definition provided by the  HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention* (as agreed by the delegates of the 30 States 
which negotiated the Convention in 1999). 
8  See  e.g.  the  World  Health  Organisation  factsheet  on  disability  from  2  December  2022  and  the  2011  World  Report  on 
Disability. 
9 Notably, not all persons with a disability are vulnerable adults, as defined for the context of this impact assessment. See the 
definition in the Glossary above. 
10 Article 3 and 19 of the UNCRPD* and Article 26 of the Charter*. 

1 

 
                                                 
when adults are placed in institutions and denied the right to decide on the conditions of their care11. A 
solution exists in the legislation of 16 Member States: the possibility for people to make arrangements in 
advance  for  a  time  when  they  will  no  longer  be  in  a  position  to  protect  their  interests  (‘powers  of 
representation’*).  Contrary  to  protection  measures  taken  by  competent  authorities,  powers  of 
representation  are  established  by  the  adult.  An  efficient  protection  of  the  right  to  autonomy  in 
cross-border cases requires that those arrangements are recognised swiftly without the need for complex 
proceedings. This applies in particular in the 11 Member States whose legislation does not provide for 
such  arrangements12.  At  the  moment,  the  recognition*  abroad  of  powers  of  representation  is  highly 
uncertain. 

The international legal context 

The  international  instrument  currently  applying  to  the  PIL*  aspects  of  the  cross-border  protection  of 
vulnerable  adults  is  the  HCCH  2000  Protection  of  Adults  Convention*13.  The  Convention  provides 
solutions  to  the  questions  arising  in  cross-border  cases.  In  summary,  and  subject  to  a  number  of 
exceptions and special cases, it provides rules to establish jurisdiction (with the main criterion being the 
habitual residence of the adult), and to determine which law applies to a case. It provides for an automatic 
recognition  of  foreign  protection  measures  and  creates  a  system  of  cooperation  between  Central 
Authorities* to facilitate the management of cross-border cases14. The Convention allows one or more 
Contracting States to conclude agreements on the same matters15. 

It is in force in 14 States in total. The Convention is only open to sovereign States; therefore the EU 
cannot become a party to the Convention itself, only its Member States can ratify* it. Only 11 of the 27 
Member  States  have  ratified  the  Convention  so  far16.  While  ratification  is  largely  uncontroversial17, 
several possible factors for its low uptake by the Member States18 were identified, including: 

a)  The protection of adults is a non-contentious matter* with only one party involved, and most 
of the time without an intervention of an attorney, as opposed to other contentious matters where 
the two parties assisted by a lawyer are more likely to challenge the first instance decision. Thus, 
the  protection  of  adults  generates  less  case  law  (despite  the  high  number  of  first  instance 
decisions) and does not involve legal professionals to a great extent. Therefore, it also attracts 
less attention from authorities or media. More generally, vulnerability limits the ability of people 
to express themselves and assert their rights. Due to their own limitations, it is much more difficult 
to seek the assistance of an attorney or to bring their case to the media.  

b)  In  the  area  of  the  adults’  protection,  cross-border  cases  are  much  less  frequent  than  purely 
domestic ones and therefore attract less political attention. The prevalence of cross-border cases 
involving the protection of adults is also relatively lower than in other areas of civil justice (like 
divorce or maintenance recovery). 

c)  The uptake of international conventions, especially in the field of PIL, requires promotion work 
among potential future Contracting Parties. The lower uptake of the HCCH 2000 Protection 

11 Council of Europe Report on The right of people with disabilities to live independently and be included in the community 
(coe.int), p. 35 and following. 
12 BG, EE, EL, IT, CY, LV, LU, NL, PL, SI, and SK. 
13 For more information on the functioning of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention, see Annex 5. 
14 The limits of the Convention* that have been observed and the potential for closer cooperation between the EU Member 
States will be further described below, especially in Section 5 and in Annex 6.  
15 See Section 5 of Annex 5. 
16 Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Latvia, Portugal are party to the 
Convention. Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland have signed the Convention (without ratifying it), 
thus indicating the political commitment to become Contracting Parties to the Convention. 
17 See for instance the 2021 Council Conclusions, where all Member States called for the ratification of the Convention. 
18  In  contrast,  based  on  the  available  evidence  and  consultations,  the  low  uptake  is  not  caused  by  ineffectiveness  of  the 
Convention or by the fact that the rules are not fit for purpose. 

2 

 
                                                 
of  Adults  Convention  could  thus  be  partially  influenced  by  the  fact  that  it  was  promoted 
internationally less than other comparable conventions19.  

d)  The  above  factors  contribute  to  a  lower  visibility  of  the  problem,  thus  leading  to  the  most 
important reason for the low uptake of the Convention, which is the political prioritisation of 
the ratification of the Convention by national legislators. The prioritisation problem was raised 
not only during the consultations in the context of this impact assessment20, but also by the recent 
report by the European Law Institute21 that noted that one of the reason for the low ratification 
rate by Member States was that this topic was not high on governmental agendas given its political 
nature and a limited number of beneficiaries as compared to other regulatory areas. This report 
further noted that some States consider substantive reforms of their national legislation on the 
protection of adults in view of the UN Convention on the Protection of Persons with Disabilities 
and have therefore postponed the ratification of the Convention (envisaging a legislative package 
for both measures together).  

The above factors seem to contribute to a lower ratification rate of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults 
Convention. 

The 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (‘UNCRPD’) is an 
international instrument defining standards for the protection of persons with disabilities, with the aim 
‘to  promote,  protect  and  ensure  the  full  and  equal  enjoyment  of  all  human  rights  and  fundamental 
freedoms  by  all  persons  with  disabilities,  and  to  promote  respect  for  their  inherent  dignity’.  The 
UNCRPD* was signed by the EU in 2007 and entered into force for the EU on 22 January 2011. All EU 
Member States are also party to this Convention. However, the UNCRPD Committee, in its 2015 report 
on the implementation of the UNCRPD in the EU, expressed its concern when it comes to the barriers 
faced  by  persons  with  disabilities  when  moving  from  one  Member  State  to  another.  The  Committee 
recommended that the EU ‘takes immediate action to ensure that all persons with disabilities and their 
families can enjoy their right to freedom of movement* on an equal basis with others’22. 

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Independent Expert on the 
enjoyment  of  all  human  rights  by  older  persons  made  a  joint  statement  concerning  the  relationship 
between the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention* and the UNCRPD* in 2021 clarifying that 
both conventions are complementary and are not in contradiction with each other23. The HCCH 
2000 Protection of Adults Convention* at times refers to measures that should be avoided to ensure a 
human rights approach, save in exceptional cases where no other solution exists (such as ‘guardianship’ 
as a protective measure which may be necessary in case of a coma for instance). However, the Convention 

19 This can be inferred for instance from the fact that the first Special Commission on the functioning of the HCCH 2000 
Protection  of  Adults  Convention  was  organised  only  in  2022,  i.e.  twenty  years  after  the  adoption  of  the  Convention.  In 
comparison, eight special commissions have already been organised on the operation of the HCCH 1996 Child Protection 
Convention.  
20 During the consultations, representatives of Member States which are currently not parties to the Convention stated that 
they would prefer to join the Convention following a coordinated EU-level action, which would not only provide the necessary 
impetus for them to prioritise this topic in their legislature but would also simplify their national internal processes leading to 
the ratification of the Convention. 
21 The report states on p.10: Different reasons have been put forward to explain the limited number of ratifications of, and 
accessions to, the Hague Convention, including the fact that some States are reviewing their legislation on the protection of 
adults and will only consider joining the Convention after they have made such review. Be that as it may, the described state 
of affairs is unsatisfactory.  
22 Concluding observations on the initial report of the European Union: Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 
(2015) draft prepared by the Committee.  
23  See  the  Joint  statement  by  the  Special  Rapporteur  on  the  rights  of  persons  with  disabilities,  Gerard  Quinn,  and  the 
Independent  Expert  on  the  enjoyment  of  all  human  rights  by  older  persons,  Claudia  Mahler  –  Reflections  on  the  Hague 
Convention (2000) on the International Protection of Adults from July 2021. The statement was drawn up on the basis of a 
study on Interpreting the 2000 Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults consistently with the 2007 UN 
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities commissioned by the UN Rapporteur on the rights of persons with 
disabilities. 

3 

 
                                                 
only establishes PIL rules* and can and shall be interpreted flexibly to accommodate any development 
in substantive laws of its Contracting States without locking any concepts or approaches into place. 

The national legal context 

The national substantive law rules differ among Member States. For instance, the 2021 Legal Study* 
found that protection measures* for vulnerable adults differ considerably from one Member State to 
another.  Protection  measures  are  available  in  all  Member  States,  whether  adopted  by  courts  or 
administrative  authorities.  However,  only  16  out  of  the  2724  substantive  laws  of  the  Member  States 
provide for the possibility that powers of representation* are used in case of incapacity*25.  

This report does not in principle deal with the differences in the substantive laws* of Member States but 
mainly addresses the differences in their private international law rules concerning the protection of 
adults in cross-border situations as each Member States has their own PIL* rules governing cases with 
an  international  element  (governing  international  jurisdiction,  applicable  law,  recognition  and 
enforcement  and  cooperation  among  competent  authorities).  First,  in  States  that  are  not  party  to  the 
HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention*, those rules often significantly differ from one another. 
For instance, five Member States that are not party to the Convention26 consider that their courts have 
jurisdiction if the adult concerned is habitually resident in their Member State, two Member States if the 
adult is a national of their State. The other Member States have both of these ‘connecting’ criteria27, 28. 
In addition, a specific procedure to obtain recognition or enforcement of a foreign protection measure is 
almost always required.  The courts responsible for recognition  and enforcement are different  in  each 
Member State and this information is not available from abroad. When seeking recognition of a measure 
in a cross-border case, no assistance can be provided to foreign practitioners.  

Second, by contrast, the Member States that are Contracting States* apply the (same) PIL* rules included 
in the Convention* to cases that involve other Contracting States to the Convention29. 

Besides the diversity of PIL* rules, several other legal aspects affect vulnerable adults specifically in 
cross-border cases. These include the (limited) access to legal aid in other Member States. Legal capacity 
proceedings involve going to court, with experts’ evidence (usually medical reports) and increased costs 
compared to other fields of law. All Member States grant access to legal aid to the most disadvantaged 
people who cannot afford legal representation. In cross-border cases, the 2003 Directive on legal aid* 
establishes  the  right  to  legal  aid  for  persons  who  are  habitually  resident  in  the  EU,  subject  to  the 
legislation of the requested State*, as well as a cooperation mechanism for sending a cross-border request 
for legal aid. However, the scope of the Directive* is limited, and it is ultimately for the requested State*, 
based on the information submitted and under the conditions set by its domestic law, to decide on the 
application. There are significant differences between the national legal aid systems. In some Member 
States the eligibility criteria for legal aid  are restricted to people with very low income only, and the 
scope of this legal aid may also be very narrow30. 

Information about protection measures* adopted and powers of representation confirmed* in a particular 
State is mostly only accessible to the national authorities. When an individual shows some vulnerabilities 

24 AT, BE, CZ, DE, DK, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IE, LT, MT, PT, RO, and SE. 
25 In addition, 7 Member States provide in their national law for automatic conferral of representative powers to a relative 
or a spouse of a vulnerable adult (ex lege powers of representation*). 
26 DK, EL, ES, NL and SK. 
27 BG, HR, HU, IE, IT, LT, MT, PL, RO and SE. 
28 A table giving an overview of the content of the PIL* rules of non-Contracting Parties to the Convention can be found in 
Annex 10 of this report. This analysis has been prepared by the authors of the 2021 Legal Study*. 
29 In relation to non-Contracting States*, they generally apply their national PIL* rules. To some aspects, such as the applicable 
law, they will apply the rules of the Convention with non-Contracting Parties*. 
30 European e-Justice Portal. Legal Aid.  

4 

 
                                                 
and has connections with another State, authorities need to access the information on (i) the existence of 
protection measures in another Member State(s) and (ii) the resulting need of the adult to be supported. 
This  can  occur  in  cross-border  cases  in  civil,  commercial,  and  criminal  matters.  By  2021,  all  but  six 
Member States had set up registries for protection measures31. Registries in those Member States that 
have a registry tend to be managed centrally32, with the exception of three Member States33 where the 
registries are handled by local or municipal authorities. While some registries include information on the 
protection measures34, others only contain information on powers of representation*35. Fifteen Member 
States  have  a  digitalised  registry36.  The  access  to  these  registries  is  generally  limited  to  competent 
authorities, although some Member States also enable the protected adult or their representatives to have 
access to them37. Cross-border access to registers is only possible in five Member States38, one of which 
only partially39. 

The political context 

The cross-border protection of adults. To enhance and facilitate cross-border protection of vulnerable 
adults*, EU institutions have, since the adoption of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention*, 
continuously promoted the ratification of this instrument by the Member States.  

The European Commission has been encouraging Member States to ratify the Convention for several 
years40. It granted financial support to improve cooperation in that field (for instance the project ‘The 
Vulnerable’41), translated the Explanatory Report to the Convention* into the official languages of the 
EU,  co-organised  a  joint  conference  with  the  HCCH  called  ‘Cross-border  Protection  of  Vulnerable 
Adults’ in 2018 and included the cross-border cooperation in the Strategy for the rights of persons with 
disabilities 2021–203042. 

The  European  Parliament  has  been  supporting  a  possible  EU  legislative  initiative  to  ratify  and 
complement the Convention since 2008. In its resolution of 1 June 2017, the Parliament called on the 
Commission to submit a proposal for a regulation designed to improve cooperation among the Member 
States and to ensure automatic recognition and enforcement of decisions on the protection of vulnerable 
adults* and mandates in anticipation of incapacity*, on the basis of Article 81(2) TFEU43. 
The Council has likewise encouraged ratification of the Convention by the Member States since 200844. 
Most recently, in  its conclusions of the Justice and Home Affairs meeting of June 2021, the Council 
invited  those  Member  States  which  are  parties  to  the  Convention  to  raise  awareness  among  courts, 
practitioners and all stakeholders involved in the implementation of the Convention, and those Member 
States that are not yet Contracting States to ratify the Convention. It also invited Member States to ensure 
that the national measures on the protection of vulnerable adults are in line with the UNCRPD*45. 

31 BG (however Bulgarian law provides for the establishment of a registry), CY, EE, EL, PL and RO. 
32 This is the case for AT, BE, CZ, DE, DK, FI, ES, HR, HU, IE, LU, NL and SK.  
33 All Member States, except of BG (would be managed by local and municipal authorities once set up), IT and SI. 
34 AT, BE, ES, FR, HU, IT, IE, LV, MT, PT, SE, SI and SK. 
35 AT, BE, DE, DK, ES, HR, IE and PT. 
36 IT, MT and SI have only partially digitalised their registries.  
37 AT, BE, DK, ES, HR, LU and SI. 
38 DK, FI, IT, NL and SI. 
39 SI. 
40 European Commission. (2017). Answer given by Ms Jourová on behalf of the Commission to the parliamentary question 
E-003844/2017.   
41 Council of the Notariats of the European Union. The Vulnerable. http://www.the-vulnerable.eu/?lang=en 
42 European Commission. (2021). Union of Equality Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021–2030.   
43 European Parliament resolution of 1 June 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on the protection of vulnerable 
adults.   
44 Council Conclusions adopted at the 2899th Council meeting of 24 October 2008. 
45 Council Conclusions on the Protection of Vulnerable Adults across the European Union 2021/C 330 I/01, (2021).    

5 

 
                                                 
Synergies with the digitalisation of judicial  cooperation. With the COVID-19 pandemic, the trend 
towards increased digitalisation has been reinforced in the EU46. The increased importance of digital 
technologies also impacts cross-border judicial cooperation, as the use of digital means of communication 
has  the  potential  to  improve  access  to  justice,  facilitate  the  cooperation  between  the  competent 
authorities*  of  different  Member  States,  improve  their  efficiency  and  resilience,  and  alleviate  some 
obstacles in cross-border cases (e.g. language or legal barriers)47. In its Communication of 2 December 
202048, the Commission committed to make the digital channel the default option in EU cross-border 
cooperation  (‘digital  by  default’  principle).  Consequently,  on  1  December  2021,  the  Commission 
tabled  a  digitalisation  proposal*49.  The  proposal  aims  at  fully  digitalising  the  written  communication 
inherent to judicial cooperation in 23 existing EU legal instruments on civil, commercial and criminal 
matters. 

2 

2  PROBLEM DEFINITION 

In cross-border cases, adults* are confronted with a patchwork of different PIL rules which makes it 
difficult, if not impossible, to know in advance which court will have jurisdiction over their case, which 
law  will  apply,  and  at  the  end  of  the  day  whether  or  not  protection  measures  already  taken,  or 
arrangements  made  in  advance  will  be  accepted  abroad.  Outside  the  borders  of  their  Member  State, 
adults cannot predict how their case will be handled. The same goes for legal practitioners advising 
clients  or  drawing  up  legal  acts  (e.g.  powers  of  representation).  As  soon  as  action  needs  to  be  taken 
abroad, for instance when it is necessary to close or open a bank account, transfer funds, sell a property, 
move, accept a succession, stop a medical treatment, consent to a surgery, be placed in an institution etc., 
an additional burden in the form of lengthy and expensive proceedings is put on the adults, and in turn 
on their families, representatives and on competent authorities.  

In some instances, domestic law requires the initiation of court proceedings to obtain the recognition of 
the protection measures or the powers granted in another Member State50. Eventually, at the end of this 
long process, the recognition may be refused by a court or by other actors in a State other than the State 
where the measure was adopted. In that scenario, even though a measure is in place in the State of origin, 
a new procedure will have to be initiated in that other State to advance the case51. 

Despite the lack of statistical information (and the lack of comparability of such information where it 
exists),  the  findings  on  the  existence  of  these  challenges  are  based  on  solid  evidence  gathered,  e.g. 
through fact-finding missions, consultations of practitioners and experts, online surveys, interviews, case 
law, and multiple reports from the academia and the European Parliament52. 

It must be noted that in describing the problems, the upcoming section differentiates between Member 
States that are and that are not Contracting Parties to the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention 
only partially. This is because the Convention can only solve problems in Contracting Parties in relation 
to other Contracting Parties and not where one of the Member States involved is not a Contracting Party. 
The problems thus remain when cross-border cases involve one of the 15 EU Member States that have 

46 Economist Intelligence. (2021). Digitalisation surges in Europe during the pandemic.  
47 European Commission. (2021). Impact assessment of the digitalisation proposal*.  
48  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee and the Committee of the regions on digitalisation of justice in the EU: a toolbox of opportunities.  
49 EUR-Lex - 52021PC0759 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu). 
50  In  12  non-Contracting  Member  States,  recognition  of  a  foreign  protection  measure  requires  judicial  proceedings,  see 
Annex 10. 
51 For a list of all Member States where recognition is not automatic and has to be granted by a court, see Annex 10. 
52 For details concerning the sources of evidence for this report, see Annex 1 (Evidence, sources and quality) and Annex 2 
(Stakeholder consultations). 

6 

 
                                                 
not ratified the Convention53. In addition, the Convention provides only ‘core’ private international law 
rules suitable for international context but does not go as far as is the standard in the EU justice area, thus 
leaving some issues unaddressed. Annex 7 of this report elaborates in more detail which problems 
could  be  solved  if  all  Member  States  were  Contracting  Parties  to  the  Convention  and  which 
problems the Convention does not address.   

Figure 1: Problem Tree 

2.1  2.1 

What are the problems? 

Understandably, cross-border cases have been identified by many stakeholders as more complex than 
domestic ones, since they always involve the prior application of PIL* rules on top of the national rules, 
to establish jurisdiction and the applicable law, and, if applicable, to assess whether a foreign measure 
can be given legal effects54. This complexity is also per se problematic for the adults, their families or 
representatives as well as for authorities and legal practitioners, and should be therefore reduced to the 
extent possible in all cases. 

In this context, three specific problems were identified: (i) the lack of legal certainty; (ii) lengthy and 
costly proceedings; and (iii) non-recognition of court decisions and non-acceptance of powers of 
representation*. 

2.1.1  2.1.1  The problems 

2.1.1.1  The lack of legal certainty 

The  concept  of  legal  certainty  refers  to  the  predictability  of  a  given  legal  system,  as  well  as  its 
transparency and the guarantee that there is no room for arbitrariness. Legal certainty is ensured when 

53 Currently, among the total of 220 possible bilateral relationships that the 11 Contracting EU Member States can have with 
the other EU Member States, only 55 are covered by the Convention (25% of the cases), while 165 (75%) are not covered. 
The prevalence of the problems and their consequences in Contracting EU Member States is therefore currently only reduced 
to a limited extent by the operation of the Convention. 
54 French judge and representatives from Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) – the first focus group*.  

7 

CAUSES/DRIVERS (Direct causes)PROBLEMSPROBLEM CONSEQUENCES (Indirect) Conflicting rules on applicable lawsLengthy and costly proceedings (vulnerable adults, their representatives, families and public authorities)Impossible or limited cooperation between national authoritiesUnnecessary or complex enforcement proceedings (exequatur)PROBLEM CONSEQUENCES (Direct)Risk of physical and psychological abuse as a result of the lack of protectionObstacles to access to justiceRightsof vulnerableadultsin cross-border situations at riskProtection measures and powers of representation are not recognised (vulnerable adults, their representatives and families)Lack of legal certainty (general public and public authorities)Risk of dispossession or denied access to the adult’s property abroad Impediment to self-determination and autonomy Obstacles to free movement Complex conflicting rules on jurisdictionConflicting and complex rules on recognition of protection measures (e.g. court decisions) and of powers of representation adopted abroadCosts and workload for public authoritiesEXTERNAL FACTORSIncrease prevalence of serious mental health and physical disability associated with an ageing populationPartial ratification of the 2020 Hague Convention amongMemberStatesIncreaseof cross-border movementof EU citizensIncreaseof digitalisation of exchangesLanguagebarriers 
 
                                                 
the subjects of a legal system know exactly what to expect and how to adapt their conduct. This principle 
is therefore fundamental for preserving individual freedom55.  

In cross-border situations, the principle of legal certainty implies that adults themselves, but also their 
relatives and representatives should be assured that their rights and protection granted in one EU Member 
State will be recognised and guaranteed in all other Member States, and should know under which law 
their case will be considered and by which authority. Legal certainty also entails for competent authorities 
of Member States to know which foreign body to communicate with, to ensure that their nationals are 
protected abroad, and to be able to have a reliable and quick access to foreign law when necessary. 

Legal certainty is considered a significant problem by the stakeholders consulted in the context of this 
impact assessment. Out of 33 stakeholders interviewed by an external contractor* about the importance 
of  the  lack  of  legal  certainty  as  an  obstacle  to  the  protection  of  vulnerable  adults  in  cross-border 
situations, 29 (88%) considered this issue as very or rather important. Of all problems identified, the lack 
of legal certainty was regarded as the most important problem by the stakeholders. This conclusion is 
corroborated  by  many  other  sources  beyond  the  interviews.  For  instance,  concerns  based  on  broad 
practical experience in multiple cases have been expressed by stakeholders representing a large number 
of legal practitioners56. This issue was also expressly mentioned by stakeholders in replies to the Call for 
Evidence*, where a number of practitioners reported experiencing practical difficulties related to the lack 
of legal certainty in cross-border situations57. It follows from the nature of this problem that statistical 
data on the phenomenon of legal uncertainty could not be collected.  

2.1.1.2  Lengthy and costly proceedings 

Despite the fragmented data on the average length and costs of cross-border proceedings58, it is estimated 
that the average duration of cases involving the protection of adults and having cross-border aspects is 
considerably longer than that of comparable national cases59. An extreme example of such long duration 
was a case concerning the recognition of a protection measure between Germany and Greece which lasted 
12 years60. 

There are inherent factors to those cross-border cases that automatically increase their length  and the 
costs incurred, such as the language difference, the geographical distance, or the different legal systems. 
In addition, courts have the obligation to verify their international jurisdiction and applicable law which 
is  an  additional  procedural  step  that  takes  time.  In  some  cases,  they  will  also  have  to  rule  on  the 
recognition of a foreign measure.  

The most frequent case scenarios and the corresponding types of costs that the adults* may incur in 
cross-border  situations  are  illustrated  in  Table  1:  Costs  borne  by  adults  in  cross-border  context: 
current situation - illustrations per various scenarios. 

When asked about the problems impeding the protection of vulnerable adults in cross-border situations, 
20 out of 33 stakeholders interviewed by the external contractor estimated that the length and costs of 

55 Fenwick, M., & Wrbka, S. (2016). The Shifting Meaning of Legal Certainty. In M. Fenwick & S. Wrbka (Eds.),  Legal 
Certainty in a Contemporary Context: Private and Criminal Law Perspectives (pp. 1–6). Springer Singapore.  
56 This issue was for instance raised during the interviews by a representative of the CNUE* – an organisation representing 
over 45 000 notaries from the EU. 
57  See  for  instance  Commission  de  droit  des  tutelles  du  barreau  de  Luxembourg.  (2022).  Call  for  evidence  for  an  impact 
assessment  -  Feedback  on  Civil  judicial  cooperation  –  EU-wide  protection  for  vulnerable  adults,  indicating  that  it  was 
‘frequent’ for persons protected in Luxembourg to have assets abroad, and that managing such assets was ‘very problematic’ 
and required representation by a lawyer. The small Court of Valenciennes (France) indicated having approx. 1300 cross-border 
cases concerning the protection of adults. 
58  The  computer  system  of  national  courts  does  not  allow  the  foreign  element  in  a  case  to  be  recorded,  making  it  thus 
impossible  to  compare  the  duration  of  national  and  international  cases.  For  more  details,  see  the  report  from  the  RESIJ 
fact-finding mission*. Out-of-court cases are by definition not recorded and not subject to statistical data.  
59 See the 2021 Legal Study*.  
60 Anthimos, A. (2019). International Civil Litigation in Greece – The Odyssey of a legal guardian.  

8 

 
                                                 
judicial or administrative proceedings for vulnerable adults, their families and representatives were very 
or rather important problems. An association representing a category of vulnerable adults also highlighted 
to  the  external  contractor  the  importance  of  the  length  and  costs  of  judicial  and  administrative 
proceedings for vulnerable adults, their families and representatives. The report of the RESIJ fact-finding 
mission* underlined that in the absence of well-known and efficient tools, vulnerable adults and their 
families have to turn to  lawyers  to solve their cross-border issues. The report added that professional 
representatives have to take complex steps and activate their network to solve the problems arising from 
cross-border situations. Although legal aid can be granted to adults to help them meet the costs of legal 
proceedings, it does not cover all costs61, is only attributed to people with very limited income, and does 
not apply in all cross-border cases. The Legal Aid Directive* has a limited scope and does not apply to 
the  recognition  of  protection  measures*,  or  to  service  of  documents  for  instance.  Legal  aid  lawyers 
designated by the requested State* often do not (properly) speak the language of the applicant which 
adds to the duration and complexity of the case. In addition, only 12% of the people are aware of the 
existence of cross-border legal aid, and therefore 88% are unlikely to  benefit from this possibility. In 
summary, the current situation and the excessive duration and costs of proceedings significantly affect 
the most vulnerable people62.  

Additionally, as explained by a judicial representative interviewed, some national specific requirements 
to give effect to a foreign measure can add to the length and costs of proceedings, such as time-consuming 
medical examinations that were not required in the State of origin*.  

2.1.1.3  Non-recognition of court decisions and non-acceptance of powers of representation 

Depending on the application or not of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention*, or on the 
nature/origin of the protection (judicial decision or powers of representation*), a protection effective in 
one Member State may not be recognised, and thus implemented, in other Member States. This occurs: 
(i) either when a judicial measure is not recognised by the court of the requested State* which rejects the 
application  for  recognition  under  its  own  PIL*  rules;  or  (ii) when  powers  of  representation*  are  not 
accepted by private actors (banks, insurances, real estate agents, medical staff etc.) who refuse to give 
effect to foreign measures/mandates, and do not allow the representative to act on behalf of the adult 
concerned.  

Finally, when it is not known that a protection measure in another Member State exists, authorities (for 
instance registrars and notaries) and the general public will logically not be able to act according to it 
(and the measure will thus remain de facto unrecognised as if it did not exist). The situations described 
above occur in particular when adults live abroad for part of the year, or own assets abroad that they wish 
to dispose of or simply to manage efficiently.  In that case, contradictory protection measures may be 
adopted across the Member States. 

Overall,  24  out  of  32  stakeholders  (75%)  interviewed  by  the  external  contractor  regarded  the 
non-recognition  of  protection  measures  and  confirmed  powers  of  representation  in  cross-border 
situations as a very or rather important obstacle to the protection of vulnerable adults. This issue was also 
substantiated  by  numerous  examples  of  non-recognition  provided  by  stakeholders  during  the 
consultations  undertaken  in  the  context  of  this  impact  assessment,  which  are  summarised  in  the 
illustrative scenarios in Annex 4. 

61  Transportation, translation costs or costs incurred abroad are not covered by this financial support.  See  the  2021 Legal 
Study*. 
62 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee 
on  the  application  of  directive  2003/8/EC  to  improve  access  to  justice  in  cross  border  disputes  by  establishing  minimum 
common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes, and  European Parliament Resolution of 11 June  2013 on improving 
access to justice: legal aid in cross-border civil and commercial disputes.  

9 

 
                                                 
2.1.2  2.1.2  The consequences of the problems 

These problems have several adverse consequences, and jeopardise the protection, and therefore, the 
health and the assets of the adults at risk. Several fundamental rights are directly jeopardized, such as the 
right to property, to autonomy, to access to justice and to free movement*. Courts and authorities are 
affected by the additional workload entailed by the cross-border nature of the cases and do not receive 
any assistance. 

2.1.2.1  Health risks 

The length and costs of proceedings in cross-border situations create a risk to the physical and mental 
health of vulnerable adults. For instance, delays in obtaining necessary medical treatment may occur in 
cross-border  situations*63.  Some  stakeholders  explained  that  the  physical  and  moral  integrity  of 
vulnerable persons may not be adequately protected in cross-border cases where these adults have to go 
through burdensome proceedings. According to them, these cases where the physical and mental integrity 
of  adults*  is  not  adequately  protected  could  be  in  contradiction  with  the  obligations  for  the  EU  and 
Member States under the UNCRPD*64. 

The non-recognition in some Member States of protection measures adopted in other Member States can 
also create a risk to the physical and mental health of vulnerable adults due to the discontinuity of the 
protection across borders (the vulnerable adult is under certain safeguards in one Member State and under 
different or no safeguards in another Member State). This can create an environment prone to abuse of 
the  adult65.  In  that  regard,  situations  of  neglect  in  cross-border  cases*  or  even  abductions  or 
dispossessions  were  reported  on  numerous  occasions  by  practitioners  and  judges66  in  the  context  of 
consultations, including during the focus groups* organised in the context of this impact assessment, as 
well  as  various  conferences  involving  stakeholders  over  the  past  couple  of  years67.  In  addition,  the 
non-recognition of protection measures in one Member State that have already been adopted in another 
Member State can create distress for and have negative psychological and mental impacts on the persons 
concerned and their families. 

2.1.2.2  Access to justice 

The lack of legal certainty can become a barrier to  access to justice for vulnerable adults68. This is 
highlighted by a report from the Centre for Disability Law and Policy and the Institute for Lifecourse 
and  Society,  which  underlined  that  access  to  information  for  people  with  disabilities  is  particularly 
hampered in cross-border cases*69 due to: (i) the very impairments of the people; and (ii) the inability of 
the  justice  system  to  provide  adequate  assistance;  and  (iii) the  additional  barriers  in  international 
situations (distance, language, etc.). The same could be inferred not only for persons with disabilities, 
but for vulnerable adults in general.  

Specifically  in  the  context  of  this  impact  assessment,  access  to  justice  for  vulnerable  adults  can  be 
hindered by the length and costs of proceedings in cross-border cases. The sometimes exorbitant costs 

63 Representative of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) – during the first focus group*. 
64 European Disability Forum. (2022).  Ensuring disability rights in civil judicial cooperation  – Recommendations on civil 
aspects of the cross-border protection of vulnerable adults.  
65 Indeed, protection of adults is considered by WHO* as an efficient strategy to avoid abuses. WHO Factsheet on abuse of 
older people Abuse of older people (who.int). 
66 Cases presented in the first focus group* and in Présidence Française du Conseil de l’Union Européenne. (21 April 2022). 
Les professionnels face aux enjeux de la protection européenne et internationale des adultes vulnérables.  
67  Présidence  Française  du  Conseil  de  l’Union  Européenne.  (21  April  2022).  Les  professionnels  face  aux  enjeux  de  la 
protection européenne et internationale des adultes vulnérables.  
68 Inclusion Europe. (2022). Consultation on Civil aspects of the Cross-border protection of vulnerable adults.  
69 Flynn, E., Moloney, C., Fiala-Butora, J., & Echevarria, I. V. (2019). Access to Justice of Persons with Disabilities.  

10 

 
                                                 
of particularly complex proceedings, the fact that these costs are not necessarily  covered by legal aid, 
and the duration of all these legal steps may prevent vulnerable adults from fully exercising their right to 
access to justice. Access to free or affordable legal representation and advice is considered necessary to 
fulfil the right to access to justice70. This is especially true in a cross-border context71. 

2.1.2.3  Dispossession and financial loss 

The lack of legal certainty can also lead to reluctance by third parties to enter into transactions with 
the vulnerable person. One example pointed out by a report of the European Law Institute (ELI)72, relates 
to  the  legal  uncertainty  faced  by  a  bank  when  it  comes  to  determining  under  what  conditions  the 
immovable property owned by a vulnerable adult abroad can be used to refund borrowed money by the 
latter73. 

The excessive length and costs of proceedings in cross-border situations involving vulnerable adults lead 
to  a  significant  risk  of  dispossession  and/or  denied  access  to  the  adult’s  property  abroad.  In 
cross-border situations, vulnerable adults can be deprived of their ability to manage their financial affairs 
abroad due to the proceedings they would have to go through. From the interviews carried out, it appears 
that private institutions like banks are particularly demanding and require steps that vulnerable adults 
often  cannot  take,  such  as  travelling  to  a  foreign  country  and  being  present  during  the  transaction  in 
question.  This  consequently  restricts  the  vulnerable  adult's  access  to  their  bank  accounts  and  assets. 
Additionally,  the  issue  of  the  language  barriers  (and  the  requirement  of  costly  translations)  tends  to 
exacerbate the pre-existing difficulties that vulnerable adults may face in their interactions with foreign 
institutions74.  Finally,  the  costs  entailed  because  of  the  cross-border  nature  of  the  proceedings  may 
discourage adults from asserting the rights related to their assets abroad.  

A  risk  of  dispossession  and/or  denied  access  to  the  adult’s  property  abroad  can  also  arise  from 
non-recognition, in  particular when national  PIL* rules do not  provide for automatic recognition or, 
even when they do so, when private actors refuse to recognise a measure or powers of representation*. 
The costs linked to the non-automatic recognition of a measure and the need to start judicial proceedings 
can be very high (hiring a foreign lawyer, travel costs, etc.). In cases where the measure is not recognised, 
vulnerable adults or their representatives will not be able to access assets located abroad at least during 
the proceedings, and even indefinitely if they are deterred from starting judicial proceedings. In cases 
where an adult moves to another country, the absence of recognition of a prior decision in that country 
may  also  cause  disruption  in  the  protection,  with  no  support  to  claim  e.g.  social  welfare.  One 
representative of a vulnerable adult interviewed by the external contractor experienced a non-recognition 
of a protection measure of the adult under his care, and the need to go through an exequatur procedure*, 
which lasted about 15 months. The representative was not able to obtain access to the bank accounts and 
was thus unable to detect a scam. He was unable to stop this scam and report the relevant person to police 
earlier.  

The inability to access assets can also have consequences on the health of vulnerable adults if they cannot 
meet medical expenses or pay for a care home. This was repeatedly mentioned by stakeholders consulted 
in the context of this impact assessment75. 

70 Ibid. 
71  Element  raised  by  a  representative  of  the  Council  of  Bars  and  Law  Societies  of  Europe  (CCBE)  during  the  first  focus 
group*. 
72 European Law Institute. (2020). The Protection of Adults in International Situations.  
73 Ibid. 
74 See the 2021 Legal Study*. 
75 Indicated by the CNUE*.  

11 

 
                                                 
2.1.2.4  Right to self-determination and autonomy 

Not  recognising  powers  of  representation*  may  result  in  impeding  the  adults’  right  to 
self-determination and autonomy. Powers of representation give people the opportunity to decide for 
themselves  (in  advance)  who  will  look  after  their  personal  and  financial  interests  and  thus  promote 
personal autonomy. If powers of representation are not accepted in another country, the wish of an adult 
to assign powers of representation to a specific person, or to choose a law/court can be ignored76,77, in 
breach of Article 12(3) of the UNCRPD*. 

Even  when  powers  of  representation*  are  in  principle  accepted  abroad,  the  long,  uncertain  and 
complicated procedures that vulnerable adults experience in cross-border situations78 may lead to the 
non-respect  of  their  wishes  or  preferences.  For  instance,  when  powers  of  representation*  established 
abroad need to be confirmed in another country where the adult resides and has become incapacitated, 
competent authorities tasked with the confirmation of powers often need assistance since they have to 
assess the conditions of the entry into force of the powers under another law which they have to  find, 
understand (legally and linguistically) and interpret, if necessary, in addition to applying some of their 
own substantive rules. Without proper guidance and assistance to these  authorities, the respect of the 
wishes expressed in a foreign mandate may be hindered79. 

2.1.2.5  Freedom of movement 

The freedom of movement* of adults (and their families) may be hindered by the lack of legal certainty. 
Factors that may deter adults from travelling or moving abroad may be for instance: (i) the uncertainty 
as to whether protective instruments will be recognised abroad; (ii) the uncertainty as to which law will 
be applicable; (iii) the expected difficulties with the communication with foreign legal actors; and (iv) the 
likelihood of having to face multiple procedures in different Member States and related costs. According 
to  the  ELI*  report,  such  difficulties  cause  indirect  discrimination,  as  mobility  across  borders  for 
vulnerable adults becomes significantly more difficult to enjoy compared to that of people who have full 
legal capacity80. 

The length and costs of proceedings can additionally be a strong deterrent for vulnerable adults who 
would have wanted to move abroad, and some might not have the necessary resources to  go through 
these  proceedings81.  Thus,  the  right  to  free  movement*  of  vulnerable  adults  may  also  be 
disproportionally  hampered  by  the  prospect  and/or  the  experience  of  having  to  go  through  judicial 
proceedings, while again, people enjoying full capacity will never have to go through those proceedings 
in cross-border cases. 

2.1.2.6  Increased workload of competent authorities 

Finally, the length and costs of proceedings also have an impact on competent authorities who experience 
increased workloads and costs when dealing with cross-border cases involving vulnerable adults. It can 
take  courts  longer  to  process  cross-border  cases  dealing  with  the  protection  of  adults  than  similar 

76 European Law Institute. (2020). The Protection of Adults in International Situations.  
77 See the report from the RESIJ fact-finding mission*.  
78 As an example of such proceedings which lasted more than three years, see the case Civ. 1ère, 27 janvier 2021 n°19-15.059, 
where a French court of appeal refused the recognition of a Swiss mandate based on a range of additional criteria imposed by 
French law. The decision was later overturned by the French Supreme Court.  
79 Problems with circulation of foreign mandates were reported even by the Contracting States to the Convention at the 2022 
Special Commission* (https://assets.hcch.net/docs/06db03d0-812c-42fb-b76d-4e6e05a91b3b.pdf). These problems are even 
more pertinent among non-Contracting States. 
80 European Law Institute. (2020). The Protection of Adults in International Situations.  
81 See the report from the RESIJ fact-finding mission* on the discrimination found by the inspectors between well-off litigants 
and others. 

12 

 
                                                 
domestic cases82. The lack of harmonised rules on the matter adds to the workload of courts, as they have 
to  deal  not  only  with  the  application  of  their  national  law  but  also  apply  complex  PIL*  rules  and 
eventually research on the application of foreign law83. In order to avoid additional costs and workload, 
judges sometimes tend to simply ignore the international element84. If they do so, they only apply their 
substantive law rules without verifying their jurisdiction and that their law should apply to the matter. In 
such circumstances (non-respect of international jurisdiction and applicable law), the chances are great 
that the decision will not be recognised abroad, and that adults or their representatives will have to start 
new proceedings in the requested State85. Difficulties encountered by competent authorities in obtaining 
information and cooperating with institutions of other Member States or non-EU countries also have a 
direct  impact  on  their  workload  and  associated  costs.  For  Member  States  which  are  not  party  to  the 
Convention*, the workload and costs are usually even higher, especially as their competent authorities* 
do not have the assistance of a Central Authority*86.  

National provisions instituting powers of representation* have the objective of decreasing the workload 
of  courts  and  encouraging  non-judicial  handling  of  protection  cases.  Where  those  mandates  are  not 
accepted  by  private  actors  (which  will  force  representatives  of  the  adults  to  start  new  protection 
proceedings*), or are only recognised after lengthy and costly proceedings, the objective of alleviating 
the workload of courts is not met. 

2.1.3  2.1.3  The size of the problem  

2.1.3.1  The number of vulnerable adults in the EU 

The calculations based on different assumptions  and the methodology detailed in Annex 4 resulted in 
two sets of estimates of the number of vulnerable adults in the EU: The first one is based on the number 
of  protection  measures  taken  by  an  authority  in  the  EU,  based  on  which  there  are  approximately  5.1 
million vulnerable adults (1.4% of the EU population). This estimate does not include the high number 
of adults protected by powers of representation and thus in reality underestimates the number of protected 
adults by some margin. The second estimate, based on the criteria of health complications, accounts for 
approximately  27.4  million  of  adults  in  a  situation  of  vulnerability  and  in  an  assumed  need  of  legal 
support (7.5% of the EU population). 

2.1.3.2  The number of vulnerable adults in cross-border situations in the EU 

This being said, not every vulnerable adult needs a cross-border arrangement. This report only concerns 
adults who need legal protection in cross-border situations.  

There are no statistics available at EU level on the number of cross-border cases of protection. The IT 
systems of Members States’ courts do not record the cross-border element. The available data are hence 
scattered and do not reflect the number of cross-border cases (79 cases of recognition proceedings in one 
Member State over a period of 5 years, 100 cases with a cross-border element in the court of another 
Member State over a period of 3 years). The RESIJ fact-finding mission* also revealed that most complex 
situations involving foreign aspects were settled without judicial intervention (with no record of those 
cases). The number of cross-border cases recorded by Central Authorities* remains low; however, these 
authorities are only involved in relation to cases involving two Contracting States to the Convention and 
out of these cases only in those where specific support of the Central Authorities is needed87. Therefore, 
all cases registered by Central Authorities* are by definition cases where one or several problems arose. 
A large proportion of the total number of problematic cross-border cases is however not reported to them, 

82 See the 2021 Legal Study*. 
83 Interview with the representative of a public authority of a non-Contracting State. 
84 See the report from the RESIJ fact-finding mission*. 
85 The German-Greek case referred to above provides a good illustration of the disastrous consequences of a court decision 
ignoring the PIL* rules: Anthimos, A. (2019). International Civil Litigation in Greece – The Odyssey of a legal guardian. 
86 A judge from the Court of Verona, Italy – Présidence Française du Conseil de l’Union Européenne. (21 April 2022). Les 
professionnels face aux enjeux de la protection européenne et internationale des adultes vulnérables. 
87 For the number of cases recorded by Central Authorities*, see Annex 4, Section 1.3. 

13 

 
                                                 
for instance due to the lack of visibility and knowledge among competent authorities on the existence of 
the Central Authorities.  

In  the  absence  of  data  reflecting  the  actual  number  of  cross-border  cases,  applying  the  methodology 
described in Annex 4 (based on EU population and mobility statistics), the number of vulnerable adults 
living  abroad  in  the  EU  and  potentially  experiencing  problems  in  cross-border  context  due  to  legal 
uncertainties  can  be  estimated  between  ca.  144  649  (lower  estimate  calculated  from  the  number  of 
protection  measures)  and  780 169  (higher  estimate  calculated  based  on  the  reported  health 
complications). See more details including estimates per country in Annex 4. 

It  could  be  estimated  that  100%  of  the  population  of  vulnerable  adults  in  cross-border  cases 
experience at least one of the problems described above in their lifetime88. For instance, the problem of 
legal  uncertainty  affects  by  definition  all  adults  in  cross-border  cases,  not  only  those  that  are 
vulnerable.  Even  in  cases  where  the  cross-border  nature  of  the  case  is  solely  related  to  the  foreign 
nationality of the adult (without having assets abroad), the rather likely possibility of a succession abroad, 
or a travel or return to the State of their nationality creates legal uncertainty. 

Furthermore, the problems actually affect a much larger population. For instance, in all 16 Member States 
that  provide  for  powers  of  representation*  in  their  legislation,  virtually  all  adults  living  in  those 
Member States are covered by the initiative, since everyone has the possibility to establish powers of 
representation* (including advance directives* for future medical treatments) and would expect that they 
are respected not only in their Member State but also everywhere in the EU. Unlike other areas of law 
that cover only certain categories of persons or activities (children/parents in family law or companies in 
insolvency law), the issue at hand concerns the general public. Moreover, the number of adults having 
been granted powers of representation cannot be estimated (and is partly not reflected in the figures 
above), but it is in millions. However, all of those who are in cross-border situations are affected by 
the legal uncertainty, even if the powers of representation have not been activated yet89. In addition, 
most competent authorities who by law need to assess the legal capacity of individuals, like notaries 
or land or civil registrars, are confronted with the lack of legal certainty each time they have a case 
involving a foreigner90. This is because they do not have access to the registries of protection measures 
of the State of which this person is a national or where the person lived before.  

Finally,  given  the  duration  of  the  cases,  the  problems  of  lengthy  and  costly  proceedings  and 
non-recognition of measures and powers of representation* are likely to affect all adults protected by 
a  measure  or  powers  of  representation.  They  will  necessarily  arise  when  the  adult  owns  property  or 
financial  assets  abroad,  moves  abroad,  inherits  from  a  relative  abroad,  or  has  a  medical  emergency 
abroad.  

Furthermore, in addition to the quantitative size of the problem in terms of the absolute number of adults 
affected, the seriousness of the problems encountered by this population also underlines that the current 
situation  is  highly  undesirable.  Where  the  problems  described  above  arise,  serious  violations  of  the 
adults’ rights take place (as illustrated in the Section 2.1.2 – The consequences of the problems). Under 
international law, EU law and Member States’ law, persons with disabilities and mental disorders and 
older persons are granted the same rights as other persons. Situations in which those rights are fully not 
protected 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 ensured91. 

88 This represents a conservative estimate since the percentage corresponds only to the number of vulnerable adults who are 
in cross-border situations and takes into account their whole lifetime. These estimates however underestimate the real situation 
as explained further. As regards the methodology behind the estimates in this impact assessment, see Annex 4.  
89 They may in their lifetime cross borders (for recreational, professional or personal purposes) and have emergencies abroad 
requiring that the powers of representation and the advance directives are immediately invoked. 
90 The first focus group*. 
91 Art. 3 TEU. 

14 

 
                                                 
2.2  2.2 

What are the problem drivers? 

The  problems,  namely  (i) lack  of  legal  certainty;  (ii) the  lengthy  and  costly  proceedings;  and  (iii) the 
absence of recognition of protection measures*, powers of representation* described above stem from a 
number of indirect causes. Some of the causes are of a legal nature and linked to the complexity of the 
legal picture in cross-border cases, which can be broken down into different drivers, but should also 
be considered as a whole. This complexity is a deterrent against vulnerable adults asserting their rights, 
as demonstrated by the RESIJ fact finding mission*: ‘[as a result of this disparity in cross-border cases], 
most difficulties are ultimately resolved by the efforts and ingenuity of the representatives of the protected 
person who manage to obtain information or documents through an informal network of stakeholders. 
However, in addition to the energy and time required, this reality most often requires a financial outlay 
on the part of the vulnerable adult [resulting in] a breach of equality between European citizens, as their 
protection is facilitated when they have the financial means to pay the services of professionals (lawyers, 
notaries and other professionals, including translators).’ Some other drivers relate to practical issues, 
in particular the lack of modernisation and lack of guidance.  

2.2.1  2.2.1  Conflicting and complex rules on applicable law 

Conflicting rules on applicable law92 are a direct cause of the lack of legal certainty. Depending on the 
legal systems of Member States, several connecting factors (nationality, habitual residence, location of 
the  property,  law  of  the  competent  authority)  may  apply  to  the  cross-border  cases  concerning  the 
protection of adults  and  thus  designate different  applicable laws in  the same  cross-border-  case. This 
leads to uncertainties as to the legal regime applicable to the subject matter of the case and can result in 
practical  issues.  In  addition,  national  rules  on  protection  measures*  and  powers  of  representation* 
significantly vary from one Member State to the other. In the absence of identical and simple conflict of 
law rules, it is impossible to predict whether a mandate or a measure will be implemented in another 
State as was intended. Indeed, if the intended law is not applied, there is a great risk that the measure 
or the mandate will be distorted and that their implementation will not correspond to what was 
initially envisaged. 

21  out  of  29  respondents  (72%)  to  the  interviews  carried  out  by  the  contractor*  considered  Member 
States’ conflicting applicable law rules to be a very important or rather important factor explaining the 
lack of legal certainty. Literature indicates that, for instance, the determination of the law applicable to 
ex  lege  powers  of  representation*  is  problematic93,  94.  Several  stakeholders  representing  competent 
authorities  and  courts  of  the  non-Contracting  States*  considered  that  the  lack  of  legal  certainty  is 
important in States that have not ratified the Convention*. The same point was made at a workshop 
on cross-border protection of vulnerable adults organised by the Czech Presidency95.  

Even for Contracting Parties* to the Convention that all apply the rules provided for in the Convention*, 
the  lack  of  proper  guidance  for  the  authorities  can  make  the  application  of  these  rules  complex.  An 
illustration provided by a representative of a Council of Notaries (CNUE) refers to the issues encountered 
by  practitioners  when  identifying  which  law  applies  to  the  authorisation  of  a  donation  abroad  when 
powers of representation* have been established.  

Conflicting applicable law rules* also lead to the ‘non-recognition’ of powers of representation*. The 

92 See Annex 10.  
93  European  Association  of  Private  International  Law.  (2022).  Position  paper  in  response  to  the  European  Commission’s 
public consultation on an EU-wide protection for vulnerable adults.  
94 European Law Institute, Fountoulakis, C., Mäsch, G., Bargelli, E., Franzina, P., & Ward, A. (2022).  Public Consultation 
on the ‘Initiative on the Cross-Border Protection of Vulnerable Adults’.  
95  A  Professor  from  the  University  of  Milan,  Czech  Presidency.  (20  September  2022).  Workshop  on  the  Cross-border 
Protection of Vulnerable adults.  

15 

 
                                                 
acceptance of powers of representation* is not governed by the provisions on recognition, but by the 
applicable law provisions96. 11 Member States do not provide for such mandates in their national law97, 
meaning that foreign mandates will be considered non-existent in those States.  

2.2.2  2.2.2  Conflicting rules on jurisdiction 

Member  States’  conflicting  rules  on  jurisdiction  impact  legal  certainty,  as  it  may  be  difficult  for 
vulnerable adults to know which court will have jurisdiction to hear their case. Where the Convention 
does  not  apply,  Member  States’  PIL*  laws  contain  different  grounds  for  jurisdiction,  such  as  the 
nationality of the person to be protected, or their habitual residence or domicile, and in some cases both 
or either of these two elements98. Two courts of different Member States can therefore be competent for 
the same case, for instance on the ground of nationality in State A and on the ground of habitual residence 
in State B.  

Nineteen out of 28 respondents to interviews replied that conflicting rules between Member States on 
jurisdiction is a very or rather important factor explaining the lack of legal certainty. An organisation 
representing  the  interests  of  vulnerable  adults  emphasised  the  difficulty  for  them  to  determine  which 
court has jurisdiction. This lack of clarity also results in the risk of parallel proceedings in two Member 
States. It was for instance raised as an issue by a competent authority that referred to a case where two 
courts in two Member States had been seized of the same case, which was only discovered when the 
adult moved away99. In general, the transfer of a case from one court to another is also problematic in 
practice in the absence of common rules100. 

2.2.3  2.2.3  Conflicting  or  complex  rules  on  recognition  of  foreign  measures  and  powers  of 

representation  

Conflicting  (and/or  complex)  rules  on  recognition*  of  foreign  decisions  (protection  measures*) 
contribute greatly to legal uncertainty, as vulnerable adults, their representatives, and practitioners are 
not ensured that the protection measures adopted in one State will be recognised in other States where 
they move or where they own assets. Out of 28 respondents to the public consultation, 19 considered that 
conflicting  rules  between  Member  States  on  recognition  of  foreign  decisions  were  very  or  rather 
important to explain the lack of legal certainty. According to the RESIJ fact-finding mission* in seven 
Member States, lawyers consider that the differences between the rules in the Member States constitute 
a serious difficulty for their work in  cross-border cases. Even among Member States that provide for 
similar protection measures, differences remain regarding for instance the scope, duration and review, as 
well as forms of control of measures and representatives and remedies. Such differences may result, in 
the  absence  of  a  common  rule  on  automatic  recognition,  in  hurdles  in  the  circulation  of  protection 
measures adopted in one Member State in another Member States with different rules.  

The  conflicting  and  complex  rules  on  recognition  of  foreign  measures  and  powers  of  representation 
indirectly  lead  to  an  increase  of  the  length  and  costs  of  proceedings,  as  recognition  procedures  are 
complex and lengthy (thus generating costs), as identified by 15 out of 20 respondents (75%) to the open 
public  consultation.  In  addition,  in  cases  where  the  foreign  protection  measure  or  powers  of 

96 This is because, contrary to a court order, they are private instruments and their effects can always be challenged and are 
assessed according to the applicable law. In case they are challenged, courts shall rule on their existence and validity under 
the law designated by the national conflict of law rules. 
97 BG, CY, EE, EL, IT, LV, LU, NL, PL, SK and SI.  
98 See the 2021 Legal Study* and Annex 10 of this report.  
99 Feedback from the French authorities provided in the context of (i) a workshop organised by the Czech Presidency. (20 
September 2022). Workshop on the Cross-border Protection of Vulnerable adults and (ii) Responses of the French authorities 
to the public consultation on the initiative on the cross-border protection of vulnerable adults.  
100 A judge from the Court of Verona, Italy – Présidence Française du Conseil de l’Union Européenne. (21 April 2022). Les 
professionnels face aux enjeux de la protection européenne et internationale des adultes vulnérables. 

16 

 
                                                 
representation  are  ultimately  not  recognised  (see  below),  applicants  have  to  file  a  new  request  for 
protection/establish a new mandate in the Member State where recognition was refused, which will take 
time and generate new costs101. 
In States that are not party to the Convention and where the recognition is not automatic102, recognition 
requires the initiation of judicial proceedings, thus entailing costs e.g. with regard to legal representation, 
court fees, legalisation and sworn translation of documents.  

Quite evidently, conflicting and complex rules on recognition diverging from one Member State to 
another lead to non-recognition of protection measures or powers of representation103. According to 
one national  authority, the  refusal  of  recognition by  a foreign private or  public entity  of  a protection 
measure is one of the most recurring issues observed104. 12 out of 24 persons (50%) interviewed by an 
external contractor found the absence of harmonised rules on cross-border protection of vulnerable adults 
across Member States very or rather important to explain the non-recognition of protection measures. 

A court may refuse to recognise a foreign decision based on the grounds for non-recognition listed in 
national  law  and  in  the  Convention*.  The  grounds  for  refusal*  are  considered  important  by  Member 
States  to  block  foreign  decisions  that  do  not  comply  with  their  fundamental  principles  or  for  other 
reasons. However, the longer the list of grounds for non-recognition, the higher the risk that a decision 
will not be recognised. Furthermore, a foreign decision may also not be recognised by non-judicial actors 
(e.g. banks), as they may not be familiar with foreign formats and languages, and could not know how 
to  apply  the  complex  recognition  rules.  A  judicial  representative  gave  the  example  of  a  bank  in  a 
Contracting State of the Convention, which asked for an exequatur* judgment of the foreign protection 
measure, despite the fact that a measure is automatically recognised under the Convention (see below 
Section 2.2.4 unnecessary and complex enforcement proceedings). 

Finally, in some Member States, powers of representation* are established and registered by a competent 
authority  (such  as  notaries),  and  have  a  much  higher  evidential  value  than  in  other  Member  States. 
Neither the Convention* nor national PIL* rules provide for rules on the recognition of such powers of 
representation. Such rules could only be adopted at EU level, as was done in succession or matrimonial 
property matters105.  

2.2.4  2.2.4  Unnecessary or complex enforcement proceedings 

The protection of adults is a non-contentious matter*, which rarely involves enforcement106 of a court 
decision.  Most  court  decisions  consist  in  establishing  a  protection  measure  (e.g.  designation  of  a 
representative and restrictions to the legal capacity or support in some activities) and authorising the adult 
or the representative to take certain types of actions (sell a property or invest the funds in a life insurance 
policy). Those decisions only need to be recognised (i.e. to be given a legal effect in another country), 
hence forced enforcement is almost never needed However, on many occasions, unnecessary exequatur* 
proceedings (which are a precondition for enforcement) are still requested.  

Fifteen  respondents  out  of  twenty  (75%)  considered  that  the  question  of  unnecessary  enforcement 

101 Lawyer from Belgium – the first focus group*. 
102 12 Member States do not automatically recognise foreign decisions on the protection of adults: BG, ES, HR, HU, IE, LU, 
LT, MT, NL, RO, SE, and SK. 
103 See the 2021 Legal Study*.  
104 French authorities. (2022). Responses of the French authorities to the public consultation on the initiative on the cross-
border protection of vulnerable adults – Note by the French authorities.  
105 Articles 59 and 60 of 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 and Articles 58 and 59 of 
Council  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1103  of  24  June  2016  implementing  enhanced  cooperation  in  the  area  of  jurisdiction, 
applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes. 
106 See the term ‘enforcement’ in the Glossary. 

17 

 
                                                 
proceedings is either very important or rather important. Several stakeholders interviewed by the external 
contractor* described situations where a protection measure taken in one Member State was not accepted 
in  another  Member  State  (mostly  by  non-judicial  actors),  with  the  requirement  that  an  exequatur* 
procedure had to  be carried out to  ensure that the representative is  authorised to  act  on behalf of the 
adult107. In these cases, it is often necessary to hire a foreign lawyer, to carry out various administrative 
procedures abroad, to send numerous letters or emails, documents and sometimes to organise a trip to 
the  other  country.  In  States  that  are  not  party  to  the  Convention,  there  is  no  provision  simplifying 
exequatur  proceedings  and  a  declaration  of  enforceability  is  required  which  delays  the  procedure.  A 
representative of practitioners consulted pointed out that it may take months to complete an exequatur* 
procedure, which implies a severe prejudice for vulnerable adults in cases where the person has no other 
assets than those located abroad108. In terms of costs, a judicial representative gave the example of a case 
where all the costs associated with an exequatur procedure* and other ancillary costs were higher than 
closing the foreign account itself, which was the originally intended step.  

In Contracting States to the Convention, Article 25(2) of the Convention provides that the enforcement 
of protection measures taken in another Contracting State shall be done via simple and rapid procedures. 
Nevertheless, the Convention leaves it to the Contracting States to implement such procedures, with no 
prescription regarding the costs. In fact, most Contracting States* have not put in place such simple and 
rapid  procedures109.  A  respondent  to  interviews  highlighted  that  the  procedure  in  their  country  (a 
Contracting State) is neither simple nor fast, as the competent court is a court of appeal, and the legal 
requirements to guarantee the authenticity of the decision are very formal. For instance, it is necessary to 
send the original document by post. Therefore, in the rare cases where enforcement is actually needed, 
the simplification brought by the Convention is not always a reality in practice110. Finally, in Contracting 
States  as  well,  private  actors  such  as  banks,  insurance  companies,  medical  staff  or  real  estate  agents 
sometimes unduly require an exequatur of foreign decisions by the courts of their country (even though 
those decisions should be automatically recognised), in order to ensure that they will not be liable for 
damages caused by the guardian. 

Those  unnecessary  proceedings  automatically  prolong  procedures  and  generate  significant  additional 
costs for vulnerable adults, their families and representatives. 

2.2.5  2.2.5  Absent or limited cooperation among national competent authorities 

The representative of a competent authority of a non-Contracting State underlined that all the problems 
in the cross-border protection of vulnerable adults were to some extent related to the lack of cooperation 
among  Member  States.  This  is  the  case  in  particular  for  those  countries  that  have  not  ratified  the 
Convention,  which  thus  cannot  rely  on  the  assistance  of  Central  Authorities*.  Central  Authorities 
communicate with each other, provide information in their State regarding the international protection of 
adults  or  assist  their  authorities  as  well  as  foreign  authorities  in  specific  cross-border  cases111.  The 
difficulty of determining the competent foreign authorities and persons in non-Contracting States*, the 
need for translations on one hand, and the lack of imposed deadlines to provide a response on the other 
hand, mean that competent authorities spend more time and therefore more money on cases of vulnerable 
adults in cross-border situations.  

Even among those Member States which have ratified the Convention and cooperate with each other, 
legal  uncertainty  for  competent  authorities  remains  to  some  extent.  It  is  linked  to  the  absence  of  an 
international  court  that  would  settle  the  differences  of  interpretation  of  the  Convention  between  the 
Contracting Parties, and of a forum to discuss different interpretations of certain terms, such as the notion 

107 For more details on the situations at hand, see the illustrative example 3 in Section 4. 
108 Representative of the Council of Bars and Law Societies of Europe (CCBE) – the first focus group*.  
109 See the 2021 Legal Study*. 
110 Based on that observation, the 2022 Special Commission* issued C&Rs n°32 and 34. 
111 For more details on the role of Central Authorities, see Annex 5. 

18 

 
                                                 
of  ‘habitual  residence’112.  While  the  Convention  provides  for  open  notions  allowing  flexibility  and 
facilitating adaptation to all situations113, in practice, this can lead to a lack of clarity and legal certainty 
for the public and professionals, as pointed out by literature114 and stakeholders115. 

The  lack  of  legal  certainty  is  closely  linked  to  either  complex  or  conflicting  rules,  or  lack  of 
knowledge  of  the  PIL*  rules.  Practitioners  (lawyers,  notaries,  professional  representatives)  lack 
experience  in  the  area  of  cross-border  protection  of  vulnerable  adults  and  are  thus  rarely  able  to 
meaningfully inform their client regarding what to expect in cross-border procedures. This is particularly 
problematic when it comes to producing powers of representation* abroad or when managing assets 
abroad or planning to move abroad.  

The absent or limited cooperation between competent authorities increases the length of proceedings. 
This occurs at the level of courts and authorities, as well as at central level in non-Contracting States*. 
This  particularly  holds  true  for  non-Contracting  States,  who  cannot  rely  on  the  help  of  Central 
Authorities* to cooperate. 
Despite the absence of significant  concerns116 and  as identified by  the European Parliament’s EAVA 
Study* even Member States party to the Convention* have problems, including poor cooperation and 
communication between the competent authorities of the Contracting Parties. The Convention* makes 
communication between authorities mandatory in many cases117. This communication is however made 
difficult by the use of paper channels and the language barrier. An association representing a category of 
vulnerable adults referred to the lack of modernisation of judicial and administrative proceedings (i.e. 
not digitalised and lengthy), leading competent authorities to be very slow in taking practical measures 
in sometimes urgent situations. A judicial representative from a Contracting State mentioned during his 
interview that, of the 5 to 10 cases with a cross-border element out of the 90 measures he deals with (a 
proportion that remains constant over time), he never had a case in which guardianship judges or public 
prosecutors have exchanged with their foreign colleagues on their cases. This occurs despite the obvious 
need in cross-border cases to exchange information on the state of play of the proceedings but also on 
the personal and financial situation of the adult. 

The lack of communication is another cause of non-recognition of protection measures, as recognition 
presupposes knowledge of the measure in the first place (the adults are often not in a position to provide 
this  information)  and  suboptimal  communication  among  competent  authorities  of  different  Member 
States about the existence of protection measures is a recurring issue. This was illustrated by an authority 
consulted  in  the  context  of  this  impact  assessment,  which  accounted  for  numerous  difficulties  in 
determining the existence of a proceeding concerning a protection measure before the courts of another 
State, including because there is no centralised archive or register at EU level or even, depending on the 
State, at national level118, 119. The representative of a chamber of notaries gave the example of a situation 
where authorities of the country in which a sale was to be concluded could not access the information 
that the legal capacity of a buyer was limited, and that this person should be supported to sign the property 
sale.  

112 Kruger, T. (2017). Habitual Residence: The Factors that Courts Consider. In P. Beaumont, Danov M., Trimmings, K., 
Yüksel, B. (Ed.), Cross-Border Litigation in the Europe (pp. 741–755). Hart Publishing.  
113 European Parliamentary Research Service, & Salm, C. (2016).  Protection of Vulnerable Adults European Added Value 
Assessement Accompanying the European Parliament’s Legislative Initiative Report.  
114 Drventić, M. (2019). The Protection of Adults in the European Union.  EU and comparative law issues and challenges 
series (ECLIC), 3, 803–829.  
115 See Conclusions and Recommendations of the 2022 Special Commission* – conclusion No 22 clarifying that recognition 
of ex lege powers of representation* is not governed by the Convention. 
116 Representative from Germany and from the French Ministry of Justice – both the second focus group*.  
117 See Annex 5 and C&R n° 15 and 16 of the 2022 Special Commission*. 
118 French authorities. (2022). Responses of the French authorities to the public consultation on the initiative on the cross-
border protection of vulnerable adults – Note by the French authorities.  
119 On this point, see Annex 4 providing an overview of the registers in the Member States.  

19 

 
                                                 
2.2.6  2.2.6  Access to foreign law 

The current absence of cooperation between authorities and the lack of accessible information on (i) the 
conflict of law rules applicable in another Member State and (ii) the content of the substantive law* that 
is eventually found applicable create complications. These complications negatively affect the work of 
legal practitioners and representatives when advising their clients, as well as of Member States’ courts 
that apply foreign law to a case. This lack of cooperation with determining the content of the foreign law 
equally  exacerbates  all  three  problems.  This  factor  was  mentioned  by  multiple  stakeholders  in  the 
context  of  the  consultations.  A  pan-European  organisation  representing  vulnerable  adults  mentioned, 
among the practical issues encountered, that information on the applicable law and competent authorities 
of another Member State was indeed not available or was not available in their languages. The website 
of CNUE* The Vulnerable offers information, but it remains limited in terms of information, content and 
languages available and does not cover all Member States120. 

The  lack  of  clarity  about  the  applicable  law  contributes  to  the  length  and  costs  of  proceedings  in 
non-Contracting  States*,  as  courts  which  need  to  apply  a  foreign  legislation  cannot  ask  a  Central 
Authority to provide information on that law. Obtaining this information in a foreign language takes time 
and requires more resources (human resources, translations etc.). In addition, a representative of notaries 
pointed out that most people and even legal practitioners do not know the content of foreign applicable 
law, as they are not experts on all the national legal systems. The assistance of external experts is thus 
required, likely resulting in additional costs. 
Circulation of mandates adopted in another Member States is a recurring issue pointed out by literature121 
and by stakeholders122. As an explanation, a national authority, in their response to the OPC*, pointed 
out that the exercise of the mandate in a State other than that of the designated law implies for the person 
from whom recognition or acceptance is sought to have knowledge of that law, which is a significant 
difficulty123. 

2.2.7  2.2.7  Lack of training on the existing instruments 

Finally, one of the main findings of the report from the RESIJ fact-finding mission* is that competent 
authorities  of  Contracting  States*,  including  courts,  are  not  sufficiently  trained  and  aware  of  the 
Convention*, including on its rules on jurisdiction, recognition and cooperation. This creates many issues 
in  practice.  For  instance,  when  an  adult  moves  to  another  country,  courts  close  their  file  instead  of 
transmitting it to the court of another State with jurisdiction, and a new procedure has to be started from 
scratch in the other country124. In addition, the report showed that, in this area, there is a general lack of 
knowledge and subsequent underuse of European instruments of civil cooperation (facilitating service of 
judicial documents or taking of evidence abroad).  

2.3  2.3 

How likely is the problem to persist? 

There is a reasonable expectation that the number of vulnerable adults will rise, especially because of the 
ageing  population.  The  projected  life  expectancy  in  the  EU  is  supposed  to  increase  in  the  future  by 
approximately five years by 2050 and expected to reach 90.82 by 2100. The number of dependent people 
will  double  by  2050,  affecting  mainly  Germany  and  Italy,  but  also  countries  of  Central  and  Eastern 
Europe. Additionally, the proportion of people older than 65 with some form of disability is projected to 
increase by 77% by 2050125. While medical advancement can increase average life expectancy, it remains 

120 CNUE*, The Vulnerable.  
121 Ibid. 
122 Representative of the European Law Institute and notary from the Netherlands, both consulted in the first focus group*. 
123 French authorities. (2022). Responses of the French authorities to the public consultation on the initiative on the cross-
border protection of vulnerable adults – Note by the French authorities.  
124 Ibid. 
125 Report on mobility and inclusion of people with disabilities and the European Disability Strategy 2010–2020.  

20 

 
                                                 
challenging to fight against health problems due to ageing, especially the Alzheimer’s disease. Recent 
studies  predict  that  by  2050,  the  number  of  people  in  Europe  suffering  from  dementia  will  double, 
reaching  more  than  16  million  people126.  This  figure  is  somewhat  lower  accounting  only  for  the  EU 
countries; nevertheless, these projections show that the number of vulnerable adults will rise significantly 
in the future. 
Disabilities are also increasing worldwide127. The number of people with disabilities does not only grow 
because of the increase of life expectancy, but also because of non-communicable diseases, such as the 
chronic  health  conditions  (diabetes,  cardiovascular  disease,  cancer  and  mental  health  disorders)  and 
lifestyle  influenced  disorders  (such  as  alcohol  use  or  drug  addiction).  There  has  been  a  13%  rise  in 
mental health conditions and substance use disorders in the last decade128.  

Another aspect, which may also increase the number of vulnerable adults in cross-border cases in the 
future  is  the  growing  mobility  of  people  in  the  EU.  The  Joint  Research  Centre  of  the  European 
Commission (JRC) identified migration as one of the 12 megatrends of the future129. Even though it is 
challenging to develop a reliable migration forecast, it is reasonable to expect it continues to grow in the 
future130.  

It  is  very challenging to provide a reliable future estimate about  the number of vulnerable adults. As 
regards the estimates based on the number of protection measures ordered by courts, this estimate is 
complicated by the fact that the number of protection measures does not reflect completely the number 
of people who are actually supported in the exercise of their legal capacity. For instance, the support is 
often  granted  through  (confirmed)  powers  of  representation*,  which  in  some  Member  States  do  not 
require any judicial procedure and in others require only a simple confirmation by a court or a competent 
authority.  As  explained  in  Section  2.1.3.1  The  number  of  vulnerable  adults  in  the  EU,  powers  of 
representation are not always registered. The current number of people protected/supported by powers 
of representation* is hence impossible to measure, due to the overall absence of statistics. The increase 
of  powers  of  representation*  are  often  correlated  with  a  decrease  of  protection  measures  ordered  by 
courts, which complicates the picture. As regards the high-end estimates based on long-standing health-
related limitations in usual activities, it is expected that these limitations will continue to grow, given 
their current increasing trend, and will reach almost 30 million in 2030 (as compared to 27.4 million in 
2020). 

The  combination  of  pre-pandemic  migration  statistics  and  the  projected  number  of  vulnerable  adults 
yielded two sets of estimates for the number of vulnerable adults in need of a cross-border arrangement 
in 2030: low-end estimate (based on the number of protection measures) of 190 000 adults and high-
end estimate of slightly more than 1.1 million adults (based on long-standing health limitations). 
Both estimates are higher than those calculated for 2020, confirming the assumption that the number of 
vulnerable adults requiring cross-border protection will rise in the coming  years, at least doubling by 
2030 (based on the assumptions used).  The estimates were developed based on the methodology  and 
assumptions described in Annex 4. 

Furthermore, the problems will most likely substantially increase in the absence of an EU action given 
the growing vulnerable population in cross-border situations. The problem drivers, problems and their 
consequences, as consistently identified in the literature and by stakeholders, are very likely to persist in 
the future in the absence of an EU action.  

126  See  e.g.  Dementia  in  Europe  Yearbook  2019  – Estimating  the  prevalence  of  dementia  in  Europe,  p.96.  Dementia  and 
Alzheimer’s disease in Europe – Statistics & Facts. Dementia and Alzheimer's disease in Europe - Statistics & Facts | Statista. 
127 See  e.g. the  World Health Organisation factsheet on disability from 2 December 2022 and the  2011  World Report on 
Disability. 
128 World Health Organisation Factsheet on mental health. Mental health (who.int). 
129 See ‘Increasing significance of migration’ at the booklet of the Megatrends Hub. 
130 European Commission. Increasing significance of migration.  

21 

 
                                                 
3 

3  WHY SHOULD THE EU ACT? 

3.1  3.1 

Legal basis 

The aim of any EU intervention would be to improve the cross-border protection of adults who are unable 
to protect their interests because of an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties. This could 
be  done  through  harmonisation  of  the  rules  on  private  international  law  concerning  the  protection  of 
adults, that is, through the adoption of uniform rules on international jurisdiction and applicable law in 
cross-border cases and on the mutual recognition and enforcement of protection measures and of rules 
facilitating cooperation among competent authorities.  

Any measures adopted by the EU concerning civil aspects of the cross-border protection of vulnerable 
adults  would  not  change  the  substantive  and  procedural  rules  of  the  Member  States  and  would  thus 
respect  the Member States’ competence in  substantive and procedural  law.  While the competence on 
substantive and procedural law concerning the protection of adults lies with Member States (including 
the  definition  of  key  concepts,  such  as  ‘guardianship’,  the  rules  concerning  protection  measures  or 
concerning  the  legal  effects  of  powers  of  representation*  granted  by  an  adult  in  anticipation  of  their 
incapacity*), the harmonisation of PIL* rules fall within the scope of the powers vested in the EU by 
Article 81 TFEU.  

Depending on the policy option chosen, several  legal  bases allow the  adoption of measures aimed at 
improving the cross-border protection of adults. First, an EU legislation on the protection of vulnerable 
adults  could  be  adopted  under  Article  81(2)  TFEU  on  measures  concerning  civil  matters  with 
cross-border implications131. The EU has a shared competence with Member States to adopt measures in 
this area through the ordinary legislative procedure.  

Second,  in  addition  to  its  internal  competence,  the  EU  also  has  external  competence  in  the  field  of 
cross-border protection of vulnerable adults. The EU could thus adopt measures obliging Member States 
to ratify, ‘in the interest of the Union’ the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention*. These measures 
could take the form of a Council decision adopted on the legal basis of Articles 218(5) and (6) and 81(2) 
TFEU under the consent  legislative procedure132. The Council decision could  set  a certain  timeframe 
within  which  Member  States  are  obliged  to  ratify  the  Convention.  That  external  competence  exists 
regardless of the prior adoption of an internal EU legislation on the matter. The Council could thus adopt 
a decision obliging Member States to ratify the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention without 
first adopting an EU legislation on the matter. Where no internal EU legislation is in place, the Union 
has the competence to authorise Member States to become parties to the Convention. Depending on the 
determination  of  the  risk  of  affectation  of  common  rules,  this  competence  may  be  either  shared  or 
exclusive.  In  both  cases,  the  Commission  may  propose  the  adoption  of  a  Council  decision  based  on 
Article 218(6) TFEU authorising the Member States to become (or remain) parties to the Convention133. 

Third, the Council decision could be adopted together with (or shortly after) the EU internal legislation 
on  the  matter.  Where  EU  internal  legislation  is  in  place  and  its  rules may  be  affected  by  an  external 
action, the EU has exclusive external competence, meaning that only the EU (as opposed to Member 
States) may act externally. The subsidiarity principle would not apply to the exercise of such exclusive 
external competence since Member States would no longer have the capacity to act individually. 

131 For an explanation as to why Article 81(2) TFEU on civil matters with cross-border implications is the only possible legal 
basis for an internal EU legislation on the protection of adults and Article 81(3) TFEU on family matters with cross-border 
implications cannot be used as a legal basis, see Annex 6. 
132 Under this procedure, the Council of the EU can adopt legislation based on a proposal by the Commission after obtaining 
the consent of the European Parliament.  
133 See the judgment in case C-600/14, Germany v Council (COTIF), EU:ECLI:C:2017:935, paras. 49, 62. 

22 

 
                                                 
3.2  3.2 

Subsidiarity: Necessity and added value of EU action 

The  problems  addressed  in  this  report  only  concern  adults  living  in  the  EU  who  are  in  cross-border 
situations. The cross-border EU dimension of the problem is thus given by the very nature of the subject 
matter. The existing problems have consequences with an EU dimension as they negatively affect the 
exercise of the right of free movement* by the adults. The problems arise due to: (i) the different national 
PIL* rules on the protection of vulnerable adults, (ii) the lack of recognition* in one Member State of 
protection  measures*  and  powers  of  representation*  adopted  in  another  Member  State,  as  well  as 
(iii) limited  or  non-existent  cooperation  mechanisms  concerning  the  protection  of  adults  between 
Member States’ competent authorities. All these problem drivers also have a cross-border EU dimension. 
The harmonisation  of the rules on these matters  would thus  help  to  mitigate or prevent  the problems 
affecting adults in cross-border situations and would better safeguard their rights, including fundamental 
rights.  

Such  harmonisation  cannot  be  achieved  at  the  level  of  individual  Member  States,  through  an 
uncoordinated change in national PIL* rules. Such changes to national PIL rules on cross-border cases 
would not ensure the necessary uniformity of these rules and could not establish cooperation mechanisms 
among Member States that would facilitate resolution of problematic cases. The need for uniformity of 
rules (that would be applied in the same manner by the courts and other competent authorities throughout 
the EU) is at the basis of all other PIL* legislation  of the EU and is generally supported by Member 
States  and  stakeholders.  That  uniformity  also  cannot  be  achieved  by  a  directive,  Commission 
recommendation or a guidance. In contrast with the leeway left by a directive to Member States to achieve 
its binding results and with a non-mandatory nature of a recommendation, the uniformity of the PIL rules 
on the cross-border protection of adults can only be achieved through an EU regulation or the HCCH 
2000 Protection of Adults Convention.134 The application of a single set of rules is a condition for the 
reciprocity  and  mutual  trust.  Similarly,  the  modernisation  of  judicial  cooperation  (digitalisation  of 
communication  between  competent  authorities  via  a  specific  decentralised  IT  system  or  the  use  of 
identical multilingual standard forms) can only be achieved by a directly applicable regulation135.  

Therefore, the necessary harmonisation and cross-border cooperation can be achieved either through an 
action at the EU level or through the ratification of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention* 
by those Member States that are not yet a party to the Convention, or a combination of both.  

As  regards  the  Convention,  the  EU  institutions,  several  Member  States  and  the  HCCH*  have  been 
actively promoting the ratification of the Convention by all Member States for many years136. Moreover, 

134 In  matters of international jurisdiction, applicable law and recognition and enforcement even small differences,  which 
could be the result of a directive leaving some leeway in the process of transposition, would undermine the very purpose of 
the rules. For example, the purpose of uniform applicable law rules is that no matter where a particular matter is considered, 
it is always the same law that applies to this matter. If a Directive permitted for the flexibility and allowed both Member State 
A and Member State B to apply their own law respectively, the purpose of uniformity and legal certainty would be defeated. 
135  That  is  also  why  all  20  existing  EU  instruments  regulating  the  issues  in  the  field  of  private  international  law  and 
cross-border procedures have been adopted as regulations.  
136  See  the  European  Parliament’s  resolutions  of  2008  on  cross-border  implications  of  the  legal  protection  of  adults 
encouraging those Member States which have not yet signed or ratified [the Convention] to do so and of 2017 on the protection 
of vulnerable adults encouraging those Member States which have not yet signed or ratified it to do so as quickly as possible. 
See also the 2021 Council conclusions on the protection of vulnerable adults across the European Union that invite Member 
States which have already concluded that it would be in their interest to accede to the 2000 Hague Convention to begin as 
quickly as possible or actively continue with procedures for its signature and/or ratification. See also the workshops on the 
protection of adults organized in the framework of the Portuguese, French and Czech presidencies. See also the December 
2018 Joint Conference on the Cross-Border Protection of Vulnerable Adults organized jointly by the Commission and the 
HCCH that concluded that States that are not yet Contracting Parties [to the Convention] are invited to assess the possibility 
and  benefits  of  joining  the  Convention.  As  a  part  of  its  promotional  activities  of  the  Convention,  the  Commission  also 
translated the Explanatory Report* accompanying the Convention into EU languages. Finally, see the first recommendation 
of the 2022 Special Commission* agreed by all States participating at the 2022 Special Commission (over 30 EU  MS and 

23 

 
                                                 
Member  States’  representatives  seem  to  agree  that  the  Convention  is  a  relatively  functional  tool  for 
advancing  the  rights  of  adults  in  an  international  context, in  that  its  PIL*  rules  function  well137. 
Nevertheless, only 11 of the 27 Member States have ratified the Convention. While Member States also 
largely agreed that it is important that all EU Member States become parties to the Convention to ensure 
that the protection of adults continues across the EU, many preferred that an initiative is taken at the EU 
level instead of by individual Member States. The reasons given for this preference were in particular the 
limited (even if growing) number of cases and a related limited prominence of the topic on the national 
legislative agenda, lengthy or cumbersome national decision-making processes needed for the ratification 
of the Convention, or the preference for closer cooperation within the EU through an EU legislation138. 
In addition, those Member States that are already Contracting States to the Convention likewise strongly 
support  that  other  Member  States  join  the  Convention,  so  that  the  Convention  receives  a  wider 
geographical coverage, that reciprocity within the EU is ensured and that more people benefit from the 
rules included in the Convention. Also these Member States supported that the EU should act concerning 
the protection of adults in cross-border situations.  

An EU intervention appears necessary to ensure that adults are protected in cross-border situations in the 
EU. This is in particular given (i) the limited success that the mere  promotion of the Convention had 
among EU Member States to date, (ii) the expectation that it could take many years or decades before all 
Member States become a Contracting Party to the Convention139, (iii) the preference of many Member 
States  that  action  is  taken  at  the  EU  level,  and  (iv)  some  of  the  regulatory  gaps  of  the  Convention 
stemming from its international nature140, which could only be filled by an EU regulation and not by a 
mere ratification of the Convention (digitalisation, increased cooperation, etc.).  

The  added  value  of  an  EU  intervention  consisting  of  an  EU  legislation  and  the  ratification  of  the 
Convention*  by  all  Member  States,  was  also  confirmed  in  the  Parliament’s  EAVA  Study*141.  The 
necessity of the EU to act in this area was also supported by the stakeholders consulted in the context of 
this impact assessment142.  

Considering the increasing number of vulnerable adults and the growing mobility within the EU (See 
Section 2.3  How likely is  the problem to persist?), an EU intervention becomes ever  more needed to 
prevent an increase in the magnitude of the problems currently experienced and reported by competent 
authorities, practitioners, and vulnerable adults and their representatives across the EU. 

non-EU  States)  that:  endeavours  should  continue  to  be  made  to  encourage  ratifications  of,  and  accessions  to,  the  2000 
Convention by States willing and able to undertake the Convention obligations. 
137 The meeting with the Member States representatives organised by DG JUST on 27 October 2022. Cf. also the Conclusions 
&  Recommendations  of  the  2022  Special  Commission*,  conclusion  No  3  that  ‘in  general,  the  Convention  is  operating 
smoothly and that it is fit for purpose’. 
138 This could include, among others, closer cooperation based on mutual trust, exchange of information through the e-Justice 
Portal* and the EJN-civil*, or digitalisation of the procedures. See Boxes 1 and 2 below. 
139 As noted in the Study by an external contractor*: The optional ratification of the Hague Convention could take another 20 
or 30 years before all Member States ratify it, p. 42. 
140 Some provisions of the Convention are entirely fit for purpose even among EU Member States. Some others stay below 
the level of what can be done in an EU context to fully address the problems experienced by vulnerable adults in an EU. This 
is the case for instance of the unnecessary exequatur proceedings (provided for by the Convention but abolished by most EU 
instruments on the basis of mutual trust between EU Member States), the lack of recognition of foreign protection measures 
and powers of representation  by private  actors (addressed by the European Certificate of Representation) or the language 
barriers (solved by the multilingual standard forms). These limitations cannot be overcome at the international level, since the 
rules of the Convention as an international instrument cannot be changed and (even if there was an appetite for negotiating a 
new instrument) the level of mutual trust and coordination among countries that are not a part of the EU would not be sufficient 
to establish the same level of cooperation globally as is already the norm among EU Member States in various areas.  
141 In addition, the 2013 Study on a European Code on Private International Law: Cost of Non-Europe Report estimated that 
costs linked with legal uncertainty and thus legal costs arising in cross-border transactions and related emotional costs, amount 
to EUR 11 million per annum for vulnerable adults. 
142 See in particular the replies to the question 13 of the OPC* or Annex 4. 

24 

 
                                                 
In conclusion, the objectives of this EU action, by reasons of its scope and effects, would be best achieved 
at EU level in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. 

4 

4  OBJECTIVES: WHAT IS TO BE ACHIEVED? 

The following objectives reflect the problems identified in Section 2 and set out goals which the policy 
options aim to achieve. All the objectives contribute to the overall Treaty-based objective of creating, 
maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice in which the free movement of 
persons is ensured143. 

4.1  4.1 

General objectives 

The general objective of any EU policy intervention in the field of protection of adults in cross-border 
situations would be to protect fundamental rights of vulnerable adults (General objective), in line 
with Article 6 TFEU, the Charter and the UNCRPD*. 

In cross-border situations concerning vulnerable adults, this would entail in particular: 

  preventing physical and psychological abuse resulting from the lack of protection144; 
  preventing dispossession or denial of access to the adult’s property abroad, as well as those of 

their families and representatives; 

  ensuring access to justice145; 
  ensuring self-determination and autonomy of adults146; 
 

facilitating the exercise by adults of the right to free movement147. 

4.2  4.2 

Specific objectives 

The specific objectives that should be achieved through the implementation of one of the policy options 
are, in cases involving the protection of adults in cross-border cases, to: 

 

 

increase  legal  certainty  for  the  general  public  and  competent  authorities  involved  (Specific 
objective 1); 
facilitate  the  cross-border  recognition  of  protection  measures  and  powers  of  representation* 
(Specific objective 2); 

  make proceedings faster and less expensive (Specific objective 3). 

These  specific  objectives  present  strong  synergies,  and  their  achievement  is  at  least  to  some  extent 
interdependent.  For  instance,  the  facilitation  of  cross-border  recognition  of  the  protection  measures 
would  mean  a  reduction  of  conflicting  rules  on  recognition  which  would  positively  affect  both  legal 
certainty and the length and costs of procedures.  

143 See Article 3(2) of TEU providing that the EU should create an area of freedom, security and justice and Articles 67 to 89 
TFEU titled Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. 
144  Typically,  the  medical  treatment  of  a  vulnerable  person  cannot  await  the  recognition  of  a  protection  measure  that  has 
already been taken in another MS. The risk of psychological abuse must also be considered, as in some cases lengthy and 
costly processes with an uncertain outcome can create temporary situations where the vulnerable person is not effectively 
protected anymore or their rights cannot be exercised.  
145 Vulnerable adults in cross-border situations need to face legal proceedings with reasonable timeframes affordable for them, 
and guaranteeing them a fair and predictable system and legal certainty. 
146 The complexity brought by the cross-border character of a case should not lead to a breach of the right to make one’s own 
choice, nor to have to depend on other persons more than in a national case. 
147 Some adults may currently be deterred from exercising their right to free movement*. A greater legal certainty as to what 
should be expected in cross-border situations could have a beneficial impact on the freedom of movement of adults, their 
families and representatives, as they would not be discouraged from moving abroad or would not give up their projects abroad. 

25 

 
                                                 
The following figure shows the intervention logic underpinning a possible EU intervention. 

Figure 2: Intervention Logic (Source: Study by an external contractor*) 

Figure 3: Objectives tree (Source: Study by an external contractor*) 

5 

5  WHAT ARE THE AVAILABLE POLICY OPTIONS? 

The following policy options will be considered:  

  Option 1:  
  Option 2: 

Baseline scenario 
Council decision obliging Member States to join the Convention* within a certain

timeframe 

  Option 3:  
  Option 4:   A combination of Options 2 and 3 (a Council decision and an EU regulation). 

EU regulation on the protection of adults  

5.1  5.1 

What is the baseline from which options are assessed? 

Under  the  baseline  scenario  (Policy  option  1),  the  EU  would  make  no  policy  change  to  address  the 
problems described above. The EU institutions and the HCCH* would continue to encourage Member 

26 

CAUSES (Direct)GENERAL OBJECTIVEPOLICY OPTIONSSAFEGUARDING THE RIGHTS OF VULNERABLE ADULTS IN CROSS-BORDER SITUATIONSConflicting rules on applicable lawsImpossible or limited cooperation between national authoritiesComplex conflicting rules on jurisdictionOption 4:Adopt an extensive set of rules in the EU and a minimum set of rules with third StatesSPECIFIC OBJECTIVESMake proceedings faster and less expensive (vulnerable adults, their representatives, families and public authorities)Increase legal certainty (general public and public authorities)Option 3:Adopt an extensive set of common rules, applying in the EU onlyOption 1:Baseline scenario –Encourage Member States to ratify the Hague ConventionPROBLEMSLengthy and costly proceedings (vulnerable adults, their representatives, families and public authorities)Conflicting and complex rules on recognition of protection measures (e.g. court decisions) and of powers of representation adopted abroadUnnecessary enforcement proceedings (exequatur)Lack of legal certainty (general public and public authorities)Protection measures and powers of representation are not recognised (vulnerable adults, their representatives and families)Facilitate the cross-border recognition of protection measures and powers of representation (vulnerable adults, their representatives and families)Option 2:Adopt a minimum set of common rules (based on the Hague Convention)SPECIFIC OBJECTIVESGENERAL OBJECTIVEFacilitate the cross-border recognition of protection measures and powers of representation(vulnerable adults, their representatives and families)Increase legal certainty (general public and public authorities)Preventingphysicaland psychologicalabuse resultingfromthe lackof protectionPreventingdispossessionor denialof accessto the adult’spropertyabroadEnsuringaccessto justice  Ensuringself-determinationand autonomyFacilitatingfree movementSafeguardingthe rightsof vulnerableadultsin cross-border situationsMake proceedings faster and less expensive (vulnerable adults, their representatives, families and public authorities) 
 
 
 
States  to  ratify  the  HCCH  2000  Protection  of  Adults  Convention*  but  the  EU  would  not  take  any 
additional legislative step, nor oblige Member States to ratify the Convention.  

Expected impact of the baseline scenario (Policy Option 1)  

As explained, Policy option 1 entails maintaining the current situation, without any EU intervention that 
would  go  beyond  mere  promotion  of  the  ratification  of  the  Convention*.  The  ratification  of  the 
Convention would remain optional, resulting in different legal regimes throughout the EU, with some 
Member States being party to the Convention and others not. Based on the experience with the promotion 
of the Convention over the past 14 years148, it is reasonable to expect that this effort would result in a 
limited success and would in any case take many years. Therefore, some Member States will be parties 
to the Convention and others not. The legal  framework would remain fragmented. No EU legislation 
would be adopted.  

In such a scenario, the above-mentioned problems would remain and likely increase over time given 
the trends such as the overall ageing of the population and related prevalence of mental illnesses and 
disabilities, alongside with the increasing cross-border mobility in the EU and the growing demand for 
powers of representation* among the general public that may need to circulate among EU Member States 
in the future. As a result, the consequences of the problems would keep affecting negatively the rights 
and psycho-social wellbeing of adults, their families and their representatives. The status quo can also 
perpetuate obstacles to accessing justice that the adults currently face, including inter alia obstacles in 
accessing legal assistance and representation149. This all could put in jeopardy the fundamental rights 
of  adults  in  cross-border  situations  and  thus  risk  negatively  affecting  the  EU  and  MS’  human  rights 
obligations, including under the UNCRPD*150. It thus follows that the general objective of safeguarding 
rights, including fundamental rights, of vulnerable adults and the specific objectives of the initiative 
would not be achieved at all or only be achieved to a very limited extent151. This is also the view shared 
by the stakeholders consulted in the context of the preparation of this impact assessment152, as illustrated 
in Figure 4: The effectiveness of the baseline scenario (Policy Option 1) in achieving the policy objectives 
of the PA initiative* (Source: Study by an external contractor*) below.  

148 Already in 2008, the Council and Parliament called on MS to sign and ratify the Convention. 
149 To that effect, see the reply of Inclusion Europe to the Call for Evidence*.   
150 The EU and MS are parties of the UNCRPD*, and therefore have to comply with its provisions, including Art. 12(2) that 
affirms that ‘persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life’. Under Art. 
12(3), the EU and its MS must ‘take appropriate measures to provide access by persons with disabilities to the support they 
may require in exercising their legal capacity on an equal basis with others’. 
151 To a limited extent, expecting that a few Member States would ratify the Convention* under the baseline scenario. 
152 Stakeholder interviews organised by the external contractor*. According to the result of these consultations, approximately 
46% of stakeholders perceived PO1 as completely ineffective or rather ineffective at increasing legal certainty. Approximately 
48%  (17  out  of  35)  of  the  stakeholders  believed  that  this  option  would  not  be  effective  at  facilitating  the  recognition  of 
protection measures and powers of representation*. And more than 50% of the interviewees indicated that PO1 would not be 
effective at making proceedings faster and less expensive, while only 26% believe that this Option could be at least to some 
extent effective. 

27 

 
                                                 
Figure 4: The effectiveness of the baseline scenario (Policy Option 1) in achieving the policy objectives of the PA initiative* (Source: 
Study by an external contractor*) 

The persisting difficulties caused by the fragmentation of PIL* rules concerning the protection of adults 
in cross-border situations would also continue to cause delays in the procedures and generate procedural 
costs* for all the persons and competent authorities involved. These procedural costs*, borne by adults 
and competent authorities were calculated on the basis of the methodology detailed in Annex 4 using a 
set of eight scenarios (below) reflecting a variety of situations and the resulting costs153.  

Table 1: Costs borne by adults in cross-border context: current situation154 - illustrations per various scenarios 

Scenario 

Potential costs (differing case by case) 
related to: 

Average 
aggregate 
costs: 
EU-26155 
(thousand 
EUR) 
837 701 

Illustrative example 
1:  

Establishing a 
protection measure 
abroad 

(not very common) 

Mr X  is  a  national  of  MS  A  and  has 
moved to MS B. A protection measure is 
requested in MS A (e.g. by his family).  

- 

Mr X  or  another  branch  of  the  family 
challenge in MS B the decision issued in 
MS  A,  contesting  jurisdiction  of  a  court 
that  gave  the  decision  or  the  applicable 
law. 

The procedure in MS A to establish the 
protection measure requires additional costs 
relating to cross-border situation: 
- 
- 
- 

travel for the medical assessment; 
travel for the hearing; 
translation costs linked to the 
procedure. 

The procedure in MS B requires: 
- 
- 

access to justice costs (incl. lawyer); 
(translation and (possibly) apostille of 
all documents, in particular the 
decision issued in MS A); 
travel costs (e.g. for the family); 
(service of the final decision to parties 
residing in MS A). 

- 
- 

- 

- 

- 
- 

- 

Illustrative example 
2:  

Implementing a 
protection measure 
abroad 

A  protection  measure  has  been  adopted 
by the competent authorities of MS A for 
Mr. X.  

Mr X.  moves  to  MS  B.  The  person 
charged  with  assisting  Mr X  must  act  in 

Risk of duplicate proceedings in MS A and 
MS B over the protection of the same 
vulnerable adult (Mr X) 
travel of the representative to MS B; 
translation of document(s) attesting the 
protection measure; 
administrative procedures by the 
representative, entailing exchanges by 
registered letters (several letters for each 

5 126 579 

153 The scenarios were developed by the external contractor* and were based on the consultations with stakeholders. They 
represent real case scenarios.  
154 It needs to be pointed out that these illustrative examples are a result of a considerable simplification of the existing complex 
legal  situation.  For  instance,  for  the  sake  of  simplicity,  the  illustrative  examples  do  not  differentiate  between 
Contracting  States*  and  non-Contracting  States*.  In  addition,  to  calculate  the  aggregate  costs  for  adults,  several 
assumptions were used, as detailed in the Annex 4 on methodology. 
155 As Denmark would not take part in the adoption and application of the PA initiative*, Denmark is not considered for the 
purposes of this impact assessment. 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Scenario 

Potential costs (differing case by case) 
related to: 

Average 
aggregate 
costs: 
EU-26155 
(thousand 
EUR) 

543 200 

946 589 

1 700 431 

1 895 111 

26 765 

322 413 

procedure); 
(If the measure had not been recognized, 
additional costs would have been entailed – 
see Example 3). 
application lodged by a lawyer to the 
authority competent for the recognition in 
MS B; 
sworn translation of proof of protection 
measure;  
apostille or other proof of the authenticity 
of the judgment from MS A; 
decision to be taken by the competent 
authorities of MS B. 
procedure for the confirmation of the 
powers of representation* in MS B, i.e. 
judicial or administrative proceedings;  
If its national law allows it, the competent 
authority in MS B needs to get information 
on the law of MS A and translate the 
relevant provisions. The competent 
authority must then assess whether the 
conditions are met for the confirmation of 
the powers of representation under the law 
of MS A. 
if the national law of MS B does not 
provide for the confirmation of powers of 
representation, and they cannot be 
confirmed in MS B, MS B needs to 
establish a new protection measure, 
translating into all the costs of a new 
procedure: introducing the application, legal 
representation, medical assessment etc. 
access to justice costs 

- 
-  NB: the costs of a lawyer are likely to 

- 

- 

- 
- 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

increase due to the cross-border nature of 
the case, especially if the applicable law or 
jurisdiction needs to be determined.  
(If the court of MS A exercises its 
jurisdiction, travel costs for Ms X to be 
heard); 
(If the a decision invalidating the measure is 
taken in MS B, service of document to the 
representative in MS A not covered by legal 
aid); 
(Both courts seized will try to obtain 
information on the foreign case). 
access to justice costs in both MS; 
possible translation costs;  
(possible travel costs for Mr X to be heard 
in MS A); 
(both courts seized will try to obtain 
information on the foreign case). 
costs required to ensure that both 
establishments in MS A and B agree on the 
relocation; 
(If any additional measure needs to be taken 
in MS B (e.g. to open a bank account and 
transfer money) or if a measure was taken 
by the competent authorities of MS A, then 
need for a new protection measure in MS B 
– see illustrative example 1) 
Costs required to ensure that the competent 
authorities in MS A and B agree on the 
relocation and provide for a smooth 
transition from the protection measures in 

(common) 

Illustrative example 
3: 

Exequatur*  

(rare) 

MS B (e.g. to rent an apartment). A real 
estate  agent  and  a  landlord  do  not 
challenge  the  validity  of  the  foreign 
decision. 
Mr X lives in MS A but has assets in MS 
B. A protection measure has been adopted 
by the competent authorities of MS A.  
The guardian decides to sell the assets in 
MS  B.  A  notary  in  MS  B  asks  for  the 
exequatur*  (judicial  recognition)  of  the 
protection measure taken in MS A.  

Illustrative example 
4: 

Activating Powers of 
representation 
abroad  

(common) 

Powers  of  representation*  concerning 
Mr X  have  been  granted  in  accordance 
with the law of MS A (where Mr X used 
to live at the time the powers were made) 
providing  for  his  protection  in  the  event 
of incapacity. Mr X moves to MS B and 
his  health  deteriorates.  The  powers  of 
representation need to be confirmed. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Illustrative example 
5:  

Contesting 
guardianship or a 
guardian’s decision 
abroad  

(rare) 

Illustrative example 
6:  
Conflict of 
jurisdiction 

(common)   
Illustrative example 
7: 
Relocation of a 
vulnerable adult 
without a change of 
protection measure 

(quite common) 

Ms  X  lives  in  MS  B  but  is  under  a 
protection  measure  taken  in  MS  A.  The 
guardian  designated  in  MS  A  takes  a 
decision  that  affects  Ms  X’s  assets  (e.g. 
contracts a life insurance with suspicious 
beneficiaries or decides to sell all assets in 
MS  A).  Ms  X  wants  to  contest  the 
measure  or 
the 
representative  in  MS  B.  He  is  granted 
legal  aid  in  MS  B.  The  representative 
seizes  the  courts  of  MS  A  to  confirm 
his/her decision. 

the  decision  of 

Mr X is subject to a procedure to establish 
a  protection  measure  in  MS  A,  and  he 
initiates a procedure in MS B to obtain a 
less intrusive protection measure  – there 
is a case of conflict of jurisdiction. 

Ms X lives in MS A, in an establishment 
where her protection can be ensured. She 
enjoys the company of her sister, Ms Y, 
who also lives in MS A. However, Ms Y 
finds a job in MS B and seeks to relocate 
Ms X to a similar establishment in MS B. 

Illustrative example 
8:  
Relocation of a 
vulnerable adults 

Mr X lives in MS A. He is cared for by 
the social services of MS A. It arises that 
a relative of Mr X, in  MS B, is ready to 
assist  Mr  X,  provided  that  he  moves  to 

29 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Scenario 

Potential costs (differing case by case) 
related to: 

Average 
aggregate 
costs: 
EU-26155 
(thousand 
EUR) 

MS B. Mr X is willing to do so. 

with a change of 
protection measure  

(very common) 

MS A to those in MS B (including the 
appointment of the relative of Mr X as the 
new administrator of Mr X, as a result of 
the termination of the appointment of the 
previous administrator). 

Based  on  the  above  findings,  the  baseline  scenario  would  not  adequately  address  the  current  and 
upcoming need to protect adults in the EU156 and would not tackle the existing problem drivers linked 
with the divergent PIL rules. It should thus be discarded as an option.  

Hypothetically, even in  the unlikely  scenario  that  all Member States join the  Convention*  swiftly, 
certain problems and their drivers would still be perpetuated since the rules in the Convention do 
not address all of them. These problems include for instance the missed opportunity of modernisation 
and adaptation of the rules in the Convention for the EU context as described in Boxes 1 and 2 below 
and in Annex 6. For instance, in the absence of EU rules on the cross-border protection of adults, this 
area  will  not  be  digitalised157.  Under  this  scenario,  the  CJEU  would  not  have  jurisdiction  to  provide 
uniform interpretation of the Convention. 

5.2  5.2 

Description of the policy options 

Several policy options can be envisaged to meet the objectives of an EU intervention set out above. Given 
the available legal basis dealing with civil matters with cross-border implications (see Section 3) and the 
existing problem drivers (see Section 2), all policy options (with the exception of the baseline scenario) 
would  provide  uniform  PIL*  rules  that  would  apply  in  cross-border  situations  concerning  vulnerable 
adults. They would thus lay down rules governing international jurisdiction, law applicable to vulnerable 
adults in  cross-border situations, and rules  on the recognition  of protection measures* and powers of 
representation*. All policy options would in principle apply to all Member States, except Denmark158. 
The rules envisaged in the policy options would apply to adults habitually residing in the EU, regardless 
of their nationality. Policy Options 2 and 4 would also cover adults habitually living in other Contracting 
States to the Convention.  

The main difference between the available policy options lies in their territorial and material scope (i.e. 
in relation to which countries the rules would apply and how far-reaching these rules would be).  

5.2.1  5.2.1  Option 2: Mandatory ratification of the Convention by Member States (‘PO2’) 

This policy option would aim to ensure that all Member States become parties to the Convention* within 
a certain time. Under this policy option, the Commission would prepare a proposal for a Council decision 
that, once adopted, would oblige Member States that have not  yet done so to ratify, or accede to, the 

156 50% of the practitioners believe that Option 1 is irrelevant, compared to only 18% of competent authorities and 77% of 
associations.  
157 This is because the general policies on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation in civil matters (especially the Digitalisation 
proposal*)  only  relate  to  the  digitalisation  of  already  existing  EU  instruments.  In  addition,  without  coordinated  work  on 
interoperability and interconnection at EU level, any possible national trends of digitalisation of the area of adult’s protection 
will not be effective in relation to cross-border cases and may, in fact, even make the digitalisation progressively more difficult 
as the IT solutions developed by each Member State may lack common standards. 
158 See the explanation of Denmark’s opt-out in fn. 4. In addition, in accordance with the 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, Ireland would 
only be covered in an EU intervention if it decides to opt in. 

30 

 
 
 
                                                 
Convention ‘in the interest of the Union’ within the timeframe agreed in the Council decision. Member 
States that are already party to the Convention would be authorised to remain parties. 

As a result, the rules contained in the Convention would apply both in the EU and vis-à-vis other non-EU 
Contracting Parties159 (wide territorial scope). No additional rules would be adopted at the EU level, so 
the new rules applicable in the EU would be limited to those already included in the Convention (limited 
material scope). Option 2 ensures that the Convention becomes applicable between all Member States 
and, compared to Options 3 and 4, it represents the smallest intervention by the EU in the area.  

It should nevertheless be noted that Option 2 does not in principle exclude a later adoption of an EU 
regulation,  after  Member  States  will  have  learnt from  the  lessons  of  a  general  implementation  of  the 
Convention  in  the  EU.  However,  this  staged  approach  was  discarded  as  a  specific  option  under  this 
impact assessment (see related explanations in Section 5.3). 

5.2.2  5.2.2  Option 3: An EU Regulation (‘PO3’) 

Under  this  policy  option,  the  EU  would  adopt  a  regulation  that  would  harmonise  the  PIL*  rules 
concerning the protection of adults. The PIL rules (e.g. rules on jurisdiction and applicable law) included 
in such a regulation would largely replicate those included in the Convention*; however, they could be 
improved or adapted to the EU legal landscape whenever desirable (wide material scope). In addition, 
the regulation would simplify the rules applying to recognition and enforcement, on the basis of mutual 
trust, and would completely modernise cooperation between competent authorities. 

Box 1: Added value of an EU regulation as compared to the Convention 

A possible EU regulation would be based on the rules of the Convention but also improve and modernise them.  

First, an EU regulation  would  build on a higher level of mutual trust and cooperation among Member States to 
streamline the existing procedures. For instance, while the recognition of protection measures is automatic under 
the Convention, the exequatur procedure*160 has not been abolished and may still be requested, often unduly, by 
non-judicial actors to give effect to a protection measure. An EU regulation would provide not only for automatic 
recognition  but  could,  in  addition,  also  do  away  with  the  exequatur  procedure.  Moreover,  the  EU  regulation 
would provide for the acceptance of authentic instruments (including powers of representation*). It would also 
further limit the grounds for the refusal of recognition* as compared to the Convention. The cooperation among 
Member States would also be further facilitated by the tools already available for other EU civil-justice regulations 
(such as through the EJN-civil* providing assistance in cross-border cases161). Several measures of soft law would 
also be introduced, such as information sharing through the e-Justice Portal*, including on the law of Member States. 
This  area  of  cooperation  would  also  be  integrated  in  future  Commission  training  strategies  for  judges  and 
prosecutors, as well as in the EJTN*’s work plan.  

Second, the regulation would extend the material scope of the Convention to fill any existing gaps or to address 
future needs. For instance, the regulation would react to the increasing use of powers of representation* in Member 
States. It would create a European certificate of representation (‘ECR’) that would be issued on the basis of a 
protection measure or confirmed powers of representation* and would be used in cross-border context. Unlike the 
optional model form designed by the HCCH to facilitate the application of the Convention, the ECR should, as a 
rule, be made available to individuals by the competent authorities of the Member States (both in paper and digitally) 

159 These rules include uniform rules on international jurisdiction and law applicable to the protection of adults in cross-border 
situations,  as  well  as  rules  on  the  recognition  and  enforcement  and  on  the  cooperation  among  Central  Authorities*,  as 
contained in the Convention*. For a detailed explanation of the rules in the Convention, see Annex 5. 
160 Formal court procedure by which a foreign judgment is declared enforceable (i.e. ‘validated’ for enforcement) in the State 
where enforcement is sought. 
161 EJN-civil* can for example help to solve practical or legal issues in cross-border cases, provide valuable information on 
laws of other Member States or prepare practice guides or factsheets for judges, notaries or lawyers.  

31 

 
                                                 
if the individual applies for it162. The ECR would enjoy uniform effects under the regulation in the whole EU, its 
validity would be presumed. It would exist in all EU official languages, thus reducing the need for translations163. 
Other standardised forms and clarifications would also be provided, for instance regarding the steps that need to 
be taken by a court when transferring its jurisdiction to a court of another Member State. The regulation would also 
include  specific  rules  on  legal  aid  for  vulnerable  adults  in  those  cross-border  situations  that  are  currently  not 
covered by national law or the Legal Aid Directive*. Moreover, the regulation would contain provisions allowing a 
court to appoint professional representatives abroad for a specific act or to follow up on a protection measure. 

Third,  the  rules  in  the  Convention  would  be  modernised  when  adapted  for  the  EU  context.  For  instance,  the 
regulation would introduce the possibility of digital communication between individuals and competent authorities 
and  digitalise  the  communication  between  competent  authorities  from  different  Member  States  by  applying  the 
‘digital by default’ principle. In addition, the regulation would interconnect registers of protection measures and 
(confirmed) powers of representation to ensure a cross-border access to information by competent authorities on 
the existence of protection in another Member State. For details about the digital solutions, see Box 2. 

It should be noted that the selection of these measures is already a result of a previous analysis undertaken with 
the  help  of  available  legal  expertise,  evidence  and  consultations  with  a  view  to  determine  whether  specific 
measures should be a part of the ‘package’. In addition, the majority of the proposed measures reflects the usual 
measures included in EU instruments in the field of private international law.  

For more details concerning the measures that an EU regulation could include as compared to the Convention, see 
Annex 6. 

Box 2: Digitalisation in the area of the protection of adults and the interconnection of registers 

An  EU  regulation  would  provide  for  specific  provisions  on  digitalisation  of  communication  concerning  those 
procedures  that  would  be  introduced  by  the  new  legislation  on  the  protection  of  adults. This  is  in  line  with  the 
mandatory ‘digital by default’ principle and the EU’s policies for the digitalisation of justice.  

This would entail setting up a digital infrastructure necessary for digital communication between individuals and 
Member States’ competent authorities and between the competent authorities of different Member States. As 
a result, individuals would have, besides traditional ways, an additional possibility to communicate with competent 
authorities through electronic means in matters concerning cross-border protection of adults. At the same time, the 
competent authorities would be obliged to communicate  among themselves through electronic means, subject to 
certain exceptions. Digitalisation of this area would build on the experience with the digitalisation of the other 
areas  of  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  under  the  Service  of  Documents*  and  the  Taking  of  Evidence* 
regulations and the digitalisation proposal*. In line with the digital by default principle, the European Certificate of 
Representation would likewise be digital-ready and could thus be requested and issued electronically. 

Finally, an EU regulation would provide for an interconnection of registers of protection measures and (confirmed) 
powers  of  representation.  In  a  number  of  situations,  competent  authorities  need  to  verify  the  legal  capacity  of 
persons. If a person is placed under a protection measure abroad, these authorities currently do not have access to 
this information. The lack of cross-border access to data on the existing protection of an adult abroad creates practical 
difficulties and (for instance in criminal proceedings, forced hospitalisation or settlement of an estate) prevents the 
adults concerned from being fully supported, thus endangering their rights. This could concern primarily the courts 
responsible for taking protection measures, but also other competent authorities such as notaries, public prosecutors, 
and authorities in charge of business registers or land registers. During consultations undertaken in the context of 
this impact assessment, stakeholders considered that the interconnection of registers would be one of the most useful 
measures that could be introduced by an EU legislation164.  

For details concerning these measures, see Annex 6. For the explanation of related costs, see Annex 4. 

In contrast to Option 2, the rules contained in an EU regulation would apply only among EU Member 
States  (limited  territorial  scope).  There  would  be  no  compulsory  ratification  of  the  Convention.  The 

162 Under the Convention, it is a discretion of the Contracting Parties to the Convention whether they implement the provision 
on the possibility of individuals to request a certificate. Some Contracting Parties reported that they do not provide for those 
certificates.  
163 For more information on the ECR, see Annex 6. 
164 In the OPC*, the interconnection of national registries of protection measures* and (confirmed) powers of representation* 
has been ranked number 4 in the list of the most appropriate measures to facilitate the cross-border cooperation. 

32 

 
                                                 
Member States that are already a party to the Convention would thus continue to apply their rules vis-à-
vis other non-EU Contracting Parties but would apply the EU regulation vis-à-vis EU Member States165. 
The remaining Member States that are not Contracting Parties to the Convention would have no legal 
framework with regard to non-EU Member States.  

5.2.3  5.2.3  Option 4: Combined option (Ratification of the Convention* and the adoption of the EU 

Regulation) (‘PO4’)  

Policy Option 4 would consist in adopting both (i) the Council decision obliging Member States to join 
the Convention* within a certain timeframe and (ii) the EU regulation including the rules mentioned in 
the Box 1 and 2 above. Through the combination of both internal and external EU action, vulnerable 
adults living in the EU would enjoy the widest possible protection – both in the EU and other Contracting 
States to the Convention (wide territorial scope). In addition, the rules applicable among Member States 
would build on the rules contained in the Convention, thus further facilitating their functioning  (wide 
material scope). 

The  combination  of  external  action  and  an  EU  internal  legislation  is  not  new  in  European  private 
international  law.  Prominent  examples  of  this  approach  are  found  in  the  law  of  international  child 
abduction and the law of maintenance obligations166. The combination of universal and regional rules 
rests on the idea that the EU may want to espouse a set of worldwide standards (the Convention*), but 
implement  them  regionally  in  accordance  with  its  own  values  and  in  a  manner  that  reflects  the  high 
degree of mutual trust that exists between its Member States167. 

5.3  5.3 

Discarded policy options 

It was explained above (section 3), why a directive or a recommendation are not a suitable to achieve 
the  objectives  of  the  initiative  given  the  need  for  uniform  rules  that  would  be  consistently  applied 
throughout the EU.  

In addition, it could be possible to consider a staged approach – first a ratification of the Convention by 
all Member States, followed later by an EU regulation. In fact, this staged approach is not excluded by 
Option 2 which suggests only the ratification of the Convention at this stage but does not rule out the 
possibility of EU Regulation at a later stage. However, this staged approach would have marked negative 
impacts  in  terms  of  adjustment  costs  incurred  twice,  opportunity  missed  to  modernise  judicial 
cooperation and to  establish interoperable  IT systems, as well as multiple  changes  of  rules over  time 
undermining legal certainty168. Given the hypothetical nature and the hypothetical content of a postponed 
Regulation in that scenario, this approach is not specifically analysed in this report.  

165 Arguably, this would create two different legal regimes – under the Convention and the EU regulation. In practice, legal 
practitioners would have to distinguish which of the two instruments should be used depending on the habitual residence of 
the adult in question. Since this habitual residence may change in time, this determination could be rather cumbersome in 
practice.  
166  Regulation  (EU)  2019/1111  on  matrimonial  matters  and  matters  of  parental  responsibility  lays  down  rules  on  child 
abduction that build on the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction. For 
its part, Regulation (EU) No 4/2009 on maintenance obligations reflects the solutions in the Hague Convention of 2007 on 
the recovery of child support. It incorporates, by way of a reference in Article 15, the Hague Protocol of 2007 on the  law 
applicable to maintenance obligations. 
167 This is also in full compliance with the rules of the Convention* itself, which provides, in its Art. 49, that Contracting 
States may conclude agreements which contain different rules in respect of adults habitually resident in those States (para. 2) 
or rules with general application which do not affect the application of the provisions of the Convention (para. 3). 
168 It was also for these reasons that this approach was considered undesirable in particular by some of those Member States 
that are currently not Contracting Parties to the Convention. Dividing the process of the introduction of new rules into two 
stages would mean additional burden and adjustment costs placed on competent authorities and legal practitioners.  

33 

 
                                                 
It  could  also  be  conceivable  to  propose  a  limited  EU  initiative  with  a  narrower  scope  than  the 
Convention. However, this was considered as counterproductive, in view of the existence of an efficient 
international  instrument  in  the  area,  to  which  11  Member  States  are  already  party.  None  of  the 
stakeholders  or  the  experts  consulted  have  even  contemplated  an  alternative  to  the  ratification  of  the 
Convention and/or to a similar EU Regulation. That option would require the use of resources by the EU 
and Member States, to eventually fall short of the achievements of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults 
Convention. 

6 

6  WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE POLICY OPTIONS? 

6.1  6.1 

Achievement of policy objectives by the policy options 

It should first be examined whether the policy options are ‘fit for purpose’, that is, whether they achieve 
the General Policy Objective of protecting rights, including fundamental rights, of vulnerable adults as 
well as the Specific Objectives 1, 2 and 3169.  

The achievement of the policy objectives by Option 1 (baseline scenario) would largely depend on the 
rate at which Member States take up the Convention*. It was described above that the prospects that all 
Member States become Contracting Parties to the Convention soon are rather unrealistic, thus leading to 
limited achievement of the policy objectives and to the impacts described above in the Section Expected 
impact  of  the  baseline  scenario  (Policy  Option  1).  Policy  option  1  was  thus  discarded  as  it  does  not 
satisfactorily achieve the objectives. 

Option  2  would  achieve  each  of  the  specific  objectives  but  only  to  some  extent.  The  compulsory 
ratification  of  the  HCCH  2000  Protection  of  Adults  Convention*  would  increase  legal  certainty  in 
cross-border situations within the EU and with non-EU Contracting States. Since the rules on jurisdiction, 
applicable  law  and  on  recognition  and  enforcement  would  be  common  to  all  Member  States,  all 
vulnerable  adults,  their  families  and  representatives  could  be  aware  of  the  rules  applicable  to  the 
cross-border situations they might face. Rules requiring Contracting States to establish simple and rapid 
enforcement procedures would tend to make proceedings faster and less expensive. The ratification of 
the  Convention  would  lead  to  easier  cooperation  between  Member  States’  competent  authorities, 
especially through Central Authorities*. Nevertheless, the opportunity to modernise and complement the 
rules in the Convention to fully achieve the objectives of the initiative would be missed as no EU rules 
complementing the Convention would be adopted under this policy option. In addition, the experience 
of some competent authorities with the Convention shows that even under the Convention, procedures 
remain  expensive  and  time-consuming  and  that  cooperation  between  Member  States’  competent 
authorities is not used to the full extent possible. 

This conclusion was confirmed by the stakeholder consultations conducted in the context of this impact 
assessment where the largest majority of stakeholders opined that the PO2 would be  only somewhat 
effective in achieving the policy objectives170. 

169 These are: to increase legal certainty for all persons and competent authorities involved (Specific objective 1); to facilitate 
the  cross-border  recognition  of  protection  measures  and  powers  of  representation  (Specific  objective  2);  and  to  make 
proceedings faster and less expensive (Specific objective 3).  
170 Approximately 35% of interviewees believed that the PO2 would not be effective at increasing legal certainty, while 38% 
believed it could be at least to some extent effective. Approximately 38% of stakeholders indicated that the PO2 could be 
effective at facilitating the recognition of protection measures or powers of representation*, while 38% had no opinion and 
almost 24% of interviewees perceived it as ineffective. Approximately 32.3% of interviewees believed that the PO2 could be 
effective at making proceedings faster and less expensive.  

34 

 
                                                 
Figure 5: The effectiveness of the PO2 in achieving the policy objectives of the PA initiative* as perceived by stakeholders (Source: Study 
by an external contractor*) 

Option 3 would meet the specific objectives to a greater extent than PO2 since all the basic rules of the 
Convention*  would  be  included  in  the  regulation  and  more  provisions  would  be  added  to  further 
streamline  the  rules.  The  additional  rules  (e.g.  rules  concerning  the  limitation  of  grounds  for 
non-recognition  or  on  the  abolition  of  exequatur)  would  facilitate  the  circulation  of  protection 
measures, and powers of representation*. With these additional elements and more extensive legal aid, 
proceedings would become much less expensive for adults and their representatives. They would also be 
faster thanks to the multilingual European Certificates of Representation with presumed validity, rapid 
and  efficient  digital  communication,  and  cross-border  access  to  registries  of  protection  measures  and 
(confirmed)  powers  of  representation.  However,  this  option  also  has  some  shortcomings.  These 
objectives would only be met within the EU, meaning that the current situation and related problems 
would remain unchanged when vulnerable adults find themselves in cross-border situations between an 
EU Member State that has not ratified the Convention* and other non-EU countries. It would also create 
two substantially different legal regimes – under the Convention and the EU regulation. In practice, in 
the  States  applying  both  the  EU  regulation  and  the  Convention,  legal  practitioners  would  have  to 
distinguish which of the two instruments should be used on the basis of a complex set of criteria: the 
adult’s  habitual  residence  or  nationality  or  the  location  of  his  or  her  property.  Since  the  criteria  (in 
particular  habitual  residence)  may  change  in  time,  this  determination  could  be  rather  cumbersome  in 
practice. This could affect legal certainty.  

Figure 6: The effectiveness of the PO3 in achieving the policy objectives of the PA initiative* as perceived by stakeholders (Source: Study 
by an external contractor*) 

In Option 4, an EU regulation comparable to the one proposed in Option 3 would become applicable 
within the EU, and therefore would respond to the specific objectives in the same way. In this ‘package’ 
option however, the regulation would only complement the Convention*. Without going into the details 
of the legislative technique, this option would make the Convention’s provisions on  jurisdiction and 
applicable law applicable to all cross-border cases (identical rules within and outside the EU), and at the 
same time establish simplified rules for recognition and cooperation for EU Member States. In addition 

35 

 
 
 
to  those effects, EU Member States would be obliged to ratify the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults 
Convention*,  which  would  ensure  a  greater  legal  certainty,  the  facilitation  of  the  recognition  of 
protection measures, as well as faster and less expensive proceedings in relation to cross-border cases 
involving a non-EU Contracting States to the Convention171.  

Figure 7: The effectiveness of the PO4 in achieving the policy objectives of the PA initiative* as perceived by stakeholders (Source: Study 
by an external contractor*) 

In conclusion, policy options 2, 3 and 4 meet the objectives and can thus be analysed.  

The degree of fulfilment of the general and specific objectives differs depending on the options proposed. 
The more extensively the specific objectives are achieved by each policy option, to the greatest extent 
are rights protected, including fundamental rights of the persons concerned.  

-  The first Special objective of increasing the level of legal certainty is achieved most satisfactorily under 
Option 4. Options 1 and 2 enable such an increase because of the common rules under the Convention, though 
at a much slower pace under Option 1. These two options do not fully achieve legal certainty due to the areas 
of unclarity and the gaps in the rules set by the Convention. Option 3 fully achieves legal certainty, but only 
provided that the basic rules laid down in the regulation are aligned to those of the Convention. Option 4 
achieves the highest increase in legal certainty as it ensures a full harmonisation of the rules across Member 
States both within the EU and vis-à-vis non-EU Contracting Parties to the Convention.  

-  The  second  Special  objective  of  facilitating  the  recognition  of  protection  measures  and  powers  of 
representation is best achieved under Options 3 and 4. Options 1 and 2 partially achieve the objective, mainly 
because the Convention harmonises and simplifies the recognition of protection measures. Options 3 and 4 
both fully achieve the objective, as not only all types of measures would be covered but also  recognition* of 
powers of representation. An EU regulation under PO3 and 4 would also simplify and streamline the rules, 
thus maximising the positive effect on predictability of these options172. Option 4 would in addition expand 
the scope of recognition to non-EU Contracting Parties*.  

-  The third Special objective of making proceedings faster and less expensive is achieved the most optimally 
under Options 3 and 4. The objective is partially achieved under Option 2, and to a much lesser extent under 
Option 1: whereas the minimum degree of harmonisation of the rules across the EU and the setup of Central 
Authorities*  in  all  Member  States  would  most  likely  speed  up  procedures  and  reduce  the  number  of 
unnecessary proceedings (thus reducing costs), experience shows that  some  procedures remain expensive, 
and that cooperation between Contracting States’ competent authorities remains difficult. Option 3, and even 
more Option 4, provide for further streamlining in that regard with additional mechanisms for cooperation.  

171 This would benefit not only adults living in those non-EU Contracting States but also those adults living in the EU who 
have some relation to the non-EU Contracting States (such as owning immovable property in those States). 
172 A regulation would in addition provide additional tools to increase legal certainty: European Certificate of Representation 
will for instance diminish the legal uncertainty faced by non-judicial actors such as banks when determining what powers a 
representative of an adult has. Factsheets on national laws available on the e-Justice Portal would provide reliable and readily 
accessible information on the national substantive rules applicable to a case.  

36 

 
 
 
                                                 
Based on the above, Options 3 and 4 achieve the objectives to the highest extent, with Option 4 being 
the most effective in achieving the intended objectives.  

6.2  6.2 

Impacts of the Policy Options 2, 3 and 4 

This section assesses the impact of all the policy options that envisage an EU intervention (PO2, PO3 
and PO4). Impacts of the baseline scenario (PO1) were described above. 

The following main impacts will be assessed: (1) legal impacts (impact on rights of vulnerable adults 
and  impact  on  legal  environment);  (2) social  impacts  (including  the  impact  on  emotional  and 
psychological wellbeing of adults and their families, their economic welfare and equality); (3) economic 
impacts  (including  both  costs  implications  and  macroeconomic  impacts)  and  (4) impacts  on  the 
digitalisation of justice. Other minor impacts were also assessed (such as impact on non-EU States or 
impact  on  SDGs).  All  the  impacts  described  below  are  intended  ones173.  No  relevant  environmental 
impact  or impact  on competitiveness  are expected. The analysis of impacts  also  includes a  foresight 
component as  the baseline against which the policy options are assessed took  into account  the future 
demographic changes in the EU (aging of the population and increasing mobility) and the likelihood that 
other non-EU States join the Convention in the future174. 

While the biggest difference with the current status quo would be felt by adults* who are the main target 
group  of  the  policy  intervention,  other  stakeholders  would  also  be  positively  affected  by  the  policy 
options. These include for instance: families and representatives of adults, competent authorities of 
Member  States  and  all  legal  professionals  dealing  with  vulnerable  adults.  In  addition,  other 
non-judicial  actors  (such  as  medical  staff,  social  workers,  banks  and  insurance  companies)  would 
indirectly benefit from the simplification of the legal context and from the tools that would facilitate their 
work in cross-border cases (such as the ECR* under some POs)175.  

The impacts would be distributed among Member States since all Member States would be able to benefit 
from  the  uniform  harmonised  rules  covering  the  entire  EU  (or  under  some  options  even  a  wider 
geographical area). However, adjustment costs under PO2 and 4 may be comparatively higher for those 
Member States that are not Contracting States to the Convention* yet and would have to put in place 
processes  and  appoint  authorities  to  comply  with  the  rules  in  the  Convention.  Under  PO3  and  4,  all 
Member States would bear some costs; however, adjustment costs borne by Member States that are not 
Contracting States yet would be higher than for Contracting States176. 

6.2.1  6.2.1  Legal impacts  

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

173 Any possible unintended effects could be mitigated as the legislation would provide for a refusal ground* based on public 
policy,  which  may block  the  recognition of  foreign decisions or private  acts, in  individually justified cases, including for 
example in cases involving human trafficking, fraud, breach of fundamental rights of the parties involved or denial of justice. 
In addition, the courts that have jurisdiction may modify or withdraw protection measures or adopt new ones in cases where 
the situation of an adult changes or in other cases, including where necessary to protect the adult and/or in cases of abuse.  
174 For more information, see the Section on the impact on non-EU States. 
175 Given the diversity of these stakeholders, including whether they are public or private entities, the positive impacts on this 
group  are  not  specifically  elaborated.  Other  stakeholder  groups  such  as  businesses,  including  SMEs,  are  unlikely  to  be 
significantly affected by the policy options. The impact on such groups is therefore also not included in the analysis. 
176 This is for instance because the non-Contracting States would have to set up Central Authorities* and have other adjustment 
costs concerning the introduction of the new PIL* rules.  

37 

 
                                                 
6.2.1.1  Legal impact on adults, including on their fundamental rights 

By harmonising the PIL* rules applicable to the protection of adults in the EU and facilitating cooperation 
in this field, the POs 2, 3 and 4 would help to solve the existing problems faced by adults* and ensure 
that the negative effects on their rights (as described in Section 2) do not materialise. For instance, by 
facilitating the recognition abroad of powers of representation* drawn up by the adults*, the adults’ right 
to  self-determination  and  autonomy  would  be  preserved  in  cross-border  situations.  Problems 
concerning their access to justice (including in accessing legal assistance and representation) would also 
be mitigated through (i) the increased legal certainty and (ii) the streamlined and less burdensome and 
costly  procedures  resulting  from  the  adoption  of  any  policy  option177.  Similarly,  as  the  problems 
experienced  by  adults  in  cross-border  situations  may  deter  them  from  exercising  their  right  to  free 
movement  (see  Section 2),  the  policy  options  would  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  right  to  free 
movement. As a result of the policy intervention, the fundamental rights of adults would thus be more 
protected in cross-border situations.  

Even though it is not possible to quantify the impact of policy options on rights of adults*, including 
their fundamental rights, this impact would be one of the most significant benefits of the PA initiative*. 
While all policy options have positive legal impacts, those policy options with a broader material and 
territorial scope cover more adults and/or facilitate their cross-border dealings to greater extent and as 
such have more positive legal impacts than those with a more limited scope. Therefore, in line with this 
assessment, PO4 (with wide territorial and wide material scope) would have the highest positive legal 
impacts. 

6.2.1.2  Impact on legal environment  

As the policy options would provide uniform PIL* rules for the protection of adults in the EU, discussed 
at  the  EJN-civil*  meetings  and  possibly  interpreted  by  the  CJEU,  they  would  contribute  to  the 
consistency  of  decisions  and  uniform  application  of  the  rules  among  Member  States  (by  avoiding 
conflicting decisions given by courts in different Member States) and facilitate the mutual recognition of 
protection measures and of powers of representation*. The new rules would also have to be interpreted 
in light of the UNCRPD*, thus further contributing to the harmony of decisions and providing a concrete 
way of implementing the UNCRPD. Besides, they would also simplify the current patchwork of rules 
and  increase  legal  predictability  for  all  parties  concerned,  including  for  competent  authorities. 
Ultimately, the policy options would ‘build bridges’ between legal systems and increase mutual trust 
among Member States in matters of the protection of adults.  

6.2.2  6.2.2  Social impacts 

Protection measures and powers of representation govern the representation/support of adults in various 
personal and property matters with a view to protecting their interests. Their improved circulation among 
Member States under POs 2, 3 and 4 could thus ensure that the adults’ protection is not disregarded in 
cross-border situations. This would in turn have positive impact on wellbeing of these adults and other 
positive social and psychological impacts.  

The presence of effective support and protection of vulnerable adults positively impacts their well-being, 
equality and psychological and mental health. Based on literature178 and stakeholder consultations, 
the lack of consistency concerning protection measures, the difficulty in identifying them, as well as the 
lack  of  access  to  justice  and  risk  of  financial  dispossession  are  factors  that  can  lead  to  a  detrimental 
impact on the vulnerable person’s well-being. It thus follows that an increase in legal certainty and the 

177 At the same time establishing and introducing digital channels under POs 3 and 4 would further improve access to justice.  
178 Bruder, C., Kroese, B., & Bland, S. (2005). The impact of a vulnerable adult protection policy on the psychological and 
emotional well‐being of adults with a learning disability. The Journal of Adult Protection, 7(3), p. 4–18., Sherwood-Johnson, 
F., Cross, B., & Daniel, B. (2013). The experience of being protected. Journal of Adult Protection, 15(3), p. 115–126. 

38 

 
                                                 
cross-border recognition of protection measures concerning adults that would be achieved through the 
adoption of uniform PIL* rules would have a positive impact on the general well-being of the adults. The 
swift  recognition  of  protection  measures  concerning  property  management  would  also  protect  the 
financial interests of the adult in cross-border situations and thus have positive effects on their welfare 
and  social  inclusion.  As  regards  the  psychological  dimension,  the  policy  options  would  diminish 
emotional  distress  thanks  to  the  increased  legal  certainty  and  the  reduction  of  problems  with  the 
recognition  of  protection  measures  that  they  will  bring  about.  The  emotional  dimension  is  also 
particularly relevant  as  regards families of vulnerable adults  given the increased strain,  expenses and 
uncertainty often placed on these family members when dealing with the protection measures abroad. 

Given their positive social impacts, the POs 2, 3 and 4 would be in line with the goals of the European 
Pillar of Social Rights, the Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the commitment of 
the EU to scale up its action in the area. 

The above-described social impacts are highly individual, and thus depend on the situation of each adult 
and differ in each jurisdiction. Therefore, the approach was taken in this report not to quantify the social 
impacts179. However, their importance in individual cases is always appreciable. While all policy options 
have positive social impacts, those policy options with a broader material and territorial scope cover more 
adults and/or further facilitate their cross-border dealings and as such have more positive social impacts 
than those with a more limited scope. Therefore, in line with this assessment, PO4 (with wide territorial 
and wide material scope) would have the highest positive social impacts. 

6.2.3  6.2.3  Economic impacts  

The following section assesses economic impacts of the POs 2, 3 and 4 and quantifies them to the extent 
possible. However, it should be noted that these quantifications are a result of numerous assumptions 
and simplifications that needed to be made in the absence of data and statistics on the scale of the problem 
and on the costs inherent to these problems. For details, see Annex 1 and Annex 4. The resulting estimates 
should thus be taken with caution.  

6.2.3.1  Impact on costs and administrative burden 

As a minimum, POs 2, 3 and 4 would provide uniform PIL* rules concerning the protection of adults. 
These uniform rules would significantly simplify the current system of diverse (and often contradictory) 
national PIL* rules on the matter. Due to this simplification and increased consistency and clarity, most 
affected stakeholder groups, in particular vulnerable adults (including their families and representatives) 
and competent authorities and practitioners, would experience considerable cost savings as compared to 
the baseline.  

6.2.3.1.1  6.2.3.1.1  Procedural  costs  borne  by  vulnerable  adults,  their  families  and 

representatives & by competent authorities 

Under POs 2, 3 and 4, vulnerable adults, their families and representatives would benefit from savings 
on costs of various arrangements, including medical assessment, travel, sworn translations of documents, 
and necessity of hiring legal assistance. Member States’ competent authorities would also benefit from 
savings on labour costs related to the shorter duration of judicial or administrative procedures, avoidance 
of duplicate procedures, better access to cross-border information, better international cooperation and 
digitalisation  (including  the  new  possibilities  of  accessing  the  interconnected  registers,  of  digital 
communication and of the European Certificate of Representation with presumed validity throughout the 
EU). Competent authorities would likewise benefit from the simplification of the PIL* rules. As an effect 
of the clearer legal framework and the lower incidence of court litigation, POs 2, 3 and 4 are estimated 

179 In contrast, the Parliament’s EAVA study* – Cost of Non-Europe Report on A European Code on Private International 
Law. CONE 3/2013 estimated that the overall emotional costs involved in resolving cross-border cases involving vulnerable 
adults are approximately EUR 11 million per annum.   

39 

 
                                                 
to generate a reduction in the time and effort needed by competent authorities to process cross-border 
cases concerning the protection of adults.  

Table 2: Overview of costs related to each policy option 

Option 1 (baseline) 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

Costs for vulnerable adults, their families and representatives 
Procedural 
costs* 

Costs  depending  on  the  nature  of 
the  case  (as  described  in  the 
illustrative  examples  in  Table 1), 
including among others:  
  Medical  assessment  costs 

including travel costs 

  Sworn translation 
  Registered letters 
  Certificates 
  Legal assistance 

The  costs  borne  by  adults,  their 
families  and  representatives  are 
higher in MS that are not parties to 
the Convention*  

With  all  MS  ratifying  the 
Convention,  the  costs  in 
four out of eight illustrative 
examples (1, 6, 7, and 8) are 
reduced 
considerably 
(depending on the example, 
these  are  costs  of  legal 
assistance, travel, additional 
medical  expertise,  sworn 
etc.). 
This 
translation, 
results 
cost 
in  overall 
savings  as  compared  to  the 
baseline. 

Costs for competent authorities  
Procedural 
costs* 

Costs  in  terms  of  hours  of  labour 
required  to  handle  the  cases  are 
estimated  at  1–4  hours  depending 
on  the  illustrative  example.  The 
costs  are  higher  for  MS  not  being 
parties 
the  HCCH  2000 
Protection of Adults Convention *.  

to 

four  out  of 

With  all  MS  ratifying  the 
Convention*,  the  costs  of 
handling cross-border cases 
eight 
in 
illustrative  examples  are 
reduced  with  respect  to  all 
MS.  This  results  in  overall 
cost savings as compared to 
the baseline. 

Cost  savings  as  in 
Option 3.  
Additional  savings 
for 
cases 
the 
involving  non-EU 
Contracting States. 

are 
or 

Thanks to the Regulation, 
the costs in all illustrative 
either 
examples 
reduced 
fully 
eliminated. Depending on 
the  example,  these  are 
costs  of  legal  assistance, 
travel,  medical  expertise, 
sworn  translation,  etc.). 
This results in overall cost 
savings  as  compared  to 
the baseline as well as to 
PO2. 

Cost  savings  as  in 
Option 3. 
Additional 
costs 
savings  on  labour 
costs  for  handling 
the  cases  involving 
non-EU Contracting 
States. 

to 

Thanks 
the 
Regulation,  the  costs  in 
terms of hours of labour 
required  to  handle  the 
cases in six out of eight 
illustrative  examples  (1, 
3,  4,  6,  7,  and  8)  are 
eliminated, 
the 
illustrative  example  5 
they are reduced, and in 
the  illustrative  example 
2  they  increase  due  to 
issue 
need 
the 
certificates 
for 
protection measures. 

in 

to 

To quantify these costs savings on ‘procedural costs’ for adults and competent authorities, the same set 
of scenarios described above was used (see the details in Table 1). The table below shows the calculation 
of average cost savings per vulnerable adult in cross-border situation under POs3 and 4.  

Table 3: Total procedural cost savings per case averaged across all Member States in Option 3 and 4 (EUR) - Source: Study by external 
contractor* 

Illustrative 
Example 1 

Illustrative 
Example 2 

Illustrative 
Example 3 

Illustrative 
Example 4 

Illustrative 
Example 5 

Illustrative 
Example 6 

Illustrative 
Example 7 

Illustrative 
Example 8 

Gains 
(average 
costs 
savings)  

2 919 

9 187 

1 660 

2 424 

2 748 

340 

40 

786 

It follows that for each case of cross-border protection, the savings made by an adult, a representative 
or the family of the adult in PO3 and PO4 range, on average, from EUR 40 to EUR 9 000. 

6.2.3.1.2  6.2.3.1.2  Costs resulting from a possible EU intervention  – borne by Member 

States 

Notably, the various policy options would introduce no new costs or administrative burden to be borne 
by vulnerable adults, their representatives or families.  

However,  unlike  individuals,  Member  States’  competent  authorities  would  have  to  also  bear  certain 

40 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
adjustment costs* generated by the various policy options. Some of these adjustment costs would be 
one-off and some recurrent. 

-  For instance, one-off costs for Member States could arise for the  introduction of the new PIL* rules in 
matters concerning the protection of adults with cross-border implications. These costs would however be 
virtually non-existent for those Member States that are already Contracting Parties*. Under POs 2 and 4, this 
would also include the ratification of the Convention* by Member States that are not Contracting States. In 
contrast, none of the policy options would oblige Member States to change their national substantive law* in 
this area180. 

-  As is the case with any legislation, one-off and recurrent costs would also arise for the familiarisation with 
a  new  legal  framework  and  regular  training  of  judges  and  legal  professionals.  Depending  on  the  policy 
option, these would be significantly lower (or none in case of PO2 in Member States that are Contracting 
States). The full realisation of the benefits from the European Certificate of Representation under POs 3 and 
4 may also require some accompanying measures, such as communication campaigns. 

-  Under POs 2, 3 and 4, fifteen Member States would have to set up Central Authorities* that will coordinate 
and facilitate the implementation of the Convention*. These costs were estimated as limited, based on the 
experience with setting up these authorities in the present Contracting States.  

-  PO3 and 4 would include provisions that would extend legal aid to additional categories of formalities in 
cross-border situations that currently cannot benefit from the national or EU legal aid arrangements. This 
would entail additional costs for the provision of such aid. However, quantitative data assessing such costs 
are  very  limited.  It  is  challenging  to estimate in  how many  cross-border cases of  adults  it  would  actually 
apply. Nevertheless, it is not expected that the provision of legal aid in some cross-border cases would create 
a  significant  economic  burden  on  the  public  finances  of  Member  States  considering  the  small  number  of 
vulnerable adults in cross-border situations estimated, and the limited categories of additional costs covered181. 

-  Under POs 3 and 4, Member States would incur additional IT-related costs for implementing the provisions 
concerning  the  digitalisation  of  this  area182  (such  as  the  possibilities  for  issuing  electronic  European 
Certificates of Representation, and/or for electronic communication channels). With respect to the latter, and 
in line with the approach for digitalising other areas of civil justice, the European Commission could provide 
a common reference implementation software solution. A decentralised IT system is already adopted for the 
purposes of other instruments183. Moreover, the establishment of a European electronic access point has been 
proposed  under  the  digitalisation  proposal*  for  certain  areas  of  cross-border  judicial  cooperation  in  civil 
matters184. This IT infrastructure developed for the purposes of other legal acts could easily be built upon in 
order to support the digitalisation of a regulation on the protection of adults. In this regard, significant costs 
savings are expected given the economies of scale. Moreover, Member States’ competent authorities could 
benefit from grants under current and future EU programmes185.  

Additional IT-related adjustment costs* would also include the regular maintenance costs for the digital 
solutions  established  through  the  regulation.  The  PO3  and  4  could  also  envisage  the  interconnection  of 
national registers concerning protection measures* and (confirmed) powers of representation*. This would 
entail making existing registers interoperable for the interconnection, but in some Member States also creating 
protection registers or digitalising them.  

180 However, in practice, the ratification of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention* often served as an impetus to 
revise substantive national law and modernise it: a very recent example is given by Malta which signed the Convention on 11 
November 2022. The Maltese reform of the law on the protection of adult was carried out together with the preparatory work 
for the ratification of the Convention.  
181 For more details on a possible provision on legal aid, see Annex 6. 
182 The costs for digitalisation are expected to be rather low and will be offset considering that horizontal digital solutions for 
cross-border judicial cooperation are already being implemented. For details, see Annex 4. 
183 The system will be applied as of May 2025 for the Service of Documents* and Taking of Evidence* Regulations.  
184 Including in matters of parental responsibility, succession and maintenance matters under the Brussels IIb Regulation*,   
the Succession Regulation and the Maintenance Regulation respectively. 
185 Such as the Justice programme and the cohesion policy instruments under the current Multiannual Financial Framework. 

41 

 
                                                 
While the majority of costs listed above are not significant, the IT-related costs for the interconnection of 
national registers are comparatively higher. They are thus quantified separately from the remainder of the 
costs to ensure clarity186 (see Annex 4). 

In addition to the adjustment costs*, additional enforcement costs* associated with activities such as 
monitoring of the application of the legislation or costs related to international cooperation within the 
framework of the Convention can be expected*. In particular, under POs 2, 3 and 4, sufficient resources 
would need to be provided to the Central Authorities* to ensure their effective functioning. Related 
costs  would  however  not  be  significant  since  in  practice  the  majority  of  Contracting  States  to  the 
Convention attributed the function of a Central Authority* to their ministries of justice without further 
requirements in terms of additional staffing187. Relying on the data provided by several Member States, 
an  average  annual  cost  of  EUR  10  562  per  Member  State  for  running  the  Central  Authority*  was 
estimated  (methodology  detailed  in  Annex 4).  Of  course,  these  costs  would  be  outweighed  by  the 
above-described cost savings on procedural costs* by competent authorities. 

Table 4: Overview of costs for each policy option 

Option 1 
(baseline) 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

Costs for competent authorities  
Adjustment 
costs* 

No adjustment 
costs  (no  new 
legal 
instrument). 

Costs related to the ratification 
of 
by 
the  Convention 
remaining  MS,  incl.  labour 
costs. 

Cost  arising  from  the  need  to 
familiar  with  a  new 
get 
training, 
legislation, 
communication.  

One-off  cost  for  set  up  of 
Central 
in 
non-Contracting Parties.  

Authorities 

Enforcement 
costs* 

No 
enforcement 
costs189.  

Recurrent costs for running the 
Central  Authorities*  for  all 
MS. 

such 

activities 

Enforcement  costs  associated 
with 
as 
monitoring  of  the  application 
of  the  Convention  or  with 
international 
cooperation 
within  the  framework  of  the 
Convention. 

related 

Costs 
the 
introduction of  new  PIL  rules 
provided in the Regulation.  

to 

Cost  arising  from  the  need  to 
familiar  with  a  new 
get 
legislation, 
training, 
communication.  

Costs  of  additional  measures, 
such as costs of digitalisation, 
of  setting  up  and  maintaining 
of 
interconnection 
the 
registers, costs of legal aid, etc. 

One-off  cost  for  set  up  of 
Central Authorities in MS that 
are non-Contracting Parties188. 

Recurrent costs for running the 
Central Authorities* in all MS. 

such 

activities 

Enforcement  costs  associated 
with 
as 
monitoring  of  the  application 
of  the  Regulation  or  with  the 
the 
cooperation 
framework of the EJN-civil*. 

within 

Costs related to the ratification 
of 
by 
the  Convention 
remaining  MS,  incl.  labour 
costs. 

Cost  arising  from  the  need  to 
familiar  with  a  new 
get 
training, 
legislation, 
communication. 

Costs  of  additional  measures, 
such as costs of digitalisation, 
of  setting  up  and  maintaining 
the 
of 
interconnection 
registers, costs of legal aid, etc. 

One-off  cost  for  set  up  of 
Central Authorities in MS that 
are non-Contracting Parties. 
Recurrent costs for running the 
Central Authorities* in all MS. 

such 

activities 

Enforcement  costs  associated 
with 
as 
monitoring  of  the  application 
of  the  Convention  and  of  the 
the 
Regulation 
cooperation 
the 
framework  of  the  Convention 
and EJN-civil*. 

or  with 
within 

186 The costs for interconnecting Member States’ registers were estimated based on the comparable costs of interconnecting 
national insolvency registers. 
187 Contracting States to the Convention indicated that their Central Authorities* spend on average less than one FTE to ensure 
the smooth operation of the Convention (the estimates ranging from 0 to 0.5 days). See reply to Q 2.4 in the  Prel.Doc 9 of 
September 2022 Compilation of responses received to the September 2020 Questionnaire on the 2000 Protection of Adults 
Convention that was prepared by HCCH for discussion at the 2022 Special Commission*.  
188  The  EU  Regulation  under  PO3  would  establish  a  cooperation  mechanism  between  Member  States,  similar  to  the  one 
established by the Convention. This means that the Regulation would also set up a Central Authority in each Member State. 
189 Labour costs related to the enforcement of the Convention* occur only in MS which are already Contracting States to the 
Convention. 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 5: Comparison of costs and benefits per option (thousands EUR)190 (Source: Study by an external contractor*) 

Cost savings on procedural costs 

Savings on procedural costs* for 
vulnerable adults 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

10 years 

15 years 

10 years 

15 years 

10 years 

15 years 

814 211 

814 211 

2 548 887 

2 548 887 

2 599 865 

2 599 865 

Savings on procedural costs* for 
competent authorities 
Relevant adjustment & enforcement costs191 

14 661 

14 661 

8 119 

8 119 

8 282 

8 282 

Setting-up of the interconnection of 
Member States’ registers 
(one-off adjustment cost) 
Maintenance of the interconnection 
of Member States’ registers 
(recurrent adjustment cost) 
Implementation of the Convention 
(recurrent enforcement cost) 
Saldo (benefits – costs) 

0 

0 

0 

0 

10 303 

10 303 

10 303 

10 303 

55 327 

82 990 

55 327 

82 990 

1 584 

2 376 

1 584 

2 376 

1 584 

2 376 

827 288 

826 496 

2 489 793 

2 461 337 

2 540 933 

2 512 477 

According to the estimates detailed in Annex 4, Option 2 would result in net savings of ca. EUR 827 
million in the perspective of 10 years. Options 3 and 4 would result in much higher savings, in the range 
of EUR 2.46 - 2.54 billion, with Option 4 being slightly more beneficial than Option 3 due to higher 
savings on procedural costs*.  

-  Costs resulting from a possible EU intervention – borne by the European Commission  

The digitalisation of the area of the protection of adults under PO3 and PO4 would require investment in 
IT infrastructure. In line with the approach for digitalising other areas of civil justice, the Commission 
could provide Member States’ competent authorities with a common reference implementation software 
solution  to  facilitate  the  interoperable  communication  between  competent  authorities.  The  existing 
decentralised  IT  system  would  likely  require  certain  adjustments.  Likewise,  the  European  electronic 
access  point  on  the  e-Justice  Portal*  would  require  modifications  to  enable  digital  communication 
between citizens and competent authorities in the area of the adult’s protection. While at this stage it is 
not feasible to calculate the costs in this regard, they are expected to be comparable to those arising in 
relation to the digitalisation of other civil-justice instruments192.  

6.2.3.2  Macroeconomic impacts 

Given the relatively limited size of the population of vulnerable adults who are in cross-border situations, 
the different policy options are unlikely to have any substantial  macro-economic impacts across the 
Member States. 

190 Negative numbers indicate additional costs. 
191 Some other minor adjustment or enforcement costs can arise, as described in the Table 4 above, which were not quantified.  
192 These IT-related costs were estimated to be around EUR 300 000 per year during the development phase, as a one-off cost, 
with  recurrent  maintenance  costs  at  EUR  150  000  per  year.  In  addition,  the  costs  arising  for  the  Commission  from  the 
development  and  maintenance  of  the  solutions  interconnecting  the  Member  States’  registers  were  estimated  at  EUR  2.5 
million for the development and an average of EUR 238 000 annually for the maintenance of the system of interconnection. 
For details, see Annex 4. 

43 

 
  
 
                                                 
6.2.4  6.2.4  Digitalisation of justice and data protection impacts 

The HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention* does not include any provisions concerning digital 
communication or other digital tools. The PO2 (envisaging the compulsory ratification of the Convention 
by Member States) would thus not have any impact on digitalisation of the area.  

In  contrast,  an  EU  regulation  included  under  POs 3  and  4  would  be  coherent  with  the  ‘digital  by 
default’ principle and the EU policy on digitalisation of justice193. In particular, the regulation would 
provide for specific provisions on digitalisation of the cross-border procedures involving the protection 
of  adults,  as  described  in  Box  2,  while  building  on  the  precedents  in  that  area194.  These  rules  would 
include the mandatory use of digital communication channels for competent authorities in the area of 
adult protection, digital multilingual standard forms, and an electronic portal for the general public to 
have the possibility to make their requests in a digital way, including with regard to the ECR*.  

In addition, the regulation would propose interconnection of national registers of protection measures* 
and powers of representation*. This would entail, in several Member States, first setting up such national 
registers  or  digitalising  the  existing  ones195.  Such  interconnection  would  make  it  easier  to  obtain 
information about the legal capacity of adults to act in various cross-border contexts.  

The  introduction  of  the new  EU  digital  rules  concerning  the  protection  of  adults  could  also  have  the 
indirect effect to serve as a stimulus for the digitalisation of these processes at the Member States’ level 
also in cases without a cross-border dimension. The digitalisation of the procedures would further result 
in a higher security of the  communication and exchange of data  and increased transparency as to the 
validity of the documents submitted when seeking recognition.  

Overall,  the  digitalisation  measures  under  POs 3  and  4 would  positively  contribute  to  the  EU’s 
objectives on the digitalisation of justice. 

In addition, a regulation under POs 3 and 4 would provide a legal basis for the processing of personal 
data  of  natural  persons,  especially  those  of  protected  adults.  The  protection  of  such  data  would  be 
ensured  in  line  with  the  General  Data  Protection  Regulation*  and  EUDPR*.  The  Member  States’ 
competent  authorities  and,  in  some  cases196,  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 minimisation197  and purpose limitation.  For details 
concerning data protection impacts of the Regulation, see Annex 6. 

6.2.5  6.2.5 

Impact on non-EU countries 

The Policy options 2 and 4 also have a distinctive positive impact on non-EU countries. These policy 
options envisage that all EU Member States become  a party to  the  HCCH 2000  Protection of  Adults 
Convention*.  First,  other  non-EU  Contracting  Parties  to  the  Convention  (Switzerland,  the  United 
Kingdom (in respect to Scotland only) and Monaco) would thus immediately benefit from this enlarged 

193 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. 
194 See Service of Documents* and Taking of Evidence* regulations and digitalisation proposal*. 
195 Based on the available data from the Study by external contractor*, 6 Member States – BG, CY, EE, EL, PL and RO – do 
not have such national registers at the moment.  
196  With  regard  to  the  digital  solutions  that  the  Commission  would  provide  to  enable  digital  communication  and  the 
interconnection of registers.  
197 The processing of data under the regulation would likely include also special category of personal data since the information 
on protection measures often relates to health data. A higher protection and confidentiality would have to be ensured when 
processing this category of data. 

44 

 
                                                 
geographical coverage of the rules included in the Convention. As a result, adults living in the EU that 
have  a  connection  with  these  States  (e.g.  owning  a  property  in  these  States)  would  benefit  from  the 
improved protection of their rights. Adults living in these States who also have a link with the EU would 
likewise benefit from the uniform rules introduced by the Convention.  

The ratification of the Convention by all Member States would also likely encourage other non-EU States 
to follow suit and join the Convention198. In fact, once a certain matter has become an EU policy area, it 
can also be promoted by the EU vis-à-vis non-EU countries199.  

6.2.6  6.2.6 

Impact on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 

The impacts of the policy options on Sustainable Development Goal 1 (reduction of poverty), Goal 3 
(access to health), Goal 10 (reduction of inequalities) and Goal 16 (peace and justice) are directly linked 
to the social and legal impacts described above. Consequently, Options 3 and 4 would have the strongest 
positive impact on reaching these SDGs. 

7 

7  HOW DO THE OPTIONS COMPARE? 

The comparison considers POs 2, 3 and 4, while comparing them with the baseline (PO1). The options 
are mutually exclusive, and their potential combination is therefore not taken into consideration for the 
purposes of the comparison.  

Based on the detailed assessment of the policy options above, the table below provides an overview of 
the rating of each policy option. In the multi-criteria decision analysis, a score was given to each policy 
option,  theoretically  going  from  ‘---’  (negative  impact)  to  ‘+++’  (positive  impact)200  based  on  three 
criteria: (i) effectiveness in achieving the policy objectives, (ii) efficiency in terms of costs and benefits 
from the option, (iii) coherence of the option with existing policy initiatives and legal frameworks, in 
particular in the area of fundamental rights and UNCRPD*.  

The first criterion, effectiveness was defined as the extent to which the policy options achieve the policy 
objectives of the PA initiative*. The assessment of effectiveness was thus detailed in Section 6.1 on the 
achievement of policy objectives. To avoid double counting, the extent to which policy options achieve 
the  General  objective  of  protecting  fundamental  rights  of  vulnerable  adults  and  legal  impacts  of  the 
options have been assessed together under the coherence criterion. The second criterion, efficiency was 
defined as the extent to which the benefits of the policy option exceed its costs. It includes the indicators 
such as procedural costs*, adjustment costs*, and other economic impacts. For this criterion the different 
signs of the scores should be read as benefits and costs. Finally, the last criterion of coherence assesses 
to which extent the policy options are aligned with other EU instruments, law and policies. This criterion 
includes: (i) the legal impact of policy options on fundamental rights of vulnerable adults, including the 
right to free movement as these are protected under EU law, in particular the Charter, the Treaties and 
the  UNCRPD*;  (ii)  EU  policies  aimed  at  increasing  the  protection  of  vulnerable  adults  and  their 

198 As shown by Figure 10: Number of Contracting Parties bound by the core HCCH Conventions. (Source: HCCH), the 
number of Contracting States to each convention remains low at the beginning but begins to increase steeply as soon as a 
‘critical mass’ of States becomes signatories of these conventions. This is logical – if a State can apply a convention with only 
vis-à-vis a few other contracting parties, the effort needed for the ratification of the convention may perhaps seem less justified 
given its limited benefit. This however changes if the ratification meant an instant creation of a legal framework with many 
other contracting parties. 
199 This can be relevant for instance in relation to countries that are or may become candidates for future EU accession. 
200 In this logic, ‘+/-’ represents the baseline. The baseline is a dynamic one, meaning that even though the situation concerning 
the protection of vulnerable adults would deteriorate in the future (due to the expected demographic changes) without any EU 
intervention, the baseline does not have negative scores. However, it is for these reasons (that the situation does not improve 
under the baseline or even further deteriorates) that the baseline was discarded. 

45 

 
                                                 
fundamental rights, such as the Disability Strategy; (iii) synergies with the EU policy on digitalisation; 
and (iv) existing EU acquis in the area of civil justice.201  

Table 6: Comparison of policy options 

Effectiveness 

Specific obj. 1 Increased legal certainty 

Specific obj. 2 Improved cross-border recognition of protection 
measures and powers of representation 

Specific obj. 3 Reduced costs and length of the proceedings 

Efficiency  

Coherence  
Coherence  with  EU  legal  and  policy  framework,  including  the 
impact on fundamental rights of adults  
TOTAL 

PO1 
(baseline) 
discarded 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

+/- 

0 

Policy options 

PO2 

PO3 

PO4 

+ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

++ 

9 

++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

+++ 

++ 

13 

+++ 

15 

The total corresponds to the sum of ‘+’ and ‘-’, where one + equals 1 point, +/- equals 0 points, and one ‘–’ equals -1 point. 

Based on the analysis carried out above, Option 4 seems to be the most satisfactory option. This is 
also consistent with the views of most stakeholders. For instance, five out of six participants in one focus 
group*202 indicated Option 4 as the preferred option. 

In the above matrix, all assessment criteria were given the same importance (weight). Nevertheless, the 
importance given to each of these criteria can vary. As an alternative, a greater weight could be given to 
the criterion of coherence, which includes the crucial assessment of the extent to which each of the policy 
options  protects  the  fundamental  rights  of  the  adults.  If  the  criterion  of  coherence  and  impact  on 
fundamental rights was given a greater weight, the results of the analysis would nevertheless remain the 
same, with PO4 as the preferred option. 

8 

8  PREFERRED OPTION 

Based on the above analysis, Policy Option 4, whereby the EU would adopt both (i) the Council decision 
obliging  Member  States  to  ratify  the  Convention*  within  a  specific  timeframe  and  (ii) a  Regulation 
complementing the rules of the Convention*, is the preferred option.  

In PO4, all problems described in Section 2 (lack of legal certainty, lengthy and costly proceedings, and 
non-recognition of protection measures* and powers of representation*) would be solved to the extent 
possible, while avoiding the respective limitations of PO2 and PO3. Since it is practically and legally 
impossible to make a clear distinction between intra-EU and extra-EU situations, PO4 would maximise 
the geographical scope of the initiative, and safeguard the fundamental rights of adults* on the long term 
regardless  of  whether  their  trajectory/assets  involves  non-EU  States.  Since  a  part  of  the  rules  of  the 
Convention* would apply to the EU as well, merely being supplemented in certain aspects at EU level, 
this option also ensures that practitioners apply a single, simplified set of rules in EU and non-EU cases. 
The regulation would provide for the establishment of a European Certificate of Representation (ECR*), 

201 As regards (i) and (ii), the scoring of each policy option is based on legal impacts, especially impact on fundamental rights 
of adults, described in Section 6.2.1. As regards (iii), the synergies of policy options with the EU policy of digitalisation is 
detailed in Section 6.2.4. Finally, as regards (iv), all policy options are fully coherent with the existing EU acquis in the civil 
justice area, the scoring of options is thus the same on this aspect.  
202 Focus groups* were organised by the external contractor* as a part of consultations. See details in Annex 9. 

46 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
substantially simplifying the proof of the powers entrusted to a representative. It would also modernise 
the cross-border cooperation and allow the use of tools that have proven their effectiveness in other areas, 
such as the EJN-civil* or the e-Justice Portal*. All limitations in the operation of the Convention* that 
have been observed would be overcome within the EU. The CJEU would have jurisdiction to interpret 
both the EU regulation and the Convention, if necessary, thus increasing even more legal certainty for 
adults.  

The preferred Policy Option 4 will not create any new administrative requirements on individuals and 
will  thus  add  no  additional  administrative  costs  for  individuals.  On  the  contrary,  Option  4  will 
significantly reduce the administrative costs for individuals203. The objectives of the ‘one in, one out’ 
approach are thus fully achieved by the initiative. (For details, see the OIOO* methodology in Annex 3 
and at the end of Annex 4.). 

In PO4, the EU action would comply with the principles of subsidiarity, as detailed in Section 3. In fact, 
this option is the only one which can at the same time (i) meet the strong expectations of many Member 
States already Contracting Party to the Convention and stakeholders not to derogate from the rules of the 
Convention* (in particular on jurisdiction and applicable law)204, and (ii) provide adults* with the tool 
that  was  unanimously  supported/requested  by  States  and  stakeholders  during  the  consultations:  the 
electronic  multilingual  ECR*.  The  principle  of  subsidiarity  is  therefore  maximised  in  PO4.  The 
ratification of the Convention* would in addition meet the general objective expressed by Member States 
to  support  a  multilateral  approach  in  international  cooperation  in  the  field  of  justice205.The 
complementing provisions on cooperation provided for in a Regulation, in particular the possibility to 
have  an  EU  document  asserting  their  rights  would  be  a  game  changer  for  all  adults*  in  cross-border 
situations.  

In terms of proportionality, both PO2 and PO1 achieve the objectives of the initiative only to a limited 
extent. The preferred option (PO4) on the other hand is the most ambitious policy option, and the one 
that most modifies the current legal framework. However, taking into account the primary objective of 
protection  of  fundamental  rights  of  adults,  and  the  positive  balance  in  terms  of  costs  engaged,  the 
preferred option remains proportionate. Indeed, the substantive scope of the preferred option would 
be  limited  to  what  is  necessary  to  achieve  the  policy  objectives,  in  particular  to  protect  the  rights, 
including fundamental rights, of adults in cross-border situations. For instance, given the lack of evidence 
of practical problems met by adults in cases involving the law applicable to advance directives* or ex 
lege* representation, which were mainly mentioned by the academia, the PA initiative* does not foresee 
additional EU provisions on applicable law in that respect. Another example of proportionality is that it 
would  be  optional  for  adults  and  their  representatives  whether  they  request  the  uniform  European 
Certificate of Representation that would be introduced by PO4206. In addition, the costs for competent 
authorities  anticipated  in  PO4  (through  the  interconnection  of  registers)  would  be  offset  by  the 

203 The amount of OIOO cost savings* (only savings by individuals on administrative costs) is estimated to approximately 
EUR 520 million over the period of 10–15 years. The estimated amount of savings is the same for 10 and 15 years, given 
the assumption used to calculate the savings, i.e. that every vulnerable adult in a cross-border situation will be affected by at 
least one of the problem identified in this report during his or her lifetime. 
204 This concern was expressed many times in the contributions to the OPC*, the ELI* report, the European Parliament’s 
report, during the Stakeholders meeting and the Member States meeting, as well as during the consultation of the EJN-civil*. 
Whenever an international convention and an EU regulation apply to the same matters, any difference in the wording or the 
substance of the rules on jurisdiction and applicable law may create significant issues in cross-border cases involving EU and 
non-EU Contracting States*. For more detail about the practical and legal implications, see the 2021 Legal Study*, p. 132, 
136, 138. Therefore, to avoid creating discrepancies and adding an extra layer of complexity for practitioners applying the 
Convention and the regulation, the PIL rules included in the regulation would be, as much as possible, aligned with those in 
those in the Convention. 
205 See the 2019 Council Conclusions on the future of civil justice cooperation. 
206 This certificate would not for instance invalidate the standardised forms developed by the HCCH. These or other similar 
forms however do not have the benefits of the ECR*, such as the presumed validity or uniform forms available in all EU 
languages that reduces the need for translations. 

47 

 
                                                 
corresponding reduction of procedural costs* for adults. Furthermore, it must be underlined that, in line 
with the development of e-government (digitalisation of public services) in general207, and digitalisation 
of justice in particular, the creation and/or digitalisation of national registers of protection measures and 
(confirmed) powers of representation will most likely be undertaken by Member States, independently 
of  this  initiative208.  They  will  hence  only  be  accelerated  by  the  initiative  and  streamlined  to  ensure 
interoperability. In that sense, as far as digitalisation and interconnection of registers is concerned, PO4 
would only accelerate an inevitable and expected development.  

Under PO4, all adults* would benefit from increased legal certainty and would feel safe travelling or 
moving abroad. Vulnerable adults would no longer (or to a much lesser extent) need to invest in litigation 
or to consult a lawyer/notary to have a protection measure recognised in another Member State (and in 
other non-EU Contracting States to the Convention). Thanks to the ECR*, the adults’ representatives 
would be able to manage the adults’ assets abroad more easily, e.g., access their bank account or sell 
their  property  abroad  when  needed.  In  addition,  banks,  insurance  companies,  medical  staff,  social 
workers or real estate agents would not face uncertainty as to the legal validity of foreign documents.  

Competent authorities (such as notaries) and lawyers could give their clients reliable advice, and access 
to foreign law when necessary. Similarly, courts and competent authorities would apply a consistent and 
uniform  legal  framework  throughout  the  EU,  which  would  decrease  their  workload  by  reducing  the 
length of cross-border proceedings and the complexity of judicial cooperation. They would communicate 
with  each  other  using  electronic  channels  through  EU  multilingual  forms,  streamlining  their  work  in 
cross-border cases  and reducing their administrative burden.  They would be better trained and would 
have, in case of a problem, the possibility to ask Central Authorities* and refer a question to the EJN-
civil*. Relevant competent authorities in the EU could access the information on the legal capacity of an 
individual with a connection to a foreign State, and ensure that the appropriate support is provided. 

Finally,  the  HCCH  2000  Protection  of  Adults  Convention*  would  be  implemented  in  line  with  the 
UNCRPD*209. Given the expected very positive impacts of the preferred option on the rights of adults in 
cross-border situations, the preferred option would significantly improve the protection of fundamental 
rights of vulnerable adults (such as equality before the law, access to justice, self-determination, right to 
property and to free movement). 

9 

9  HOW WILL ACTUAL IMPACTS BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

The  legal  instruments  adopted  under  the  preferred  policy  option  (i.e.  the  combination  of  the  EU 
Regulation on PA* and the Council decision on adults*) would complement each other, the monitoring 
of their application can thus be done together.  

First, it is the practice of the Hague Conference on Private International Law*, under whose auspices the 
HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention* was drawn up, to organise regular meetings  (‘Special 
Commissions’) to take stock of the practical operation of conventions, in order to monitor and evaluate 

207 See the Europe’s Digital Decade Programme and the 2021 Communication 2030 Digital Compass: the European Way for 
the Digital Decade that further highlights the need to modernise public services through further digitalisation. 
208 It can thus be assumed that some Member States will invest into the creation of their national digitalised registers even if 
the EU does not act. This would mean, in turn, that while the EU measure of setting up and interconnecting MS’ registers 
requires a necessary investment on the side of Member States, a part of these costs would be invested by Member States in 
any case. However, this will not ensure that in cross-border dealings, these national solutions will be interoperable, compatible 
with each other, or accessible from abroad. Therefore, in the absence of an EU intervention, while national cases may benefit 
from this digitalisation effort, this will most likely not be the case for cross-border ones. 
209 Already the Commission Strategy on the rights of persons with disabilities (2021-2030) included the commitment that the 
Commission will work with Member States to implement the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention in line with the 
UNCRPD. The PA regulation* that would be proposed as a part of the preferred option would make this application subject 
to control by the Commission and the CJEU. 

48 

 
                                                 
their  success  and  help  resolve  difficulties  in  their  interpretation  and  application.  The  HCCH  2000 
Protection of Adults Convention would not be an exception. Such a Special Commission was in fact held 
in November 2022, and was preceded by an initial work of data collection (2022 Special Commission*). 
If a Council decision on adults* is adopted, the Commission would coordinate and support such work in 
preparation of future Special Commissions. 

In addition to this HCCH assessment mechanism, the EU should put in place its own monitoring and 
evaluation mechanism for both the Convention and the Regulation. This mechanism would ensure that 
the legislation continues to address the current problems faced by adults in the most efficient way and 
that  the  legislation  is  applied  correctly  and  in  a  uniform  manner.  To  meet  the  objectives  of  the  PA 
initiative*, it would also be necessary that awareness about the legislation concerning the protection of 
adults in cross-border situations is increased210. This can be done through national and/or EU measures, 
such as awareness-raising campaigns on the ECR* for the general public, dedicated EJTN* trainings for 
the judiciary, or EU-funded training programs for all practitioners.  

The monitoring of the application of the legislation would be done in a close cooperation with the Central 
Authorities* that would be established under the Council Decision and the Regulation and  would be 
tasked  with  the  assistance  in  cross-border  cases.  In  addition,  the  Commission  would  discuss  the 
application  of  the  legislation  and  promote  exchanges  of  best  practices  among  Member  States  in  the 
framework of the EJN-civil*. As a rule, the application of any EU legislation in the area of civil justice 
is  monitored  through  regular  meetings  of  EJN-civil*.  Thematic  meetings  of  EJN-civil  contact  points 
would be essential for assessing how the legislation is applied in practice and collect and discuss statistics 
as  is  already  done  for  other  regulations.  EJN-civil  would  also  help  to  address  any  potential  legal  or 
practical  problems  that  would  arise  with  the  application  of  the  legislation211,  provide  the  necessary 
information on the e-Justice Portal*, establish factsheets or practice guides.  

Finally, a full evaluation of the application of the legislation would be carried out by the Commission. 
Given the variety and complexity of the various measures envisaged under Option 4, an evaluation of the 
preferred  option  would  take  place,  as  appropriate,  10  years  after  the  entry  into  application  of  the 
Regulation or 5 years after the entry into application of the last time-phased measure212. The evaluation 
would  be  done  on  the  basis  of  input  collected  from  the  competent  authorities  of  the  Member  States 
(including Central Authorities*), external experts, and relevant stakeholders and literature. The obtention 
of  quantitative  data  would  heavily  rely  on  legal  practitioners  and  national  competent  authorities  (in 
particular  for  quantifying  the  number  of  powers  of  representation*).  As  is  the  case  for  other  EU 
legislation in the area of cross-border civil justice, a legal requirement on Member States to provide 
specific information relevant for the evaluation of the operation and application of the legislation would 
be  included  in  the  Regulation213.  The  mandatory  use  of  IT  tools,  such  as  reference  implementation 
software and the e-CODEX communication tool by the Central Authorities* and the courts would allow 
for  reliable,  secure  and  swift  exchange  of  harmonised  data  on  the  functioning  of  the  Regulation. 
Similarly, the online issuance of ECRs* would allow for immediate and complete collection of statistical 

210 This is also in line with the Recommendation No 1 from the RESIJ fact-finding mission*: ‘Promote training actions on 
the protection of adults in national legal schools and develop a European training plan on the use of civil judicial cooperation 
instruments, communication and awareness-raising actions.’ The fact-finding mission revealed that the awareness about the 
Convention is limited among legal practitioners (including those from the Contracting States*). This was also confirmed by 
several EJN-civil contact points in the context of the EJN-civil* discussion on the topic of the protection of adults. 
211  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 on national substantive laws*.  
212 A sufficient period of time between the evaluation and the date of application of the measures would also be needed to 
collect a critical mass of information about the practical application of the legislation.  
213 As to which, see e.g. Art. 101(2) of the 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 (recast). ST/8214/2019/INIT. OJ L 178, 2.7.2019, p. 1–115. 

49 

 
                                                 
data. Finally, the evaluation would be based on case law and, if available, on the findings from academic 
literature on the topic.  

The evaluation would also benefit from the results of the monitoring of the implementation of the other 
related EU initiatives, such as the Strategy for the rights of persons with disabilities 2021–2030214 and 
the digitalisation proposal* with respect to the digitalisation aspects of the initiative. If the timeframes 
for  the  evaluation  of  these  instruments  coincide  with  that  of  the  PA  initiative*,  joint  monitoring  and 
evaluation could be considered to benefit from possible synergies and save costs215.  

Table 44: Examples of potential evaluation indicators in Annex 8 provides suggested indicators for the 
evaluation. 

214 European Commission. (2021). Union of Equality Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021–2030.   
215 Enough information should however be collected to distinguish the specific contribution of the present initiative.  A side 
effect of a joint monitoring and evaluation plan would be to see how different related initiatives are working, reinforcing each 
other or otherwise. 

50 

 
 
  
                                                 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

9.1  1. 

Lead DG, Decide Planning/CWP references 

Lead DG: DG JUSTICE AND CONSUMERS (‘DG JUST’) 

Decide Planning: PLAN/2021/10564 – Civil aspects of the cross-border protection of vulnerable adults 

The 2022 Commission Work Programme announced the PA initative* in the narrative as follows “We 
will  propose  measures  to  improve  the  recognition  of  parenthood  between  Member  States  and  to 
strengthen judicial cooperation on the protection of vulnerable adults in cross-border situations”. 

9.2  2. 

Organisation and timing 

A Commission inter-services steering group (ISG) was established in November 2021 for preparing the 
PA initiative*. It was chaired by Directorate-General Justice and Consumers (DG JUST). The following 
DGs  participated  at  the  inter-service  group:  Legal  Service  (SJ),  Secretariat-General  (SG)  and  DG 
Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion (DG EMPL).  

The ISG met three times in the period from November 2021 to December 2022. The inter-service group 
approved the Call for Evidence* for an impact assessment in November 2021 and the Impact Assessment 
report on 9 December 2022. 

9.3  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 19 September 2022.  

The  Impact  Assessment  report  was  then  examined  by  the  RSB  and  received  a  positive  opinion  on 
20 January 2023. 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. 

Figure 8: Opinion of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

(1) The report should explain why 
other options were not considered 
in  depth  –  such  as  a  Directive,  a 
‘staged’  approach,  Commission 
guidance  –  but  were  discarded 
from the outset.  

A  new  section  5.3  on  discarded  policy  options  was  added,  explaining  why  a 
directive, a recommendation or a stages approach would not be suitable policy 
options for this policy initiative. Further related explanations were also added to 
Section 3.2 and fn. 138. 

In  the  choice  of  the  appropriate  legal  instrument  for  the  PA  initiative*,  the 
specificities of the area of private international law have to be taken into account. 
It is generally recognised that this area requires rules that are fully uniform and 
directly  applicable.  In  matters  of  international  jurisdiction,  applicable  law  and 
recognition and enforcement even small differences, which could be the result of 
a directive leaving some leeway in the process of transposition, would undermine 
the  very  purpose  of  the  rules216.  Similarly,  the  modernisation  of  judicial 
cooperation (digitalisation of communication between authorities via a specific 
decentralised IT system or the use of identical multilingual standard forms) can 
only be achieved by a  Regulation. The application of a single  set of rules is a 
condition for the reciprocity and mutual trust. The Commission (and then the EU 
legislator) needs to choose the most appropriate legal instrument for the intended 

216 For example, the purpose of applicable law rules is that no matter where a particular matter is considered, it is always the 
same law that applies to this matter. If a Directive permitted for the flexibility and allowed both Member State A and Member 
State B to apply their own law respectively, the purpose of uniformity and legal certainty would be defeated. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
rules and in this case, only a regulation is legally conceivable. That is also why 
all  20  existing  EU  instruments  regulating  these  issues  in  the  field  of  private 
international law and cross -border procedures have been adopted as Regulations.  

Similarly, a  recommendation  as a non-binding  measure and essentially a  mere 
invitation to Member States was considered as non-relevant in view of the lack 
of success of the promotion work carried out by the EU institutions over the last 
13 years and, in particular, given the  need for uniform rules  when it comes to 
private international law.  

‘Staged  approach’  could  be  conceivable  and  could  have  taken  two  different 
forms: 
-  Under the first option, the EU would oblige its Member States to ratify the 
Convention and then to adopt an EU Regulation. This staged approach is 
however not excluded by Option 2 which suggests only the ratification of 
the  Convention  at  this  stage  but  does  not  rule  out  the  possibility  of  EU 
Regulation  at  a  later  stage.  This  staged  approach  would  however  have 
negative  impact  in  terms  of  adjustment  costs  incurred  twice,  opportunity 
missed to modernise judicial cooperation and to establish interoperable IT 
systems, as well as multiple changes of rules over time undermining legal 
certainty. Given the hypothetical nature and the hypothetical content of a 
postponed regulation in that scenario, this approach was not analysed in the 
impact assessment report.  

-  The second option of a limited EU initiative (with a smaller scope than the 
Convention,  or  in  the  form  of  a  pilot  for  example),  would  be  in  fact 
counterproductive,  in  view  of  the  existence  of  an  efficient  international 
instrument in the area, to which 11 Member States are already party. None 
of  the  stakeholders  or  the  experts  consulted  have  even  contemplated  an 
alternative  to  the  ratification  of  the  Convention  and/or  to  a  similar  EU 
Regulation. That option would require the use of EU and Member States’ 
resources, to eventually fall short of the achievements of the Convention. 

The measures that are a part of PA regulation* under POs 3 and 4 are already a 
result of a previous analysis undertaken with the help of available legal expertise, 
evidence and consultations with a view to determine whether specific measures 
should be a part of the ‘package’. In line with this analysis, some measures (such 
as rules for law applicable to advance directives* or to ex lege representation*) 
were  not  included  in  that  ‘package’,  given  the  lack  of  evidence  of  practical 
problems experienced by adults in relation to these matters.  
In addition, the  majority of the  proposed measures reflects the  usual  measures 
included  in  EU  instruments  in  the  field  of  private  international  law.  If  an  EU 
Regulation  would  not  provide  for  such  measures,  it  would  be  seen  as  a  step 
backwards as compared to other areas of civil justice, and therefore a negative 
sign  for  the  protection  of  vulnerable  adults,  their  representatives,  families  and 
public  authorities  involved  in  cross-border  cases.  This  was  further  clarified  in 
Annex 6 that describes possible EU measures in more details.  That annex also 
includes assessment of each measure separately, in particular as to its estimated 
costs.  
The criteria of effectiveness and coherence were better explained in Section 7. 

Possible reasons for a low uptake of the Convention were further elaborated in 
Section 1 (international legal context). 

As already explained and as confirmed by all stakeholder consultations and the 
2022 Special Commission*, the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention is 

52 

It  should  explain  why  the  actions 
and  measures  proposed  in  the 
legislative  proposal  are  presented 
as  a  single  package  without  real 
alternatives.  

the 

For 

criterion 

(2) 
of 
effectiveness,  the  scoring  of  the 
options  for  legal  certainty  should 
be better explained, also in relation 
to  the  preceding  analysis  of  legal 
impacts.  For 
the  criterion  of 
coherence,  the  report  should  be 
explicit  on  the  relevant  legal  and 
policy areas on which the options 
are scored, both within the EU and 
internationally. 
challenges 
the 
(1)  Given 
experienced in the implementation 
the  Hague  Convention  on 
of 
International 
of 
Vulnerable  Adults,  in  the  EU 

Protection 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
context,  the  option  to  make  the 
Convention  mandatory  should  be 
better justified. There should be a 
clearer  explanation  of  the  key 
differences between options 3 and 
4.  The  articulation  between  the 
the 
proposed 
Hague  Convention  should  be  set 
out clearly. 

legislation  and 

States 

(3) The report should explain more 
thoroughly the reasons for the low 
uptake  of  the  Convention  among 
EU  Member 
and 
internationally. It should assess to 
what  extent  this  low  uptake  is 
linked to the limited effectiveness 
of the Convention and/or the scale 
of the problem. The report should 
detail the effects of the Convention 
in  contracting  states  compared  to 
non-signatories  and  distinguish 
the scale of the problems in those 
states  where  the  Convention  is  in 
force.  This  analysis  should  be 
coherent  with  the  need  for  EU 
action as well as with the proposed 
option  to  make  the  Convention 
mandatory. 

(4)  The  social  and  legal  impacts 
should be better distinguished for 
each option and be consistent with 
the  options’ 
in 
scoring 
the 
comparison.  

The report should explain how the 
justice, 
digitalisation 
current 
irrespective 
initiative, 
the 
options.  

differentiates 

the 

of 

of 

an international instrument that is  fit for its purpose. The Convention provides 
‘core’ private international that enshrine a useful minimum legal framework that 
mitigates  the  problems  faced  by  vulnerable  adults  in  cross-border  situations. 
However,  the  Convention,  drafted  to  reach  international  consensus,  does  not 
include  all  rules  where  harmonisation  would  be  useful  in  the  EU  of  the  21st 
century. This is given by the fact that cooperation between EU Member States 
can be  much closer than between EU Member States and  any  non-EU country 
that  can  become  a  party  to  the  Convention.  In  comparison  to  an  international 
instrument that should provide for rules that can be applied among countries with 
very different legal systems, a possible EU instrument can provide for a much 
closer cooperation among EU Member States, based on the principle of mutual 
trust that applies in the EU justice area and also  thanks to the experience with 
introducing streamlined rules in other EU justice areas. Some measures, such as 
digitalisation  of  the  cross-border  procedures,  interconnection  of  registers, 
uniform ECR* available in all languages, etc., can only be introduced by an EU 
regulation. This was explained throughout the report, e.g. in fn.144 or in Section 
5. 

Currently, problems described in this impact assessment remain relevant also in 
Member States that are Contracting Parties to the Convention. This is partially 
because the Convention only applies vis-à-vis other 10 Member States that are 
Contracting Parties to the Convention and not vis-à-vis the remainder of the EU. 
Therefore, the problems described in Section 2 can be observed in relation to all 
Member  States.  Some  problems  may  be  mitigated  or  completely  solved  if  all 
Member States joined the Convention. A new annex 7 illustrates which problems 
would  disappear  if  all  MS  joined  the  Convention  and  which  problems  would 
remain and could be solved only by an EU regulation. 

A  further  explanation  of  the  difference  between  policy  options  3  and  4  was 
included in Section 5 and 6. This difference mainly concerns the territorial scope 
–  option  3  (regulation)  includes  rules  applicable  only  among  MS;  in  contrast, 
under option 4, the Convention would apply in relations between MS and non-
EU  countries  (that  are  Contracting  States  of  the  Convention),  while  more 
streamlined rules (in a regulation) would apply among MS. 
Legal and social impacts of each option were better distinguished in Section 6.2 
of  this  report.  Given  the  nature  of  these  impacts  that  is  not  quantifiable,  these 
impacts  were  not  quantified.  The  assessment  of  these  impacts  for  each  policy 
option follows the logic that the positive social and legal impacts are the greater, 
the  wider  the  scope  of  the  policy  option  is.  The  policy  option  that  covers  and 
protects more adults (wider territorial scope) and protects them to a greater extent 
(wider material scope) also has more positive legal and social impacts. 

As regards digitalisation of justice, it is a general crosscutting policy pursued both 
by  Member  States  and  the  EU.  However,  EU  measures  concern  aspects  of 
digitalisation that are not addressed and cannot be addressed at the national level. 
In particular, national law cannot ensure  the  interoperability of digital systems 
implemented by Member States individually. National measures cannot therefore 
ensure  that  the  communication  between  competent  authorities  in  different 
Member  States  takes  places  digitally  or  that  registers  established  in  different 
Member States are interconnected.   

-  As regards Member States, some already have (partially) digitalised their 
justice systems, and their registers on protection measures, as detailed in 
Section  1  of  the  report.  It  may  be  that  some  Member  States  will  further 
digitalise their justice system and develop electronic registers of protection 
measures  in  the  coming  years  or  partially  digitalise  the  existing  ones 
without any EU intervention (under the baseline scenario). However, these 
initiatives only cover national cases, and do not ensure that (new) registers 
or IT systems will be compatible with those of other Member States. Those 
national  systems  will  record different  (types  of)  information  and  may  be 
accessible only to national public authorities. Digitalisation of cross-border 
cases  requires  the  interconnection  of  national  IT  systems  and  their 
interoperability. In the context of the current trend towards the digitalisation 
of  national  systems, 
interoperability  will  be 
progressively  more  difficult  to  reach  given  the  increasing  differences 

this  requirement  of 

53 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
between the different national digital solutions and the absence of common 
standards.  Without 
and 
coordinated  work  on 
interconnection  at  EU  level,  the  national  trends  of  digitalisation  will  not 
tackle the cross-border problems described in the report.  

interoperability 

-  As regards the EU, the  field  of the  cross-border protection of vulnerable 
adults will not be digitalised under the baseline (without the adoption of an 
EU  regulation  on  the  protection  of  vulnerable  adults).  The  horizontal 
initiative  on  the  digitalisation  of  judicial  cooperation  in  the  EU,  and  the 
proposals adopted by the Commission only cover existing EU legislation. 
Because  of  the  absence  of  an  EU  instrument  in  the  area  of  protection of 
adults, this area of law is not included in the text of the proposals. 

Therefore, under the baseline, no digitalisation of the cross-border cooperation 
will be pursued at the EU level in the area of the protection of adults. This was 
further clarified in Section 1 and in fn. 164 and 219. 

In  contrast,  options  3  and  4  that  include  measures  digitalising  the  area  of  the 
protection of adults would be in line with the policy of digitalising justice (and 
more  generally,  with  the  ‘digital  by  default’  principle).  This  was  further 
highlighted in Section 6.2.4. Digitalisation of justice and data protection impacts 
(as well as in Annex 4). 

It  was  described  in  Section  6.2.5  (Impact  on  non-EU  countries)  that  the 
ratification of the Convention by all Member States under POs 2 would have an 
effect on non-EU countries. 

-  Non-EU countries that are already  Contracting Parties to the  Convention 
would benefit directly since the Convention would provide a uniform legal 
framework in their relations to all EU Member States.  
In  addition,  it  is  illustrated  in  Annex  5  that  such  ratification  would 
encourage other non-EU counties to join the Convention. 

- 

Additional language was added to Section 6.2.5 and to Annex 5 to clarify this. 
Additional  explanations  were  included  in  the  report  to  further  clarify  the 
difference (e.g. in fn.169 or Annex 6) 

The Certificate provided for in Article 38 of the Convention is optional or not 
mandatory in the sense that its availability is left to the discretion of the States: 
the Contracting Parties may decide not to implement this provision and thus not 
to provide the certificate to their citizens. As a result, and as established by the 
replies  to  the  HCCH  Questionnaire  in  preparation  of  the  2022  Special 
Commission*, in several Contracting States, the certificate is not available to the 
vulnerable  adults  or  their  representatives.  In  addition,  there  is  no  common 
template for such a certificate (contrary to mandatory forms contained in other 
conventions, such as the HCCH 1965 Service  of documents Convention). The 
recommended form developed by the HCCH is in the explanatory report but is 
not (or not easily) available on the HCCH website as a stand-alone form. 

In contrast, the European Certificate of Representation (ECR*) provided for in 
an  EU  Regulation  would  have  to  be  available  to  all  EU  citizens,  and  the 
corresponding  standard  form  would  be  in  an  annex  of  the  EU  Regulation  and 
therefore have a legislative value. The form would be available online in all EU 
languages. It would be ‘optional’ in the sense that it would not be mandatory for 
a  competent  authority  to  issue  an  ECR  for  each  measure  taken,  or  powers  of 
representation  granted,  in  a  cross-border  case.  However,  if  an  applicant  (a 
representative of an adult) requires such a certificate, it would be compulsory for 
the competent authorities of Member States to issue it.   
More detailed explanations were included in Annex 3 and in particular at the end 
of Annex 4 where the methodology for the calculation of OIOO is explained.  

This  recommendation  was  implemented  in  Annex  8:  Monitoring  –  Potential 
Evaluation Indicators. In particular, the success criteria were further elaborated. 

54 

of 

The 
significance 
the 
international  dimension  of 
the 
should  be  better 
Convention 
presented,  also  in  relation  to  the 
potential  influence  of  the  EU  to 
increase  the  Convention  adoption 
internationally. 

(5)  The 
report  should  better 
explain  the  optional  nature  of  the 
certificate of representation in the 
legislative  proposal,  considering 
the  shortcomings  of  the  existing 
optional  certificate  under 
the 
Convention. 

should 

be 
including 

(6)  The  cost  saving  estimates 
the  One  In:  One  Out 
within 
better 
approach 
explained 
the 
methodological  approach  and  the 
assumptions. 
(7)  The 
indicators  for  future 
monitoring  and  evaluation  should 
be  more  specific  and  linked  to 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
should 

SMART  objectives.  The  success 
criteria 
further 
elaborated  and  the  timing  of  the 
evaluation 
be  made 
should 
specific. 

be 

9.4  4. 

Evidence, sources and quality 

In the preparation of this impact assessment, DG JUST collected evidence from remarkably high number 
of sources, using different methods and targeting various stakeholder groups. 

First, DG JUST collected evidence and expertise through several years of continuous efforts at promoting 
the Convention*. 

Second, evidence used in this impact assessment was gathered based on a Commission’s consultation 
strategy, which included: (i) feedback to the call for evidence*; (ii) open public consultation*; (iii) a 
workshop with stakeholders; (iv) meeting with Member States’ representatives; (v) an exchange on 
the topic of vulnerable adults at the meeting of the contact points of the European Judicial Network 
for  civil  and  commercial  matters  (EJN-civil*);  and  (vi) a  fact-finding  mission  by  the  European 
Network of Judicial Inspection Services to courts and other competent authorities to seven selected 
Member  States217  (‘RESIJ  fact-finding  mission*’).  The  results  of  these  consultation  activities  are 
presented in Annex 2 of this report. 

Third,  in  the  preparation  of  the  PA  initiative*,  DG  JUST  commissioned  two  studies  conducted  by 
external contractors in a close cooperation with academia and professionals working in the field.  

-  First, 2021 Legal Study* examined the national laws and practices of Member States and evaluated the 
current  main  legal  difficulties  and  practical  challenges  concerning  the  cooperation  in  the  field  of  the 
protection of vulnerable adults. In the context of the 2021 Legal Study*, the contractor carried out semi-
structured  interviews  and  questionnaire-based  surveys,  which  included,  among  others,  a  call  for 
quantitative data on the current state of play and recent evolution in the number and type of protection 
measures taken in the EU.  

-  Second, Study supporting the impact assessment* focused on collecting information to be used for the 
preparation of this impact assessment report. It included further evidence about the existing problems and 
the assessment of the impacts of each policy option. The external contractor* employed the following 
stakeholder consultation tools specifically designed for the purposes of the Study: (i) 36 semi-structured 
interviews;  (ii) case  studies;  and  (iii) two  focus  groups*  held  in  particular  to  validate  the  emerging 
findings. For details concerning these consultations, see Annex 9 summarising the consultations by the 
external contractor.  

Fourth, DG JUST also gained further insight into the subject of this report with the help of  available 
resources, such as existing literature, reports and studies218.  

Fifth, DG JUST also participated at numerous workshops, meetings and events concerning the topic of 
vulnerable adults, taken both from the practical and policy perspective. This included, for instance:  

-  The  November  2022  Special  Commission*  where  the  practical  operation  of  the  HCCH  2000 
Protection  of  Adults  Convention*  was  discussed  by  the  representatives  of  the  Contracting  States*, 
non-Contracting States, as well as legal practitioners and international non-governmental organisations. 

217 BE, BG, ES, FR, IT, PT, and RO. 
218 These included, for instance, the European Parliamentary Research Service. & Ch. SALM. (2016). European Added Value 
Assessment  accompanying  the  European  Parliament’s  Legislative  Initiative  Report  (Rapporteur:  Joëlle Bergeron);  or  the 
ELI* (2020). Report of the European Law Institute. The Protection of Adults in International Situations.  

55 

 
 
                                                 
In the preparation of the 2022 Special Commission, the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH collected views 
and information from 23 States (both Contracting and non-Contracting States of the Convention) with a 
view to assess the practical operation of the Convention and gain information about the national legal 
frameworks in place. In addition, the Permanent Bureau (assisted by a Working Group of experts) prepared 
a draft practical handbook on the operation of the Convention and over 30 documents that informed the 
discussion at the 2022 Special Commission219. 

-  Workshops devoted to the topic of vulnerable adults were also held under the Portuguese, French and 

Czech presidencies of the Council of the EU. 

-  Workshop of the European Law Registry Association (‘ELRA’) in November 2022 where the protection 
of  adults  was  discussed  from  the  perspective  of  professionals  dealing  with  real  property  and  capital 
markets.  

Robustness of the analysis 

In  general,  the  report  was  based  on  solid  theoretical  understanding  gained  in  particular  through  desk 
research, the materials prepared by the HCCH, and through the collaboration with external contractors. 
The report also draws on thorough feedback received through numerous stakeholder consultations. All 
EU  jurisdictions,  except  of  Denmark,  were  represented  in  the  consultations  and  in  some  of  the 
consultations, other non-EU Contracting States were represented as well.  

In contrast, the main difficulty in the preparation of the report was the limited availability of data 
on the subject matter, especially disaggregated data about the current state of play and costs.  

-  As  indicated  in  Annex 4  that  details  the  methodology  for  estimates  and  calculations  used  in  this  report, 
quantitative data to provide an accurate picture of the current situation, and more specifically to assess  the 
number of vulnerable adults in cross-border situations are very scarce. There are many reasons for this. 
Firstly, the definition of vulnerable adults differs across Member States and not all the Member States collect 
these statistics in a  systematic  manner,  some  do  not collect them  at  all.  Moreover,  the fact that  powers  of 
representation* are often private acts with no or limited interference of a State, at least until they are confirmed, 
and that court proceedings concerning the protection of adults are typically non-contentious proceedings* (on 
which generally less data is collected than on contentious proceedings) further complicated the collection of 
data. Representative data are also not available through other sources. These limitations as to the availability 
of accurate data were not surprising as they were also reported in other reports in the field220. Secondly, as 
further  developed  in  Annex 4,  several  methodological  challenges  arise  when  estimating  the  number  of 
vulnerable adults potentially affected by cross-border problems with legal uncertainty.  

In  this  situation,  both  high-end  and  lower-end  estimates  of  the  population  of  vulnerable  adults  were 
calculated and combined with the Eurostat demographic data to quantify the number of vulnerable adults 
in cross-border situations living in the EU who potentially experience problems in cross-border context. 
The resulting estimates were validated through several consultations of stakeholders.  

-  The number of vulnerable adults who experience problems in cross-border situations in the EU that relate to 
the subject matter of the PA initiative* had to be estimated in the absence of any reliable data on the matter. It 
was thus assumed that is highly probable that all vulnerable adults in cross-border situations will experience 
at least once over their lifetime one of the problems described in Section 2 (especially the problem of the lack 
of legal certainty) and will have to bear costs as illustrated in one of the illustrative examples in Table 1. 

-  The number of vulnerable adults in cross-border situations living in the EU in 2030 was calculated based on 
the high-end and low-end estimates of vulnerable adults in cross-border situations currently living in the EU 

219 Available at: HCCH | First meeting of the Special Commission on the practical operation of the 2000 Protection of Adults 
Convention. 
220 For instance, the European Parliamentary Research Service. & Ch. SALM. (2016).  European Added Value Assessment 
accompanying the European Parliament’s Legislative Initiative Report (Rapporteur: Joëlle Bergeron) notes on p. 119 (Annex 
II):  As  literature  and  case  law  dealing  specifically  with  the  international  protection  of  adults  remain  limited,  it  proved 
necessary to conduct a field survey in order to gather the information required for this study. 

56 

 
                                                 
and  the  demographic  projections  developed  by  Eurostat  and  the  Joint  Research  Centre  of  the  European 
Commission. 

- 

In the absence of specific data on the actual costs borne by adults and their representatives as well as by 
competent authorities in relation to the proceedings concerning the protection of adults, the procedural costs* 
pertaining to the baseline scenario and the policy options 2 to 4 were assessed using the methodology detailed 
in  Annex 4.  In  particular,  to  provide sufficient level of  detail, the  costs  were assessed  separately  for  eight 
different scenarios developed in collaboration with stakeholders. In addition, a distinction was made in the 
calculation between Member States which are Contracting Parties to the HCCH 2000  Protection of Adults 
Convention*  and  which  are  not.  The  costs  are  presented  in  ranges  reflecting  the  fact  that  the  number  of 
vulnerable adults in cross-border situations was calculated using low-end and high-end estimates.  

To mitigate the limitations arising from the scarcity of granular data concerning the current status quo, 
multiple  sources  of  evidence  and  various  tools  were  used.  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. Any estimates used in this report were extensively consulted in the 
context of the Commission’s consultation strategy (for instance in the Member States and stakeholder 
meetings),  as  well  as  through  consultations  conducted  by  the  external  contractor*.  The  results  of  the 
Study supporting the impact assessment* were also validated through the focus groups* organised by the 
external contractor*.  

The  resulting  estimates  provided  a  solid  basis  for  this  report,  even  though  (as  explained  above),  the 
numbers of vulnerable adults in cross-border situations in the EU who experience problems are somewhat 
underestimated.  In  addition,  given  the  numerous  assumptions,  the  costs  quantifications  have  to  be 
considered with caution. 

Finally, the data limitations did not have an impact on the selection of the preferred option as the 
preferred policy option was chosen based on multi-criteria analysis, rather than on quantitative criteria 
only. This is also confirmed by the sensitivity analysis conducted by the external contractor in the Study 
supporting the impact assessment221.

221 Study by an external contractor*, Sensitivity analysis, p. 83. 

57 

 
                                                 
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 regarding the cross-border protection 
of adults, and their views on the possible EU-level solutions to address these problems.  

9.5  1. 

Consultation strategy 

The Commission used multiple channels to target a wide range of stakeholders and a variety of tools to 
interpret  the  results.  Input  was  received  from  key  stakeholders  representing  EU  citizens,  competent 
authorities,  academics,  research  institutions,  legal  professionals,  NGOs  and  other  relevant  interest 
groups.  Thanks  to  this  wide  range  of  consultations,  it  was  possible  to  reach  all  relevant  groups  of 
stakeholders.  

The aim of the consultation activities was to ensure that interested parties have the opportunity to provide 
feedback on the legislative initiative and its various policy options. Aside from gathering stakeholders’ 
opinions on the legislative initiative, the consultation activities attempted to collect data on the prevalence 
of  the  current  problems  experienced  by  adults  in  need  of  protection  in  cross-border  situations  and  to 
analyse the potential benefits of the initiative. 

9.6  2. 

Consultation activities and tools 

The Commission’s consultation strategy included six main consultation activities, each of them having 
a  different  running  period,  recipient  and/or  object.  The  consultation  activities  included  (i) a  call  for 
evidence; (ii) an open public consultation; (iii) a fact-finding mission by European Network of Justice 
Inspection Services (RESIJ); (iv) a meeting with stakeholders with a particular interest in the protection 
of adults; (v) a meeting with national experts from the Member States and (vi) the consultation of the 
European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters (EJN-civil). Additional consultations were 
organised by an external contractor in the context of a study supporting the preparation of the impact 
assessment. 

9.7  3. 

Main stakeholder feedback per consultation activity 

9.7.1  3.1.  Call for evidence  

The call for evidence on the civil aspects of the cross-border protection of vulnerable adults was open 
from 21 December 2021 to 29 March 2022222. It aimed at gathering evidence on the problems and their 
consequences, while giving all interested parties the chance to share their points of view. 8 answers were 
received, including  2 from  non-governmental organisations,  1 from  a research institution, 4 from EU 
citizens and 1 from a business association.  

The  non-governmental  organisations  raised  concerns  about  the  promotion  of  the  ratification  of  the 
HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention and the compliance of that Convention with the UNCRPD. 
The answer from the research institution highlighted the need for an EU action, suggested an approach 
and  legal  bases  for  such  an  approach,  and  pointed  out  that  the  choice  of  jurisdiction  and  the  ex  lege 
powers  of  representation*  should  be  integrated  into  an  EU  initiative.  The  participating  EU  citizens 
regarded  an  EU  initiative  as  ‘sensible  and  necessary’,  described  existing  problems  and  one  of  them 
stressed  the  need  to  introduce  a  mandatory  hearing  of  the  persons  concerned.  The  answer  from  the 
business  association  pointed  out  that  problems  frequently  arise  regarding  access  to  information, 
recognition of decisions, management of bank accounts and lack of cooperation between the competent 

222 
protection-for-vulnerable-adults_en  

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12965-Civil-judicial-cooperation-EU-wide-

58 

 
                                                 
authorities of different Member States. It supported the Commission’s initiative stressing the importance 
of  common  rules  on  jurisdiction,  applicable  law,  recognition  of  decisions  and  cooperation  between 
authorities. A European certificate of representation was considered particularly beneficial.  

9.7.2  3.2.  Open public consultation 

The open public consultation was conducted in parallel to the call for evidence223. The 20 questions of 
the questionnaire included some concerning the challenges encountered by vulnerable adults under the 
current status quo, the need for an EU action, the scope and content of a possible EU initiative but also 
other questions on the rights of vulnerable adults or trends in protection measures and cross-border cases. 

In total, 42 contributions were submitted including feedback from competent authorities (23.8%), EU 
citizens 
(9.5%), 
academics/research institutions (2.4%), companies/business organisations (2.4%) and others (26.2%).  

(21.4%),  non-governmental  organisations 

(14.3%),  business  associations 

Regarding  the  development  over  the  past  five  years,  respondents  signalled  an  increase  in  numbers 
concerning protection measures (51%), powers of representation (61%) and international cases (61%). 
A great majority of the respondents knew about situations where vulnerable adults faced problems with 
protection of their rights in another Member State as well as where competent authorities or lawyers have 
faced specific problems in a cross-border constellation. Most respondents selected ‘autonomy and right 
to make one’s own choice’ (39%), ‘access to justice’ (39%) and ‘legal capacity’ (34%) as those rights 
that are currently most likely to be breached.  

The vast majority of participants shared the opinion that vulnerable adults would be better protected in 
cross-border cases if the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention was in force in all EU Member 
States. Accordingly, they agreed that the EU should oblige Member States to ratify the Convention and 
adopt specific EU legislation to facilitate cross-border protection of vulnerable adults. Furthermore, a 
significant majority was in favour of the promotion of the Convention by the EU, as well as awareness 
raising regarding the problems faced by vulnerable adults in cross-border cases. Almost everyone shared 
the  opinion  that  the  EU  should  promote  cooperation  on  the  matter  between  competent  authorities  of 
Member States.  

Regarding the possible  policy options for an EU instrument, 63% expressed the opinion that the EU 
instrument  should  regulate  all  issues  that  might  arise,  as  compared  to  12%  who  thought  that  the  EU 
instrument should only complement the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention by strengthening 
cooperation. More than half of the participants would like to see exequatur abolished; and almost half 
found  that  the  grounds  for  non-recognition  should  be  more  limited.  Among  the  most  appropriate 
measures to accommodate the needs of vulnerable adults or their representatives in cross-border cases, 
the respondents most often favoured (i) the provision of information online on the national laws and on 
the competent authorities, (ii) multilingual certificates or extracts accompanying courts’ decisions and 
(iii) multilingual certificates of representation. 

Regarding  concrete  measures,  half  of  the  respondents  were  in  favour  of  a  binding  choice-of-court 
provision.  It  also  became  clear  that  participants  cared  most  about  a  better  information  management 
(national law, competent authorities, accepted languages, means of communication, possibility for urgent 
requests). Furthermore, an interconnection of registers and multilingual standard forms were considered 
important. Most participants shared the expectation that an EU initiative would improve any of these 
aspects.  

223 
protection-for-vulnerable-adults/public-consultation_en  

https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12965-Civil-judicial-cooperation-EU-wide-

59 

 
                                                 
9.7.3  3.3. 

Fact-finding mission by European Network of Justice Inspection Services (RESIJ) 

RESIJ conducted a fact-finding mission to gather further evidence from the field by visiting courts and 
competent authorities in Belgium, Bulgaria, Spain, France, Italy, Portugal and Romania. The report from 
the fact-finding mission was published in May 2022224.  

The report concluded that there is a need for a European legal framework for the protection of adults. 
The  difficulties  in  cross-border  cases  arise  from  a  lack  of  awareness  and  knowledge  of  the  existing 
instruments and mechanisms among practitioners. The main obstacles in cross-border protection of adults 
identified by all groups of practitioners are the cost of proceedings, the translation of documents as well 
as the absence of explanatory forms and legal aid. The report also revealed situations where a violation 
of fundamental rights may currently occur. 

The  mission  found  out  that  the  number  of  cross-border  cases  is  small,  but  constantly  increasing. 
However, the report also revealed difficulties in gathering reliable numbers and statistics on measures to 
protect adults in cross-border cases due to missing instruments on the national level to record and trace 
the cases concerned.  

Regarding  the  legal  situation,  the  main  legal  instrument  is  the  HCCH  2000  Protection  of  Adults 
Convention ratified by only 11 Member States. On the national level, the substantive laws in Member 
States  differ  remarkably.  These  differences  cause  problems  in  cross-border  cases  due  to  a  lack  of  a 
recognition mechanism.  

The report recommended better information and training for practitioners and a legislative initiative to 
address  the  current  challenges.  The  latter  should  include  the  digitalisation  of  judicial  cooperation, 
creating of a European Certificate of Representation, the interconnection of Member States’ registers of 
protection measures and powers of representation, facilitating the recognition and enforcement of judicial 
or extrajudicial protection measures. 

9.7.4  3.4.  Meeting with key stakeholders 

As part of the Commission’s consultation strategy, an informal online meeting with stakeholders was 
organised on 29 September 2022. It gathered 15 participants from different organisations, which share 
an  interest  in  issues  related  to  the  cross-border  protection  of  adults,  including  associations  of 
practitioners, academia, international organisations and organisations representing the interests of adults. 
The meeting discussed the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention and possible complementing 
EU measures. 

Regarding the relationship between a potential EU instrument and the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults 
Convention, participants highlighted that it was crucial that the EU instrument remains a simple one and 
that it neither duplicates the Convention nor detracts from the rules established in it. Moreover, it was 
considered  important  that  the  implementation  of  the  Convention  would  not  be  expensive  or 
time-consuming.  

The meeting also offered the opportunity for an exchange of views with the Hague Conference on Private 
International Law (HCCH), which is the international organisation responsible for the promotion and 
the oversight of the operation of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention.  

Organisations representing the interests of the adults supported the Commission’s effort to ensure legal 
certainty in cross-border cases and to guide Member States in implementing the UNCRPD.  

224 Publication of the new report of the European Network of Justice Inspection Services to assess European civil judicial 
cooperation for the protection of adults.  

60 

 
                                                 
It was mentioned that a rise of problematic situations in cross-border constellations is to be expected due 
to  encouraging  and  enabling  people  with  disability  to  act  for  themselves  based  on  the  UNCPRD. 
Furthermore, it was highlighted that the substantive law in different states varies remarkably. 

Regarding concrete proposals for a future EU instrument, stakeholders mostly showed their support. The 
proposal of a binding choice of jurisdiction provision was supported by the notaries, but seen critically 
by  the  HCCH.  There  was  also  support  for  a  clear  inclusion  of  rules  concerning  advance  directives. 
Finally,  the  proposal  of  a  European  Certificate  of  Representation  was  unanimously  considered  as 
extremely helpful.  

9.7.5  3.5.  Meeting with Member States governmental experts 

On 27 October 2022, the Commission organised an online meeting with experts from Member States to 
provide information about the initiative on the protection of adults and to exchange initial views thereon. 
53 participants from 24 Member States attended the meeting. 16 Member States took the floor during the 
meeting. 

After a presentation of the background of the planned initiative and the problems experienced by adults 
who are in a cross-border situation, the Commission structured the discussion along the following blocks: 
(i) the  possible  ratification  of  the  HCCH  2000  Protection  of  Adults  Convention  and  (ii) possible 
complementing EU measures. 

Regarding the possible ratification of the Convention, the experts of those Member States which are 
party  to  the  instrument  mainly  provided  a  positive  feedback  and  strongly  encouraged  other  Member 
States  to  ratify.  Those  Member  States  observed  that  the  number  of  cross-border  cases  is  constantly 
increasing. Furthermore, it was mentioned that the  Convention had some insufficiencies regarding  ex 
lege representation* and the allocation of costs.  

Two Member States, which have not ratified the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention, named 
as the main reason for the non-ratification that they do not encounter problems in cross-border cases in 
practice and, thus, have not seen the need for the ratification yet. Apart from that, individual reasons were 
given like a change of national government or general internal discussions.  

During  the  second  block,  the  proposed  options  for  complementing  measures  on  the  EU  level  were 
discussed. With regard to the proposed policy options, the experts’ opinions varied. Several Member 
States insisted that a possible EU instrument should not replace, but only complement the Convention.  

While  several  Member  States  expressed  a  strong  opposition  against  a  binding  choice-of-court 
provision,  other  experts  showed  their  support.  Member  States  supported  a  European  Certificate  of 
Representation. It was considered advantageous particularly in relation to private parties like banks.  

Furthermore, Member States showed a general interest in an interconnection of national registers of 
protection  measures  and  (confirmed)  powers  of  representation.  Concerns  were  raised  regarding  data 
protection aspects, as well as the costs for the creation of registers in those Member States which do not 
operate one yet and the interconnection of registers. It also became obvious that the existence of registers, 
their scope and their accessibility are regulated differently in every Member State. There was no objection 
to  a  digitalisation  of  the  cross-border  cooperation  and  to  the  establishment  of  a  European  electronic 
access point for individuals apart from the question of the costs. 

Reactions  to  possible  provisions  on  the  access  to  legal  aid  and  provisions  on  the  designation  of 
representatives abroad differed.  

61 

 
9.7.6  3.6.  Meeting of EJN-civil  

Finally, the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters (EJN-civil) was consulted on the 
topic of cross-border protection of adults during the meeting held on 7 and 8 November 2022. The EJN-
civil contact points were consulted on (i) their experience with cross-border cases in that area, (ii) the 
future role of the EJN-civil as provided for in a possible EU instrument, (iii) the most user-friendly format 
of a future Regulation for legal practitioners, and finally (iv) the need to include legal aid provisions. 

Some EJN-civil contact points reported a few requests for assistance in the field of cross-border adults’ 
protection. All of them supported a crucial role to be played by the EJN-civil if an EU Regulation were 
to be adopted. Some contact points have argued for an informal role of the EJN-civil, with the Central 
Authorities doing the ‘heaving lifting’, others for an explicit role for the EJN-civil in the instrument as is 
done in other areas (see Articles 77 and 84 of the Brussels IIb Regulation* and Articles 50 and 70 of the 
Maintenance Regulation225).  

9.8  4. 

Conclusions 

The Commission thoroughly analysed the outcome of the stakeholder feedback on the protection of adults 
in a cross-border context. Regarding the quantitative analysis, it became clear that comprehensive data 
is  not  available.  However,  the  consultation  activities  clearly  showed  that  the  number  of  cases  of 
vulnerable adults is constantly rising. In addition, the consultations revealed a limited awareness among 
the practitioners about the legal framework for the protection of adults and judicial cooperation in  this 
field.  Furthermore,  stakeholders  agreed  that  adults  under  protection  measures  face  problems  in 
international context due to the shattered legal framework on the level of Private International Law and 
of national substantive law. Despite the insufficient data on the topic, the consultations showed an urgent 
need to  act.  This  is  based on the overall strong support  expressed by stakeholders to  take action and 
improve the situation for adults in cross-border situations.  

Regarding the concrete EU approach to tackle the topic, a strong support and an overall positive feedback 
on the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention could be identified in all consultation activities. 
Furthermore, the consultations showed a practical need and support by most stakeholders for additional 
measures at EU level. According to the consultation activities, an EU instrument should aim to facilitate 
acceptance and recognition of judicial, administrative and out-of-court protection measures within the 
EU,  to  establish  a  swift  and  smooth  cooperation  between  Member  States’  competent  authorities 
(including by digital means) and to improve the provision of information.  

225 EUR-Lex - 02009R0004-20181231 - EN - EUR-Lex (europa.eu). 

62 

 
                                                 
ANNEX 3: WHO IS AFFECTED AND HOW? 

10  1  PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE INITIATIVE 

10.1  1.1 

The adults* and their families and representatives 

The  problems  of  legal  uncertainty,  long  and  costly  proceedings,  and  non-recognition  of  protection 
measures or powers of representation firstly affect the fundamental rights of hundreds of thousands of 
adults who need legal support for some or all the decisions regarding their person and their assets/income 
and are in a cross-border situation. In addition, it also affects the millions of adults in the EU who have 
planned in advance how their personal and financial interests will be taken care of in case of incapacity*, 
and may already have a connection to a State other than their State of residence, or will have it in the 
future. These adults are those that are residing in other Member State than that of their nationality or 
those who are citizens of the EU residing in non-EU States, those who own assets abroad. The preferred 
policy option would significantly mitigate their problems by establishing one set of rules applying to 
those cases, both in the EU and in other non-EU Contracting Parties, thus greatly increasing predictability 
of  the  legal  framework.  The  initiative  would  modernise  and  simplify  cross-border  judicial  and 
administrative  proceedings,  and  consequently  reduce  the  costs  and  administrative  hassle  (court  and 
lawyers’ fees, translation, correspondence and formalities like legalisation). Finally, the initiative would 
ensure that the support to the vulnerable adults is continued (recognised) across the borders (through the 
automatic  recognition  of  decisions  and  confirmed  powers  of  representation*  and  the  enhanced 
cooperation  between  competent  authorities).  This  would  contribute  to  better  physical  and  mental 
well-being of adults and help protect their rights, including fundamental rights and property rights.  

The  families  of  the  adults,  and  the  private  or  public  professional  representatives,  would  also  be 
directly  and  positively  affected  by  the  initiative.  Measures  introduced  by  the  initiative,  such  as  the 
possibility to apply for an ECR* to demonstrate the powers to represent an adult abroad or the provision 
of electronic tools would be a game changer in cross-border cases. 

10.2  1.2 

The competent authorities 

Besides adults*, their families and representatives, also competent authorities (courts, administrative 
authorities,  notaries)  dealing  with  the  cross-border  cases  concerning  the  protection  of  adults  are 
currently affected by the legal uncertainty of the complex legal framework in this area. Therefore, also 
competent authorities would benefit  from  the harmonised rules introduced by the initiative. This  will 
have a practical impact on the time and costs spent by these authorities on each case (labour costs), as 
well as on the general legal environment where predictability and mutual trust would be enhanced. The 
issues relating to  the lack of legal  certainty would be partly solved for  courts, legal  practitioners and 
competent authorities (e.g. notaries) who would have a reliable and swift access to foreign law when 
applicable. The incidence of court proceedings would be reduced thanks to the assistance provided by 
the Central Authorities*, and the possibility for courts to directly exchange with foreign courts on specific 
cases and to clear up practical or legal issues quickly.  

The increase of legal certainty, the automatic recognition and the simplified procedures would also be 
beneficial to all types of competent authorities and professionals dealing with the protection of adults: 
social  workers,  private  lawyers,  medical  staff,  notaries,  criminal  courts  and  prosecutors,  civil, 
commercial and land registrars. They would have the possibility to be informed about the protection 
and its nature, in another Member State through the interconnected registers. This would allow them to 
provide the appropriate support to the adult. They would also have the opportunity to signal cases of 
danger, abuse or of abduction to the Central Authorities*.  

63 

 
The introduction of a digital channel of communication between competent authorities would provide 
for  major  efficiency  and  cost  reduction  gains,  would  foster  cross-border  cooperation,  and  could 
significantly reduce the length and costs of procedures. The digital channel would be used to transmit 
various  documents,  requests,  forms,  messages  and  data  between  competent  authorities  of  different 
Member States.  Similarly, the  interconnection of national  registers  concerning protection measures 
and  (confirmed)  powers  of  representation  would  allow  competent  authorities  seamless  access  to  that 
information. 

Finally, the economic relations between the adults* and their representatives with banks, other financial 
institutions,  insurance  companies,  real  estate  agents,  and  many  other  economic  actors  will  be 
considerably simplified through the ECR*, which will provide reliable evidence of the powers entrusted 
in a representative even in other Member States. 

In a short horizon, the initiative would however also require certain investment of resources on the part 
of legal practitioners to get familiar with the new legal framework (training, information campaigns), 
as usual with any new legislation. Some Member States would have to ratify the Convention and set up 
Central Authorities*. However, these adjustments are not expected to represent a significant burden on 
Member States. It should be also noted that Member States that are already contracting States* are already 
familiar with the Convention. 

Competent  authorities  will  bear  two  different  types  of  costs.  Minor  costs  related  to  some  of  the 
measures introduced by the legislation, such as for legal aid, or for issuance of ECRs*. These costs 
would however be offset by the cost reductions resulting from the streamlined procedures.  The 
interconnection  of  registers,  digitalisation  of  communication  and  procedures  would  require  a 
moderate investment from Member States, compensated by savings linked to the modernisation of 
the procedures and by efficiency gains through the streamlined cross-border proceedings.  

11  2  SUMMARY OF COSTS AND BENEFITS 

Table 7: Overview of benefits (total for all provisions) – Preferred Option 

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

Description 

Amount 

Comments 

Direct benefits 

Increased 
certainty  

legal 

Not quantifiable 

Beneficiaries: adults*, their families and their 
representatives,  competent  authorities  of  the 
Member  States,  private  actors  (financial 
institutions and other economic actors). 

Increased  protection  of 
the  fundamental  rights 
of  vulnerable  adults, 
including 
autonomy, 
access  to  justice,  right 
to free movement, right 
to  property,  and  equal 
treatment 

Cost 
on 
savings 
procedural  costs*  of 
proceedings 
(recognition, transfer of 
jurisdiction) 

procedures 
Quicker 
through the harmonised 
set of PIL rules* 

Not quantifiable 

Total cost reduction for vulnerable adults and their 
representatives  amount  to  estimated  EUR  2.6 
billion, as compared to the baseline 

Beneficiaries: adults*, their families and their 
representatives. 

Not quantifiable 

Beneficiaries: adults*, their families and their 
representatives,  and  competent  authorities  of 
the Member States. 

64 

 
 
Facilitated cross-border 
access 
reliable 
to 
information 

Not quantifiable 

Beneficiaries: competent authorities. 

and 

Swift 
cooperation 
authorities.  

secure 
between 

Not quantifiable 

Promotion  of  equality 
and  non-discrimination 
in the EU 

Not quantifiable 

Increased  wellbeing  of 
vulnerable adults 

Not quantifiable 

Positive  impact  on  the 
right to free movement 

Not quantifiable 

They would easily access to the content of the 
substantive  and  procedural  rules  of  other 
through  different  sources 
Member  States 
(Central  Authorities*, 
e-Justice  Portal*, 
EJN-civil*).  They  would  also  have  access  to 
the information on the existence of a protection 
abroad 
interconnection  of 
the 
registers)  

(through 

Beneficiaries: adults*, their families and their 
representatives,  competent  authorities  of  the 
Member States. 

temporary 
People  with  disabilities  or 
mental-health  problems  suffer  from  various 
forms  of  discrimination  and  obstacles  in 
cross-border  dealings.  The  initiative  would 
indirectly  reduce  inequalities  between  them 
and the rest of the population. 

Beneficiaries:  vulnerable  adults  and  their 
families. 

Indirect benefits 

legal 

current 

uncertainty 

The 
and 
administrative  burden  may  cause  emotional 
distress  and  have  a  negative  effect  on  the 
(psychological) wellbeing of vulnerable adults. 
The  Regulation  stands  to  tackle  the  existing 
problems, thereby improving their wellbeing. 

Beneficiaries:  vulnerable  adults  and  their 
family/representatives. 

The initiative  would guarantee that all adults, 
regardless  of  their  incapacity,  age  or  health 
issues  can  be  supported  when  they  cross 
borders. This would reassure them and remove 
legal 
that  may 
otherwise  discourage  them  from  moving  or 
travelling abroad. 

administrative  barriers 

Reduced administrative 
for  vulnerable 
costs 
families 
their 
adults, 
and representatives  

Administrative cost savings related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach* 
Total cost savings for vulnerable adults in a cross-
border cases related to the ‘one in, one out’ approach 
amount to approximately 1.3 billion over the period 
of  10  years.  under  the  PO4  as  compared  to  the 
baseline. These cost savings concern all vulnerable 
adults  in  a  cross-border  case  and  are  one-off  and 
aggregate, not annual. 

  Application of the ‘one in, one out’ (OIOO) 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 PA initiative* is to make proceedings (concerning the cross-border 
protection of adults) faster and less expensive. The preferred option would do that and, in addition, would 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
introduce no new compliance requirements that would affect individuals or businesses in the EU226. Thus, 
as the preferred option would not introduce any new burden on individuals (or on businesses for the fact) 
and  would  reduce  the  existing  one,  the  preferred  option  would  be  a  “one  out”  initiative.  The 
methodology  to  quantify  the  specific  OIOO  costs  savings*  is  detailed  at  the  end  of  Annex  4.  That 
explanation also sets out the assumptions and estimates made to quantify the OIOO costs reductions for 
the population of vulnerable adults in the EU over the period of 10-15 years.  

Table 8: Overview of costs – Preferred Option 

Vulnerable adults 

Administrations 

One-off 

Recurrent 

One-off 

Recurrent 

Average cost of EUR 
304 000 per Member 
State for setting up a 
national interoperable 
register (those MS that 
do not have a register 
yet). 

Minor adjustment costs 
borne by MS for:  
- the adjustment to new 
rules in the legislation 
(e.g. to the issuance of 
ECR*) 
- training of staff as 
regards the new rules 
- information campaigns 
addressed to the public 
and legal practitioners 

Yearly average maintenance cost 
of EUR 204 000 for maintaining 
the national registers. 

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

Negligible costs 
(related to monitoring of the 
operation of the Regulation and the 
Convention and to judicial 
cooperation) 

Action (a)   

Direct adjustment 
costs 

Direct 
administrative 
costs 

Direct regulatory 
fees and charges 

Direct 
enforcement costs 

Direct adjustment 
costs  

Total   

Indirect 
adjustment costs 

Administrative 
costs (for 
offsetting) 

. 

226  No  administrative  costs  or  adjustment  costs  for  individuals  or  businesses.  For  instance,  the  PA  regulation*  would  not 
introduce any fees for the provision of ECRs*. In addition, the ECR would only be optional in that it would only be issued at 
a request and would not replace similar national documents. 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
12  3  RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS 

Table 9: Overview of relevant Sustainable Development Goals – Preferred Option 

Relevant SDG 

Expected progress towards the Goal 

SDG no. 1 – No poverty 

Ensure access of vulnerable adults to their property, income and assets abroad. 

Eliminate the risk that vulnerable adults are victim of dispossession or financial 
loss because of the cross-border nature of their situation. 

SDG  no.  3  –  Good  health  and 
well-being 

Increase the well-being (health) and the autonomy of people with mental disorders, 
disabilities and the elderly in a situation of vulnerability, when they are in a cross-
border situations. 

SDG  no.  10  –  Reduce 
between and within countries 

inequality 

Eliminate the legal and financial discrimination against persons with disabilities in 
cross-border cases and vulnerable migrants. 

SDG no. 16 – Peace, justice and strong 
institutions 

Promotion of an inclusive society where people with disabilities can exercise their 
right  to  free  movement  in  the  EU  and  benefit  the  appropriate  support  across 
borders. 

Improved  access  to  justice  for  the  elderly,  persons  with  disabilities  or  mental 
disorders. 

67 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: ANALYTICAL METHODS AND METHODOLOGY 

Methodology used in the impact assessment 

The  methodology  below  reflects  closely  the  methodology  developed  by  the  external  contractor  in  its 
study supporting this impact assessment227 in a close cooperation and supervision by DG JUST. 

13  1  ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF VULNERABLE ADULTS IN CROSS-BORDER SITUATIONS 

The  definition  of  the  problem  required  quantifying  the  number  of  people  that  are  concerned  by  the 
problem.  This  includes  in  particular  adults,  as  well  as  their  representatives  and  family  members, 
competent authorities etc. While these stakeholders are all impacted, the scale of the problem  is  best 
represented by the population affected the most – the (vulnerable) adults.  

13.1  1.1 

Various methodological concepts for the term ‘adult’ 

The problem affects different groups of adults*, i.e. persons aged 18 years old or more, who either (i) are 
vulnerable  and  in  the  need  of  legal  protection228,  or  (ii) consider,  in  the  anticipation  of  their  possible 
future incapacity, to draw up powers of representation*229.  

In  a  broader  sense,  the  latter  group  could  encompass  anyone,  even  people  without  any  current 
impediment or vulnerability who wish to prepare for possible future impairment or insufficiency 
in  their  personal  faculties.  The  current  situation  could  thus  affect  the  whole  adult  EU  population. 
However, it can be reasonably assumed that most people do not plan for their vulnerability in the absence 
of any medical or other indication that they will be in the need of legal protection. Thus the latter group 
likely includes those individuals that already expect their vulnerability in the future, even though they 
may not be in the need of legal representation just yet.  

The definition of ‘adult’ in this impact assessment reflects both concepts as the problems considered in 
this impact assessment may affect both of these groups (See the term ‘adult’* in the Glossary). The term 
vulnerable adult* then refers to the persons that are presently not in a position to protect their interests, 
due to an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties230. 

13.1.1  1.1.1  The number of vulnerable adults  

There are no comprehensive statistics at  the EU  level  concerning the number of vulnerable  adults or 
adults that drew up powers of representation*. Given these limitations, three main methods could be used 
to estimate the population of adults affected by the problem in the EU:  

1)  Actual  population  of  vulnerable  adults  under  judicial  and  administrative  protection 
measures issued by competent authorities. This method would entail using available statistics on 
vulnerable adults under judicial protection measures in Member States where such statistics are 
compiled by Member States and calculating the share of the population of vulnerable adults in 

227 Study by an external contractor*, in particular its Annex III – Complementary analysis on costs and efficiency. 
228  For  reasons,  such  as:  i)  cognitive  disability;  ii)  physical  disability  preventing  the  adult  to  express  his/her  opinion;  iii) 
temporary physical illness preventing the adult to express his/her opinion; and iv) temporary mental illness requiring the adult 
to be placed under a protection measure (crisis phase in a psychiatric illness, such as schizophrenia or paranoia). 
229 A document (unilateral act or agreement) which enables the adult to plan, in advance, how they want to be supported in 
the exercise of their legal capacity and autonomy when such adult is not in a position to protect their interests. The powers of 
representation often involve the conferral of particular powers on one or several natural persons, or an institution, charged 
with representing and/or assisting the adult concerned regarding his or her personal or financial interests.  
230 The report uses the definition provided by the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention*. 

68 

 
                                                 
the total adult population in these countries. These shares could finally be used to estimate the 
population of vulnerable adults in other countries based on the total adult population. 

2)  Actual population of adults who drew up powers of representation*.  

This method is complicated by the fact that: (i) not all Member States envisage such powers of 
representation*  in  their national  law;  (ii) these  powers  and  their  regulation  differ  significantly 
among  those  Member  States  that  use  them;  and  finally  (iii) statistics  on  the  number  of  those 
powers are not systematically available.  

Since these powers are private unilateral acts or agreements that, depending on national law, may 
even be established without any formal requirement (e.g. in writing on a simple sheet of paper) 
and may not need to be registered or activated with an intervention by a competent authority, any 
estimations of the number of these powers would not be reliable.  

The existing statistics gathered by Member States on the number of powers of representation* are 
inconsistent  in  meaning  and  difficult  to  compare  (for  example,  in  some  Member  States  the 
registration  is  mandatory  while  in  others  not;  some  Member  States  register  powers  of 
representation  only  when  they  are  activated).  Additionally,  the  number  of  powers  of 
representation  currently  differs  strongly  across  Member  States  using  them.  In  Germany,  the 
register of mandates has been used 5 million times since 2005, what indicates a high number of 
powers  of  representation  in  Germany231,  while  in  the  Czech  Republic,  where  only  powers  of 
representation registered at notary offices are reported, it only amounts to 66232. In Belgium, the 
reported number of powers of representation in 2020 is around 211 000233. France reports data 
only on powers of representation that are activated (5 937 powers were activated between 2009 
and 2017). As indicated in the 2021 Legal Study*, national law provides for the possibility to set 
up powers of representation for adults only in 16 Member States234.  

For these reasons, especially the lack of systematic and comparable data, this method was not 
used in this report. 

3)  Potential population of vulnerable adults based on the actual adult population reporting 
long-standing health limitations. While the former methods aim to estimate the actual number 
of  vulnerable  adults  under  legal  projection  in  the  EU,  another  method  could  focus  on  the 
estimation  of  the  potential  population  of  vulnerable  adults  that  could  benefit  from  protection 
measures. Most of the situations that can trigger the need for protection measures* are associated 
with serious physical and mental disabilities and, more generally, severe health problems. There 
are no comparable, comprehensive, and objective statistics on the above situations. Nevertheless, 
European-wide  surveys  exist that  target  individuals  asking  questions  on  self-perceived  health, 
including  long  standing  health  issues235.  These  statistics  can  be  used  to  estimate  the  potential 
population  of  vulnerable  adults  based  on  the  actual  adult  population  reporting  long-standing 

231  The  registration  of  powers  of  representation  is  not  mandatory  in  Germany.  The  use  of  the  register  is  not  limited  to 
registration but includes also modifications and deletions.  
232 Data gathered from representatives of German and Czech authorities during the focus group*, 14 September 2022.  
233  Fednot.  (2021).  Les  mandats  de  protection  extrajudiciaire  belges  sont  désormais  aussi  reconnus  dans  d’autres  pays 
européens.  https://www.fednot.be/communique-de-presse/les-mandats-de-protection-extrajudiciaire-belges-sont-desormais-
aussi-reconnus-dans-dautres-pays-europeens/ 
234  See  more  details  in  European  Commission,  Directorate-General  for  Justice  Consumers,  Adriaenssens,  L.,  Borrett,  C., 
Fialon,  S.,  Franzina,  P.,  Sumner,  I.,  &  Rass-Masson,  N.  (2021).  Study  on  the  cross-border  legal protection of  vulnerable 
adults in the EU: final report.  
235 Eurostat. (2022). Self-perceived long-standing limitations in usual activities due to health problem by sex, age and labour 
status.  
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/HLTH_SILC_06__custom_3401600/default/table?lang=en  

69 

 
                                                 
health limitations. 

It was decided, in the absence of data related to the second method, not to quantify the number of people 
that  drew  up  powers  of  representation*.  The  following  methodology  will  thus  focus  on  the 
quantification of those individuals that are vulnerable, even though it may result in lower estimates 
as compared to the scenario where all adults* were considered in the calculation. 

Figure 9: Methods to estimate the population of vulnerable adults in the EU 

Actual population of 
vulnerable adults under 
judicial or administrative 
protection measures 

Potential population of 
vulnerable adults based on 
the actual adult population 
reporting long-standing 
limitations 

While the first method represents lower-end estimates of the population of vulnerable adults, the numbers 
calculated  with  the  help  of  health  data  represent  a  high-end  estimate  and  only  a  potential  number  of 
people who may require legal protection.  

First,  to  get  a  (low-end)  estimate  of  a  current  number  of  vulnerable  adults  based  on  judicial 
protection,  the  proportion  of  adult  EU  population  (population  over  18  years  old,  including  both  EU 
citizens and non-EU citizens) based on the Eurostat demographic data for 2020 was used. Subsequently, 
based  on  desk  research,  statistics  on  the  number  of  protection  measures  in  a  number  of  European 
countries collecting these data (France, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Switzerland) were collected.  

Table 10: Sources used for the calculations of protection measures 

Protection measures BE 

Protection measures FI 
Protection measures FR 

Protection measures DE 
Protection measures IT 

https://www.fednot.be/communique-de-presse/les-mandats-de-protection-
extrajudiciaire-belges-sont-desormais-aussi-reconnus-dans-dautres-pays-
europeens   
Interview  
https://www.fednot.be/communique-de-presse/les-mandats-de-protection-
extrajudiciaire-belges-sont-desormais-aussi-reconnus-dans-dautres-pays-
europeens  
Ministère  de 
Répertoire Général Civil 
The second focus group* 
The second focus group* 

justice/SG/SEM/SDSE :  Exploitation  statistique  du 

la 

From these statistics, a simple average percentage of vulnerable adults in these countries was calculated. 
This  percentage  was  used  to  estimate  the  number  of  vulnerable  adults  in  the  remaining  EU  Member 
States, without counting Denmark (‘EU-26’)236. Finally, these percentages were applied to the adult 
populations in these Member States to estimate the total number of vulnerable adults in the EU.  

Second,  to  get  a  (high-end)  estimate,  the  Eurostat  data  concerning  adults  with  self-perceived 

236 As Denmark would not take part in the adoption and application of the PA initiative* (see fn. 4), 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.  

70 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
long-standing limitations in usual activities due to health problems237 were combined with the Eurostat 
demographic data for EU-26. The percentage of adults experiencing difficulties was multiplied for each 
Member  State  by  the  number  of  adults  living  in  that  country.  Finally,  a  sum  of  these  estimates  was 
calculated to get an EU aggregate. 

Result 

These calculations resulted in two sets of estimates for the number of vulnerable adults in the EU-26: the 
low-end calculation of 5.1 million of vulnerable adults (1.4% of the EU population) based on the 
judicial protection measures; and the high-end calculation of 27.4 million (7.5% of EU population) 
based on health complications. 

13.1.2  1.1.2  The number of vulnerable adults in the EU in cross-border situations 

The overall number of vulnerable adults in the EU had to be adjusted to account for the fact that not all 
vulnerable  adults  are  in  cross-border  situations.  As  explained  in  the  Glossary,  ‘cross-border 
situations’ are situations and/or judicial or administrative proceedings which are connected to two or 
more States. In the context of this report, such a situation arises, for instance, in the following situations: 

-  where a protection measure taken by the competent authority of one State has effect in another 

State (where the adult owns assets for instance); 

-  where powers of representation* established in one State have effect or are to be confirmed* in 

another State;  

-  where measures aimed at the protection of an adult who lives in one state, or has the nationality 

of one state, are sought in another State; 

-  where an adult who benefits from protection measures taken in one state plans to move to another 
State,  or  where  placement  in  an  establishment  or  residential  facility  in  another  State  is 
contemplated. 

Given  the  nature  of  the  envisaged  EU  initiative  that  would  harmonise  certain  rules  concerning 
cross-border  protection  of  adults,  this  impact  assessment  concerns  only  adults  in  cross-border 
situations238. 

However,  the  availability  of  statistics  concerning  vulnerable  adults  in  cross-border  situations  is  even 
lower than the one on overall population of vulnerable adults. There are no statistics available at EU level 
on the number of cross-border cases involving vulnerable adults.  

 

The Members States courts’ IT systems do not generally record the cross-border element. The data collected 
are hence scattered and do not reflect the number of cross-border cases (79 cases of recognition proceedings 
in one Member State over a period of 5 years, a hundred cases with a cross-border element in one court of 
another Member State over a period of 3 years). The RESIJ fact-finding mission* also revealed that most 
complex situations involving foreign aspects were settled without judicial intervention (thus with no record 
of those cases). 

  Central Authorities* established under the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention* record statistics on 
the  number  of  cross-border  cases  where they  have  been  seized.  However,  Central  Authorities  established 
under  the  Convention  deal  only  with  some  cases  (only  those  requiring  cooperation  between  Contracting 

237 Eurostat. (2022). Self-perceived long-standing limitations in usual activities due to health problem by sex, age and labour 
status.  
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/HLTH_SILC_06__custom_3401600/default/table?lang=en  
238 In addition, it should be noted that even those vulnerable adults that currently are not in cross-border situations, may get 
into one relatively easily, e.g. when travelling abroad. If all cases were calculated, the numbers of affected vulnerable adults 
would be higher.  

71 

 
                                                 
States).  Cases  connected  with  other  non-Contracting  States  seldom  involve  Central  Authorities  and 
accordingly remain unrecorded by the latter.  

Therefore, the numbers below concern only a minority of cases, since: (i) most cross-border cases concern 
States that are not party to the Convention; (ii) even if both States concerned are Contracting States to the 
Convention*, the case  may  not  require an  intervention  of  Central  Authorities; (iii)  even  if  both  States 
concerned are Contracting States to the Convention, there is a low awareness among legal professionals 
about Central Authorities and their role or even about the Convention itself. Additionally, some vulnerable 
adults encountering difficulties in cross-border cases hire private lawyers and hence such occurrences are 
not  captured  by  the  official  statistics.  This  is  correlated  by  the  practical  experience  reported  by 
practitioners239.  

The  number  of  dossiers  recorded  by  Central  Authorities  in  States  providing  some  figures  remains 
relatively low – Latvia reported only two cross-border cases handled by the Central Authority since the 
ratification  of  the  Convention  in  2018240.  Some  other  Member  States  which  ratified  the  Convention 
reported a higher number of cases (approximately 15 to 20 cases per year in Austria and Portugal). The 
highest number has been reported by France, where the Central Authority handled 49 cases in 2021241. 
However, as explained earlier, this data does not reflect the actual number of vulnerable adults involved 
in cross-border situations in the Contracting States. 

Therefore, in an absence of more accurate data, the calculation of the cross-border cases had to be based 
on  the  Eurostat  migration  data  in  a  following  manner:  Firstly,  the  percentage  of  EU  adults  living  in 
another  Member  States  was  calculated  using  Eurostat  migration  statistics,  resulting  in  2.7%242. 
Subsequently, this percentage was applied to the overall number of vulnerable adults in the EU, reaching 
two sets of estimates of a number of vulnerable adults living in a different Member State than that of 
their nationality.  

Result 

Finally, applying the methodology described above, the range of vulnerable adults living abroad can 
be estimated at ca. 144 649 (judicial protection) – 780 169 (health complications) in the EU-26. 

Those vulnerable adults may potentially experience problems in cross-border context that are at the core 
of this impact assessment. 

Nevertheless, given the limitations of the methodology chosen, many cases were not included in the 
estimations because of the limited data availability. 

-  Notably,  this  number  only  refers  to  those  vulnerable  adults  living  abroad  and  does  not 
account  for  other  cross-border  situations,  as  detailed  above  (like  when  an  adult  owns  real 
property  or  assets  abroad).  Vulnerable  adults  requiring  cross-border  protection  may  also  be 
people  who  do  not  live  abroad  but  own  an  asset  in  another  country  or  those  who  become 
vulnerable while they did a short travel abroad (for a period shorter than 12 months).  
In addition, while only some adults will experience the problem of non-recognition of measures 
and powers of representation abroad, most will be exposed to the problem of legal uncertainty.  

- 

239 For instance, French authorities reported that from the  2600 cases they are considering, approximately half involves a 
cross-border element. Ministère de la Justice Français. (2022). Les enjeux de la protection européenne et internationale des 
adultes vulnérables. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wjg8Wuey7To 
240 HCCH. (2022). Responses to the Questionnaire on the practical operation of the 2000 Protection of Adults Convention.  
https://www.hcch.net/en/publications-and-studies/details4/?pid=6862&dtid=33 
241 Interview with a representative of public authority in France, 2.6.2022. 
242 This number is slightly lower than statistics reported in mobility reports. This is mainly because mobility reports report the 
percentages of working-age population, whereas this report considers the overall population over 18, and the percentage of 
people over 65 living abroad is lower than this percentage in the working age population.  

72 

 
                                                 
In all 16 Member States that provide for powers of representation* in their legislation, virtually 
all adults living in those Member States are covered by the PA initiative*, since everyone has 
the possibility to establish powers of representation* (including advance directives* for future 
medical treatments) and would expect that they are respected not only in their Member State but 
also everywhere in the EU. Unlike other areas of law that cover only certain categories of persons 
or activities (children/parents in family law or companies in insolvency law), the issue considered 
by this impact assessment concerns the general public. The number of adults having granted 
powers of representation cannot be estimated (and is partly not reflected in the figures above), 
but it is in millions. Furthermore, all of those who are in cross-border situations are currently 
affected by the legal uncertainty, even if the powers have not been activated yet243.  

- In addition, most competent authorities who by law need to assess the legal capacity of individuals, like 
notaries or land or civil registrars, are confronted with the lack of legal certainty each time they have a 
case involving a foreigner244. This legal uncertainty stems from the fact that they do not have access to 
the registries of the State of which this person is a national or where the person lived before. Finally, 
given the long time span of the cases, the problems of lengthy and costly proceedings and non-recognition 
of court decisions are likely to affect an adult protected by a measure or powers of representation. They 
will necessarily arise when the adult owns property or financial assets abroad, moves abroad, inherits 
from a relative abroad have a medical emergency abroad.  

13.1.3  1.1.3  The number of vulnerable adults in non-EU Contracting States 

There are three non-EU Contracting Parties to the Convention – Switzerland, the United Kingdom (in 
respect  to  Scotland  only)  and  Monaco.  Applying  the  same  methodology  would  lead  to  the  following 
number of vulnerable adults in these countries: 159 000 (judicial protection) – 848 000 (long-standing 
health limitations). Combining this with migration statistics yields a range of 2700 (judicial protection) 
– 14 400 (long-standing health limitations) of cross-border vulnerable adults in non-EU Contracting 
States. 

The data for the population statics concerning the United Kingdom (Scotland) and Monaco were gathered 
from the following sources:  

Population of Scotland 

Scotland Facts (indexmundi.com)  

Monaco’s demographic profile  https://www.indexmundi.com/monaco/demographics_profile.html  

In its replies to the questionnaire on the functioning of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention, 
Switzerland indicated that there is a significant demand on application of the rules of the Convention, in 
particular  with  respect  to  France,  Germany,  Italy  and  Spain.  Unfortunately,  no  statistics  are  gathered 
reflecting the numbers of such cases245.  

Additionally,  there  is  an  expectation  that  the  number  of  Contracting  Parties  to  the  Convention  will 
continue to grow. Observing the data on the growth of Contracting Parties to the HCCH conventions246, 
it  takes  on  average  27  years  to  reach  50  Contracting  Parties.  The  HCCH  2000  Protection  of  Adults 
Convention* came into force in 2000. Should it follow a similar pattern to other conventions, it can be 
expected that new Contracting Parties will join the Convention in the coming years. This will in turn 

243 They may in their lifetime cross borders (for recreational, professional or personal purposes) and have emergencies abroad 
requiring that the powers of representation and the advance directives* are immediately invoked. 
244 The first focus group*. 
245  Questionnaire  sur  le  fonctionnement  pratique  de  la  Convention  Protection  des  adultes  de  2000,  Doc.  Prel.  No  2  de 
septembre 2020, Swiss replies to questions 2.1 and 2.2. 
246 For the average growth of contracting parties to the HCCH conventions, see Annex 5. 

73 

 
                                                 
increase  the  population  of  cross-border  vulnerable  adults  that  could  benefit  from  the  rules  of  the 
Convention. 

The following summary tables show the above-described results concerning the number of (vulnerable) 
adults per country currently and in 2030 – both based on (1) the number of protection measures and on 
(2) self-perceived health difficulties. The explanation of the methodology behind the 2030 estimates will 
be elaborated below. 

Table 11:  Estimates  of  the  current  number  of  vulnerable  adults  involved  in  cross-border  situations  –  analysis  based  on  protection 
measures247 

Country  

Number of 
adults  

Number of 
cross-border 
adults  

Share of 
adult 
migrants  

Vulnerable 
adults under 
protection 
measures 

Percentage 
share of 
vulnerable 
adults  

Vulnerable 
adults living 
abroad 

Austria 

Belgium  

Cyprus 

Czech 
Republic 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

7355291 

507224 

9198461 

625117 

715902 

19261 

8696919 

199937 

1072524 

4476253 

16727 

65059 

52777556 

1053562 

Germany 

69411906 

3251128 

Latvia 

Portugal 

Greece 

Ireland  

Spain 

Croatia 

Italy 

1548774 

5226 

8571731 

125862 

8861223 

127727 

3764380 

245929 

39015465 

1269234 

3357548 

13369 

50191300 

983583 

Lithuania 

2292790 

6440 

6.9% 

6.8% 

2.7% 

2.3% 

1.6% 

1.5% 

2.0% 

4.7% 

0.3% 

1.5% 

1.4% 

6.5% 

3.3% 

0.4% 

2.0% 

0.3% 

Luxembourg 

506032 

157935 

31.2% 

Hungary 

Malta 

8055592 

432118 

66430 

11113 

Netherlands  

14051991 

416132 

Bulgaria 

Poland 

5761438 

31024120 

9345 

24042 

0.8% 

2.6% 

3.0% 

0.2% 

0.1% 

2.29% 

1.66% 

1.37% 

1.73% 

110013 

210696 

10708 

130080 

16042 

74335 

724100 

1200000 

23165 

128208 

132538 

56304 

583555 

50219 

267000 

0.53% 

34293 

7569 

120488 

6463 

210176 

86174 

464028 

7587 

14319 

288 

2990 

250 

1080 

14455 

56206 

78 

1883 

1910 

3678 

18984 

200 

5232 

96 

2362 

994 

166 

6224 

140 

360 

247 Data based on data collection are marked in black; extrapolated data are highlighted in bold (blue colour). 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Romania  

15682115 

Slovenia  

Slovakia 

Sweden 

1723822 

4436502 

54679 

18301 

52501 

8151423 

219939 

0.3% 

1.1% 

1.2% 

2.7% 

234558 

25783 

66357 

121921 

818 

274 

785 

3290 

Switzerland 

7057747 

98120 

1.39% 

Aggregate for 
Contracting 
States 
Aggregate for 
non-
Contracting 
States  
TOTAL 
EU-26 

EU-26 + 
Switzerland 

2759884 

2334888 

365.796.853 

9545803 

0.02609591 

5094772.286 

1.52% 

144649 

1.50% 

Table 12:  Estimates  of  the  number  of  vulnerable  adults  involved  in  cross-border  situations  in  2030  –  analysis  based  on  protection 
measures248 

Country  

Austria 

Belgium  

Cyprus 

Czech 
Republic 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Latvia 

Portugal 

Greece 

Ireland  

Spain 

Croatia 

Share  of 
adult 
migrants 
2020 

Population 
over 
65 
2030 

Population 
aged 18–65 
2030 

Protection 
measures 
18–65 

Protection 
measures 
over 65 

Vulnerable 
adults 
in 
2030  

Vulnerable 
adults 
cross-border 
situation 2030  

in 

2100942 

5469082 

2656024 

6898525 

187816 

594014 

2371321 

6408123 

303290 

774834 

1422569 

3182982 

102589.2 

3898.391 

129517.2 

4921.655 

10367.58 

393.9681 

118469.5 

4501.842 

14642.59 

556.4184 

63542.12 

2414.601 

16422407 

38599345 

0.011385 

0.019194 

754653.7 

28676.84 

21193302 

47905790 

426203 

975677 

2648038 

5875487 

2661650 

6054504 

967878 

3378123 

11591288 

29744535 

960152 

2254051 

952177.7 

36182.75 

19288.34 

732.9568 

117717.2 

4473.253 

120016.5 

4560.626 

57036.15 

2167.374 

561115.3 

21322.38 

44090.86 

1675.453 

248 Data based on data collection are marked in black; extrapolated data are highlighted in bold (blue colour). 

75 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Italy 

Lithuania 

16200770 

35337492 

640798 

1480597 

Luxembourg 

125189 

444480 

Hungary 

Malta 

2079342 

5882422 

123465 

370920 

Netherlands  

4221565 

10473002 

Bulgaria 

Poland 

Romania  

Slovenia  

Slovakia 

Sweden 

1564210 

3811640 

8396653 

22483878 

3880918 

10846528 

514740 

1244472 

1138472 

3319915 

2363649 

6466169 

Switzerland 

2021484 

5460673 

EU-26 

0.038 

1.09E+08 

2.64E+08 

713264.9 

27104.07 

29155.64 

1107.914 

7463.12 

283.5986 

106880.3 

4061.452 

6592.585 

250.5182 

200260.6 

7609.903 

73417.8 

2789.877 

417137 

15851.21 

197974.5 

7523.03 

24047.85 

913.8185 

59647.94 

2266.622 

118983.1 

4521.358 

100968.4 

3836.797 

5020049 

190761.9 

Table 13: Estimates of current number of vulnerable adults involved in cross-border situations – analysis based on self-perceived health 
difficulties249 

Country 

Austria 

Belgium  

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Latvia 

Portugal 

Greece 

Ireland  

Spain 

Croatia 

Self-perceived long-standing 
limitations in usual activities due 
to health problem 

Number of adults with 
self-perceived 
difficulties 

Adults with severe 
health difficulties living 
abroad 

9% 

8.30% 

7.30% 

7.20% 

11.20% 

7.30% 

8.30% 

10.80% 

7.80% 

9.60% 

9.40% 

5.30% 

5.40% 

9% 

625200 

763472 

52261 

626178 

120123 

326766 

4380537 

7496486 

120804 

822886 

832955 

199512 

2106835 

302179 

43114 

51885 

1406 

14395 

1873 

4749 

87446 

351122 

408 

12083 

12006 

13034 

68539 

1203 

249 Data based on data collection are marked in black; extrapolated data are highlighted in bold (blue colour). 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands  

Bulgaria 

Poland 

Romania  

Slovenia  

Slovakia 

Sweden 

Aggregate for 
Contracting States 

6.50% 

5.80% 

6.10% 

5.80% 

3.80% 

4.30% 

3.40% 

6.90% 

5.60% 

6.60% 

9.70% 

4.30% 

9% 

Aggregate for 
non-Contracting States 

5.90% 

3262435 

132982 

30868 

467224 

16420 

604236 

195889 

2140664 

878198 

113772 

430341 

350511 

63933 

374 

9634 

3853 

422 

17894 

318 

1659 

3062 

1208 

5093 

9457 

16167669 

580487 

11232067 

199682 

Total EU-26 aggregate 

27399736 

780169 

Table 14: Estimates of a number of vulnerable adults involved in cross-border situations in 2030 – analysis based on self-perceived health 
difficulties250 

Country  

Austria 
Belgium  
Cyprus 
Czech 
Republic 
Estonia 
Finland 
France 
Germany 
Latvia 
Portugal 
Greece 
Ireland  
Spain 
Croatia 
Italy 

The 
percentage 
of 
adults 
aged  18–65 
with 
self 
perceived 
health 
difficulties 
2021 
0.059 
0.065 
0.04 
0.043 

The 
percentage 
adults 
of 
65 
over 
with 
self-
perceived 
health 
difficulties 
2021 
0.185 
0.144 
0.216 
0.164 

0.066 
0.045 
0.055 
0.065 
0.038 
0.056 
0.044 
0.042 
0.034 
0.045 
0.029 

0.25 
0.143 
0.159 
0.217 
0.193 
0.208 
0.234 
0.099 
0.119 
0.226 
0.162 

Share  of 
adult 
migrants 
(2017–
2019) 

Population 
over  65  in 
2030 

Population 
aged  18–65 
in 2030 

Vulnerable 
adults  2030 
(health 
difficulties) 

Vulnerable 
adults 
in 
cross-border 
situations  in 
2030  
(health 
difficulties) 

2100942 
2656024 
187816 
2371321 

303290 
1422569 
16422407 
21193302 
426203 
2648038 
2661650 
967878 
11591288 
960152 
16200770 

5469082 
6898525 
594014 
6408123 

774834 
3182982 
38599345 
47905790 
975677 
5875487 
6054504 
3378123 
29744535 
2254051 
35337492 

711350.1 
830871.6 
64328.82 
664445.9 

126961.5 
346661.6 
4734127 
7712823 
119332.9 
879819.2 
889224.3 
237701.1 
2390677 
318426.6 
3649312 

27031.3 
31573.12 
2444.495 
25248.95 

4824.539 
13173.14 
179896.8 
293087.3 
4534.65 
33433.13 
33790.52 
9032.641 
90845.74 
12100.21 
138673.9 

250 Data based on data collection are marked in black; extrapolated data are highlighted in bold (blue colour). 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
0.028 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg  0.054 
0.033 
Hungary 
0.024 
Malta 
Netherlands   0.031 
0.017 
Bulgaria 
0.043 
Poland 
0.023 
Romania  
0.043 
Slovenia  
0.056 
Slovakia 
0.045 
Sweden 
0.042 
Switzerland 
0.047 
EU-26 

0.15 
0.099 
0.139 
0.088 
0.084 
0.085 
0.153 
0.168 
0.146 
0.247 
0.143 
0.074 
0.165 

640798 
125189 
2079342 
123465 
4221565 
1564210 
8396653 
3880918 
514740 
1138472 
2363649 
2021484 
1.09E+08 

1480597 
444480 
5882422 
370920 
10473002 
3811640 
22483878 
10846528 
1244472 
3319915 
6466169 
5460673 
2.64E+08 

137576.4 
36395.63 
483148.5 
19767 
679274.5 
197755.7 
2251495 
901464.4 
128664.3 
467117.8 
628979.4 
378938.1 
29607701 

5227.904 
1383.034 
18359.64 
751.146 
25812.43 
7514.718 
85556.8 
34255.65 
4889.245 
17750.48 
23901.22 
14399.65 
1125093 

0.038 

Table 15: Estimated number of vulnerable adults in non-EU Contracting States251 

Country 

Percentag
e of 
people 
with 
protection 
measures  

Percentag
e of 
people 
with 
severe 
perceived 
difficultie
s  

Adult 
populatio
n  

Share of 
adult 
migrant
s  

Vulnerabl
e adults 
based on 
protection 
measures 

Vulnerabl
e adults 
based on 
health 
difficulties  

Vulnerabl
e adults 
involved 
in cross 
border 
situation – 
protection 
measure  

Vulnerabl
e adults 
involved 
in cross 
border 
situation – 
health 
difficulties  

Monaco 

33300 

462.9517 

2464.2 

7.861737 

41.84646 

Switzerland  0.013902 

0.074 

7057747 

0.01698
2 

98120 

522273.3 

1666.251 

8869.122 

Scotland 

Aggregate  

13.2  1.2 
EU) 

4372800 

60792.65 

323587.2 

1032.366 

5495.082 

2706.479 

14406.05 

Future projections (estimated evolution of the population of vulnerable adults in the 

There is  a reasonable expectation  that the number of vulnerable adults in  cross-border situations will 
increase due to the future demographic developments, such as ageing population and increasing mobility 
in the EU. 

  Ageing population and related vulnerability 

The projected life expectancy in the EU is supposed to increase by approximately five years by 2050 and 
shall  reach  90.82  by  2100.  The  number  of  dependent  people  will  double  by  2050,  affecting  mainly 
Germany and Italy, but also Member States in Central and Eastern Europe. Additionally, the proportion 
of people older than 65 with some form of disability is projected to increase by 77% by 2050252.  

251 Data based on data collection are marked in black; extrapolated data are highlighted in bold (blue colour). 
252  Report  on  mobility  and  inclusion  of  people  with  disabilities  and  the  European  Disability  Strategy  2010–2020. 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2011-0263_EN.html#top 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Older population is, in general, more prone to vulnerability. According to the World Health Organization 
(2022)253, approximately 1 in  6 people above 60 experience some form of  elder abuse  – for instance 
financial, psychological or physical. This happens in the community but also in the institutional setting 
and points to the fact that older populations are more vulnerable and less likely to protect their interest 
either due to deteriorating physical condition, cognitive impairment, worsening mental health and other 
factors related to ageing254. 

While medical advancement can increase average life expectancy, it remains challenging to fight against 
health problems due to ageing, especially dementia or Alzheimer’s. A study conducted by Brookmeyer, 
Johnson, Ziegler-Graham and Arrighi (2007)255 at the John Hopkins University predicted that by 2050, 
more  than  16  million  people  in  Europe  will  suffer  from  dementia.  This  figure  is  somewhat  lower 
accounting only for the EU Member States; nevertheless, these projections show that the number of 
vulnerable adults will significantly increase, and a unified framework of protection measures will 
be necessary to protect their interests. 

 

Increased mobility 

Another aspect, which may also increase the number of people impacted by the problems in the future is 
growing mobility of people in the EU. The Join Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission 
identified migration as one of the 12 megatrends of the future. Even though it is challenging to develop 
a reliable migration forecast, it is reasonable to expect that mobility continues to grow in the future256.  

Methodological approach 

Following the methodology for the calculation of the current number of vulnerable adults, two sets of 
projections about the number of vulnerable adults in 2030 were developed – the first set of projections 
was based on the number of protection measures and the second one on the self-perceived long-standing 
limitations. These projections are based on the population projections data from Eurostat for 2030257. 
Two groups were made: those aged 18–64, and those above 64. This is an important distinction, because 
the population aged 18–64 is projected to shrink, while the proportion of older population is expected to 
rise, thus increasing the number of vulnerable adults.  

Firstly, in order to calculate the projection based on protection measures, the data about the number of 
protection measures from France were used, because France is the only country aggregating the data by 
age. These percentages were extrapolated to the population projection in 2030 across all Member States, 
still distinguishing two different age groups. Then the summation of the two age groups was made to 
reach an overall number of vulnerable adults in the EU-26 population in 2030.  

Secondly, in order to calculate a projection based on self-perceived health difficulties, the Eurostat data 
concerning adults with self-perceived long-standing limitations in usual activities due to health problems 
were taken for year 2021 and divided into 18–64 and over 64 age groups258. The percentages for 2021 
were  applied  to  the  estimated  2030  population,  still  distinguishing  the  two  age  groups  (assuming  the 
proportion of adults with health complications within different age groups remains the same between 

253 WHO. (2022). Abuse of older people. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/abuse-of-older-people  
254 Ibid. 
255 Brookmeyer, R., Johnson, E., Ziegler-Graham, K., & Arrighi, H. M. (2007). Forecasting the global burden of Alzheimer’s 
disease. Alzheimers Dement, 3(3), 186–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jalz.2007.04.381  
256  European  Commission.  Increasing  significance  of  migration.  https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/increasing-
significance-migration_en 
257 
age, 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/proj_19np/default/table?lang=en  
258 2020 was used in case the data were not available for 2021. 

Population 

projection. 

Eurostat. 

(2021b). 

January 

type 

and 

sex 

1st 

on 

by 

of 

79 

 
                                                 
2021 and 2030). Then the summation was made of the two age groups to reach an overall number of 
vulnerable adults in the EU population in 2030.  

Results  

The methodological approach yielded two sets of estimates for 2030. Firstly, an estimation based on the 
number of protection measures equal to slightly more than 5 million vulnerable adults across the EU-26; 
and the second estimate based on the long-standing health limitations corresponding to almost 30 million 
adults at risk of vulnerability in 2030.  

This  estimate  based  on  judicial  protection  is  slightly  lower  than  the  one  reported  under  the  current 
situation.  This  is  because  only  the  French  estimates  about  the  number  of  protection  measures  were 
applied (age division was necessary), and these are in general lower than in other Member States that 
were considered for current estimates (Finland, Germany, Belgium and Switzerland). With France being 
the  only  country  aggregating  the  data  about  the  protection  measures  by  age,  and  with  the  projected 
demographic changes (population aging and shrinking), it is very challenging to provide a reliable future 
estimate  about  the  number  of  vulnerable  adults  based  on  the  number  of  protection  measures. 
Nevertheless, the estimates based on long-standing limitations in usual activities due to health problems 
showed an increasing trend (27.4 million in 2020 compared to almost 30 million in 2030).  

Methodological approach  

To calculate the potential number of vulnerable adults in cross-border situation in 2030, pre-pandemic 
intra-EU  migration  statistics  were  used.  This  choice  is  based  on  the  literature  suggesting  that  the 
migration will come back to pre-pandemic levels in the future259. Therefore, an average percentage of 
EU citizens residing in a different Member States than their country of citizenship throughout 2017–2019 
(3.8%) was used. This percentage was subsequently applied to the projected number of vulnerable adults 
in 2030.  

Results  

The combination of pre-pandemics migration statistics and the projected number of vulnerable adults 
yielded two sets of estimates for the number of vulnerable adults in need of a cross-border arrangement 
in 2030: 190 000 (based on the number of protection measures) and slightly more than 1.1 million 
(based on long-standing health limitations). Both estimates are higher than those calculated for 2020, 
suggesting  that  the  situation  is  going  to  become  more  severe  and  the  number  of  vulnerable  adults 
requiring cross-border protection will rise in the coming years.  

Table 16: Overview of the estimated numbers of vulnerable adults in the EU-26 and in non EU Contracting States 

Estimate based 
on protection 
measures 

5.1 million 

Estimate 
based on 
health 
statistics 
27.4 million 

Estimate based on 
protection measures 
– cross- border cases 

Estimate based on 
health statistics – 
cross-border cases 

144 649 

780 169 

5.02 million 

29.6 million 

190 761 

1.1 million 

159 375 

848 324 

2706 

14 406 

Vulnerable adults in 
the EU-26 – 2020 
Vulnerable adults in 
the EU-26 – 2030 
Vulnerable adults – 
non-EU Contracting 
States – 2020 

259 International Centre for Migration Policy Development, & Spindelgger, M. (2021). Preparing for rising migration pressure 
after the pandemic. https://www.icmpd.org/news/preparing-for-rising-migration-pressure-after-the-pandemic  

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
14  2  COSTS/COST SAVINGS UNDER ALL POLICY OPTIONS 

This section presents the methodology for the assessment of the costs/cost savings under the status quo 
and all policy options. It focuses primarily on costs borne by vulnerable adults in cross-border situations 
(and  their  representatives  and  families)  and  also  on  costs  borne  by  competent  authorities  of  Member 
States, including judicial authorities (courts).  

Several categories of costs are considered, following the Better Regulation Toolbox. 

Table 17: The typology of costs related to the cross-border protection of adults per policy option 

Nature of the costs 

Borne by 

Procedural 
costs by 
adults 

Direct  costs  related  to  administrative  and  court  procedures  borne  in 
cross-border  situations  by  adults,  their  families  and  representatives 
under baseline and all policy options. 

adults, their 
families and 
representatives 

Procedural 
costs by 
competent 
authorities 

Adjustment 
costs  

They  encompass  charges  and  fees  in  relation  to  various  judicial 
procedures and administrative arrangements. These include for instance 
the costs of arranging recognition of powers of representation*, various 
certificates,  exequatur*,  sworn  translation  of  documents,  sending 
registered  letters,  etc.  Vulnerable  adults  or  their  families  often  hire 
lawyers who make all or some of these arrangements for them, which 
implies costs of legal assistance. In some cases, these costs may include 
also costs of medical assessment and travel abroad. 
Direct costs related to administrative and court procedures concerning 
the protection of adults in cross-border situations borne by competent 
authorities, including judicial authorities (courts) under baseline and all 
policy options.  

They  relate  to  handling  administrative  and  judicial  procedures 
involving vulnerable adults in need to arrange cross-border cases and 
correspond  primarily  to  the  working  time  needed  to  implement  these 
procedures,  as  well  as  translation  in  the  language  of  the  requested 
State*. 
Direct compliance costs related to a possible EU intervention.  

They  include  costs  related  to  the  implementation  of  new  policy 
instruments and related procedures. These costs would imply especially 
working time spent on familiarization with the new rules, training, and 
awareness-raising about the initiative.  

Under  some  policy  options,  they  would  also  include  costs  for  digital 
solutions  (software  and  hardware)  related  to  the  digitalisation  of  the 
procedures and communication. This would also entail costs for setting 
up  and  interconnecting  registers  concerning  protection  measures  and 
(confirmed)  powers  of  representation  and  maintaining  these  digital 
solutions.  

competent 
authorities only 

competent 
authorities only 

Enforcement 
costs 

They would also include costs for setting up Central Authorities*. 
Direct costs borne by competent authorities and related to a possible EU 
intervention.  

competent 
authorities only 

They  are  associated  with  activities  linked  to  the  implementation  of  a 
possible  EU  initiative.  They  may  include  costs  for  monitoring  and 
possible  inspections  or  litigation.  They  may  also  include  costs  for 
running the Central Authorities. 

Monetary results are expressed in current prices. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
14.1  2.1 

 Costs of the baseline and general methodology for the calculation of costs 

For the assessment of costs per policy option, several illustrative scenarios were developed on the basis 
of the information and data compiled from literature and stakeholder consultations. These scenarios were 
used to estimate the costs per case under all policy options.  

The costs in brackets do not occur in all cases and were therefore not taken into consideration 
when calculating the costs of each scenario. They are listed for information purposes and to show the 
conservative nature of the assessment of the aggregate costs.  

Table 18: Description of typical illustrative examples and related costs 

Scenario 

Potential costs (differing case by case) related to:  

Illustrative example 1:  

Establishing a 
protection measure 
abroad 

(not very common) 

Mr X is a national of MS A and has 
to  MS  B.  A  protection 
moved 
measure is requested in MS A (e.g. by 
his family).  

Mr X or another branch of the family 
challenge in MS B the decision issued 
in MS A, contesting jurisdiction of a 
court  that  gave  the  decision  or  the 
applicable law. 

- 

- 

The procedure in MS A to establish the protection measure 
requires additional costs relating to cross-border situation: 
- 
- 
- 

travel for the medical assessment; 
travel for the hearing; 
translation costs linked to the procedure. 

The procedure in MS B requires: 
- 
- 

access to justice costs (incl. lawyer); 
(translation and (possibly) apostille of all documents, 
in particular the decision issued in MS A); 
travel costs (e.g. for the family); 
(service of the final decision to parties residing in MS 
A). 

- 
- 

-  Risk of duplicate proceedings in MS A and MS B over the 

Illustrative example 2:  

Implementing a 
protection measure 
abroad 

(common) 

Illustrative example 3: 

Exequatur*  

(rare) 

Illustrative example 4: 

Confirming powers of 
representation* abroad  

(common) 

A  protection  measure  has  been 
adopted by the competent authorities 
of MS A for Mr X.  

- 
- 
- 

Mr  X.  moves  to  MS  B.  The  person 
charged with assisting Mr X must act 
in MS B (e.g. to rent an apartment). A 
real estate agent and a landlord do not 
challenge  the  validity  of  the  foreign 
decision. 

Mr X lives in MS A but has assets in 
MS B. A protection measure has been 
adopted by the competent authorities 
of MS A.  
The guardian decides to sell the assets 
in MS B. To transfer the funds of the 
sale from MS B to MS A, the bank in 
the  exequatur* 
MS  B  asks  for 
(judicial 
the 
of 
recognition) 
protection measure taken in MS A.  

have 

granted 

Powers of representation* concerning 
Mr X 
in 
been 
accordance  with  the  law  of  MS  A 
(where Mr X used to live at the time 
the powers were made) providing for 
the  event  of 
in 
his  protection 
incapacity. Mr X moves to MS B and 
his health deteriorates. The powers of 
representation* need to be confirmed. 

protection of the same vulnerable adult (Mr X) 
travel of the representative to MS B; 
translation of document(s) attesting the protection measure; 
administrative procedures by the representative, entailing 
exchanges by registered letters (several letters for each 
procedure); 

(If the measure had not been recognized, additional costs would 
have been entailed – see Example 3). 

- 

- 
- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

application lodged by a lawyer to the authority or court 
competent for the recognition in MS B; 
sworn translation of proof of protection measure;  
apostille or other proof of authenticity of the judgment from 
MS A; 
decision to be taken by the competent authorities of MS B. 

procedure for the confirmation of the powers of 
representation* in MS B, i.e. judicial or administrative 
proceedings;  
If its national law allows it, the competent authority in MS B 
needs to get information on the law of MS A and translate 
the relevant provisions. The competent authority must then 
assess whether the conditions are met for the confirmation 
of the powers of representation under the law of MS A. 
if the national law of MS B does not provide for the 
confirmation of powers of representation, and they cannot 
be confirmed in MS B, MS B needs to establish a new 
protection measure, translating into all the costs of a new 
procedure: introducing the application, legal representation, 
medical assessment etc. 

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Scenario 

Potential costs (differing case by case) related to:  

Illustrative example 5:  

Contesting a protection 
measure or a 
representative’s decision 
abroad  

(rare) 

Illustrative example 6:  
Conflict of jurisdiction 

(common)   

Illustrative example 7: 
Relocation of a 
vulnerable adult 
without change of 
protection measure 

(quite common) 

Ms  X  lives  in  MS  B,  but  is  under  a 
protection  measure  taken  in  MS  A. 
The  representative designated in MS 
A takes a decision that affects Ms X’s 
assets (e.g. contracts a life insurance 
suspicious  beneficiaries  or 
with 
decides to sell all assets in MS A). Ms 
X wants to contest the measure or the 
decision  of  the  representative  in  MS 
B. She is granted legal aid in MS B. 
The representative seizes the courts of 
MS A to confirm his/her decision. 

Mr X  is  subject  to  a  procedure  to 
establish a protection measure in MS 
A, and he initiates a procedure in MS 
B to obtain a less intrusive protection 
measure – there is a case of conflict of 
jurisdiction. 

lives 

in  MS  A, 

Ms  X 
in  an 
establishment  where  her  protection 
can  be  ensured.  She  enjoys 
the 
company of her sister, Ms Y, who also 
lives in MS A. However, Ms Y finds 
a  job  in  MS  B  and  seeks  to  relocate 
Ms X to a similar establishment in MS 
B. 

access to justice costs 

- 
-  NB: the costs of a lawyer are likely to increase due to the 

- 

- 

- 
- 
- 
- 

- 

- 

cross-border nature of the case, especially if the applicable 
law or jurisdiction needs to be determined.  
(If the court of MS A exercises its jurisdiction, travel costs 
for Ms X to be heard); 
(If the a decision invalidating the measure is taken in MS B, 
service of document to the representative in MS A not 
covered by legal aid); 
(Both courts seized will try to obtain information on the 
foreign case). 

access to justice costs in both MS; 
possible translation costs;  
(possible travel costs for Mr X to be heard in MS A); 
(both courts seized will try to obtain information on the 
foreign case). 

costs required to ensure that both establishments in MS A 
and B agree on the relocation; 
(If any additional measure needs to be taken in MS B (e.g. 
to open a bank account and transfer money) or if a measure 
was taken by the competent authorities of MS A, then need 
for a new protection measure in MS B – see illustrative 
example 1) 

Illustrative example 8:  
Relocation of a 
vulnerable adults with 
change of protection 
measure  

(very common) 

Mr X lives in MS A. He is cared 
for by the social services of MS A. 
It arises that a relative of Mr X, in  
MS  B,  is  ready  to  assist  Mr  X, 
provided that he moves to MS B. 
Mr X is willing to do so. 

-  Costs required to ensure that the competent authorities 
in MS A and B agree on the relocation, and provide 
for a smooth transition from the protection measures 
in MS A to those in MS B (including the appointment 
of the relative of Mr X as the new administrator of Mr 
X, as a result of the termination of the appointment of 
the previous administrator). 

These scenarios were discussed in the context of the consultations undertaken by the external contractor, 
including their validation through a focus group* with stakeholders conducted in September 2022. This 
focus group likewise discussed the results of the cost analysis below and assumptions on which it was 
developed.  These  assumptions  are  presented  below  for  each  illustrative  example,  together  with  the 
information on the prevalence of the particular example (as reported by consulted stakeholders).  

Table 19: Assumptions regarding the costs incurred by adults and competent authorities 

Illustrative example 

Procedural costs by vulnerable adults 

Illustrative  example 
1 
Not very common 

Illustrative  example 
2 
Common 

Illustrative  example 
3 
Rare 

Medical assessment costs 
Travel costs: 5 travels 
Translation costs: ca. 10 p. 
Legal assistance: 20–50 h 
Travel  cost:  5  travels  for  the  establishment  of  the 
protection  measure;  additionally,  annual  travel  by  a 
guardian might be needed (10 travels assumed for the 
low end and 15 for high end)  
Translation costs: 8–50 p. 
Registered letters: 2–5 letters 
Legal assistance: 10–14 h. 
Translation: 10–20 p. 

83 

costs 

Procedural 
competent authorities 
2–3 h per case 

by 

1 h per case 

2–4 h per case 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Illustrative example 

Procedural costs by vulnerable adults 

Illustrative  example 
4 
Very common  

Illustrative  example 
5 
Rare 
Illustrative  example 
6 
Quite common 
Illustrative  example 
7 
Very common 
Illustrative  example 
8 
Very common 

Legal assistance: 6–10 h 
1  travel  for  the  establishment  of  a  new  protection 
measure 
Translation costs: 4 p. 
Legal assistance: 6–20 h  
Additional expertise  

Translation: 10 p. 
Legal assistance: 40–100 h 

No costs 

No costs 

costs 

Procedural 
competent authorities 
2–3 h per case 

by 

2–4 h per case 

2–4 h per case 

2–4 h per case 
Cost  of  establishment  of  a 
new protection measure 

Each category of costs was considered as to its volume:  

Table 20: Cost estimates per category 

Cost category 

Medical assessment 

Cost (cost 
ranges) in 
EUR 
183–600 

Travel 

600 

Translation costs 

Legal assistance costs 

per 

Varying 
MS260 
150  per  hour 
of  work  of  a 
representative 

per 

per 

10–15 
letter 
Varying 
MS262 
916 per case 

Registered letters 

Labour costs for 
competent authorities 
Costs of 
establishment of a 
protection measure 
per individual (only 
for illustrative 
example 8) 

Sources and comments 

The range was calculated on the basis of data from several MS (e.g. 
EUR  183  in  FR,  EUR  200–1000  in  LV)  and  validated  by 
stakeholder consultations 
EUR 600 per travel; the costs may differ per case and distance, not 
country-specific; validated by stakeholder consultations 
Costs of sworn translation per country based on data gathered via 
internet search  
Based on literature261, validated during stakeholder consultations; 
not differentiated per country. 
In cross-border situations, the costs may involve two different rates 
from two countries involved, in various configurations 
Validated during stakeholder consultations 

Eurostat 
labour  cost  data  per  country  for 
‘Administrative and support service activities’263 
Based on the French estimate on the cost of protection measures 
that are financed by public funds264 

the  category 

260 For the breakdown of the translation costs per Member State, see Table 34 in the Study by external contractor*. 
261 European Parliament. Cost of Non-Europe Report, European Code on Private International Law, CoNE 3/2013.  
262  For  the  breakdown  of  the  labour  costs  in  public  authorities  per  Member  State,  see  Table  35  in  the  Study  by  external 
contractor* and Eurostat, Labour cost levels by NACE Rev. 2 activity [LC_LCI_LEV__custom_3330366]. 
263 
cost 
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/LC_LCI_LEV__custom_3330366/default/table?lang=en   
264  Sénat  français.  (2022).  Projet  de  loi  de  finances  pour  2020  :  Solidarité,  insertion  et  égalité  des  chances. 
https://www.senat.fr/rap/l19-140-329/l19-140-3297.html 

Eurostat. 

activity. 

Labour 

(2022). 

NACE 

levels 

Rev. 

by 

2 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Based on the above entries, the costs of the baseline (Policy option 1) were calculated. Baseline only 
includes  Procedural  costs*  for  adults  (and  their  representatives  and  families)  and  for  competent 
authorities  and  does  not  include  any  Adjustment  costs*  or  Enforcement  costs*.  The  table  below 
summarises  the  cost  estimations  per  illustrative  example  with  an  additional  breakdown  between  the 
Procedural costs in Member States that are Contracting States and those that are not.  

Table 21: Average Procedural costs for vulnerable adults and competent authorities per case in Option 1 (baseline) 

Illustrative 
example 

Example 1  

Party to the 
HCCH 2000 
Convention 
Contracting 
(Member) 
State 
Other MS 

Example 2 

Example 3 

Example 4 

Example 5 

Example 6 

Example 7 

Example 8 

Contracting 
(Member) 
States  
Other MS 

Contracting 
(Member) 
States 
Other MS 

Contracting 
(Member) 
States 
Other MS 

Contracting 
(Member) 
States 
Other MS 

Contracting 
(Member) 
States 
Other MS 

Contracting 
(Member) 
States 
Other MS 

Contracting 
(Member) 
States 
Other MS 

 Category of stakeholders bearing the 
costs 

 Low estimate 
(EUR) 

High estimate 
(EUR) 

Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 

360 
21 
381 
4080 
30 
4110 
7966 
17 
7983 
7622 
15 
7638 
1180 
21 
1201 
1550 
25 
1576 
1874 
35 
1909 
2084 
30 
2115 
1400 
35 
1435 
1400 
30 
1430 
360 
42 
402 
6297 
61 
6358 
0 
21 
21 
0 
30 
30 
0 
570 
570 
0 
922 
922 

360 
31 
392 
5397 
46 
5442 
10877 
17 
10894 
10559 
15 
10574 
1562 
42 
1604 
2070 
50 
2121 
2626 
52 
2678 
2879 
46 
2924 
4000 
69 
4069 
4000 
61 
4061 
360 
62 
423 
15297 
91 
15388 
0 
42 
42 
0 
61 
61 
0 
591 
591 
0 
953 
953 

The highest costs per case are estimated for the illustrative example 6, where vulnerable adults may incur 
costs in the range between ca. EUR 6 000 and 15 000 per case. Illustrative example 2 also implies very 
high costs for vulnerable adults being in the range of ca. EUR 8 000  – 11 000. In the Member States 

85 

 
   
   
  
 
   
  
 
   
  
 
   
  
 
   
   
   
  
   
   
   
 
being parties to the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention, due to certain measures adopted under 
the  Convention,  there  are  no  costs  under  the  options  1,  6,  7,  and  8.  The relative  burden  of  costs  lies 
primarily on vulnerable adults, with the exception of the example 8, where competent authorities bear 
the cost of the establishment of a new protection measure. 

Finally, an aggregate of these costs was calculated.  

Table 22: Aggregate of the procedural costs borne by vulnerable adults, per illustrative example under the baseline scenario (thousands 
EUR) 

Example 1 (not very common) 
Example 2 (common) 
Example 3 (rare) 
Example 4 (common) 
Example 5 (rare) 
Example 6 (common) 
Example 7 (quite common) 
Example 8 (very common) 

Low265 

High 

Average 

238 091 
1 244 104 
145 747 
205 006 
209 045 
339 372 
4 613 
98 741 

1 437 312 
9 009 053 
940 653 
1 688 172 
3 191 817 
3 450 850 
48 917 
546 086 

837 701 
5 126 579 
543 200 
946 589 
1 700 431 
1 895 111 
26 765 
322 413 

The highest total costs have been estimated in the example 2, and the lowest costs – in the example 7. 
The aggregate costs lie thus in the range of EUR 27 million to EUR 5 billion. 

Assuming  that  each  person  from  the  estimated  range  of  the  vulnerable  adults  in  cross-border 
situations  is  likely  to  experience  in  their  lifetime  at  least  one  cross-border  case  similar  to  the 
illustrative examples described above, this range can be seen as the representation of the range of 
total costs for the affected group of vulnerable adults under the baseline scenario.  

-  Costs related to the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention under PO1 

As  explained  in  the  impact  assessment,  11  Member  States  are  already  Contracting  States  to  the 
Convention. These Member States would thus continue to have, even under the baseline scenario, regular 
costs related to the application of the Convention. These costs include in particular annual costs for the 
maintenance of the Central Authorities*.  

Member States provided information on the number of full-time-employment (FTE) positions working 
in their Central Authorities in the 2020 questionnaire circulated by the HCCH266. It can be seen that the 
workload reported by the five Member States which provided data is very low and amounts to less than 
one full-time position per  year (i.e. the person(s) tasked with  the role of  Central  Authority under  the 
HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention are charged in parallel with other tasks). 

Based on this data and labour costs per hour for administrative employees as reported by Eurostat267, the 
annual cost burden on Member States for running the Central Authorities was calculated. The estimated 
number  of  hours  worked  annually  in  the  EU  was  obtained  by  multiplying  52  weeks  by  the  average 
number of working week’s hours in the EU, which in May 2022 was reported by Eurostat as 36.4 hours268. 

265 For the low estimate, the low end of the range for the estimated group of vulnerable adults and the low end of the estimates 
of the costs per illustrative example were calculated (taking the average for all the stakeholders affected). 
266 Estimated on the basis of the information obtained from the Responses to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference 
on  Private  International  Law.  (2022).  See  reply  to  Q  2.4  in  the  Prel.Doc  9  of  September  2022  Compilation  of  responses 
received to the September 2020 Questionnaire on the 2000 Protection of Adults Convention that was prepared by HCCH for 
discussion at the 2022 Special Commission*. 
267 Eurostat. (2022). Labour cost levels by NACE Rev. 2 activity. 
268 Eurostat. (2022). Hours of work – annual statistics. 

86 

 
  
 
                                                 
Table 23: Estimate of annual costs for running a Central Authority under the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention (in selected 
MS) 

Member State 

Number  of  FTEs  working  on 
matters  related  to  the  HCCH 
2000  Protection  of  Adults 
Convention per year 

costs 

for 
Labour 
administrative  and  support 
service activities, EUR/h 

Annual cost estimate in EUR 

Austria 
Cyprus 
Germany  
France 
Latvia  
Average 

0.1 
0.01 
0.5 
0.3 
0.5 

26.3 
11.1 

9.8 

4 978 
210 
23 471 
14 877 
9 275 
10 562 

These annual costs related to the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention range from EUR 210 in 
Cyprus to over EUR 23 000 in Germany, with an average of EUR 10 562. In the absence of any clear 
trend in  these data (e.g.  Latvia being a much smaller country than Austria but  having reported much 
higher costs), this average was applied to the remaining Contracting States of the Convention which did 
not report data. 

This resulted in the following estimates:  

Table 24: Estimate of annual costs for running a Central Authority under the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults per MS (PO1) 

Annual aggregate costs in EUR 

Contracting States 
Non-Contracting States 
Total 

14.2  2.2 

Costs of policy options 

116 184 
0 
116 184 

The costs pertaining to the policy options 2–4 are assessed in comparison with the baseline scenario.  

Under all policy options, adults, their families and representatives, as well as competent authorities would 
experience costs savings on Procedural costs*. The extent of these cost savings would depend on the 
policy options. Depending on the policy option and scenario involved, vulnerable adults, their families 
and representatives benefit from savings on costs of various arrangements including medical assessment, 
travel, sworn translations of documents, and necessity of hiring legal assistance.  

Competent authorities also benefit from savings on procedural costs (labour costs) related to the shorter 
duration  of  administrative  procedures,  better  access  to  cross-border  information,  better  international 
cooperation and digitalisation. On the other hand, competent authorities incur adjustment costs* and 
enforcement costs* that are generated by the implementation of the EU intervention. These are in 
particular costs related to international cooperation within the framework of the Convention (costs for 
setting up and running Central Authorities*) and for additional complementing measures under the EU 
regulation  (costs  of  digitalisation  of  the  procedures  and  communication  and  for  setting  up  and 
interconnecting digitalised registers under the Options 3 and 4). 

Notably, vulnerable adults, their families and representatives would incur no new costs as a result 
of any policy option. 

14.2.1  2.2.1  Costs under the policy option 2 

This policy option would aim to ensure that all Member States become a party to the Convention within 
a certain timeframe. The uniform rules provided for in the Convention would facilitate the cross-border 
protection of adults, thus resulting in considerable costs reductions.  

87 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-  Procedural costs under PO2 

Procedural costs for vulnerable adults, their families and representatives and for competent authorities 
were estimated following stakeholders’ consultations and consultations with senior experts. As a result, 
it was assumed that due to the adoption of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention, costs in 
some of the illustrative examples would be reduced: this would occur in the examples 1, 6, 7, and 8. 

The resulting estimates are presented in the table below. In addition to the costs per case calculated for 
each  illustrative  example,  the  table  presents  gains  in  terms  of  cost  savings  and  additional  costs  as 
compared to the baseline scenario.  

Table 25: Average procedural costs* for adults and competent authorities per case and savings per case in Option 2 as compared to the 
baseline 

Example 1  

Example 2 

Example 3 

Example 4 

Example 5 

Example 6 

Example 7 

Contracting 
States 

Other MS 

Contracting 
States 

Other MS 

Contracting 
States 

Other MS 

Contracting 
States 

Other MS 

Contracting 
States 

Other MS 

Contracting 
States 

Other MS 

Contracting 
States 

Other MS 

Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 

Procedural costs* in 
Option 2 per case (EUR) 
Low 
360 
7 
367 
297 
6 
303 
7966 
17 
7983 
7622 
15 
7638 
1180 
21 
1201 
1550 
25 
1576 
1874 
35 
1909 
2084 
30 
2115 
1400 
35 
1435 
1400 
30 
1430 
360 
14 
374 
297 
12 
309 
0 
7 
7 
0 
6 
6 

High 
360 
10 
371 
297 
9 
306 
10877 
17 
10894 
10559 
15 
10574 
1562 
42 
1604 
2070 
50 
2121 
2626 
52 
2678 
2879 
46 
2924 
4000 
69 
4069 
4000 
61 
4061 
360 
21 
381 
297 
18 
315 
0 
14 
14 
0 
12 
12 

88 

Gain (cost savings)/Loss 
(cost increase) in EUR  

Low 
0 
14 
14 
3783 
24 
3807 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
28 
28 
6000 
49 
6049 
0 
14 
14 
0 
24 
24 

High 
0 
21 
21 
5100 
37 
5137 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
42 
42 
15000 
73 
15073 
0 
28 
28 
0 
49 
49 

 
 
 
  
  
  
   
  
 
 
   
  
 
 
   
  
 
 
   
  
 
  
   
   
  
    
   
 
   
Example 8  

Contracting 
States 

Other MS 

Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 

Procedural costs* in 
Option 2 per case (EUR) 

0 
190 
190 
0 
189 
189 

0 
197 
197 
0 
195 
195 

Gain (cost savings)/Loss 
(cost increase) in EUR  
0 
380 
380 
0 
733 
733 

0 
394 
394 
0 
757 
757 

Not only those Member States that are not Contracting Parties to the Convention would have cost savings 
under PO2 but also those Member States that are already Contracting Parties. This is due to the fact that 
under PO2 the uniform rules of the Convention would apply not only vis-à-vis current 13 Contracting 
Parties but also vis-a-vis other Member States that currently are not Contracting Parties.  

Gains in Option 2 as compared to Option 1 arise in the illustrative examples 1, 6, 7, and 8, and are due 
to  the  adoption  of  certain  measures  under  the  HCCH  2000  Protection  of  Adults  Convention*,  which 
eliminate the costs for vulnerable adults and competent authorities in the Member States that are currently 
non-Contracting States. In the examples 1 and 6, the reduction in costs occurs for vulnerable adults, while 
in the examples 7 and 8, the reduction applies to competent authorities. In all the examples, the highest 
gains arise in the Member States which are currently non-Contracting States. The scale of cost reduction 
is particularly high in the example 6, where the savings amount to ca. EUR 6 000 – 15 000 per case. Also 
in the example 1, the reduction is substantial and lies in the range of ca. EUR 3 800 – 5 100 per case. 

For the calculation of the aggregate procedural costs under PO2, a similar approach was taken as for the 
calculation of these aggregate costs under PO1 (above).  

Table 26 Total procedural cost savings per case averaged across all Member States in Option 2 (EUR) 

Gains (cost savings) 

Low 

High 

Average 

2 202 

2 972 

2 587 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 501 

20 

584 

0 

0 

0 

0 

8 714 

40 

604 

0 

0 

0 

0 

6 108 

30 

594 

Illustrative Example 1 

Illustrative Example 2 

Illustrative Example 3 

Illustrative Example 4 

Illustrative Example 5 

Illustrative Example 6 

Illustrative Example 7 

Illustrative Example 8 

Table 27: Comparison of aggregate cost-savings on Procedural costs under PO1 and PO2 (thousands EUR) 

cost 

example 

Highest 
Total 
Highest  cost example  for 
adults 
Highest  cost example  for 
competent authorities 

Option 2 vs Option 1 

Low 

High 

Average 

268 229 

3 047 262 

1 657 746 

261 617 

2 995 228 

1 628 423 

6 612 

52 033 

29 323 

89 

 
 
 
   
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
cost 

example 

Lowest 
Total 
Lowest  cost  example  for 
adults 
Lowest  cost  example  for 
competent authorities 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-  Adjustment and enforcement costs under PO2 

There  would  be  limited  Adjustment  costs*  related  to  the  PO2,  i.e.  related  to  the  ratification  of  the 
Convention. They would affect only competent authorities of new Contracting States (and not adults or 
the existing Contracting States). 

require  preparatory  work 

For those (15) Member States that are not  yet Contracting Parties to the Convention, the ratification 
time-consuming) 
would 
ratification/legislative  procedure.  Once  adopted,  the  new  rules  need  to  be  applied  by  competent 
authorities and legal professionals. This would require providing dedicated training, awareness-raising 
activities and other information and support. Besides these one-off adjustment costs, minor recurrent 
costs  for  regular  training  of  competent  authorities’  staff  concerning  the  Convention  could  also  be 
expected as a result of this policy option.  

(sometimes 

including 

effort, 

and 

In addition, under this PO, the new Contracting Parties would have to set up Central Authorities* that 
will coordinate and facilitate the implementation of the Convention. Related costs will however not be 
significant  since  in  practice  the  majority  of  Contracting  States  attributed  the  function  of  a  Central 
Authority to their ministries of justice without further requirements in terms of additional staffing269. 

In  addition  to  the adjustment costs, additional  Enforcement costs*  associated with  activities such as 
monitoring of the application of the legislation or costs related to international cooperation within the 
framework of the Convention. In particular, sufficient resources will need to be provided to the Central 
Authorities to ensure their effective functioning. These costs for the efficient running of the Central 
Authorities would also continue to be borne by other Member States, those that are already Contracting 
States under the baseline.  

The annual enforcement costs of the Central Authority under PO2 have been estimated on the basis of 
the methodology explained above in the section on Costs related to the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults 
Convention  under  PO1.  In  this  option,  the  costs  would  apply  to  all  Member  States  in  EU-26.  The 
aggregate estimates are provided in the Table below.  

Table 28: Estimate of annual costs for running a Central Authority under the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults per MS (PO2 as compared 
to PO1) 

Contracting States 
Non-Contracting States 
Total 

Annual aggregate implementation 
costs in EUR in Option 2 

Additional costs as compared to 
Option 1 

116 184 
158 433 
274 617 

0 
158 433 
158 433 

269 Contracting States to the Convention indicated that their Central Authorities spend on average less than one FTE to ensure 
the smooth operation of the Convention (the estimates ranging from 0 to 0.5 days). See reply to Q 2.4 in the  Prel.Doc 9 of 
September 2022 Compilation of responses received to the September 2020 Questionnaire on the 2000 Protection of Adults 
Convention that was prepared by HCCH for discussion at the 2022 Special Commission*.  

90 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
14.2.2  2.2.2  Costs under the policy option 3 

Under  this  policy  option,  the  EU  would  adopt  a  regulation  that  would  harmonise  the  PIL*  rules 
concerning  the  protection  of  adults.  These  PIL  rules  (e.g.  rules  on  jurisdiction  and  applicable  law) 
included in such a regulation would largely replicate those included in the Convention; however, they 
could be improved or adapted to the EU legal landscape whenever desirable.  

The uniform rules provided for in the Regulation would facilitate the cross-border protection of adults 
even to a greater extent than PO2, thus resulting in considerable costs reductions. 

-  Procedural costs under PO3 

Procedural costs for vulnerable adults, their families and representatives and for competent authorities 
were estimated in the same way for policy options 1 and 2, on the basis of the illustrative examples (see 
the above description). Under PO3, several elements of costs as described in the illustrative examples are 
either reduced or eliminated. 

The resulting estimates are presented in the table below. In addition to the costs per case calculated for 
each  illustrative  example,  the  table  presents  gains  in  terms  of  cost  savings  and  additional  costs  as 
compared to the baseline scenario.  

Table 29: Average procedural costs for adults and competent authorities per case and savings per case in Option 3 as compared to the 
baseline 

Example 1  

Contracting 
States 

Other MS 

Example 2 

Contracting 
States 

Other MS 

Example 3 

Contracting 
States 

Other MS 

Example 4 

Contracting 
States 

Other MS 

Example 5 

Contracting 
States 

Other MS 

Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 

Average costs per 
case in Option 3 
(EUR) 

Low 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
10 
35 
45 
10 
30 
40 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
800 
35 
835 
800 
30 

High 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
45 
35 
80 
45 
30 
75 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1100 
35 
1135 
1100 
30 

Gain (cost 
savings)/Loss (cost 
increase, negative 
numbers) 
Low 
360 
21 
381 
4080 
30 
4110 
7956 
-17 
7939 
7612 
-15 
7597 
1180 
21 
1201 
1550 
25 
1576 
1874 
35 
1909 
2084 
30 
2115 
600 
0 
600 
600 
0 

High 
360 
31 
392 
5397 
46 
5442 
10832 
-17 
10815 
10514 
-15 
10498 
1562 
42 
1604 
2070 
50 
2121 
2626 
52 
2678 
2879 
46 
2924 
2900 
35 
2935 
2900 
30 

91 

 
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
   
  
 
 
   
  
 
 
   
  
 
 
   
  
 
  
   
Example 6 

Contracting 
States 

Other MS 

Example 7 

Contracting 
States 

Other MS 

Example 8 

Contracting 
States 

Other MS 

Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 
Vulnerable adults 
Public administration 
Total 

Average costs per 
case in Option 3 
(EUR) 

830 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1130 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

Gain (cost 
savings)/Loss (cost 
increase, negative 
numbers) 
600 
360 
42 
402 
6297 
61 
6358 
0 
21 
21 
0 
30 
30 
0 
570 
570 
0 
922 
922 

2930 
360 
62 
423 
15297 
91 
15388 
0 
42 
42 
0 
61 
61 
0 
591 
591 
0 
953 
953 

Gains  in  Option  3  as  compared  to  the  baseline  arise  in  all  illustrative  examples,  and  are  due  to  the 
adoption of a set  of  EU  measures, which in  this  option go beyond the measures  envisaged under the 
HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention. These savings are very substantial and range between ca. 
EUR 6 000 and EUR 15 000 per case in the example 6 and ca. EUR 7 500 and 10 500 per case in the 
example 2. The highest reductions in costs occur for vulnerable adults. Additional costs for a small scale 
(EUR 15-17 per case) arise for competent authorities in the example 2, due to the increased time needed 
for competent authorities to handle the cases. 

For the calculation of the aggregate Procedural costs under PO3, a similar approach was taken as for the 
calculation of these aggregate costs under PO1 (above). 

Table 30: Total procedural cost savings per case averaged across all Member States in Option 3 (EUR) 

Gains (cost savings) 

Low 

High 

Average 

Illustrative Example 1 

Illustrative Example 2 

Illustrative Example 3 

Illustrative Example 4 

Illustrative Example 5 

Illustrative Example 6 

Illustrative Example 7 

Illustrative Example 8 

3 306 

1 0632 

1 902 

2 820 

4 064 

343 

53 

800 

2 919 

9 187 

1 660 

2 424 

2 748 

340 

40 

786 

2 533 

7 742 

1 417 

2 028 

1 432 

337 

26 

773 

92 

 
  
 
   
 
   
  
  
 
   
   
 
   
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
Table 31: Comparison of aggregate cost-savings on procedural costs under PO1 and PO3 (thousands EUR) 

Option 3 vs Option 1 

Low 

High 

Average 

1 236 121 

8 938 375 

5 087 248 

1 239 389 

8 956 161 

5 097 775 

-3 268 

-17 785 

-10 527 

-3 370 

48 917 

22 774 

0 

0 

0 

4 613 

48 917 

26 765 

Highest  cost  example 
Total 
Highest  cost  example 
for adults 
Highest  cost  example 
for 
competent 
authorities 
Lowest  cost  example 
Total 
Lowest  cost  example 
for adults 
Lowest  cost  example 
for 
competent 
authorities 

-  Adjustment and enforcement costs under PO3 

There would be Adjustment and Enforcement costs related to PO3; however, these costs would affect 
only competent authorities of Member States in EU-26. 

Adjustment costs under PO3 

Similarly to PO2, Member States would bear adjustment costs related to the introduction of the new 
rules in matters concerning the protection of adults with cross-border implications. Unlike with PO2, all 
Member States would have to get familiar with the new legal framework, not only the Member States 
that are non-Contracting States. This is because the Regulation under PO3 would introduce additional 
rules,  building  on  those  in  the  Convention.  The  one-off  and  recurrent  costs  would  thus  arise  for  the 
familiarization with a new legal framework and regular training of judges and legal professionals.  

In addition, the full realisation of the benefits from the European Certificate of Representation* under 
PO3 may also require some accompanying measures, such as communication campaigns. 

Similarly to PO2, Member States would have to set up Central Authorities* that would coordinate and 
facilitate the application of the rules contained in the Regulation*. Contracting States to the Convention 
have already established Central Authorities under the Convention and these could readily be used. The 
costs  were  thus  estimated  as  limited  and  would  only  be  borne  by  those  15  Member  States  that  are 
non-Contracting States. 

In  addition  to  these costs, the Regulation  under  PO3 would also  provide additional rules building on 
those in the Convention and facilitating them. Most of these rules would be linked to no additional costs. 
However,  costs  would  arise  from  the  introduction  of  rules  on:  (1) legal  aid;  (2) digitalisation;  and 
(3) interconnection of registers.  

- 

(1)  

Legal aid  

PO3 would include provisions that would extend legal aid to additional categories of formalities in 
cross-border  situations  that  currently  cannot  benefit  from  the  national  or  European  legal  aid 
arrangements. This would entail additional costs for the provision of such aid. However, quantitative data 
assessing such costs are very limited, and it is challenging to estimate in how many cases of cross-border 
adults  the new legal  aid  provisions  would actually  apply. This  is  why comparable impact  assessment 

93 

 
  
 
(such as the one carried out for the Brussels IIb Regulation*270) do not include such assessment of the 
costs on the provision of legal aid. Nevertheless, it is not expected that the provision of legal aid in some 
cross-border cases would create a significant economic burden on the public finances of Member States 
considering the limited number of vulnerable adults in cross-border situations estimated, and the limited 
categories of additional costs covered. 

- 

(2) 

European Certificate of Representation  

The  introduction  of  the  European  Certificate  of  Representation  (ECR)  under  PO3  would  further 
significantly reduce the procedural costs for adults. 

As the ECR would provide uniform evidentiary effects in all Member States concerning the powers of 
representation* in other Member States, its introduction would streamline the circulation of powers of 
representation  in  the  EU.  Since  it  could  be issued  digitally  and  would  be  available  in  all  EU  official 
languages, it would further reduce the need for translations or additional documentation for proving the 
validity of the certificate. The procedural efficiency generated by this measure would further simplify 
the procedures, so that legal support would only rarely be needed.  

The magnitude of such benefits would depend on the share of adults and their representatives who would 
request the ECP, which would remain a voluntary instrument. It is not possible to establish at this stage 
what this share would be. It should however be noted that during the consultations in the context of this 
impact assessment, the ECR was considered among the stakeholders, public and Member States as one 
of the most beneficial tools to be introduced by an EU Regulation.  

The adjustment costs related to the introduction of the ECR would be minor. As is the case for other 
EU  civil-law  legislation,  the  forms  related  to  the  PA  Regulation*,  such  as  the  ECR  form,  would  be 
available  at  the  e-Justice  Portal*.  For  the  Member  States  that  do  not  already  issue  a  similar  national 
certificate,  this  measure  may  entail  adjustments  to  the  national  rules,  maybe  including  legislative 
changes. The introduction of the ECR under the PO3 may require training for the competent authorities, 
such as information campaigns at the national level and EU level. These are however expected to be low. 
Overall, all these costs would be compensated by the reductions of the procedural costs generated by this 
measure.  

- 

(3) 

 Digitalisation  

Additional  adjustment  costs  can  be  expected  for  digitalisation.  In  line  with  the  ‘digital  by  default’ 
principle  and  the  EU  policy  on  digitalisation  of  justice271,  the  Regulation  would  provide  for  specific 
provisions on digitalisation of the cross-border procedures involving the protection of adults, as described 
in Box 2, while building on the precedents in that area. These rules would include the mandatory use of 
digital channels for exchanges between competent authorities, digital multilingual standard forms, and 
an electronic portal for the general public to make their requests, including a request for a ECR*. As a 
result,  individuals  would  be  able  (but  not  obliged)  to  swiftly  and  securely  communicate  through 
electronic means with authorities competent in matters of cross-border protection of adults.  

270 SWD (2016) 207 final/4 accompanying the proposal for the Brussels IIb Regulation*.  
271 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. 

94 

 
                                                 
The proposal for a regulation on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation (‘Digitalisation proposal*’)272 
aims to effectively digitalise procedures in various areas of cross-border judicial cooperation in civil and 
family matters273. The proposal already envisages the establishment of a decentralised IT system and of 
a European electronic access point on the e-Justice Portal*. This IT infrastructure developed for other 
legal acts in civil matters could be readily expanded to include also the provisions of the PA Regulation*. 
In particular, the existing reference implementation software274 developed by the Commission for the use 
by Member States and used for other legal acts could be adapted for the purposes of the PA Regulation*. 
Since it is reasonably expected that most authorities already connected to the decentralised IT system 
would  also  be  responsible  for  matters  related  to  the  cross-border  protection  of  adults,  significant 
synergies are expected. For instance, it can be assumed that courts of Member States and the ministries 
of justice (often acting as Central Authorities* under the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention) 
would already be connected to the IT system as a result of the digitalisation of other civil-justice legal 
instruments. The decentralised IT system is already established for the purposes of cross-border service 
of documents and taking of evidence, and will be applied in practice by all EU courts and competent 
authorities*  as  of  2025.  Whether  any  other  new  competent  authorities  would  have  to  be  additionally 
connected to a decentralised IT system for the purposes of the PA initiative* would depend on Member 
States. Alternatively, a separate ‘network’ based on the same decentralised IT system could be set up for 
the purposes of a PA Regulation*. Notwithstanding, certain costs would be incurred in the context of 
defining  the  exact  business  processes,  workflows,  and  technical  specification  required  for  the 
communication envisaged under a PA Regulation*, both with regard to the decentralised IT system and 
the European electronic access point on the e-Justice Portal*. 

The costs for these possible IT developments were however assessed as one-off and moderate275, 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  proposal276.  In  addition,  further  minor  costs  would  be  needed  for  the  regular 
maintenance of the digital solutions after they are developed and implemented. These would represent 
recurrent adjustment costs.  

272 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. 
273 Including in matters of parental responsibility under the Brussels IIb Regulation* or in succession and maintenance matters 
under the Succession and Maintenance Regulations respectively. 
274 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 PA 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. 
275  See  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  Impact  Assessment  Report  accompanying  the  Digitalisation  proposal*. 
SWD/2021/392 final. 
276 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 PA Regulation*, the methodology of that impact assessment could be used to produce an estimate of the 
costs for digitalising the procedures under the PA regulation*. The impact assessment made for the digitalisation proposal 
(which however concerns the digitalisation of 23 EU legal instruments) include the following conclusions and estimates: The 
costs for the Member States will be rather limited: a total of EUR 8 100 000 per year i.e. EUR 300 000 per year per Member 
State. In the first two years, the cost of installation will be EUR 100 000 per year per Member State. This includes equipment 
costs and the human resources needed to configure  it. The remaining EUR 200 000 are needed to provide support to an 
increasing number of users. As of the third year, there are no hardware and installation costs, only costs related to user 
support and maintenance of the system. This is estimated at EUR 300 000 per year. The e-CODEX system is an open-source 
solution that could be used free of charge. While Member States are expected to bear these costs from their national budgets, 
they can nonetheless apply for EU financial support under the relevant financing programmes, such as the Justice programme 
and the cohesion policy instruments. It should also be highlighted that some Member States already operate a pilot version 
of e-CODEX, which they may reuse and build upon for the newly defined purposes. 

95 

 
                                                 
The  costs  for  these  digitalisation  measures  would  be  shared  between  Member  States  and  the 
European  Commission.  In  line  with  the  approach  for  digitalizing  other  areas  of  civil  justice,  the 
European  Commission  would  provide  both  grants  for  Member  States  to  set  up  the  IT  system  for 
communication within the decentralised IT system and to provide them with a free of charge reference 
implementation software for the purposes of authority-to-authority communication. 

- 

 (3)  

Interconnection of national registers 

The PO3 also envisages the interconnection of national registers concerning protection measures and 
(confirmed) powers of representation*. This would entail measures ensuring their interoperability, but 
may also involve their establishment (in those Member States where such registers do not yet exist277) or 
their digitalisation (where such registers exist but not in an electronic form). As explained in the impact 
assessment, such interconnection would facilitate obtaining the information about the legal capacity of 
adults in various cross-border contexts.  

The costs for the interconnection of national registers have been estimated on the basis of the actual 
costs of setting up a similar tool that was implemented as a result of the adoption of the Regulation (EU) 
2015/848 on insolvency proceedings (recast)278.  

While the actual costs for setting-up a digitalised interconnected register in the area of vulnerable adults 
might differ from the register for insolvency cases due to the different nature of the data (e.g. the number 
of the cases handled, the duration of keeping the data), it proved to be impossible to establish any clear 
differences among these two types of registers which would allow adjusting the estimate. Therefore, the 
data  obtained  from  the  survey  of  Member  States’  judicial  authorities  on  the  costs  of  setting  up  and 
maintenance of the insolvency register have been used to provide a rough proxy of the costs concerning 
a similar register for the protection measures for vulnerable adults.  

First, in case of insolvency, some Member States had to set up an electronic register since they did not 
operate one before. This would be the case also for the area of vulnerable adults, since several Member 
States  do  not  have  registers  at  the  moment,  or  these  registers  are  not  yet  digital279.  According  to  the 
survey, the costs of setting up an electronic register that could be interconnected with registers of other 
Member States for the insolvency regulation ranged between EUR 122 050 and 618 634. An average of 
set-up costs equal to EUR 303 954 and an average of annual maintenance cost amounting to EUR 203 
641 was thus used to extrapolate calculations for the Member States which did not provide data280.  

Second, even those Member States that had digital insolvency registers had to adapt those registers to 
some extent to ensure their interconnection with other national registers. According to the interviews and 
based on experience with other areas, the costs of the development of new functionalities in the digital 
system to accommodate the need to store, process and transfer the interconnected data from Member 
States amounted to EUR 2.4 million across the EU in the period 2021–2022. Since this work was reported 
to be close to its finalisation, it was assumed that the total amount for these two years represents the total 

277 Based on the available data, six Member States do not have such national registers at the moment: BG (however, Bulgarian 
law provides for the establishment of a registry), CY, EE, EL, PL and RO. 
278 Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings 
(recast), L 141/19.  
279 All but six Member States had set up registries for protection measures. Fifteen Member States have a digitalised registry 
(IT, MT and SI have only partly digitalised their registries). 
280 It can also be noted that the impact assessment of the insolvency regulation provided an estimate of the costs of establishing 
a digital insolvency register in the range of EUR 0.5 – 1 million per MS, which was thus is a slight overestimate of the actual 
costs for some of the MS. See: COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying 
the document Revision of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (2012).  

96 

 
                                                 
costs of setting up such a system at EU level.  

These estimates on the costs of interconnection of insolvency registers are used also to estimate the costs 
of  the  measures  related  to  interconnection  of  registers  related  to  vulnerable  adults.  The  table  below 
provides the summary of the aggregate costs. Setting-up of the interconnected register would imply the 
aggregate costs of ca. EUR 8 million falling on Member States’ administration and EUR 2.5 million 
falling on EU administration, with a total around EUR 10 million.  

Table 32: Aggregate costs for establishment of a digital interconnected register (one-time costs) 

Member States (EU-26) 
EU level 
TOTAL  

Costs  of  setting-up  a  digital  interconnected  register 
(EUR) 
7 902 794 
2 400 000 
10 302 794 

The estimates per Member State (based on the assumptions described above) are presented in the Table 
33 below. 

Table 33: Costs of interconnection of registries under the Insolvency Regulation 

Member State 

Set-up 
costs281 

Belgium 

/ 

Adaptations and/or 
connection of an 
already existing 
electronic insolvency 
register282 
Connection costs: 
EUR 30.000  

Croatia 
Czech Republic 
Estonia 
France  

EUR 166 000  
EUR 400 000 
/ 

/ 
/ 
EUR 65 000 
EUR 410.000285 
EUR 40.000286 

Germany 
Hungary 

Ireland 

/ 
/ 

/ 

(CONFIDENTIAL) 
EUR 214 858 (VAT not 
included) 
EUR 85 000 

Annual maintenance costs 

EUR 2.5 million283 
Plus a EUR 1.5 million development budget for 
functional or legal evolutions 

EUR 34 100284 

Recurring TMA (application management + 
monitoring): EUR 96 000287.  
Recurring outsourcing (shared infrastructure, 
virtual servers, production engineers): EUR 55 
000288. 
Recurring TMA (application management + 
monitoring): EUR 6 500 / year.  
Recurring Outsourcing (infrastructure based on a 
shared infrastructure, virtual servers, production 
engineers): EUR 9 000 / year. 
(CONFIDENTIAL) 
EUR 188 000 (VAT not included) 

Not available 

281 If the Member State did not already have a system in place. 
282 If the Member State already had a system in place. 
283 NB: This data is not in line with the costs of other MS. No explanation could be collected from the authorities on the reason 
for this discrepancy.  
284 Annual cost of operating a small information system. While, in terms of the annual cost of operating the current insolvency 
information system (ISIR), the amount cannot be conclusively calculated. 
285 In the framework of the BRIS project, which entails the interconnection of business registers within the EU, pursuant to 
Directive 2012/17/EU. The scope of the project is therefore much broader than insolvency registers. 
286 Under the framework of the IRI project, which concerns the interconnection of insolvency registers (based in France on 
the Registre du Commerce et des Sociétés).  
287 Under the BRIS project. 
288 Under the BRIS project.  

97 

 
 
                                                 
 
 
 
Italy 

/ 

Lithuania 
Malta 

/ 
EUR 66 
050290 

EUR 63 084 (VAT not 
included)289 
EUR 200 000 
EUR 56,000.00291 

Not available 

EUR 23 000 
EUR 19 348/year292  

Slovenia 

EUR 618.634 
293 

EUR 300 000–500 000  

Sweden 

/ 

EUR 1.135.546 

EUR 80 000 for the year 2023/2024 for the further 
development of the Register under the 
requirements of Article 29 of the Insolvency 
Directive 2019/1023.  
Publication of data from the register, user 
education: EUR 100 000 
Average upgrade costs – external contractors 
approx. EUR 50 000 annually 
/ 

The annual costs of maintenance of this interconnection of registers were also calculated based on the 
estimates related to the insolvency register and according to the same survey as for set-up costs. The 
annual maintenance costs for EU-26 range from EUR 19 248 to EUR 2.5 million294. Since the highest 
estimate (for Belgium, amounting to EUR 203 641) seems to be an outlier, with all other estimates as 
reported by the remaining Member States being much lower, the Belgian estimates were excluded from 
the calculation of the average. The average was used to extrapolate the costs to the Member States which 
did not provide data on this issue.  

In addition, the costs of maintenance of the insolvency register at the EU level (borne by the European 
Commission) are in the range of EUR 215 000 – 261 000 annually, with an average of EUR 238 000. 
The table below provides the summary of the aggregate maintenance costs.  

Table 34: Aggregate maintenance costs of a digital interconnected register for insolvency (annual costs) 

Costs of maintenance of a digital interconnected register (EUR) 

Member States (EU-26) 

EU level  

TOTAL 

5 294 675 

238 000 

5 532 675 

Table 35: Costs of setting up a digital register per Member State [EUR] 

Country  

Austria 

Belgium  

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

set-up costs 

annual maintenance costs 

303954 

303954 

303954 

550000 

203641 

203641 

203641 

203641 

289 Including i) interconnection services between the ‘Back End’ of the ‘PRP’ and the ‘Domibus connector’; ii) Services for 
the management of the ‘Requests’ received from the ‘IRI’ portal and generation of the related ‘Responses’ iii) ‘Consultation 
logging’ module; iv) study and training; and v) software distribution support. 
290 From conception to implementation, and excluding subsequent maintenance costs of the electronic register under Article 24 
of the Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings 
(recast), L 141/19.  
291 This cost entails the connection of electronic register to the decentralized system developed by the Commission under 
Article 25 (excluding subsequent maintenance costs). 
292 Excluding data aggregation and reporting required by Article 29 of Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on preventive restructuring frameworks, on discharge of debt and disqualifications, and 
on measures to increase the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt, and amending 
Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (Directive on restructuring and insolvency).  
293 Connection with the decentralized system amounts to EUR 15 000–50 000. 
294 It can also be noted that the impact assessment of the insolvency regulation provided an estimate of the maintenance costs 
in the range of EUR 100 000 – 150 000, which is lower (but not substantially) than this estimate. 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
                                                 
 
Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Latvia 

Portugal 

Greece 

Ireland  

Spain 

Croatia 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands  

Bulgaria 

Poland 

Romania  

Slovenia  

Slovakia 

Sweden 

Aggregates 

Contracting Parties 

Non-Contracting Parties 

Total 

Enforcement costs under PO3 

303954 

303954 

303954 

303954 

303954 

303954 

303954 

303954 

303954 

166000 

63084 

303954 

303954 

303954 

122050 

303954 

303954 

303954 

303954 

618634 

303954 

303954 

3589536 

4313258 

7902794 

203641 

203641 

166500 

675000 

203641 

203641 

203641 

203641 

203641 

203641 

203641 

23000 

203641 

188000 

19348 

203641 

203641 

203641 

203641 

150000 

203641 

203641 

2674272 

2620403 

5294675 

In  addition  to  the adjustment costs, additional  Enforcement costs*  associated with  activities such as 
monitoring of the application of the legislation or costs related to international cooperation within the 
framework  of  the  Regulation  (including  the  cooperation  via  EJN-civil*).  In  particular,  sufficient 
resources would need to be provided to the Central Authorities* to ensure their effective functioning. 
These costs for the efficient running of the Central Authorities would also continue to be borne  in all 
EU-26 Member States.  

The same annual enforcement costs of the Central Authority were estimated for PO3 as for PO2 above 
(See  Table 28:  Estimate  of  annual  costs  for  running  a  Central  Authority  under  the  HCCH  2000 
Protection of Adults per MS (PO2 as compared to PO1)). 

14.2.3  2.2.3  Costs under the policy option 4 

Policy Option 4 would consist in adopting both: (i) the Council decision obliging Member States to ratify 
the Convention* within a certain timeframe and (ii) the EU regulation. Through the combination of both 
internal  and  external  EU  action,  vulnerable  adults  living  in  the  EU  would  enjoy  the  widest  possible 
protection – both in the EU and other Contracting States* to the Convention (wide territorial scope). In 

99 

 
 
 
addition,  the  rules  applicable  among  the  Member  States  would  build  on  the  rules  contained  in  the 
Convention, further facilitating their functioning (wide material scope). These rules would facilitate the 
cross-border protection of adults even to a greater extent than PO2 or PO3, thus resulting in the highest 
costs reductions. 

This option would thus have the combined effects, both in terms of benefits and in terms of costs, 
as  POs 2  and  3  together.  The  explanations  related  to  the  costs  of  POs 2  and  3  thus  applies,  where 
relevant, equally to PO4. 

Under  PO4,  the  savings  on  procedural  costs  for  vulnerable  adults,  their  families  and  representatives 
would be the same as in Option 3. Also, the procedural costs savings for the competent authorities would 
be the same as in Option 3. The adjustment and enforcement costs borne by competent authorities (only) 
would likewise be comparable to Option 3.  

As compared to PO3, benefits of this option would arise in particular from savings on costs of handling 
cross-border cases involving non-EU Contracting Parties. Currently, the number of such cases is not high 
because only three non-EU countries are Contracting States to the Convention (namely: Switzerland, the 
United Kingdom (in respect to Scotland) and Monaco). The number of vulnerable adults in these three 
countries was estimated above in the range 2 700 – 14 400 (see Annex 4, section 1.4), which constitutes 
ca. 2% of the number of vulnerable adults estimated for the whole EU. Nevertheless, it is expected that 
in the future, the number non-EU Contracting States would likely increase, which would imply further 
benefits for all the vulnerable adults potentially affected. The scale of this increase cannot be estimated 
as the developments regarding ratification of the Convention by additional countries cannot be credibly 
predicted.  

Table 36: Comparison of aggregate cost-savings on procedural costs under PO1 and PO4 (thousands EUR) 

Option 4 vs Option 1 

Low 

High 

Average 

1 260 843 

9 117 143 

5 188 993 

1 264 177 

9 135 284 

5 199 730 

-3 334 

-18 141 

-10 737 

4 706 

49 895 

27 300 

0 

0 

0 

4 706 

49 895 

27 300 

Highest  cost  example 
Total 
Highest  cost  example 
for adults 
Highest  cost  example 
competent 
for 
authorities 
Lowest  cost  example 
Total 
Lowest  cost  example 
for adults 
Lowest  cost  example 
for 
competent 
authorities 

Table 37: Additional costs and cost savings of Option 4 as compared to the baseline, 10 years and 15 years scenario (thousands EUR) 

Type of costs/time perspective 

10 years 

15 years 

Savings on procedural costs for vulnerable adults (benefits) 

2 599 865 

2 599 865 

Savings on procedural costs for competent authorities (benefits) 

One-off adjustment cost: setting-up digitalised registers 

Recurrent adjustment costs: implementation of the Convention* 

Recurrent adjustment costs: maintenance of the digitalised register 

8 282 

10 303 

1 584 

55 327 

8 282 

10 303 

2 376 

82 990 

Saldo (benefits - costs) 

2 540 933 

2 512 477 

It  should  be  noted  that  in  the  above  table,  a  separate  calculation  was  performed  for  competent  authorities  to 
calibrate the average cost savings across the illustrative examples which provide the highest and lowest savings 

100 

 
  
 
because while the procedural costs savings for vulnerable adults appear to be the highest in the illustrative example 
2  and  the  lowest  in  the  illustrative  example  7,  for  competent  authorities  the situation  is  different. The  highest 
procedural costs savings appear in the example 8 (in this example, the baseline costs were estimated at 2-4 hours 
of labour and they are eliminated in Option 3 and 4). These cost savings thus set the upper end of the range of 
savings, while the lower end is calculated in the illustrative example 2, which in fact implies an increase of the 
procedural  costs  borne  by  adults,  i.e.  negative  savings.  Aggregate  procedural  cost  savings  in  the  illustrative 
example  8  averaged  across  low  and  high  estimate  for  Option  4  amount  to  EUR  328.9  million  while  in  the 
illustrative example 2, additional costs were estimated at EUR 10.7 million. The resulting average savings amount 
thus to ca. EUR 159 million (as presented in the above table). 

It can be seen that while competent authorities would incur some additional costs (with the highest costs attributed 
to  the  maintenance  of  the  interconnected  digitalised  registers),  these  costs  will  be  outweighed  by  savings  on 
procedural costs (i.e. benefits). At the same time, vulnerable adults, their families and representatives would not 
incur any additional procedural costs while enjoying very substantial savings on procedural costs. 

14.3 2.3 

Summary of costs under all policy options 

-  Procedural costs borne by adults, their families and representatives and by competent authorities 

Table 38: Procedural costs pertaining to the illustrative examples according to the policy options 

Illustrative 
example 
Illustrative 
example 1:  

Establishing  a 
protection 
measure 
abroad 

Option 4 

Cost 
savings  as 
in Option 3, 
additional 
savings  for 
the 
cases 
involving 
non-EU 
Contracting 
States*. 

Baseline 

Option 2 

Option 3 

costs 

Procedural 
for 
adults  arise  only  in  the 
Member States which are 
not Contracting States to 
the  Convention*  (except 
for 
costs, 
which  are  calculated  for 
adults in all MS).  

translation 

costs 

Procedural 
for 
competent authorities are 
40% lower for MS being 
Contracting States to the 
Convention 
for 
other MS. 

than 

With  the  PA  Regulation*, 
procedural costs for adults in 
both  MS  which  are  and  are 
not Contracting States to the 
Convention 
largely 
eliminated  (translation  costs 
are reduced by 90%).  

are 

The  costs 
for  competent 
authorities  in  the  MS  which 
are  and  are  not  Contracting 
States to  the  Convention are 
eliminated. 

With  all  MS  becoming 
Contracting  States  to  the 
procedural 
Convention, 
costs  for  adults  in  the  MS 
previously  not  Contracting 
States  to  the  Convention 
are  eliminated  (except  for 
translation costs).  

costs 

Procedural 
for 
competent  authorities 
in 
not 
MS  which  were 
Contracting  States  to  the 
Convention are reduced by 
40%.  Procedural  costs  for 
competent authorities in the 
MS  Contracting  States  to 
the  Convention  costs  are 
reduced  by  further  40% 
(compared  to  the  baseline, 
i.e. they are 80% lower than 
for  non-Contracting  States 
in the baseline). 

Illustrative 
example 2:  

Procedural  costs  arise  in 
all MS. 

Implementing a 
protection 
measure 
abroad 

The same as in the baseline 
scenario  (no  costs  savings 
as 
the 
baseline). 

compared 

to 

With  the  PA  Regulation*, 
procedural  costs  for  adults 
are  reduced  (no  travel  and 
sworn 
translation  needed, 
number  of  registered  letters 
reduced by half).  

costs 

for 
Procedural 
competent 
authorities 
increase  slightly  or  remain 
the 
same.  Overall,  cost 
savings. 

Cost 
savings  as 
in Option 3, 
additional 
savings  for 
cases 
the 
involving 
non-EU 
Contracting 
States*. 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Illustrative 
example 3: 

Exequatur* 

costs 

Procedural 
are 
calculated  only  for  the 
MS  which  are  likely  to 
require  exequatur*,  i.e. 
excluding  EL,  HU,  SE, 
DE, AT, and LV. 

The same as in the baseline 
scenario  (no  costs  savings 
the 
as 
baseline). 

compared 

to 

Illustrative 
example 4: 

Confirming 
private 
mandate 
abroad   

a 

Illustrative 
example 5:  

a 

Contesting 
protection 
measure  or  a 
representative’s 
decision abroad 

Illustrative 
example 6:  

Conflict 
jurisdiction   

of 

costs 

Procedural 
are 
calculated  only  for  the 
MS  where  confirmation 
private  mandates 
of 
significant 
requires 
(thus 
proceedings 
excluding  15  countries 
where  private  mandates 
exist:  AT,  BE,  CZ,  FI, 
FR, DE, PT, IE, ES, HR, 
LT, HU, MT, RO, SE). 
Procedural 
calculated for all MS. 

costs 

are 

costs 

Procedural 
for 
adults  arise  only  for  MS 
not  being  Contracting 
States  to  the  Convention 
(except  for 
translation 
costs). 

costs 

Procedural 
for 
competent authorities are 
40%  lower  for  the  MS 
already 
are 
which 
Contracting States to the 
Convention. 

costs 

Procedural 
for 
competent authorities are 
by 40% lower for the MS 
being 
already 
Contracting States to the 
Convention. 

Illustrative 
example 7:  

Relocation  of  a 
vulnerable 
adults  without 
of 
change 
protection 
measure 

The same as in the baseline 
scenario  (no  costs  savings 
as 
the 
baseline). 

compared 

to 

The same as in the baseline 
scenario  (no  costs  savings 
as 
the 
baseline). 

compared 

to 

for 

adults 
(except 

With 
being 
all  MS 
Contracting  States  to  the 
procedural 
Convention, 
are 
costs 
for 
eliminated 
for 
translation costs). 
The  procedural  costs  for 
competent authorities in the 
MS  which  were 
not 
Contracting  States  to  the 
Convention are reduced by 
80%,  which  results  in  cost 
savings.  Costs 
the 
Member  States  already 
Contracting  States  to  the 
Convention are reduced by 
further 40%. 
With 
being 
all  MS 
Contracting  States  to  the 
procedural 
Convention, 
costs 
competent 
for 
authorities in MS which are 
not  Contracting  States  to 
the Convention are reduced 
by  80%.  Costs  for  MS 
already  Contracting  States 
to 
the  Convention  are 
reduced by further 40%. 

102 

Due  to  the  PA  Regulation*, 
procedural 
are 
eliminated,  which  results  in 
cost savings. 

costs 

With the PA Regulation* and 
the  ECR*,  procedural  costs 
are eliminated, which results 
in cost savings. 

With  the  PA  Regulation*, 
procedural  costs  for  adults 
are  reduced  (lower  costs  of 
access  to  justice,  court  costs 
and additional expertise). 

are 
Overall 

Procedural  costs  for  public 
also 
administration 
reduced. 
cost 
savings. 
With  the  PA  Regulation*, 
procedural  costs  for  adults 
are  eliminated  (except  for 
translation  costs,  which  are 
reduced  by  90%)  and  the 
procedural 
for 
competent  authorities  for  all 
MS are eliminated. 

costs 

With  the  PA  Regulation*, 
procedural 
(for 
competent  authorities)  in  all 
MS are eliminated.  

costs 

Cost 
savings  as 
in Option 3, 
additional 
savings  for 
the 
cases 
involving 
non-EU 
Contracting 
States*. 
Cost 
savings  as 
in Option 3, 
additional 
savings  for 
cases 
the 
involving 
non-EU 
Contracting 
States*. 

Cost 
savings  as 
in Option 3, 
additional 
savings  for 
the 
cases 
involving 
non-EU 
Contracting 
States*. 
Cost 
savings  as 
in Option 3, 
additional 
savings  for 
the 
cases 
involving 
non-EU 
Contracting 
States*. 

Cost 
savings  as 
in Option 3, 
additional 
savings  for 
the 
cases 
involving 
non-EU 
Contracting 
States*. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Illustrative 
example 8:  

Relocation  of  a 
vulnerable 
adults 
change 
protection 
measure   

with 
of 

costs 

Procedural 
for 
competent authorities are 
by  40%  lower  for  the 
Member  States  being 
Contracting  States*;  no 
procedural 
for 
adults. 

costs 

With 
being 
all  MS 
Contracting  States  to  the 
HC,  procedural  costs  for 
in 
competent  authorities 
MS  which  were 
not 
Contracting  States  to  the 
HC  are  reduced  by  80%, 
which 
cost 
savings;  costs  for  Member 
States  which  were  already 
Contracting  States 
are 
reduced by further 40%. 

results 

in 

With  the  PA  Regulation*, 
procedural 
(for 
competent  authorities)  in  all 
MS are eliminated.  

costs 

Cost 
savings  as 
in Option 3, 
additional 
savings  for 
the 
cases 
involving 
non-EU 
Contracting 
States*. 

Table 39: Comparison of aggregate cost-savings on Procedural costs under POs 1, 2, 3 and 4 (thousands EUR) 

Option 2 vs Option 1 

Option 3 vs Option 1 

Option 4 vs Option 1 

Low 

High 

Average 

Low 

High 

Average 

Low 

High 

Average 

268 
229 
261 
617 
6 612 

3 047 
262 
2 995 
228 
52 033 

1 657 
746 
1 628 
423 
29 323 

1 236 121 

8 938 375 

5 087 248 

1 260 843 

9 117 143 

5 188 993 

1 239 389 

8 956 161 

5 097 775 

1 264 177 

9 135 284 

5 199 730 

-3 268 

-17 785 

-10 527 

-3 334 

-18 141 

10 737 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

-3 370 

48 917 

22 774 

4 706 

49 895 

27 300 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 613 

48 917 

26 765 

4 706 

49 895 

27 300 

cost 

Highest 
example Total 
cost 
Highest 
example for adults 
cost 
Highest 
example 
for 
competent 
authorities 
Lowest 
example Total 
Lowest 
cost 
example for adults 
cost 
Lowest 
example 
for 
competent 
authorities 

cost 

Average total savings on procedural costs aggregated across the estimated population of vulnerable adults 
range between 0 (in the Examples 2-5) and EUR 1.7 billion (in the Example 6) for Option 2, between 
EUR 22.7 million (in the Example 7) and EUR 5.1 billion (in the Example 2) for Option 3, and between 
EUR 27.3 million (in the Example 7) and 5.2 billion (in the Example 2) in Option 4. It can be noted that 
the bulk of savings on procedural costs would be gained by vulnerable adults in all the policy options. 

-  Costs related to the ratification of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention  

Table 40: Annual adjustment and enforcement costs related to the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention by MS 

Country 

Annual enforcement costs 

Option 1 

Option 2&4 

Option 3 

Austria 

Belgium  

Cyprus 

Czech Republic 

Estonia 

Finland 

France 

Germany 

Latvia 

Portugal 

Greece 

Ireland  

4978 

1 0562 

210 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

9275 

1 0562 

1 0562 

0 

4978 

1 0562 

210 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

9275 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

103 

4978 

1 0562 

210 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

9275 

1 0562 

1 0562 

0 

 
 
 
  
  
 
 
 
Country 

Annual enforcement costs 

Option 1 

Option 2&4 

Option 3 

Spain 

Croatia 

Italy 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands  

Bulgaria 

Poland 

Romania  

Slovenia  

Slovakia 

Sweden 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

Contracting States 

116 184 

Non-Contracting States 

0 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

1 0562 

116 184 

158 433 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

116 184 

0 

Comparison of costs and benefits of policy options 

The  above  range  of  cost  savings  on  procedural  costs*  (i.e.  benefits)  can  be  compared  with  the 
adjustment* and enforcement costs* related to other elements of each of the options (i.e. in particular the 
costs of setting up and maintenance of the system of interconnection, and the costs of running the Central 
Authorities*).  For  comparison  of  the  annual  costs  that  occur  for  competent  authorities,  a  10–15  year 
perspective was adopted295. Furthermore, an average of the estimates regarding the savings on procedural 
costs across the examples was used for the calculations (these numbers stay the same for 10 and 15-years 
perspective but they are different depending on the Policy Option). The costs of setting-up the digitalised 
register,  since  these  are  one-off  costs,  stay  the  same  across  the  options,  while  the  annual  costs  of 
maintenance  of  the  digital  register  and  the  annual  costs  for  running  the  Central  Authorities*  are 
multiplied by 10 and 15, depending on the time perspective scenario. 

Table 41: Comparison of costs and benefits per option (thousands EUR) – negative numbers indicate additional costs 

Cost savings on procedural costs 

Savings on Procedural costs for 
vulnerable adults 

Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

10 years 

15 years 

10 years 

15 years 

10 years 

15 years 

814 211 

814 211 

2 548 887 

2 548 887 

2 599 865 

2 599 865 

Savings on Procedural costs for 
competent authorities 
Relevant adjustment & enforcement costs296 

14 661 

14 661 

8 119 

8 119 

8 282 

8 282 

295 This seems to be a plausible assumption aligned with the assumption that each of the cross-border vulnerable adults is 
likely  to  experience  cross-border  problems  once  in  their  lifetime.  Indeed,  since  vast  majority  of  the  vulnerable  adults 
considered in our study are people in older age, it seems reasonable to assume 10-15 years’ perspective as their approximate 
further life expectancy. 
296 Some other minor adjustment or enforcement costs can arise, as described in the Table 4 above, which were not quantified.  

104 

 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
                                                 
Option 2 

Option 3 

Option 4 

10 years 

15 years 

10 years 

15 years 

10 years 

15 years 

Setting-up digitalised register  
(one-off adjustment cost) 
Maintenance of the digitalised 
register (recurrent adjustment cost) 
Implementation of the Convention 
(recurrent enforcement cost) 
Saldo (benefits – costs) 

According to the above estimates: 

0 

0 

0 

0 

10 303 

10 303 

10 303 

10 303 

55 327 

82 990 

55 327 

82 990 

1 584 

2 376 

1 584 

2 376 

1 584 

2 376 

827 288 

826 496 

2 489 793 

2 461 337 

2 540 933 

2 512 477 

-  Option 2 would result in net savings of ca. EUR 827 million in the perspective of 10 years and 

EUR 826 million in the perspective of 15 years.  

-  Options 3 and 4 would result in much higher savings, in the range of EUR 2.46 - 2.54 billion, 
with Option 4 being slightly more beneficial than Option 3 due to higher savings on procedural 
costs.  

14.4  2.4 

Costs reduction estimates under the ‘One in, one out’ approach – PO4 

In line with  the  Better Regulation Toolbox297, it needs to  be  considered whether the preferred policy 
option would have significant cost implications for businesses and individuals (the ‘one in, one out’ or 
‘OIOO’  approach).  The  costs  considered  under  OIOO  are  ‘adjustment  costs’298  and  ‘administrative 
costs’299. 

OIOO does not concern cost implications borne by Member States and public authorities300, only those 
borne by businesses and individuals. Businesses would not be affected by the PA initiative*.  

With regard to individuals, the PA initiative* would not introduce any new compliance requirements that 
would affect adults, their representatives or families in the EU, thus resulting in no adjustment costs. The 
PA initiative* would also not create any other additional costs for adults, their representatives or families. 
On the contrary, the initiative would mitigate the costs currently borne by them (see the estimation of 
Procedural costs by vulnerable adults in the section above). Not all these costs reductions qualify as costs 
savings under the OIOO approach.  

The cost savings on Procedural costs by vulnerable adults under the preferred option were estimated by 
taking into account only the costs savings on administrative costs, such as:  

  No need for an apostille or legalization of foreign decisions/protection measures; 
  No  need  for  translations  of  decisions  if  there  is  a  multilingual  standard  form  for  the 

certificate/attestation that will accompany a decision; 
  No need for preparation and sending of registered letters 
  Reduction  of  the  translation  costs  thanks  to  the  use  of  multilingual  standard  forms  and 

thanks to the digitalisation of communication between Central Authorities*;  

297 Tool #59, Better Regulation Toolbox (November 2021).  
298  Adjustment  costs  refer  costs  relating  to  adjusting  to  the  substantive  legal  requirements  of  proposals.  For  a  detailed 
definition, see Better Regulation Toolbox (November 2021). 
299  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). 
300 See Tool #59, Better Regulation Toolbox (November 2021), fn. 850. 

105 

 
  
                                                 
  No  need  to  additional  evidence  (expert  opinions  or  additional  medical  examination  and 
related  certificates)  where  foreign  protection  measures  or  powers  of  representation  are 
recognised abroad. 

In particular, administrative fees, court fees and costs of legal representation are not considered as OIOO 
costs savings*. In this regard, please note that the above calculation in Annex 4 of costs pertaining to 
various  policy  options  do  not  distinguish  the  sub-category  of  administrative  costs  from  the  broader 
category of Procedural costs borne by the vulnerable adults - this distinction is made only for the preferred 
option 4 to make the calculation of the one-in one-out (OIOO) cost reduction possible. 

To quantify the costs savings relevant for OIOO under the policy option 4, the same methodology as 
described above for the quantification of the Procedural costs under the policy option 4 was used while 
disregarding cost savings that are not on administrative costs. The same assumptions and methodology 
were used for that calculation as for the calculation of the Procedural costs above, including the estimates 
of  the  number  of  vulnerable  adults  in  cross-border  situations  and  of  the  costs  calculation  based  on  8 
illustrative scenarios. An assumption was also made that each of those adults will experience one of those 
scenarios over the reference period of 10-15 years.  

The  overall  OIOO  costs  savings*  were  calculated  as  the  difference  between  OIOO  costs  under  the 
baseline scenario and those under the policy option 4.  

The overall cost savings under the policy option 4 (EUR 2 599 865 000) were calculated as the average 
of the cost savings under scenario 2 (the highest cost scenario) and scenario 7 (the lowest cost scenario). 
Should the OIOO cost savings be calculated only on the basis of these two scenarios, the results could 
be somewhat skewed given the fact that all costs under the scenario 2 can be considered as ‘administrative 
costs’ (and thus OIOO costs savings) and that no administrative costs exist under the scenario 7. In this 
situation, an assumption was made that about 20% of the overall costs that adults have to bear in cross-
border situations across all various scenarios can be considered as administrative ones. 

Therefore, the resulting average OIOO cost savings under the Option 4 would be equal to approximately 
EUR 519 973 000, which can be rounded to approximately EUR 520 mil. over the period of 10 -15 
years.  

106 

 
ANNEX 5: THE HCCH 2000 PROTECTION OF ADULTS CONVENTION 

14.5  1. 

Outline of the Convention 

In  international  situations  involving  its  Contracting  States,  the  Convention  provides  rules  solving 
conflicts between different legal systems on the protection of adults who, by reason of an impairment 
or insufficiency of their personal faculties, are not in a position to protect their interests (Article 1). 
An adult is a person who has reached the age of 18 years.  

The Convention provides rules on international jurisdiction, applicable law to protection measures* and 
to  powers  of  representation*,  recognition  and  enforcement  of  protection  measures,  and  cooperation 
between Central Authorities*. 

14.5.1  1.1. 

Scope of the Convention 

The scope of the Convention (i.e. what matter is considered as the cross-border protection of adults) is 
clarified by  a non-exhaustive list  of  examples of  protection  measures,  including the  designations and 
functions of a representative, the administration of the adult’s property, the placement of an adult, and 
the institution of a protective regime for the adult (Art. 3 of the Convention). In cross-border cases, those 
measures fall within the scope of the Convention.  

The Convention applies not only to protection measures (i.e. measures concerned with the protection of 
vulnerable adults taken by competent authorities) but also to all types of powers of representation* and 
advance directives* (granted by the adult himself in powers of representation). 

The  rules  of  the  Convention  on  jurisdiction,  recognition,  enforcement  and  administrative 
co-operation  only  apply  to  cases  involving  other  Contracting  States*.  In  cases  involving 
non-Contracting States*, national PIL* rules of each State  apply. However, most Contracting States* 
have aligned their national PIL* rules with the rules provided for in the Convention. For example, in all 
11  Contracting  EU  Member  States,  the  connecting  factor  for  jurisdiction  is,  in  accordance  with  the 
Convention, the habitual residence of the adult301.  

In contrast with the other PIL* rules in the Convention, the rules on applicable law in the Convention 
apply  universally, meaning that the objective  connecting factors in the  Convention can  designate as 
applicable law the law of a Contracting or as well as non-Contracting State.  

14.5.2  1.2. 

Jurisdiction 

The Convention provides a general jurisdictional ground based on the adult’s habitual residence. 
This means that the authorities of the Member States where the adult has his/her habitual residence will 
have jurisdiction to take, modify or terminate a protection measure. The Convention also provides for a 
subsidiary jurisdictional ground based on the nationality of the adult. However, the authorities of the 
State  of  the  adult’s  nationality  may  only  exercise  jurisdiction  under  strict  conditions  (including  the 
obligation of informing the authorities of the State of the adult’s habitual residence). 

Finally, jurisdiction may also be exercised by the authorities of the State where the adult owns property, 
in particular with a view to take measures concerning that property and in all cases of urgency.  

301  Article 5,  Hague  Convention  of  13  January  2000  on  the  International  Protection  of  Adults.  See  also  the  Explanatory 
Report* to the Convention: Lagarde, P. (2017). Protection of Adults Convention – Explanatory Report. The Hague Conference 
on Private International Law Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.  

107 

 
                                                 
In all cases of urgency, the authorities of the State where the adult is present may also take necessary 
measures (regarding the assets, the property or the person of the adult). These measures will be limited 
in time.  

In all those situations where subsidiary grounds of jurisdiction (i.e. jurisdiction in States other than 
the State of habitual residence of an adult) are applied, the authorities of the State of the habitual 
residence shall be informed. 

14.5.3  1.3. 

Applicable law 

On  applicable  law,  the  main  rule  of  the  Convention  is  that  authorities  apply  their  own  law  when 
granting or modifying a protection measure. 

However, the law governing powers of representation* is the law of the State where the adult was 
habitually  resident  at  the  time  the  powers  were  granted.  Alternatively,  the  adult  may  designate  a 
different law (connected to his/her nationality, former habitual residence or location of property). In this 
way,  the  Convention  ensures  that  the  powers  of  representation*  are  given  effect  in  all  other 
Contracting States, even if an analogous institution is absent in that State’s substantive law.  

14.5.4  1.4. 

Recognition of measures 

Measures of protection taken in one Contracting State are to be recognised in all other Contracting 
States  by  operation  of  law.  Despite  the  mutual  recognition  of  measures  without  the  need  for  any 
procedure, it is possible for interested parties to apply for a decision either that there are or that there are 
not  grounds  for  refusal  of  recognition*.  This  may  be  useful  in  two  opposite  situations:  to  secure  the 
recognition of a measure in a complex/disputed case, or on the contrary, to challenge the recognition of 
a decision. An exhaustive list of the grounds for refusal of recognition is provided in the Convention, 
for instance if the court had no jurisdiction or if the adult was not given the opportunity to be heard.  

If enforcement of a measure is necessary, the protection measures should be enforced by a simple and 
rapid procedure that Contracting States* are supposed to put in place (if not already provided for in 
their domestic law). 

14.5.5  1.5. 

 Non-mandatory certificate  

The provision of a certificate indicating the capacity in which a person is entitled to act and the powers 
conferred to him or her by a protection measure or by confirmed powers of representation*, is a crucial 
element of the Convention (Art. 38). However, the certificate ‘may’ be issued by the authorities of a 
Contracting Party, and it is therefore not mandatory for Contracting States to the Convention to issue 
such certificates. There is no indication on the website of the HCCH for the general public as to which 
Contracting State provides such  a certificate. The absence of certificates in certain Contracting States 
was also one of the concerns raised in the replies to the HCCH questionnaires in preparation of the 2022 
Special Commission*302. 

Under the Convention, not all powers of representation can be accompanied by a certificate, only the 
powers that have been confirmed. The notion of and the procedure to  obtain ‘confirmed’  powers of 
representation is left to the national law of each Contracting State. The Convention does not provide a 
definition of, or prescribe a procedure for, confirming the powers of representation*. While recognising 
that the confirmation was left to the domestic legislation of each Contracting State, the Permanent Bureau 

302 See for instance the reply of Germany to question 9.1 of the questionnaire.  

108 

 
                                                 
(secretariat) of the HCCH clarified that a confirmed power of representation should at least be in force 
and  in  conformity  with  the  applicable  law303.  This  was  confirmed  by  the  Conclusions  and 
Recommendations of the 2022 Special Commission*, which noted that ‘it is for each Contracting Party 
to  entrust  the  task  of  confirmation  to  a  judicial  or  administrative  authority,  a  public  body  or  an 
appropriate professional, and stressed that, in any case, safeguards should be in place to avoid conflicts 
of interest’. 

14.5.6  1.6.  Central Authorities* 

Finally,  Contracting  Parties  must  designate  a  Central  Authority*.  Most  often,  those  Authorities  are 
government  authorities,  such  as  Ministries  of  Justice.  They  are  established  to  provide  a  point  of 
contact between Contracting States. They provide and facilitate services in relation to the Convention, 
in particular by providing mutual assistance and facilitating effective communication. They allow 
for example:  

the facilitation of agreed solutions; 

  a swift exchange of practical or legal information between two courts transferring jurisdiction; 
 
  access to information on the substantive or procedural law of Contracting States; 
 

the location of missing adults. 

14.6  2. 

Contracting  States  to  the  Convention:  how,  how  many,  what  is  the  foreseeable 

future? 

Most  HCCH  Conventions  are  only  open  to  the  signature  and  ratification  or  accession304  of  States. 
However, in connection with the EU becoming a member of the HCCH*, the four most recent legislative 
instruments305 adopted under the auspices of the HCCH have included a clause allowing for a Regional 
Economic Integrated Organisation (‘REIO’) to become a party to the instrument in question on behalf of 
its Member States.  

So far, when the EU considered acceding to an ‘old’ Convention which did not include a REIO clause, 
it has authorised its Member States to ratify the said Convention in the interests of the EU306. 

An alternative solution for the EU to join an ‘old’ HCCH convention would be to amend that Convention 
and to add a REIO clause in it. To date, this type of modification of a Convention has never been done – 
for several reasons. First, Contracting Parties* are usually reluctant to re-open a Convention. When a 
strong need for reviewing a Convention has been observed, Member States of the HCCH preferred that 
a new instrument is negotiated. Otherwise, the interpretation and adaptation of ‘old’ conventions to new 
trends  is  allowed  by  the  preparation  of  tools  such  as  Practice  Guides  or  by  the  Conclusions  and 
Recommendations of Special Commissions. Second, the a posteriori addition of a REIO clause to an 

303 See Prel. Doc. N° 11 of October 2022 Confirmation of powers of representation for the purposes of the certificate issued 
under Article 38. 
304 In respect to all HCCH Conventions, the States which were present during the final negotiation (diplomatic session) of a 
Convention are allowed to ratify this Convention. The States not represented during the final negotiation may accede to the 
Convention. The difference between ratification and accession is that there may be specific mechanisms for the acceptance of 
new accessions by the Contracting Parties which have already ratified the Convention conditioning the entry into force of the 
instrument. For the sake of clarity, in this report, only the generic term of ‘ratification’ is used.  
305  The  Convention  of  30  June  2005  on  Choice  of  Court  Agreements,  the  Convention  of  23  November  2007  on  the 
International Recovery of Child Support and other forms of Family Maintenance, the Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the 
Law  Applicable  to  Maintenance  Obligations  and  the  Convention  of  2  July  2019  on  the  Recognition  and  Enforcement  of 
Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. 
306 See for instance the 2008 Council Decision authorising certain Member States to ratify the 1996 Hague Convention on the 
protection of children or the 2016 Council Decision authorising certain Member States to ratify the 1965 Hague Convention 
on service of documents. 

109 

 
                                                 
instrument already in force is a complex procedure, which could last an estimated 5 to 8 years in total, 
and  would  depend  on  the  ratification  of  the  modified  instrument  by  all  Contracting  States  to  that 
Convention.  

Therefore,  adding  a  REIO  clause  to  the  HCCH  2000  Protection  of  Adults  Convention  would  entail 
preparing and negotiating the amendment to the Convention (taking at least several years), followed by 
a  necessary  ratification  of  the  modified  Convention  by  all  14  Contracting  States  to  the  Convention 
(including also non-EU Member States: Monaco, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom (in respect to 
Scotland)). Only after this lengthy process  is  completed, the EU could  start  any process  to  become a 
Contracting Party to the Convention. 

The  HCCH  2000  Protection  of  Adults  Convention  entered  into  force  in  2009.  The  number  of 
ratifications (14) in the last 13 years is rather limited quantitatively and geographically (only States 
of the European continent). However, experience shows that, with a proper promotion from the HCCH 
and its regional representations on other continents, the number of Contracting Parties* grows slowly 
and steadily. For those HCCH conventions which have more than 50 Contracting States, reaching the 
milestone of 50 Contracting Parties took on average 27 years. 

It can thus be expected that the ratification of the Convention by other non-EU countries will increase, 
especially if all EU Member States become a Contracting Party to the Convention307.  

Figure 10: Number of Contracting Parties bound by the core HCCH Conventions. (Source: HCCH) 

14.7  3. 

Concrete benefits of the Convention 

As underlined by the Conclusions and Recommendations of the 2022 Special Commission* (‘C&R’), 
the Convention is considered to work well and to be fit for purpose. As indicated in the introduction of 
the  C&R,  the  slow  pace  of  ratification  can  be  explained  by  many  factors  but  there  has  not  been  any 
indication  that  the  instrument  poses  major  problems.  States  applying  the  instrument  recognise  that  it 

307 This is logical – if a State can apply a convention with only vis-à-vis a few other contracting parties, the effort needed for 
the  ratification  of  the  convention  may  perhaps  seem  less  justified  given  its  limited  benefit.  This  however  changes  if  the 
ratification means an instant creation of a legal framework with many other contracting parties. 

110 

 
 
                                                 
provides  effective  solutions  in  cross-border  cases.  In  particular,  the  Central  Authorities*  bring  direct 
solutions to the cross-border cases brought to their attention by competent authorities. 

It was highlighted by the 2021 Study308 commissioned by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of 
Persons with disabilities that the Convention is a flexible tool that can be easily adapted to legislative 
and  technological  developments  in  the  Contracting  States,  thanks  in  particular  to  the  promotion  and 
assistance  work  carried  out  by  the  secretariat  of  the  HCCH,  as  well  as  to  the  discussions  in  Special 
Commissions. This will allow for a progressive evolution to reflect the work of Contracting States to 
adjust their legal system to the UNCRPD*. 

The recent work carried out in the preparation of the 2022 Special Commission* will in the near future 
provide  practitioners  with  useful  tools  for  a  proper  application,  and  should  facilitate  cross-border 
communication to a certain extent (e.g. through the creation of country profiles providing information on 
the national rules and procedures, publication of a practice guide, publication of certain recommended 
forms etc.).   

14.8  4. 

Challenges experienced in the operation of the Convention 

The  Convention  is  an  instrument  designed  for  global  application  and  is  thus  limited  by  the  need  to 
conform to the many legal systems in the world, as well as to the desire of some States to have a close 
control over foreign protection measures that circulate under the Convention. The Convention thus keeps 
in place stricter safeguards than those that are common in the EU in other areas of civil justice. (For 
instance, under the most recent EU instruments, judgments given by a court in the EU are enforced in all 
EU Member States as if they were domestic judgments. This is possible in the EU in particular given the 
principle of mutual trust in the EU.) 

In contrast, to allow some flexibility and remain attractive globally, the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults 
Convention does not impose too far-reaching requirements on the Contracting Parties*. For instance, the 
certificate proving the existence of a measure or confirmed powers of representation* is not mandatory, 
and Contracting Parties are not obliged to make it accessible to the general public. 

The  HCCH  is  a  small  organisation  with  limited  human  and  financial  resources  and  cannot  organise 
Special Commissions to discuss the operation of the Convention on a regular basis. The 2022 Special 
Commission*  was  the  first  meeting  in  13  years  since  the  Convention  entered  into  application.  In  the 
absence of an international court having jurisdiction on the interpretation of the Convention, the Special 
Commissions are the only opportunity for Contracting States* to agree on a specific interpretation, either 
to clarify a legal concept (such as the ‘habitual residence’) or to agree on the scope of an article (e.g. 
whether or not Article 15 applies to advance directives*).  

In addition, the organisation’s website contains some information and will be developed in the future to 
provide  additional  content.  However,  information  is  only  available  in  English  and  French.  At  the 
moment, the non-mandatory forms cannot be completed online. 

Finally, the organisation cannot support projects that promote the digitalisation of communication, or the 
training of legal practitioners. 

308 Study interpreting the 2000 Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults Consistently with the 2007 UN 
Convention on the rights of Persons with Disabilities. 

111 

 
                                                 
14.9  5. 

Possibility  to  adopt  a  regional  agreement  (an  EU  Regulation)  complementing  the 

Convention 

The possibility for a group of Contracting States* to conclude a separate agreement concerning the area 
governed by the Convention is expressly provided for in Article 49 of the Convention. However, under 
Article 49(2) of the Convention, it should only apply to adults who have their habitual residence in the 
closed circle of Contracting States to the agreement in question. This provision thus allows the EU to 
adopt a Regulation on the cross-border protection of adults, on the condition that it applies only to adults 
habitually residents in the EU.  

The Explanatory Report of the Convention* goes as far as indicating that Article 49(3) of the Convention 
does  not  reiterate  the  limitation  of  the  habitual  residence  criteria  and  ‘leaves  open  the  possibility  of 
separate agreements concerning adults not necessarily having their habitual residence in a State Party, 
on condition however, that these agreements do not affect the application of the Hague Convention’309. 
According  to  this  interpretation,  when  concluding  a  separate  agreement,  Contracting  Parties*  should 
either make it applicable only to the situations of adults habitually resident in their territory, or ensure 
that the separate agreement does not affect the application of the Convention. 

As a result, if Option 4 (a combined option consisting of the mandatory ratification of the Convention 
and  of  an  EU  regulation)  was  chosen,  the  regulation  would  take  priority  over  the  Convention  in 
relation among EU Member States. In contrast, the relations between Member States and non-EU 
Contracting Parties would be governed by the Convention. 

309 Paragraph 162 of the Explanatory Report to the Convention*. 

112 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 6: EU REGULATION 

This Annex presents in a greater detail the legal basis of an EU Regulation, and in particular why the 
protection of adults is not considered to fall under family law. It also elaborates on the measures that 
could be adopted in an EU regulation that is envisaged under the Policy Options 3 and 4. It includes the 
description of the measure, as well as its benefits and estimated costs.  

15  1  LEGAL BASIS OF AN EU REGULATION 

15.1  1.1 

The autonomous EU concept of ‘family law’ 

Common  rules  on  applicable  law,  jurisdiction,  recognition  and  enforcement  of  judgments  for  the 
protection of adults are a matter of judicial cooperation that falls within the scope of Article 81(2) TFEU, 
as they do not fall within the field of family law. Therefore, Article 81(3) TFEU according to which ‘the 
Council  shall  act  unanimously  after  consulting  the  European  Parliament’,  is  not  applicable  to  the 
protection of adults.  

The term ‘family law’ in the sense of Article 81(3) TFEU must be interpreted autonomously regardless 
of the definition provided for in the national legislations of the Member States.  

So far, the EU legislator has construed the notion rather strictly and has limited it to the rules governing 
family relationships, such as matrimonial matters, parental responsibilities, or maintenance obligations. 
Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 on matters of succession310, for example, was not considered as family 
law matters and was adopted based on Article 81(2). The rules on succession refer to family relations in 
various ways, e.g., for the purposes of identifying the heirs of the deceased where the latter has died 
intestate, or for the purposes of limiting the testator’s freedom under forced heirship schemes. However, 
this was not deemed sufficient to bring the regulation within the realm of family law.  

Regulation (EU) No 606/2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters311 provides 
an  additional  illustration.  The  measures  contemplated  in  the  latter  instrument  are  often  adopted  as  a 
safeguard  against  domestic  violence  and  often  have  a  bearing  on  family  interactions  (e.g.,  between 
spouses  or  registered  partners,  or  between  parents  and  children,  outside  the  scope  of  matrimonial  or 
parental responsibility proceedings). Still, the Regulation was adopted based on Article 81(2), not 81(3).  

It is hence clear that the objective of an instrument is the criteria to be used to establish whether or not it 
falls within the category of family law instruments, regardless of the ancillary matters that the instrument 
deals with or its effect on family law matters.  

15.2  1.2 

Protection of adults and family law 

It is not uncommon that vulnerable adults benefit from protection provided by family members. In some 
Member States, the legal protection of vulnerable adults is attributed  ex lege* to the spouse or to the 
family  members.  However,  the  adult’s  family,  if  indeed  the  adult  has  a  family,  is  merely  one  of  the 
contexts  in  which  protection  can  be  ensured.  The  involvement  of  family  members  is  not  a  necessary 
element. Instead, the crucial concern, when it comes to the protection of adults, is the support provided 

310 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.  
311 Regulation (EU) No 606/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on mutual recognition of 
protection measures in civil matters, OJ L 181, 29.6.2013, 29.6.2013.  

113 

 
                                                 
and the realisation of the concerned adult’s right to dignity, self-determination, non-discrimination and 
social inclusion, regardless of the family relations of the adult in question.  

In addition, it must be noted that the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention does not contain any 
reference  to  the  family  relationships  (such  as  ‘parent’,  ‘children’  or  ‘spouse’),  contrary  to  the  EU 
Regulations covering family law matters. 

Finally, the connection of the protection of adults with family relationships are even less direct than they 
were in the case of succession, which was held to fall outside the scope of family law matters. 

16  2  EU MEASURES COMPLEMENTING THE CONVENTION 

An EU Regulation on the protection of adults would complement the Convention* in that it would take 
over its rules but would also improve and modernise them. This chapter only described measures that 
would be added to (or would adapt) the general PIL* rules included in the Convention, as described in 
Annex 5. 

The additional measures that would be implemented in the EU through the Regulation would be heavily 
inspired by those measures existing in the EU acquis in other areas of civil justice that have proven to be 
efficient and helpful for parties and competent authorities. As mentioned in the introduction of this report, 
more  than  20  EU  regulations  have  been  adopted  in  the  field  of  judicial  cooperation  on  civil  and 
commercial  matters.  These  instruments  have  greatly  advanced  the  cooperation  in  cross-border  cases, 
based on the principle of mutual trust in areas like contractual disputes, insolvency proceedings, or child 
support recovery.  

The  possible  EU  regulation  would  contribute  to  solve  the  problems  faced  by  adults*  and  their 
representatives,  and  in  some  instances,  would  be  the  only  way  to  provide  an  effective  solution  as 
compared to the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention (see the ECR*). 

The table below shows the selection of measures to be proposed either under PO3 or PO4. This selection 
is already a result of a previous analysis undertaken with the help of available legal expertise, evidence 
and consultations with a view to determine whether specific measures should be a part of the ‘package’. 
Notably,  many  of  these  measures  are  a  ‘must  have’  should  an  EU  regulation  be  adopted  (e.g.  the 
abolishing of exequatur). Should the regulation not adopt them, it would be a step backwards as compared 
to other areas of judicial cooperation in civil matters, and therefore a negative sign for the protection of 
adults. This is a fortiori the case for measures establishing digital communication, given the ‘digital by 
default’ principle and the fact that all other areas of judicial cooperation in civil matters will be digitalised 
under the Digitalisation Proposal*. The measure consisting of the interconnection of national registers is 
also  largely  modelled  on  the  interconnection  of  insolvency  registers  established  by  Regulation  (EU) 
2015/848 on Insolvency. 

Table 42: Possible EU measures under POs 3 and 4 – description and benefits 

Possible EU measure 
European  Certificate  of  Representation 
(ECR).  Upon  request  of  a  representative, 
the  competent  authorities  in  the  Member 
State  where  a  protection  measure  was 
taken*  or  powers  of  representation  were 
confirmed will issue this certificate.  

establish 

certificate  would 

The 
the 
existence of a measure or confirmed powers 
of  representation,  including  the  specific 
powers  granted 
several 
representatives. 

to  one  or 

Estimated cost 
Very minor or no costs 
for the general public 

Minor 
for 
competent authorities 

costs 

Description and benefits 
The  ECR  would  solve  many  problems  linked  to  the 
non-recognition  of  protection  measures*  or  powers  of 
representation*,  by  competent  authorities  and  especially 
by  non-judicial  actors  (banks,  financial  institutions, 
insurance  companies,  real  estate  agents,  medical  staff). 
The ECR would directly save the expenses of unnecessary 
enforcement  proceedings.  The  ECR*  would  have 
evidentiary effect on its own, with no need to present the 
actual measure or powers of representation. 

The ECR would be issued in one common form, available 
the  e-Justice  Portal*  and/or  possibly 
online  on 

114 

 
 
 
 
Possible EU measure 

Unlike  the  certificate  under  Article  38  of 
the  HCCH  2000  Protection  of  Adults 
Convention,  Member  States  would  have 
the  obligation  to  issue  the  ECR  upon 
request by the representative and the issued 
ECR would have clear legal effects312. 

certificate  would  be 

The 
accepted 
automatically, without any procedure, and 
have  evidentiary  effects  in  other  Member 
States.  

If a choice  of jurisdiction* is included in 
the  powers  of  representation*  established 
by  the  adult,  a  specific  provision  could 
allow  a  court  to  exercise  its  jurisdiction 
based on this choice. 

 

The  choice  of  jurisdiction*  would  be 
subject  to  certain  criteria  defined  in  the 
Regulation,  and 
if 
exercising  its  jurisdiction,  should  inform 
the authorities of the Member State of the 
habitual residence of the adult. 

the  chosen  court, 

of 

grounds 

Limitation 
for 
the 
non-recognition. An EU Regulation would 
provide  for  the  automatic  recognition  of 
protection measures, in the same way as the 
Convention* does.  

Description and benefits 
implemented directly by Member States in their own IT 
systems. The parties would be able to request the issuance 
of an electronic ECR directly on the e-Justice Portal*. It 
would be available in all EU official languages and thus 
reduce the need for translations.  

Before issuing the ECR, the competent authorities would 
be  able  to  consult  the  interconnected  registers  to  verify 
that there are no conflicting protection measures or powers 
of representation that could have an effect on the validity 
the  ‘source’  measure  or  confirmed  powers  of 
of 
representation invoked as a basis for the  issuance of the 
ECR. This would further increase legal certainty. 

The ECR would be an efficient solution to increase legal 
certainty,  reduce  the  costs  and  length  of  proceedings 
and  avoid  non-recognition  of  protection  measures  or 
powers of representation. 

A promotion campaign could help raise awareness about 
this tool among non-judicial actors. 
Under the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention*, 
the authority with jurisdiction to take a protection measure 
is the court of the State where the adult has their habitual 
residence.  This  is  based  on  the  principle  of  proximity 
between the court and the party, which ensures a high level 
of protection. 

However, some adults who are not located in their country 
of  origin  may  wish  that  the  courts  of  the  State  of  their 
nationality,  or  of  their  former  habitual  residence,  have 
jurisdiction over their case, and apply their own law.  

Under Article 8 of the Convention*, for the court chosen 
by  the  adult  in  writing  to  exercise  its  jurisdiction,  the 
parties  have  to  go  through  a  two-stage  and  lengthy 
procedure  requiring  that  the  courts  of  the  habitual 
residence of the adult accepts to transfer jurisdiction to the 
chosen court. 

A  choice  of  jurisdiction  would  therefore  simplify  some 
proceedings.  The  additional  provision  would  in  addition 
allow a chosen court to apply its law. Such a provision on 
choice  of  jurisdiction  would  ensure  legal  certainty  and 
promote the right to autonomy of all adults.  
In general, such a limitation of the refusal grounds would 
simplify the legal framework, and in particular would limit 
the number of cases  where a  decision is  not recognised. 
Therefore, such a measure would ensure legal certainty 
and avoid non-recognition and complex proceedings.  

Estimated cost 

No cost 

No cost 

However, if a party decides to challenge the 
recognition  of  a  protection  measure,  the 
grounds  for  refusing  to  give  effect  to  that 
measure  should  be  limited  as  much  as 

Each  EU  court  has  to  initially  assess  its  international 
jurisdiction before ruling on a cross-border case. Once this 
assessment  is  made,  the  courts  of  other  Member  States 
will  trust  the  assessment  initially  made  (principle  of 

312 In contrast, the Convention leaves it to the discretion of Member States whether they decide to implement the provision in 
Article 38 on the certificate and thus to provide the certificate to the public. As a result, and as established by the replies to 
the HCCH Questionnaire in preparation of the 2022 Special Commission*, in several Contracting Parties to the Convention, 
the certificate is not available to the vulnerable adults or their representatives. 

115 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Description and benefits 
mutual trust) and will not impose an additional review on 
the parties when recognising the measure.  

Estimated cost 

Possible EU measure 
possible. Therefore, the ground for refusal* 
based on the lack of jurisdiction of the State 
of  origin*  which 
the 
Convention,  should  not  be  retained  in  an 
EU Regulation.  

found 

in 

is 

Abolition  of  exequatur*.  A  protection 
measure  taken  in  one  Member  State  is 
enforced in all other Member States under 
the same conditions as a measure taken in 
the  state  addressed,  without  an  specific 
procedure  (such  as  the  declaration  of 
enforceability).   

Recognition  of  confirmed  powers  of 
representation* (authentic instruments).  

Digitalisation  (1) Mandatory  electronic 
communications  between 
competent 
authorities.  

In  that  regard,  the  ground  for  refusing  recognition 
provided in Article 22(2)(a) of the Convention should be 
deleted. 
This measure would increase legal certainty and avoid 
unnecessary  proceedings.  In  cases 
the 
protection  of  adults,  courts  do  not  ‘order’  actions  to  be 
taken (such as payments) but only ‘authorise’ them, upon 
request  of  the  adult  or  the  representative.  Hence,  cases 
where forced execution is required are rare (practitioners 
have  mentioned  the  possibility  to  seek  enforcement  in 
forced  sale  of  a  property,  forced  hospitalisation  or 
interruption of a medical assistance).  

involving 

However,  even  if  rarely  needed,  enforcement  remains 
cumbersome as it requires a declaration of enforceability 
(exequatur)  both  in  all  Member  States’  laws  as  well  as 
under  the  Convention  (which  provides  for  a  ‘rapid  and 
simple  enforcement  procedure’  but  does  not  abolish 
exequatur as such).  

The abolition of exequatur in an EU regulation, which a 
precondition  for  enforcement,  will  remove  the  need  for 
any additional procedure before enforcement, once again 
on the basis of the principle of mutual trust. 

In  addition,  since  it  has  been  observed  that  many  non-
judicial  actors  wrongly  request  an  exequatur*  as  a 
condition to recognise a protection measure, the abolition 
of exequatur* will have the indirect effect of preventing 
such unjustified requests.  
A  specific  provision  would  allow 
the  automatic 
recognition of confirmed powers of representation (those 
which can be qualified as authentic instruments) and other 
documents  drawn  up  in  an  authentic  form.  This  will 
facilitate the recognition of their evidentiary effects within 
the EU. 

Such a provision would confirm the stronger evidentiary 
value  of  the  powers  of  representation  confirmed  by  a 
competent authority, and would increase legal certainty 
and speed up proceedings. 
In  accordance  with  Article  3  of  the  digitalisation 
proposal*,  competent  authorities  would  have 
the 
obligation to use the decentralised IT system to exchange 
requests,  documents  and  messages.  As  a  result,  courts, 
notaries and Central Authorities, when communicating in 
a  cross-border  case,  would  in  most  cases  use  fast  and 
secure  communication  means.  This  would 
largely 
mitigate  the  problem  of  the  duration  and  costs  of 
proceedings. 

Digitalisation 
(2) European  Electronic 
Access  Point  for  the  general  public  (to 
apply for a protection measure abroad or the 
recognition of a measure / request an ECR 
or  an  attestation  accompanying  a  decision 
or an authentic instrument). 

This  provision,  in  line  with  articles  4  and  5  of  the 
Digitalisation proposal, would significantly speed up the 
proceedings, by the use of electronic channels and would 
overcome  most  language  barriers  and  reduce  the  costs 
through  the  use  of  multilingual  forms  (in  all  EU 
languages). 

116 

No cost 

No cost 

No cost for individuals 

Reasonable  costs  for 
MS (investments in the 
infrastructure 
and 
adjustment  of  systems 
competent 
of 
authorities 
already 
made  under  previous 
digitalisation 
initiatives)  
No cost for individuals 
Reasonable  costs  for 
MS  (investments  on 
the 
adjustment 
systems  of  competent 
already 
authorities 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Possible EU measure 

Description and benefits 

Digitalisation (3) Acceptance of electronic 
documents  and  qualified  electronic 
signatures. 

Digitalisation 
national registers. 

(4) Interconnection 

of 

The  Regulation  would  provide  for  the 
establishment of one or several registers per 
Member State containing a common set of 
data in relation to protection measures and 
confirmed powers of representation. 

The Commission would have to establish a 
decentralised 
the 
interconnection of such national registers. 

system 

for 

IT 

For  an  example  of  a  previous  similar 
initiative,  see  Articles  24  and  25  of  the 
Insolvency Regulation313.  

Provision of legal aid in cross-border cases 
- 
that  are  not  covered  by  the  Legal  Aid 
Directive  :  for  recognition  proceedings, 
confirmation  of  powers  of  representation, 
service  of  documents  abroad  and  other 
access to justice costs incurred in a Member 
State  other  than  the  one  where  the  adult 
resides.  

In cases where legal aid has been granted in 
one  Member  States,  legal  aid  would  be 
automatically  granted  in  other  Member 
States  to  cover  certain  types  of  costs 
incurred in their territory. 

See for instance  Articles 72 and 79 of the 
Brussels IIb Regulation* 
Direct communication between courts/ 

See for instance Article 86 of the Brussels 
IIb  Regulation*  and  Article  57  of 
Insolvency Regulation 

This  provision,  in  line  with  Articles  9  and  10  of  the 
Digitalisation  proposal,  would  ensure  that  documents 
issued in an electronic form are not rejected or denied legal 
effect by the Member States’ competent authorities, and 
would  speed  up  the  proceedings  and  alleviate  the 
workload of authorities. 
The  interconnection  would  ensure  that  the  information 
currently  accessible  in  most  Member  States  to  their 
national  competent  authorities 
is  also  accessible 
cross-border  to  the  competent  authorities  of  the  other 
Member States.  

The  swift  access  to  the  information  on  a  protection 
measure  or  confirmed  powers  of  representation  would 
ensure  that  the  appropriate  support  is  provided  to 
vulnerable adults in international situations, would reduce 
the  amount  of  the  verifications  carried  out  by  the 
competent authorities and thus diminishing the duration 
and  costs  of  proceeding. 
it  would 
significantly increase the legal certainty. 

Importantly, 

The  access  rights  to  the  register  would  be  strictly 
controlled, in order to guarantee the protection of personal 
data. 
Such provision would expedite the resolution of certain 
procedures, and eliminate certain costs for adults with 
limited income. 

The  Regulation  would  provide  for  the  legal  basis  for  a 
direct  communication  between  the  courts  involved  in  a 
cross-border case. Courts are reluctant to take the initiative 
of  establishing  cross-border  communication  when  their 
national procedure does not provide for it. This would be 
particularly useful in border areas or for courts speaking 
the  same  language.  Communication  can  also  take  place 
through the channel of Central Authorities*, EJN-civil* or 
another informal network. 

See C&R n°56 of the 2022 Special Commission and C&R 
n°14 of December 2018 EC-HCCH Joint Conference on 
the Cross-Border Protection of Vulnerable Adults. 

Estimated cost 
made  under  previous 
digitalisation 
initiatives) 
No costs  

No 
individuals 

costs 

for 

total 

Estimated 
of 
costs  of  setting  up  a 
register or adapting an 
existing  one  for  all 
Member  States:  7  902 
794. 

Estimated  total  cost 
for interconnecting the 
registers: 10.000 000. 

No 
individuals. 

costs 

for 

costs 

for 
Minimal 
States 
Member 
competent  authorities 
since  the  number  of 
those  cases  would  be 
limited 
specific 
to 
the 
situations,  and 
rules  for  granting  of 
legal aid are already in 
place. 

No cost 

313 Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings 
(recast). 

117 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Possible EU measure 

Description and benefits 

Estimated cost 

Direct  communications  would  greatly  accelerate 
cross-border proceedings in complex or sensitive cases. 

Publication  of  practical  information  on 
the  operation  of  the  Regulation  on  the 
e-Justice  Portal*  (European  Judicial  Atlas 
in civil matters)  

Among other, general information on the Regulation will 
be provided for each Member State, including : 

No cost 

-  Contact details of the Central Authority, 
-  Authorities, procedure and costs  for issuing the 

Designation by the courts of a professional 
representative abroad / cooperation  

ECR  

-  Authorities, procedure and costs  for  issuing the 

- 
- 

attestations (forms accompanying the decision) 
Practical information on legal aid 
Search engine providing the contact details of all 
competent authorities 

The above publication would  foster legal certainty and 
speed up proceedings. 
The Regulation would provide a legal basis for courts to 
appoint a public representative abroad, and would govern 
the  division  of  costs  in  between  the  two  Member  States 
concerned. 

This  would  save  adults*  and  their  representatives  the 
expense  of  frequent  travel  and  legal  advice  abroad,  or 
initiating proceedings abroad, where the complexity of the 
financial or personal situation of the adult requires regular 
support  to  be  provided  abroad.  This  would  therefore 
reduce  the  costs  for  individuals  and  competent 
authorities as well as the complexity of procedures. 

No  cost  (only  their 
division) 

Standardised forms for the communication 
between  Central  Authorities* 
and 
competent authorities  

A  number  of  standardised  forms  would  allow  Central 
Authorities and courts to exchange requests, acknowledge 
receipt  or  ask  additional  information  in  real  time  and 
without  the  language  barrier  (and  possible  translation 
costs), electronically. This would significantly speed up 
proceedings and reduce costs. 

No cost 

the European Judicial Network in civil and 
commercial matters (EJN-civil*) 

The EJN-civil would be responsible for organising regular 
meetings  to  discuss  the  practical  operation  of  the 
Regulation,  and  if  necessary  set  up  working  groups  to 
prepare  additional  tools  or  guidance  (non-mandatory 
forms or practice guides), based on the needs expressed by 
practitioners. 
EJN-civil  would  also  prepare  factsheets  containing  all 
information on national laws of Member States. 

Such  activities  of  the  EJN-civil  would  contribute  to 
addressing all the problems in the long term.  

The EJN-civil  would also be involved in monitoring the 
application of the Regulation with a view to its evaluation. 

Limited costs borne by 
the  Commission  (the 
organisation  of  one 
EJN-civil meeting with 
participants 
120 
amounts 
to 
approximately  EUR 
150  000,  all  costs 
included). 

118 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
17  3  DATA PROTECTION IMPACTS OF A POSSIBLE REGULATION UNDER PO3 OR PO4 

The EU regulation under POs 3 and 4 would provide a legal basis for processing personal data of natural 
persons, especially those of protected adults and their representatives. The protection of such data to be 
processed would be ensured in line with the General Data Protection Regulation* (‘GDPR’)314 and, 
where applicable, the EUDPR*315.  

The processing of personal data under the Regulation would only relate to situations falling within the 
scope of the Regulation – i.e. to civil matter cases concerning the protection in cross-border situations of 
vulnerable adults who, by reason of an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties, are not in 
a position to protect their interests. This insufficiency or impairment may be, among others, of physical 
or psychosocial nature,  or in  connection with  an age-related disease, such as Alzheimer’s disease, or 
resulting from a health condition, such as coma. Therefore, the fact that an adult is protected or is in need 
of protection under the regulation could (directly or indirectly) reveal information concerning health of 
the individual. In general, information about health316 is considered as a special category of personal 
data317.  Therefore,  a  higher  level  of  protection  and  confidentiality  would  need  to  be  ensured  when 
processing this category of data as compared to other personal data.  

As noted in the Section 2.1.3.1 The number of vulnerable adults in the EU and as quantified in Annex 4, 
the number of such adults in cross-border situations who could benefit from the rules in the Regulation 
is  estimated  between  ca.  144 649  and  780 169.  In  some  of  those  cases  and  depending  on  the 
circumstances of the case at hand, the processing of personal information under the Regulation would be 
necessary. 

In addition to personal data concerning adults, also data concerning other natural persons, in particular 
representatives of the adults, may need to be processed under the Regulation. These personal data would 
not be sensitive. 

General functioning of the Regulation and digital communication 

Personal data would be processed under the Regulation in particular for the purposes of streamlining 
the cross-border procedures and cooperation among Member States in matters falling within the 
scope of the Regulation and thus enhancing the protection, in international situations, of adults. 
This includes processing for the following purposes: (i) for determining jurisdiction, (ii) for determining 
the  law  applicable  to  protection  measures  or  to  powers  of  representation,  (iii)  for  facilitating  the 
cross-border  proceedings  related  to  recognition  and/or  enforcement  of  protection  measures  and 
acceptance of authentic instruments, (v) for facilitating the cooperation among competent authorities and 
Central Authorities* of Member States and (vi) for the issuance of forms, attestations and the European 
Certificate of Representation provided for in the Regulation. For these purposes, personal data processed 
would  be  those  contained  in  the  documents  handled,  for  the  above  purposes,  by  Member  States’ 

314 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. 
315 Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 lays down rules relating to the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of 
personal data by the Union institutions and bodies. 
316 ‘Data concerning health’ means, pursuant to Article 4(15) GDPR, personal data related to the physical or mental health of 
a  natural  person,  including  the  provision  of  health  care  services,  which  reveal  information  about  his  or  her  health  status. 
According to recital 35 of GDPR, personal data concerning health should include all data pertaining to the health status of a 
data subject which reveal information relating to the past, current or future physical or mental health status of the data subject.  
317  See,  by  analogy,  the  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  1  August  2022,  OT  a.o.,  C-184/20,  ECLI:EU:C:2022:601, 
paragraphs  120-128,  on  processing  of  personal  data  that  are  liable  indirectly  to  reveal  sensitive  information  concerning  a 
natural person by means of an intellectual operation involving comparison and deduction.  

119 

 
                                                 
competent  authorities*  and  Central  Authorities*318.  Those  Member  States’  authorities  would  be 
responsible  for  the  compliance  of  the  processing  with  the  applicable  data  protection  legislation,  in 
particular GDPR. 

In addition, in line with the ‘digital by default’ principle and the EU policy on digitalisation of justice, 
The PA Regulation*would provide for a modern means of access to justice making it possible for natural 
and legal  persons and Member State competent  authorities* and Central Authorities* to  communicate 
electronically. The  Regulation  would  thus provide for  digital communication means  to  be used: (1) 
among individuals and Member States’ competent authorities and (2) among the competent authorities 
of various Member States. The digital solutions (‘decentralised IT system’) enabling this communication 
would follow those to be developed for other areas of judicial cooperation in civil matters on the basis of 
the Digitalisation proposal*. 

-  First, natural and legal persons would be able (but not obliged to) to use the European electronic 
access point established on the European E-Justice Portal* to communicate with Member States’ 
competent authorities in  connection with specific proceedings and applications under the  PA* 
Regulation319.  The  European  electronic  access  point  would  already  be  established  by  the 
Commission under the Digitalisation proposal (once that proposal is adopted by co-legislators 
and  implemented).  The  PA  Regulation*  would  thus  ensure  that  the  communication  for 
proceedings and applications in the area of the adults’ protection is added there. The European 
electronic  access  point  would  enable  natural  and  legal  persons  to  communicate  with  Member 
States’ authorities competent under the PA Regulation  on various matters with  relation  to  the 
procedures envisaged by the Regulation. In the European electronic access point, the users would 
have access to the history of their applications, this information would thus be stored in the portal. 
The  Commission  would  be  responsible  for  the  creation,  development  and  maintenance  of  the 
European Electronic Access Point. 

-  Second,  as  regards  the  digital  communication  among  national  competent  authorities,  Member 
States’ competent authorities and Central Authorities* would be in principle obliged under the 
Regulation  to  communicate  for  the  procedures  under  the  PA  Regulation*  via  digital  means 
through a secure and reliable decentralised IT system. The Commission would be responsible for 
the  creation,  development  and  maintenance  of  a  reference  implementation  software  which 
Member States may choose to apply in the context of the decentralised IT system. Member States 
may likewise use their existing national IT systems.  

With respect to personal data processed through the above decentralised IT system to enable the digital 
communication, the PA Regulation* would provide legal basis for the processing of personal data. While 
Member States’ competent authorities would remain controllers concerning the general processing of the 
data, the Commission will be a controller with respect to personal data transmitted electronically through 
the decentralised IT system, responsible to implement technical measures required to ensure the security 
of that data and confidentiality and integrity of the transmissions.  

The  details  concerning data protection  aspects  of the  decentralised  IT system would follow technical 
solutions adopted for the Digitalisation proposal, once adopted and implemented. Further details could 
be  included  in  the  implementing  acts  adopted  under  this  Regulation  that  would  implement  the 
decentralised IT system for the purposes of this Regulation.  

318 That personal data concern in particular the information needed to take a protection measure concerning adults in the scope 
of this Regulation and to ensure their continued protection in cross-border situations. 
319  They  would  be  able  to  apply  electronically  for  instance  for  the  European  Certificate  of  Representation  or  start  the 
proceedings for recognition or non-recognition of a protection measure.  

120 

 
 
                                                 
The interconnection of national registers (‘system of interconnection’) 

Besides the general functioning of the Regulation and the digital communication tools, the Regulation 
would  also  provide  for  data  processing  for  the  purposes  of  establishing  the  system  for  the 
interconnection of protection registers and other registers of powers of representation and ensuring the 
maintenance and proper functioning of that system of interconnection. This additional processing is 
justified by the need that Member States’ competent authorities and Central Authorities with legitimate 
interest have access to the information whether a particular adult is protected or has expressed wishes or 
preferences regarding his or her protection in another Member State, with a view to ensuring continued 
protection of that adult in cross-border situations and to increasing legal certainty and predictability.  

Interconnecting national registers would entail that those Member States that do not have registers of 
protection measures or of confirmed powers of representation (while they provide for a confirmation of 
those powers in their national law) would have to establish them and include there minimum mandatory 
information concerning protection measures and, where applicable, confirmed powers of representation. 
As detailed above in Annex 4, a number of Member States have registers of measures and/or powers of 
representation  (‘national  protection  registers’).  Those  Member  States  would  have  to  ensure  that  their 
registers include the minimum mandatory information defined in the Regulation. The national protection 
registers (as well as other registers of powers of representation that Member States have) would then be 
interconnected at the EU level to enable a cross-border access to that information.  

The  data  processed  through  the  system  of  interconnection  should  be  limited  to  what  is  necessary  for 
accessing  the  relevant  information  about  the  protection  measures  and  powers  of  representation 
concerning  a  particular  adult.  Data  processed  through  the  system  would  thus  be  limited  to  a  few 
‘mandatory’  categories.  Member  States  would  however  be  able  to  give  access  through  the  system  of 
interconnection to additional data (such as on registered powers of representation, or on the name of a 
representative and the extent of the representation, or historical data concerning protection measures and 
powers of representation recorded in the past).320  

The access to the system of interconnection would not be public. Only those competent authorities that 
are designated by Member States, and have access to their national registers, would have access to the 
system of interconnection provided that they have legitimate interest in accessing the information (for 
instance since they are seized by a case concerning a particular adult and they should establish whether 
the adult is not under a protection measure in another Member State).  

The personal data would be primarily stored by Member States in their national registers. Member States 
would be responsible for technical management, maintenance and security of their registers and, as far 
as their national law provides, for the correctness and reliability of the data included therein. In addition, 
since  the  Commission  would  be  responsible  for  developing  and  maintaining  the  system  of 
interconnection,  it  may  need  to  process  data  for  those  purposes  or  even  temporarily  store  the  data 
accessed through the system of interconnection.  

The data protection aspects of the system of interconnection closely related to the detailed technical and 
IT  solutions  adopted.  The  technical  and  IT  solutions  would  be  further  detailed  in  the  context  of  the 
implementation by means of implementing acts. 

Conclusions 

320 To enable the interconnection of the additional categories of data from the technical perspective, these categories would 
have to be specified at the time of the adoption of implementing acts.  

121 

 
                                                 
The Regulation would provide legal basis for processing personal data for the above purposes. Where 
data is processed by Member States’ competent authorities under this Regulation (the majority of cases), 
Member States would be responsible to ensure that the processing is in line with applicable data 
protection legislation, in particular GDPR (from the position of controllers321). The legal basis of the 
processing of personal data should be Article 6(1) and (3) of the GDPR.  

Technical details concerning the processing of data for the purposes of these digital solutions will be 
implemented  by  means  of  implementing  acts.  For  the  purposes  of  the  technical  management, 
development,  maintenance,  security  and  support  of  the  digital  solutions  to  be  provided  by  the 
Commission  under  the  Regulation  (decentralised  IT  system  and  the system  of  interconnection  of 
registers),  the  Commission  should  be  regarded  as  a  controller322.  The  legal  basis  for  that  data 
processing is Article 5(1) and (2) of the EUDPR. 

The processing of special categories of personal data (personal data concerning health) would meet the 
requirements of Article 9(2) of the GDPR as data would be processed by competent authorities in their 
judicial capacity in conformity with point (f), or the processing will be, in conformity with point (g), 
necessary for reasons of substantial public interest, which aims to enhance the protection of fundamental 
rights and freedoms and other rights of adults in cross-border situations, to improve the effectiveness and 
speed of judicial and administrative proceedings concerning the protection of adults and to strengthen 
legal certainty and predictability in cross-border dealings. Similarly, the processing of special categories 
of personal data by the Commission would meet the requirements of Article 10(2) of the EUDPR as the 
processing  of  data  would  be  necessary  for  the  establishment,  exercise  or  defence  of  legal  claims  in 
conformity with point (f), or the processing would be necessary for reasons of substantial public interest 
on the basis of this Regulation, in conformity with point (g). 

Personal data should be processed under the Regulation only where necessary for and proportionate to 
the  purposes  of  processing  listed  above323.  Any  limitation  of  the  right  to  protection  of  personal  data 
should respect the essence of the right and should genuinely meet objective of general interest or the need 
to  protect  the  rights  and  freedoms  of  others.  Safeguards  concerning  data  protection  would  be  put  in 
place, whether by Member States for their processing or by the Commission for the digital solutions. The 
latter would include in particular the limitation of the data processed (for instance, the obligation under 
the Regulation to interconnect national registers would only concern minimum mandatory information), 
storage limitation (the data would not be stored, on long-term basis, in the system of interconnection) or 
access limitation (the data in the system of interconnection would be only available to national competent 
authorities that would be determined by Member States and would have legitimate interest in the data). 
In  addition,  further  safeguards  could  be  determined  in  the  implementing  acts  when  setting  out  the 
technical solutions.  

321 Within the meaning of Article 4(7) GDPR.  
322 Within the meaning of Article 3(8) EUDPR. 
323 Without prejudice to possible further processing for archiving purposes in the public interest. 

122 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 7: PROBLEM DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN CONTRACTING 
PARTIES TO THE CONVENTION AND NON-CONTRACTING PARTIES 

This Annex provides further analysis of the problem, building on the analysis in Section 2 of this Report. 
It identifies which problems would be fully or partially solved should all Member States become 
Contracting Parties to the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention and which would not or 
not completely.  

Not all Member States of the EU are currently parties to the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention 
which creates differences in problems experiences by adults in the EU, depending on which Member 
States’ law is involved in their case. The situation is of course simpler between Member States that have 
ratified the Convention than in cases in which one or more Member State to which a case relates is not 
party  to  the  Convention.  However,  to  varying  extents,  the  problems  described  in  the  report  may 
currently  occur  even  in  Member  States  that  are  party  to  the  HCCH  2000  Protection  of  Adults 
Convention.  

This is (1) because the Convention only applies vis-à-vis other Contracting Parties (and therefore only 
covers those cases that arise with other Member States that are Contracting States to the Convention and 
not the rest) and (2) because the Convention would solve some but not all problems experienced by the 
adults. 

First, it must be noted that many problems described in Section 2 appear both in Member States that are 
Contracting Parties to the Convention and those that are not. The Convention, by providing uniform PIL* 
rules to be applicable in cross-border cases concerning the protection of adults, can only solve problems 
in  Contracting  Parties  in  relation  to  other  Contracting  Parties.  The  problems  thus  remain  when 
cross-border  cases  involve  one  of  the  15  EU  Member  States  that  have  not  ratified  the  Convention. 
Currently, among the total of 220 possible bilateral relationships that the 11 EU Member States that are 
Contracting States to the Convention can have with the other EU Member States, only 55 are covered by 
the Convention (25% of the cases), while 165 (75%) are not covered. The prevalence of the problems 
and their consequences in EU Member States that are Contracting States to the Convention is therefore 
only reduced to some extent by the operation of the Convention. Therefore, considering the absence of 
data and the complexity of the legal picture, it is difficult to isolate the positive effects of the Convention 
from the evidence on the existence of the problems or to claim that problems do not exist in the Member 
States that are Contracting States to the Convention. 

Second, the HCCH  2000 Protection of Adults Convention provides private international  law rules 
aimed  at  protecting  adults  in  cross-border  situations.  These  ‘core’  rules  are  considered  by  the  legal 
experts as fit-for-purpose as they provide a useful minimum framework that mitigates the problems faced 
by vulnerable adults in cross-border situations. It is thus true that e.g. the problems raised by the lack of 
harmonised  rules  on  jurisdiction  and  applicable  law  and  lack  of  automatic  recognition  of  protection 
measures  would  be  almost  fully  solved  in  the  EU  if  all  Member  States  become  a  party  to  the 
Convention.324.  

In contrast to these ‘core’ private international law rules, the Convention does not (or not sufficiently) 
regulate  other  areas  linked  to  the  cross-border  protection  of  adults,  such  as  the  possibility  of  digital 
communication and close cooperation among national competent authorities, the recognition of powers 
of representation abroad and/or how the competent authorities in other States obtain the information that 
someone’s  capacity  is  limited.  These  are  some  of  the  issues  that  remain  problematic  even  between 

324 This is also the reason why in all policy options, including in an EU regulation, the rules established by the Convention on 
jurisdiction and applicable law and automatic recognition of protection measures are kept as they appear in the Convention, 
only with a minor adjustment. A large number of stakeholders have advocated for a legislative solution that would keep those 
provisions, when applied to EU cases. In contrast, an EU Regulation that would change the functioning of these ‘core’ rules 
included the Convention would unduly complicate this legal area by creating two different set of applicable rules.  

123 

 
                                                 
Member States that are Contracting Parties to the Convention and where therefore an EU regulation could 
be of added value.  

Indeed, while the Convention is an efficient tool at the international level, it has been drafted to reach 
international consensus and thus cannot include all rules where harmonisation would be useful in the EU 
of the 21st century to further the protection of adults in cross-border situations (also given the fact that 
cooperation  between  EU  Member  States  can  be  much  closer  than  between  EU  Member  States  and 
non-EU  countries).  The  Convention  has  been  negotiated  for  a  worldwide  application,  meaning  to  be 
operated  by  States  with  very  different  legal  systems  in  general  and  on  the  protection  of  adults  in 
particular. The context is obviously different in the EU where the European Area of Justice is now a 
reality, thanks to the existing EU acquis and the various tools developed by the EU. The shortcomings 
in the Convention thus do not consist in any inappropriateness of the rules of that Convention but in the 
fact that the Convention stops short of a higher degree of cooperation that can be achieved in the specific 
EU context.  

The colour code used in the table below shows which drivers are partly eliminated by the application of 
the  HCCH  2000  Protection  of  Adults  Convention,  and  which  drivers  are  only  eliminated  by  an  EU 
Regulation. The table thus helps to identify and assess where certain issues or gaps in the Convention 
remain and where an EU regulation could fill the gaps: 

-  Problems solved if all Member States joined the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention - in yellow 
-  Problems that would not be solved by the Convention but could be solved by an EU regulation - in blue 

Table 43: Problems that would and would not be solved if all Member States become a Contracting Party to the Convention 
Problem drivers 

Expected outcome 

Solution(s) provided by the Convention and/or 
the Regulation 
Uniform set of rules  

Conflicting and 
complex rules on 
applicable laws 

the European Judicial Network in civil and 
commercial matters as a forum for discussions, 
exchange of experiences, preparation of practice 
guide and assistance in individual cases  
Interpretation of the instrument by the Court of 
Justice of the European Union 
Uniform set of rules 

the European Judicial Network in civil and 
commercial matters (EJN-civil*) as a forum for 
discussions, exchange of experiences, preparation 
of practice guide and assistance in individual cases  
Interpretation of the instrument by the Court of 
Justice of the European Union 
Choice of jurisdiction*: the Regulation would 
provide a clear jurisdiction ground to EU courts 
chosen in advance by an adult.  

Conflicting rules 
on jurisdiction 

Conflicting or 
complex rules on 

Automatic recognition of protection measures (and 
uniform set of rules) 

124 

Provide legal certainty on the law 
applicable to a case, and reduce length and 
costs of proceedings 
Improved awareness  and implementation 
of the rules on applicable law for courts and 
other competent authorities (e.g. notaries) 

Improved legal certainty for competent 
authorities and citizens 
Provide legal certainty on the court having 
jurisdiction, and reduce length and costs of 
proceedings 
Improved awareness of courts and other 
competent authorities (e.g. notaries) on the 
rules on jurisdiction  

Improved legal certainty for competent 
authorities and citizens 
Improved legal certainty for adults who 
have granted powers of representation, as 
well as for their families and representative.  

Improved protection of the right to 
autonomy. 

Improved legal certainty for courts and 
other competent authorities. 

Rapid procedures : This would avoid as 
much as possible the cumbersome 
consultation procedure provided for in 
Article 8 of the HCCH 2000 Protection of 
Adults Convention 
Provide legal certainty on the circulation of 
a measure in the EU 

 
 
 
 
 
recognition of 
foreign protection 
measures and 
powers of 
representation 
established 
abroad 

Simplified list of grounds for refusing to 
recognize a foreign protection measure 

European Certificate of Representation (ECR), 
containing a predefined set of information, with 
uniform effects in the EU.  

the European Judicial Network in civil and 
commercial matters as a forum for discussions, 
exchange of experiences, preparation of practice 
guide and assistance in individual cases 

Interpretation of the instrument by the Court of 
Justice of the European Union 
One set of uniform rules 

Abolition of exequatur*. 

European Certificate of Representation, which 
will contain a predefined set of information with 
uniform effects in the EU. The information of the 
ECR and the competent authorities would be 
available on the e-Justice Portal*.  

Unnecessary or 
complex 
recognition/ 
enforcement 
proceedings 

Information provided on the e-Justice Portal* to all 
individuals and economic actors. 

125 

Eliminate lengthy and costly recognition 
procedures. 
Reduce the risk of challenges of the 
recognition of a measure and increase 
predictability 
The ECR, issued on the basis of a 
protection measure or confirmed powers of 
representation* will provide evidence of 
those measures or powers and make it 
easier for them to circulate in the EU. It 
will eliminate the risk that private actors do 
not recognize protection measures or 
confirmed powers of representation. 

It will significantly increase legal certainty 
for citizens. The information on ECRs and 
the authorities competent to issue them 
would be available on the e-Justice Portal. 

In most cases, the ECR will avoid the need 
for a certified translation, and accelerate 
procedures. 
Improved awareness and better 
implementation of the rules on recognition 
of measures and authentic instruments 
among courts and other competent 
authorities (e.g. notaries) 
Improved legal certainty for competent 
authorities and citizens 
Increased legal certainty, through uniform 
exequatur proceedings. 
The Convention obliges its Contracting 
States to provide for an accelerated 
procedure of enforcement.  

Even if enforcement of a protection 
measure is not necessary in most cases, 
where it is needed, these rules in the 
Convention speed up those proceedings.  
It will not be possible for private actors to 
require exequatur* for a foreign measure 
before accepting it. 

The ECR, issued on the basis of a 
protection measure or confirmed powers of 
representation* will provide evidence of 
those measures or powers and make it 
easier for them to circulate in the EU. It 
will eliminate the risk that private actors do 
not recognize protection measures or 
confirmed powers of representation. 

It will significantly increase legal certainty 
for citizens. The information on ECRs and 
the authorities competent to issue them 
would be available on the e-Justice Portal. 

In most cases, the ECR will avoid the need 
for a certified translation, and accelerate 
procedures. 
Increased awareness from private actors 
such as banks and private institutions about 
the evidentiary effects of the ECR. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Absent or limited 
cooperation 
between national 
competent 
authorities 

Setting up Central Authorities* (that provide 
information of foreign law, cooperation, promotion 
of cooperation among competent authorities, 
facilitation of cross-border communication, location 
of an adult, mediation, provision of information 
relevant for the protection). 
European Certificate of representation, 
containing a predefined set of information, with 
uniform effects in the EU. 

Multilingual standard forms will be established 
for communication between Central Authorities* 
and competent authorities 
Interconnection of national registers of 
protection measures and (confirmed) powers of 
representation will allow competent authorities with 
legitimate interest, such as courts, notaries, civil or 
land registrars to access foreign registers and verify 
the legal capacity of a person. 

Digitalisation of communication 

Training activities of courts, prosecutors and court 
staff by the European Judicial Training Network*  

Access to foreign law will be facilitated by the 
publication of factsheets on national laws on the e-
Justice Portal*, providing reliable information in all 
EU languages. This will supplement the work of 
Central Authorities* in that area.  
The European Judicial Network in civil and 
commercial matters as a forum for discussions, 
exchange of experiences, preparation of practice 
guide and assistance in individual cases 

Improved cooperation of competent 
authorities on cross-border cases, improved 
access to information and to the content of 
foreign law. Assistance in individual cases. 

The ECR, issued on the basis of a 
protection measure or confirmed powers of 
representation* will provide evidence of 
those measures or powers and make it 
easier for them to circulate in the EU. It 
will eliminate the risk that private actors do 
not recognize protection measures or 
confirmed powers of representation. 
This will speed up proceedings and allow 
the exchange of information without the 
need for a translation. 
Increased legal certainty 

Improved protection of the right to self-
determination for adults in cross-border 
cases (the competent authority will be 
informed of the existence of powers of 
representation registered in another country 
and the choices made by the adult in 
advance will be respected) 
Will facilitate, streamline and speed up 
communication between competent 
authorities, and often remove the 
requirement of a translation 
Increased awareness of the EU and 
international instruments in the field of 
adult’s protection, ensuring their correct 
application, and facilitating the handling of 
cross-border cases. 
Improved legal certainty 
Faster proceedings. 

Improved awareness and better 
implementation of the rules applying to 
cross-border cases 

Third, since any EU legislation cannot apply to non-EU States, an EU regulation would not be a tool to 
address the problems experienced by adults with respect to non-EU States. Therefore, in cross-border 
cases involving a Member State and a non-EU State, the Convention with its core private international 
law rules either already is or would be an efficient tool to address these problems. The ratification of the 
Convention by all remaining Member States (possibly combined with some promotion of the Convention 
among non-EU countries) is thus the only way to improve the situation of those vulnerable adults in the 
EU that have links to non-EU countries. This is extremely important in this area since a single adult may 
have personal links (including owning a property) to various EU and non-EU countries. 

126 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 8: MONITORING – POTENTIAL EVALUATION INDICATORS 

Table 44: Examples of potential evaluation indicators 

Assessment criterion 

To protect fundamental 
rights of vulnerable 
adults  

To increase legal 
certainty for all persons 
and competent 
authorities involved  

To facilitate the 
cross-border 
recognition of 
protection measures 
and powers of 
representation 

To make proceedings 
faster and less 
expensive 

To increase cooperation 
among competent 
authorities of Member 
States concerning the 
protection of adults 

Examples of potential indicators 

  Signature  and  ratification  of  the  HCCH  2000  Protection  of  Adults  Convention* 

 

within the timeframe agreed in the Council decision. 
Implementation of the rules set out in the Regulation and in the Convention 
o  Designation of Central Authorities* in all Member States, attribution of powers 
to  the  Central  Authorities  and  provision  of  sufficient  resources  for  their 
functioning; 

o  Adoption of national measures to ensure implementation of the rules set out in 
the Convention and Regulation (e.g. legal aid, digitalisation of procedures, set 
up of national registers of protection measures* and/or of (confirmed) powers 
of representation*, interconnection of these registries etc.); 

o  Adjustment  and  enforcement  costs*  for  competent  authorities  of  Member 

States325; 

o  EJTN statistics on the trainings provided and the number of participants; 
o  Number  and  amount  of  EU  grants  allocated  for  the  digitalisation  of  national 

systems and for the training of legal practitioners on that matter. 

  Application  and  enforcement  of  the  rules  set  out  in  the  Regulation  and  in  the 

Convention*  
o  Case law concerning the legislation, possible preliminary ruling requests to the 

CJEU; 

o  The  perception  of  the  legislation  by  civil  society,  NGOs  and  competent 

o 

authorities of Member States326; 
Information  concerning  any  undesired  effects  of  the  legislation,  including 
possible misuse of certificates or other; 

o  The views of the legislation in academic literature and in reports by individuals, 

o 

organisations and international organisations; 
Improved  cooperation  among  competent  authorities  of  Member  States,  in 
particular of Central Authorities*, concerning the protection of adults.  

  Other indicators used for the evaluation of the legislation  

o  The number of adults living in the EU in cross-border situations who are unable 
to  protect  their  interests  because  of  an  impairment  or  insufficiency  of  their 
personal faculties; 

o  The number of powers of representation* granted by such adults living in the 
EU in cross-border situations; the number of such  powers of representation* 
that are registered and/or confirmed;  

o  Number  of  proceedings  relating  to  cross-border  issues  involving  vulnerable 

adults and their outcome327; 

o  Costs  and  administrative  burden  borne  by  adults  and  their  representatives 

before and after the legislation became applicable328; 

o  Costs and burden borne by competent authorities before and after the legislation 

became applicable; their level of satisfaction with the legislation329. 

325 The perception by these stakeholders could be assessed for instance through targeted interviews, questionnaires or through 
publically available publications. 
326 Ibid.  
327 For instance, whether they ended with the recognition of the protection measures or of the powers of representation* in 
question. 
328 Ideally, this data should be disaggregated comparing the length and costs of the procedure in comparable cases. 
329  This  data  could  be  collected  from  Member  States  and  their  competent  authorities  through  targeted  interviews  or 
questionnaires.  

127 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
o  The  number  of  European  Certificates  of  Representation*  issued  and  related 
fees330  or,  more  generally,  the  number  of  forms  generated  on  the  e-Justice 
portal* that will reflect not only the number of ECRs issued but also the number 
of other attestations issued for recognition purposes.  
In addition, any possible changes to the national substantive and procedural law 
concerning  protection  of  adults,  especially  where  adopted  in  relation  or  as  a 
reaction to implementation of the legislation should be monitored.  
Information  published  by  Member  States  on  the  e-Justice  Portal*  (on  the 
European judicial atlas as well as the factsheets on national law) 

o 

o 

o  Statistics from national registers and from the interconnection software on the 

number of cross-border consultations. 

To  ensure  that  the  data  collection  provided  for  in  the  PA  Regulation*  complies  with  the  SMART 
objectives, the EJN-civil Good Practice on Data Collection should be followed by the Commission 
when preparing the draft Regulation and by the co-legislators when amending the text.  

An indicator of success of the PA initiative* would be the fact that the initiative meets its objectives, 
in that it (i) better protects the rights of adults, including fundamental rights; (ii) increases legal certainty 
for  all  persons  and  competent  authorities;  (iii)  facilitates  the  cross-border  recognition  of  protection 
measures and powers of representation*; and (iv) makes proceedings faster and less expensive. 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 legislation: 

 

In particular, the fact that all Member States have ratified (or acceded to) the Convention and set up 
their Central Authorities* within the time specified in the Council Decision would be a measure of success. 
This timeframe could be 2 years after the entry into application of the Council decision, unless otherwise 
agreed by the Council. 

 

  An acceleration in the pace of ratifications of the Convention by non-EU countries, with five non-EU 
countries  joining  the  Convention  within  five  years  of  the  initiative’s  implementation  would  indicate 
increased  international  interest  in  the  Convention  aided  by  the  ratification  of  the  Convention  by  all 
Member States. 
In  addition,  as  regards  the  PA  regulation*,  the  annual  number  of  European  Certificates  of 
Representation (ECR) issued every year (which can be easily measured if they are issued on the e-Justice 
Portal, and should also be measured if issued from a national IT system), could also be an additional means 
to measure the success of the regulation in quantitative terms.  
If the total number of ECRs issued and registers consulted amount to more than 100 000 over a period of 
ten  years  (knowing  that  the  lower  estimate  of  the  number  of  vulnerable  adults  in  cross-border  cases 
amounts to 145 000), this could be another indicator of success of the regulation. 

 

  The annual number of incoming cross-border forms (to avoid double counting outgoing and incoming 
requests) sent by Central Authorities* and competent authorities through the e-CODEX communication 
tool in the area of the protection of adults will offer a reliable indicator of the facilitated and accelerated 
cooperation between competent authorities. 

  The aggregated total number of outgoing EJN-civil* requests as reported in the annual national reports of 
EJN contact points, as well as the number of EJN-civil meetings dedicated to the topics over the evaluation 
period  would  be  relevant  indicator  of  success,  in  particular  in  terms  of  awareness-raising  among 
practitioners. 

  Finally,  the  number  of  participants  attending  trainings  offered  by  the  EJTN*  on  the  cross-border 
protection of adults, within the evaluation period, as well as the number of EU funded projects during the 
same period, would also demonstrate the success of the initiative in terms of increased awareness of the 
legislation among competent authorities. 

330  If  possible,  the  factors  determining  whether  adults  and  their  representatives  apply  for  the  European  Certificate  of 
Representation or use national certificates could be studied.  

128 

 
                                                 
The  success  and  benefits  of  the  PA  initiative*  should  be  particularly  measurable  in  respect  of  those 
Member States that would only become Contracting Parties to the Convention because of the initiative. 
These Member States could serve as a reference point.  

As  the  PA  initiative*  would  not  apply  to  Denmark  (see  fn.  4),  Denmark  could  be  used,  wherever 
appropriate, as a ‘control group’ to assess the effects of the legislation. This would allow factoring in any 
external influences on the future situation of adults in the EU that are not a result of the legislation. 

129 

 
ANNEX 9: CONSULTATIONS BY THE EXTERNAL CONTRACTOR 

This  annex provides an  overview of the stakeholder consultation  activities conducted by  the  external 
contractor* Milieu Consulting SRL in preparation of their Study supporting the impact assessment* and 
gives  information  on  (i) the  consultation  activities  targeting  different  types  of  stakeholders;  (ii) the 
outcome and results of consultation activities per stakeholder’s category and (iii) how stakeholder input 
was taken into account.  

This Annex only includes consultation activities conducted by the external contractor that were not 
part  of  the  Commission  consultation  strategy.  For  the  consultations  undertaken  as  a  part  of  the 
Commission  consultation  strategy,  see  Annex 2.  This  Annex reproduces  Annex V  of  the  Study 
supporting the impact assessment*, with necessary adjustments for to avoid repetitions with Annex 2.  

18  1  CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES 

Consultation of several types of stakeholders comprised several interconnected activities: 

  Semi-structured interviews – to confirm the main problems and identify the possible impacts of 

the different policy options; 

  Case studies – to better grasp the cross-border situations in which vulnerable adults might find 

 

themselves and to determine which costs would be required in each scenario and quantify them; 
focus groups – to discuss and confirm the findings of the study, in particular in terms of costs 
and impacts of measures in each policy option. 

18.1  1.1 

Stakeholder groups 

The following table provides an overview of the types of consultation  activities undertaken to  gather 
feedback from different stakeholder groups.  

Table45: Consultation activities per stakeholder group – external contractor (Source: Study by an external contractor*) 

Type of stakeholder 
Member States (Central 
Authorities, Ministries, 
other relevant public 
authorities)  

Type of information covered (non-exhaustive list)  Main consultation activities 
Issues encountered under the current situation  
Challenges and gaps concerning the HCCH 
Protection of Adults Convention and its 
implementation 
Acceptance/opinion of different policy options 
Resources expected to implement the policy options  
Magnitude of the impacts of the options (economic, 
social, impact on fundamental rights) 

Public Consultation and Call for 
Evidence 
Semi-structured Interviews  
Case studies 
Focus groups 

Practitioners (judicial 
representatives, 
notaries, lawyers,  

Issues encountered under the current situation  
Challenges and gaps concerning the HCCH 
Protection of Adults Convention and its 
implementation 
Acceptance/opinion of different policy options 
Magnitude of the impacts of the options (economic, 
social, impact on fundamental rights) 

Public Consultation and Call for 
Evidence 
Semi-structured Interviews  
Case studies 
Focus groups 

Non-Governmental 
Organisations (NGOs)  

Issues encountered under the current situation  
Challenges and gaps concerning the HCCH 
Protection of Adults Convention and its 
implementation 
Acceptance/opinion of different policy options 

Public Consultation and Call for 
Evidence 
Semi-structured Interviews  
Case studies 
Focus groups 

130 

 
 
 
 
Academics and 
researchers 

EU citizens  

Magnitude of the impacts of the options (economic, 
social, impact on fundamental rights) 
Issues encountered under the current situation  
Challenges and gaps concerning the HCCH 
Protection of Adults Convention and its 
implementation 
Acceptance/opinion of different policy options 
Magnitude of the impacts of the options (economic, 
social, impact on fundamental rights) 
Perceptions of the practical problems  
Opinion of different policy options  

Public Consultation and Call for 
Evidence 
Semi-structured Interviews  
Case studies 
Focus groups 

Public Consultation and Call for 
Evidence 

18.2  1.2 

Analytical methods and tools 

To conduct and analyse the findings of each consultation activity, a number of tools were used: 

  Statistical analysis – to build conclusions based on the closed questions of the interview and to 

provide trends and statistics (e.g. per category of stakeholder). 

 

  Qualitative summary of position papers and answers to the Commission’s Call for Evidence – 
to identify key elements raised by the stakeholders that should be included in subsequent 
interviews and focus groups.  
Interview questionnaire – to provide stakeholders with information on the study and the 
questions of the semi-structured interviews. 
Interview notes – to gather and summarise the information collected during the interviews. 

 
  Discussion papers for each focus groups – to map the findings from the stakeholder 

consultations, desk research and expert analysis. 

19  2  RESULTS OF THE CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES 

19.1  3.1 

Semi-structured interviews 

After  contacting  over  80  stakeholders  involved  in  the  field  of  cross-border  protection  of  vulnerable 
adults, a series of 36 interviews were conducted by the project team from 23 May 2022 to 14 June 2022. 
A detailed interview questionnaire was distributed to the interviewed stakeholders before the interview. 
The questionnaire included a background section, an explanation of the purpose of the study  and the 
interview, and was then divided into three parts, with questions related to the problems and their causes 
in  the  cross-border  protection  of  vulnerable  adults,  the  assessment  of  the  options  proposed  by  the 
European Commission to address the problems, and additional questions about the number of vulnerable 
adults and future participation of stakeholders in the focus groups. The interviewees belonged to different 
groups of key actors in the cross-border protection of vulnerable adults, namely 14 practitioners (lawyers, 
judicial  representatives,  judges  and  notaries),  12  public  authorities  (Ministries  of  Justice,  Central 
Authorities,  national  agencies),  9  associations  (European  and  national  associations  representing 
vulnerable adults) and a representative of a vulnerable adult. Among the representatives of the Member 
States, 10 Member States were represented331, seven of which are Contracting States to the HCCH 2000 
Protection of Adults Convention332.  

The questionnaire consisted of a set of open and closed questions in the form of tables with boxes to be 
ticked.  The  open-ended  questions  were  analysed  and  included  in  the  text  of  the  main  report,  and  the 
closed-ended questions were collected and statistically analysed to produce the tables presented in the 
second part of the main report. The closed questions about the problems presented a series of identified 

331 BE, CZ, DE, FI, FR, IT, LV, MT, NL and PT. 
332 BE, CZ, DE, FI, FR, LV and PT. 

131 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
problems  (lack  of  legal  certainty,  the  lack  of  recognition  of  protection  measures  and  powers  of 
representation, the length and costs of proceedings and the costs and workload for competent authorities) 
and invited participants to estimate whether these were very important, rather important, neutral, rather 
unimportant or not at all important problems in the field of cross-border protection of vulnerable adults. 
The closed questions on policy options invited participants to assess the relevance and effectiveness in 
addressing  each  of  the  problems  identified.  Open-ended  questions  complemented  these  sections,  and 
were also formulated to ask stakeholders about the costs they experience in cross-border cases involving 
vulnerable adults, and the impact of the problems and policy options on the human rights of vulnerable 
adults (particularly in relation to the Charter and the UNCRPD). The answers on the costs (regulatory 
charges, adjustment and enforcement costs) in the current situation and the impact of different policy 
options on these costs helped the project team to identify the most relevant people to invite to participate 
in the first focus group, which focused on the issue of costs in cross-border cases involving vulnerable 
adults. 

19.2  3.2 

Case studies 

A series of eight illustrative case studies were developed, based on case law analysis, desk research, input 
from  a  senior  expert  and  examples  described  during  interviews.  These  case  studies  cover  the  typical 
situations encountered by vulnerable adults and their families while encompassing the types of costs that 
may be triggered in each of these situations.  

These  case  studies  were  developed  to  support  the  discussions  on  costs  in  cross-border  protection  of 
vulnerable adults during the two focus groups. They were distributed to all participants in advance of the 
two meetings, along with guiding questions for each case study in order to collect in-depth and targeted 
contributions. The case studies were then presented and detailed during these two meetings, and fed the 
reflections  of  the  participants,  who  commented  on  the  recurrence  of  these  situations,  the  documents 
required  in  each  of  them,  the  existing  or  missing  costs  and  their  magnitude.  The  contributions  from 
stakeholders  helped  to  better  understand  which  situations  were  most  common,  and  to  refine  the  cost 
estimates for each of them, which in turn were essential to calculate the cost reductions that could be 
achieved by each of the policy options formulated by the European Commission.  

19.3  3.3 

Focus groups 

At the end of the analytical phase of the study, two focus groups were held to discuss the preliminary 
findings of the evaluation, confirm the data collection findings, and fill the remaining information gaps. 
The focus groups gathered 14 participants in the first focus group and 21 in the second, from different 
stakeholder categories to ensure a more exhaustive coverage of the topic and a productive discussion. 
The focus groups were held in a fairly informal albeit structured way to make it easier for participants to 
share their experiences and expertise in detail. 

The two online focus groups took place on 14 September 2022 and lasted two hours each. The two focus 
groups  gathered  different  types  of  participants,  in  order  to  have  a  better  overview  of  trends  and 
perceptions by stakeholder group. The first focus group targeted practitioners and associations having 
expertise in the field of cross-border protection of vulnerable adults. It included 8 practitioners (lawyers 
– including Council of Bars –, notaries – including Chamber of notaries, and judicial representatives), 3 
judges  and  3  representatives  of  associations.  It  was  divided  into  two  parts,  with  the  first  longer  part 
starting by asking participants for their views on estimates of the number of vulnerable adults in cross-
border situations, followed by a discussion of the costs encountered in cross-border situations based on 
the  eight  case  studies  developed.  The  second  part  was  a  shorter  discussion  on  the  measures  of  the 
proposed  policy  options  and  their  impacts.  The  second  focus  group  gathered  representatives  of  10 

132 

 
Member States333 and 3 representatives of European non-governmental organisations. This focus group 
was  also  divided  into  two  parts,  and  also  began  by  inviting  participants  to  give  their  opinion  on  the 
estimated number of vulnerable adults in cross-border situations in the EU, followed by a question on 
the  use  of  private  mandates  in  their  Member  State  and  related  figures,  and  questions  about  their 
perception of the cooperation between national  competent authorities under the current situation. The 
main  part  of  the  discussion  then  focused  on  the  stakeholders’  perceptions  of  the  different  options 
proposed, the measures they contain and their impacts. The second part of the focus group was dedicated 
to the presentation of the eight case studies and the gathering of the participants’ experiences and views 
on the costs of cross-border protection of vulnerable adults. 

Regarding the participants’ views on the four policy options presented by  the European Commission 
during the focus groups, it is worth noting that the participants of the first focus group were mostly in 
favour of EU legislation and more substantial EU intervention, whereas the participants of the second 
focus group (mostly representatives of public competent authorities of Member States – 78.6%) were 
rather in favour of a less extensive EU intervention or even Option 1. It is also important to note that the 
options  and  measures  corresponding  to  them  were  not  always  clear  to  the  participants  of  the  second 
group. 

The focus groups gave stakeholders the opportunity to learn more about the progress of the reflection 
process within the European Commission in this area, to take part in the validation process, to confirm 
or  invalidate  the  findings  of  the  assessment,  and  to  express  their  views  on  the  comparison  of  policy 
options, both their advantages and disadvantages.  

333 AT, BE, CZ, FR, DE, LT, LU, NL, MT, and SI. 

133 

 
 
                                                 
ANNEX 10: NATIONAL PROVISIONS ON JURISDICTION, APPLICABLE 
LAW AND RECOGNITION 

This Annex presents information about the Member States’ provisions on jurisdiction and applicable law 
in cross-border matters concerning the protection of adults and on the recognition of decisions in these 
matters, as elaborated by an external contractor in the 2021 Legal Study*. 

Table 46: Jurisdiction and applicable law in the Member States that are not party to the Convention334 

MS 

Jurisdiction  

Applicable law 

BG 

Jurisdiction  for  the  limitation  or  deprivation  of  legal 
capacity is based on nationality. 

Jurisdiction  for  the  establishment  and  termination  of 
guardianship  or 
is  based  on  habitual 
residence.  

trusteeship 

DK 

Jurisdiction seems based on the habitual residence of the 
person concerned. 

ES 

Jurisdiction  in  matters  related  to  the  capacity  of  persons 
and  in  matters  related  to  the  protection  measures  of 
vulnerable  adults  or  their  property  is  based  on  habitual 
residence. 

Jurisdiction  for  the  adoption  of  provisional  or  protective 
measures (provided that the measures must be fulfilled in 
Spain) is based on the location of the person or property 
in Spain. 

HR 

Jurisdiction  in  matters  related  to the personal  status of  a 
person,  such  as  deprivation  and  restoration  of  legal 
capacity,  may  be  based  on  nationality  or  habitual 
residence. 

Jurisdiction  for  the  adoption  of  provisional  or  protective 
measures  is  based  on  the  location  of  the  person  or 
property in Croatia. 

HU 

Jurisdiction for the adoption of  protective measures  may 
be based on nationality or habitual residence.  

IE 

IT 

Jurisdiction for the determination of incapacity and for the 
application  of  protection  measure  may  be  based  on 
nationality or habitual residence. 

Jurisdiction 
residence.  

is  based  on  nationality  or  habitual 

Italy  is  the  competent  jurisdiction  for  provisional  and 
urgent  protection  measures  of  vulnerable  adults  with 
regard  to  property  if  the  property  is  located  in  Italy  and 

 

 

 

 

 

Foreign procedural actions or official documents, are governed by the 
law of the State from which the actions/documents originate. 
The conditions and the consequences of the limitation or deprivation 
of legal capacity of the person are settled by the law of nationality of 
the  person;  when  that  person  has  habitual  residence  in  Bulgaria, 
Bulgarian law applies. 
Establishment and the termination of the guardianship and trusteeship 
is  governed  by  the  law  of  the  State  of  habitual  residence  of  the 
protected person or guardian. 
For temporary and urgent protective measures, Bulgarian law may be 
applied. 
Lex fori seems to apply.  

The applicable law for the protection of adult persons is the law of habitual 
residence.  

  Restrictions of legal capacity are regulated by the law of nationality 

of the person concerned.  
The  preconditions  for  deprivation  and  regain  of  legal  capacity, 
placement  under  guardianship  and  termination  of  guardianship,  are 
regulated by the law of habitual residence. 
For temporary and urgent protective measures, Croatian law applies. 

 

 

  Deprivation  and  restrictions  of  capacity  are  regulated  by  the  law  of 

 

 
 

nationality.  
The  conditions  for  placement  under  guardianship,  or  for  other 
protection measures, that do not affect the capacity of an adult to act, 
are regulated by the law of habitual residence.  
Protection measures are regulated by the law of habitual residence.  
Enduring powers of attorney are regulated by law of nationality, lex 
rei sitae or law of habitual residence.  

The  conditions  for  adopting  protection  measures  and  the  relationship 
between the caregiver and the protected person are governed by the law of 
nationality of the person to whom these protection measures relate. Under 
the rule on renvoi, cases exist where the law governing the protection of a 
foreigner is eventually Italian law. 

334 Data presented in the 2021 Legal Study*, before the ratification of the Convention by Greece. 

134 

 
                                                 
MS 

Jurisdiction  

Applicable law 

where  it  is  necessary  to  supplement  or  modify  a  foreign 
decision which is recognised in Italy. 

LU 

Jurisdiction is based on nationality.  

For the status of a person (including vulnerability), the law of nationality 
applies. 

LT 

MT 

Jurisdiction  for the declaration  of  incapacity  is  based  on 
the  location  of  property  in  Lithuania,  nationality  or 
permanent residence (for stateless persons) in Lithuania.  

Guardianship and curatorship are governed by the law of the domicile of 
the person to whom the protection measures relate.  

The law of the nationality or place of domicile, residence or presence of 
the vulnerable adult applies. 

Jurisdiction is based on nationality (for Maltese citizens, 
provided  they  have  not  fixed  their  domicile  outside  of 
Malta), residence (persons domiciled, resident or present 
in  Malta),  or  place  of  property  (property  situated  or 
existing in Malta). 

Maltese  courts  are  also  competent  to  implement  an 
obligation contracted or to be implemented or enforced in 
Malta, or if designated as a competent court by the parties. 

Following the decision of the Supreme Court, the applicable law in cases on 
the protection of vulnerable adults in cross-border situations is determined 
by the rules of the  HCCH  2000 Protection of Adults Convention,  i.e. lex 
fori. 

 

 

 

The  establishment  of  guardianship,  curatorship  or  other  protection 
measures for an adult is governed by that person’s law of nationality 
or Polish law if the domicile or habitual residence is in Poland.  
Enforcement of protection measures is subject to the law of habitual 
residence. 
The termination of a protection measure is governed by the national 
law of the adult. 

NL 

Jurisdiction is based on habitual residence.  

PL 

Jurisdiction  may  be  based  on  nationality  or  habitual 
residence. 

Polish courts may also have jurisdiction for the protection 
of  the  property  of  a  foreigner  with  habitual  residence 
abroad if this is necessary with regard to the interest of the 
foreigner.  

Polish courts may also be competent if the case shows a 
sufficient  connection  with  the  Polish  legal  order  or  if 
there  is  an  urgent  need  to  ensure  the  protection  of  a 
foreigner with their habitual residence abroad.  

There are also specific cases of exclusive jurisdiction, e.g. 
in case of incapacitation, if the person to whom the petition 
for incapacitation relates is a Polish citizen, residing and 
habitually residing in Poland. 

RO 

Jurisdiction for guardianship and curatorship may be based 
on  nationality  or  domicile  (or  habitual  residence  if  no 
domicile). 

 

 

The state and capacity of natural persons are governed by the law of 
nationality. 
Protection  measures  to  be  taken  in  the  case  of  a  fully  capacitated 
person are governed by the law of habitual residence.  

For placement under judicial interdiction, only Romanian 
courts are competent irrespective of the citizenship, if the 
person has their domicile in Romania.   

  When powers of representation are stipulated, there is the possibility 

to choose the applicable law. 

SE 

Jurisdiction in proceedings of guardianship and trusteeship 
may be based on nationality or domicile.  

In  cases  concerning  conservatorship  and  administratorship  of  vulnerable 
adults, lex fori applies. 

Swedish  courts  have  jurisdiction  in  proceedings  of 
protection  measures  for  Swedish  citizens  residing 
abroad.  

SI 

Regarding  guardianship  measures,  Slovenian  authorities 
have exclusive competence for Slovene citizens.  

SK 

Jurisdiction  in  proceedings  on  protection  measures  is 

 

 
 
 

In guardianship cases, the law of nationality of the protected person 
applies. 
In guardianship cases, Slovene law applies (lex fori). 
Legal capacity of a person shall be governed by the law of nationality. 
The applicable law for the conditions for establishment or termination 

135 

 
MS 

Jurisdiction  

Applicable law 

based on habitual residence. 

 

 

of guardianship is the law of habitual residence. 
The obligation to accept and carry out the guardianship is regulated by 
the law of nationality of the guardian. 
Legal  relations  between  the  guardian  and  the  protected  person  are 
regulated by lex fori of the guardianship court.  

Table 47: Rules applicable to parallel proceedings in the Member States 

National court disregards the foreign proceedings and decide 
the matter as to its substance 

National court stays the proceedings  

AT, CY, IE, LV, SK 

BE, BG, CZ, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LT, LU, MT, NL, 
PL, PT, RO, SE, SI335 

Table 48: Recognition in Contracting States of protection measures taken in Non-contracting States336 

MS 

Is the recognition of protection measures taken in a Non-Contracting State automatic? (yes/no) 

AT 

No  

BE 

No 

CY 

CZ 

DE 

EE 

EL 

FI 

FR 

LV 

PT 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No  

No 

Table 49: Recognition in Non-Contracting States337 

Non-contracting  States  with  automatic  recognition  of 
protection measures 

Non-contracting  States  without  automatic  recognition  of 
protection measures 

DK, IT, PL, SI 

BG, ES, HR, HU, MT, NL, LT, RO, SE, SK 

335 The information is not available for DE and EL.  
336 Data presented in the 2021 Legal Study*, before the ratification of the Convention by Greece. 
337 Data presented in the 2021 Legal Study*, before the ratification of the Convention by Greece. 

136