Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2023)280 - Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of measures and cooperation in matters relating to the protection of adults - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2023)280 - Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of measures and cooperation in matters relating to the protection ... |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2023)280 |
| date | 31-05-2023 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
The EU aims to create, maintain and develop an area of freedom, security and justice in which the free movement of persons, access to justice and the full respect of fundamental rights are ensured.
The number of adults who, by reason of an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties, are not in a position to protect their interests (hereinafter ‘adults’) in the EU is increasing continuously. This is due to the ageing of the population and the subsequent incidence of age-related illnesses, as well as the growing number of persons with disabilities. Depending on the national legislation of the Member State where they live, they can be under a protection measure taken by a court or an administrative authority, or supported by a third party they have appointed in advance (through ‘powers of representation’) to manage their interests.
This growing number of adults who require support with decision-making combined with the increasing mobility of people in the EU gives rise to many issues faced by adults in cross-border situations. For instance, adults may need to manage their assets or real estate located in another country, undergo emergency or planned medical care abroad or relocate to another country for various reasons. In the absence of statistics, the number of adults placed under a protection measure by a judicial or administrative authority in cross-border situations in the EU is estimated to be between 145 000 and 780 0001.
In those cross-border situations, adults are confronted with the complex and sometimes conflicting private international law rules of Member States. Those rules determine which court or other authority competent to take protection measures (hereinafter authority) has jurisdiction, which law applies to their case, and how to recognise or give effect to a decision taken or powers of representation established abroad. This leads to situations where adults, their families and their representatives experience significant legal uncertainty as to what rules will apply to their case and as to the outcome of the procedures and formalities they need to carry out. To ensure that their protection continues across borders or that they have access to their rights abroad, they often have to go through long and expensive proceedings. In some instances, their protection and the powers entrusted to their representative are not recognised in the end, either by foreign courts or by non-judicial actors like banks, medical staff or real estate agents.
Under the auspices of The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), the Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults (HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention) was adopted that addresses some of these difficulties. The Convention provides a comprehensive body of rules on international jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of protective measures, as well as provisions on powers of representation. It also sets out mechanisms for cooperation between the authorities and Central Authorities of the countries that have ratified the Convention (Contracting Parties). This Convention is unanimously considered as an efficient private international law instrument that is fit for purpose at global level.
The ratification of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention by Member States and beyond is essential for its effective operation. However, only 12 Member States are currently party to that Convention.
Ratification by all Member States of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention (or accession to it) is a long-standing objective of the EU. Since 2008, the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention has been explicitly endorsed by the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament, and the European Commission. The European Parliament has actively supported not only the ratification of the Convention by all Member States but also a possible EU legislative initiative in the field of protection of adults to supplement the Convention.
At EU level, more than 20 EU regulations have been adopted to harmonise the private international law rules, and as a result many barriers in judicial cooperation among Member States have been removed based on the principle of mutual trust. However, there is no instrument governing judicial cooperation in the field of the protection of adults between Member States.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
The present proposal is a part of a package that also contains a Commission proposal for a Council Decision authorising 14 Member States which are not Contracting Parties to the Convention to become parties, in the interest of the European Union, to the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention.
This will lay down common private international law rules in the EU applied by the Member States authorities with non-EU countries that are parties to the Convention. This will foster the rights of adults beyond EU's borders.
For relations between Member States, this proposal for a Regulation takes over the rules set out in the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention on jurisdiction and applicable law by making a direct reference to the corresponding provisions of the Convention. In other areas, the proposal for a Regulation builds on the Convention to further simplify its rules and improve efficiency in cooperation between Member States. More simplification and improved cooperation in the EU are also facilitated by the introduction of digitalised tools and a European Certificate of Representation in the Regulation.
The added value of the proposed Regulation is thus the simplification and modernisation of the rules included in the Convention for the EU’s circumstances and the strengthening of cooperation among Member States in the area of the protection of adults. While the rules in the Convention are aimed at a global application by countries with different legal systems in general and on the protection of adults in particular, the Regulation would be able to establish more streamlined rules and closer cooperation based on the principle of mutual trust among Member States and drawing on the experience of harmonising other areas of cross-border civil justice in the EU.
It follows that the proposed Regulation would apply among Member States, while the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention would be applicable in relation to non-EU countries that are Contracting Parties to the Convention. Adults in the EU may have ties with both Member States and non-EU countries (for instance owning property there or having personal links there). Therefore, a coherent private international law framework applicable to the protection of adults both in the EU and in relation to non-EU countries that are party to the Convention is crucial for ensuring the protection of adults in international situations.
Both proposals for a Regulation and a Council Decision are complementary to each other and for this reason are presented together.
• Consistency with other Union policies
The EU and its Member States are parties to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), which, since its adoption in 2006, is the international cornerstone of the rights of persons with disabilities.
The consistency and the positive interplay of the rules laid down in the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention with the rights enshrined in the UNCRPD has been recognised on several occasions. For instance, a legal study commissioned by the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities2 and the related joint statement by the Special rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities and the independent expert on the enjoyment of all human rights by older persons have clarified the issue by concluding that the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention leaves enough room for interpretation and practical improvements and can evolve to reflect the modernisation of national laws.
In addition, in March 2021, the European Commission adopted the Strategy for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2021-2030. With this strategy, the Commission aims to improve the lives of persons with disabilities in Europe and around the world. In particular, the Strategy addresses the issue of ‘Improving access to justice, legal protection, freedom and security’ for persons with disabilities. The implementation of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention in line with the UNCRPD is one of the objectives of the strategy. For this purpose, a legal study was conducted in 2021 and concluded that an EU initiative on the cross-border protection of adults would safeguard the rights of person with disabilities who need support in protecting their interests. The legal study concluded that, in addition to the ratification of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention, an EU regulation improving and simplifying judicial cooperation in the EU would significantly improve the rights of adults.
This proposal is a significant step forward for the respect of the right to autonomy enshrined in the UNCRPD because it will considerably facilitate the circulation of powers of representation granted in advance by an adult for a time when the adult will not be in a position to protect their interests. In particular, this proposal provides for the acceptance of authentic instruments to swiftly recognise their evidentiary effect in the EU and creates a European Certificate of Representation so that representatives can easily prove the nature and extent of their powers across borders.
Finally, this proposal also builds on the previous Commission initiatives on the digitalisation of judicial cooperation. In its Communication of 2 December 2020, the Commission committed to make digital channels the default option in EU cross-border cooperation. On 1 December 2021, a proposal for the digitalisation of judicial cooperation was presented by the Commission to fully digitalise the existing legislative instruments in civil and criminal matters. To digitalise the area of the protection of adults, the present proposal for a Regulation builds on the digitalisation proposal.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The legal basis for EU competence in the area of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters is Article 81(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which is therefore the legal basis for this proposal for a Regulation.
In contrast, Article 81(3) TFEU on family law with cross-border implications is not applicable because the cross-border protection of adults is not a family law matter.
The term ‘family law’ within the meaning of Article 81(3) TFEU must be interpreted autonomously regardless of the definition provided for in Member States’ national legislation. 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 succession3, for example, was not considered to be a family law matter and was adopted based on Article 81(2) TFEU.
It is not uncommon for adults to 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 family members. However, the adult’s family, if indeed the adult has a family, is merely one of the aspects to consider to ensure protection. The involvement of family members is not a necessary element or an element governed by private international law. Instead, the crucial concern in adult protection is the support provided and preserving the adult’s rights to dignity, individual autonomy, non-discrimination and social inclusion, regardless of their family ties.
Lastly, it must be noted that neither this proposal nor the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention contain any reference to family relationships (such as ‘parent’, ‘children’ or ‘spouse’), contrary to the Regulations covering family law matters.
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
The policy objective of having an efficient and harmonised set of private international law rules applying to all Member States in cross-border cases of protection of adults can be better achieved through an EU initiative.
The current problems faced by adults in cross-border situations have an inherent EU dimension because they are of a cross-border nature and affect the fundamental rights of adults and their right to free movement. The rules on international jurisdiction, applicable law and recognition apply in a cross-border context and thus require the involvement of at least two countries. Member States conflicting or diverging private international law rules in the area of the protection of adults cause multiple issues in cross-border situations in the EU, such as discontinued protection of adults, non-recognition of foreign measures, additional judicial proceedings, or lack of recognition of the wills and preferences expressed by an adult. Member States acting individually could not satisfactorily tackle those problems.
Similarly, the modernisation and digitalisation of judicial cooperation requires the application of harmonised rules (for instance, uniform forms streamlining cross-border procedures), and the use of interoperable tools (forms, software, registers etc.), which can only be developed at EU level.
• Proportionality
The objectives of this proposal are to protect the fundamental rights of the adults, improve the effectiveness and speed of cross-border proceedings concerning the protection of adults, and strengthen legal certainty and predictability in cross-border dealings. To that effect, the proposal harmonises Member States’ rules on international jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of protection measures and acceptance of authentic instruments. It also sets out rules giving effect to powers of representation in all Member States. Finally, it provides for developing tools to improve and expedite the cooperation between Member States in this area.
The proposal does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve its objectives.
For instance, it does not interfere with national rules governing the support provided to adults with diminished capacities; it only applies to conflict of jurisdiction, conflict of laws or recognition of foreign measures or documents in cross-border situations.
In addition, the European Certificate of Representation introduced in this proposal is optional and will not replace equivalent national documents providing evidence of representation.
The proposal requires Member States to create a register of measures and powers of representation and to interconnect it with other Member States' registers. This is to ensure that the protection of adults is maintained in cross-border cases, and that their right to individual autonomy, including the freedom to make their own choices as regards their person and/or future arrangements is respected when they move within the EU. However, the set of data to be registered and shared through the interconnection of registers under this proposal is extremely limited and only provides information on the existing protection of an adult. Moreover, Member States will remain responsible for designating the national authorities that can access the interconnected system of registers.
The proposal therefore respects the principle of proportionality.
• Choice of the instrument
The adoption of common rules on international jurisdiction, recognition of protection measures, acceptance of authentic instruments, and applicable law on protection measures and powers of representation in cross-border situations can only be achieved through a common set of rules applying in the EU.
Furthermore, full cooperation between authorities and removal of barriers for adults and their representatives can be better achieved on the basis of the principle of mutual trust. The European Certificate of Representation, the digitalisation of cross-border communication and easing language barriers can only be laid down in a regulation. Finally, only a regulation ensures a fully consistent interpretation and application of the rules in the EU. In line with previous EU instruments on private international law, the preferred legal instrument is therefore a regulation.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation
Contents
• Stakeholder consultations
This proposal, together with the parallel proposal for a Council Decision on the same matter, were preceded by extensive and broad stakeholder consultations.
The open public consultation and the call for evidence were carried out in early 2022. Most respondents, including Member States and professional organisations representing lawyers and notaries, supported an EU initiative that would oblige Member States to ratify the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention and called for an EU instrument supplementing the Convention. Some respondents (NGOs for the protection of the rights of persons with disabilities) expressed concerns for the fundamental rights of adults, if an EU instrument favoured the circulation of decisions that could violate the fundamental rights of adults.
As part of the Commission's consultation strategy, an online meeting with stakeholders was organised on 29 September 2022. Moreover, 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. Member States already party to the Convention strongly encouraged other Member States to ratify. Reasons given by Member States for not ratifying the Convention included a change in government, ongoing internal discussions, and the low number of reported cross-border cases, but there was no criticism of the Convention itself.
Finally, the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters (EJN-civil) was consulted on its possible role in a future initiative during a meeting held on 7 and 8 November 2022.
In conclusion, all Commission consultation activities showed strong support for and overall positive feedback on the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention. Furthermore, the consultations showed that most stakeholders saw a practical need for and supported additional measures at EU level.
• Collection and use of expertise
A legal study was carried out in 20214. The authors of the study reached the following conclusions: (i) significant gaps and inconsistencies exist in the cross-border protection of adults (rules on jurisdiction, recognition of powers of representation, absence of legal certainty and practical problems for authorities); (ii) the general ratification of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention in the EU would directly tackle some of those problems between Member States and non-EU countries; and (iii) an EU instrument would further strengthen the protection of adults and facilitate their lives and the work of competent authorities.
An additional study supporting the preparation of an impact assessment was completed in 2022 and provided further evidence and analysis of the existing problems and impact of various policy options. In the context of this study, further stakeholder consultations were conducted.
A fact-finding mission5 of the European Network of Judicial Inspection Services (RESIJ) highlighted the insufficient protection of adults in cross-border cases and made the following recommendations: (i) improve the training of authorities on the instruments available; (ii) harmonise the terminology; (iii) create a European Certification of Representation; (iv) set up interoperable national registers on the protection of adults; and (v) adopt a common set of EU rules.
Additional expertise on the topic of the cross-border protection of adults was also gathered from other sources, such as the European Parliament’s study6 accompanying its Legislative Initiative Report (2016) and the European Law Institute Report (2020)7.
• Impact assessment
Based on the Commission’s Better Regulation Guidelines and the conclusions of the inception impact assessment, the Commission prepared an impact assessment of this proposal. In the impact assessment, the following policy options were considered: (i) the baseline scenario; (ii) a Council decision obliging Member States to become party to the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention within a certain time frame; (iii) a regulation transposing some rules of the Convention and laying down additional rules to foster party autonomy, simplify rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions, acceptance of authentic instruments, create a European Certificate of Representation, provide legal aid, interconnect registers and set up rapid and efficient communication; and (iv) a combination of points (ii) and (iii),meaning a Council decision governing cases involving non-EU countries and a regulation, building on the rules of the Convention and improving its functioning among Member States.
The impact assessment report examined each of these options' expected impact, effectiveness, efficiency and coherence with the EU’s legal and policy framework. Based on this assessment, the package option consisting of a proposal for a Council decision on the ratification of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention and for a regulation to improve judicial cooperation between Member States was chosen.
The impact assessment concluded that the chosen option would, through a consistent legal framework, significantly improve the protection of adults by ensuring legal certainty, reducing and avoiding lengthy legal proceedings, and ultimately facilitating the recognition of the protection of adults in cross-border cases, within and outside the EU borders.
The chosen policy option would also be the most effective one in tackling the problems concerning the protection of adults as the legal, social and psychological benefits would be the most significant. The chosen option would have a clear positive impact on the protection of the rights, including the fundamental rights, of adults, such as their right to property, access to justice, individual autonomy, and free movement. It would also have a positive social and psychological impact as it would mean more legal certainty, bring benefits to their welfare and social inclusion, and alleviate emotional distress. It would reduce costs currently borne by adults in cross-border situations and by Member States. Other impacts would not be significant8. This policy option would be in line with the digital by default principle as the cross-border procedures for the protection of adults would be digitalised under the Regulation.
Through the adoption of common EU rules, the chosen option would do away with most costs and administrative burden linked to judicial proceedings, translations, and other procedures with non-judicial actors. It has been estimated that the average saving made by the adult or the representative in a cross-border case would range, on average, from EUR 40 to EUR 9 000.
The impact assessment report received a positive opinion from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 20 January 2023.
• Regulatory fitness and simplification
• Fundamental rights
This Regulation fosters the right to autonomy and freedom to make one's own choices by facilitating the circulation of powers of representation drawn up by the adults. This is in particular ensured by the creation of a European Certificate of Representation, which will allow representatives appointed by an adult to easily prove the nature and the extent of their powers abroad. This will also be guaranteed by the rules on the acceptance of authentic instruments, which will ensure that evidentiary effects of those documents are recognised in the EU. Furthermore, the interconnection of registers will ensure that, those powers of representation registered in one Member State are not ignored by a competent authority in another Member State due to the lack of information on their existence and that the will and preferences of the adult are therefore respected.
In addition, this proposal will ensure that in cross-border cases, common private international law rules on the protection of adults are applied and interpreted in line with the UNCRPD. This Regulation will further facilitate the sharing of good practices among Member States at the time of its implementation, through the EJN-civil, the e-Justice Portal and training activities.
Lastly, the proposal upholds other rights of adults that are currently regularly threatened or violated internationally, such as the rights to equality before the law, property, access to justice and free movement.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
Member States may have one-off costs to adjust to the Regulation, in particular costs arising from setting up Central Authorities, or training judges and other competent authorities on the new rules. There may be minor recurring costs, for instance, for the continuous training of authorities or monitoring the application of the Regulation. None of these costs is expected to be significant and would be offset by the efficiency gains and costs savings brought about by the Regulation.
Member States may also incur costs associated with installing and maintaining the decentralised IT system’s access points located in their territory and adapting their national IT systems, so they are interoperable with the access points. Additionally, Member States may also need to deploy reference implementation software developed by the Commission, which could also entail some costs. These costs are necessary to make the electronic communication between competent authorities through a decentralised IT system possible, in addition to the communications between people and competent authorities through the European electronic access point set up on the European e-Justice Portal. However, these costs would not only be required for this proposal as the decentralised IT system would be used for all EU instruments on judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters. In addition, Member States would be able to apply for grants to finance these costs under the appropriate EU financial programmes.
Member States will have specific one-off costs, related to setting up one or more digitalised registers and linking them to other Member State registers, and recurring maintenance costs after that.
Those costs would be largely outweighed by the overall savings on procedural costs made by adults and their representatives.
The digitalisation of communication between authorities and between natural persons and authorities, and the interconnection of registers would also result in additional costs for the Commission. The Commission will provide Member States' competent authorities with common reference implementation software, develop and maintain a new module of the European Electronic Access Point introduced in the digitalisation proposal9, and develop and maintain interconnection software for the registers. Details of these costs are provided in the financial statement and the impact assessment accompanying this proposal.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
A regulation is directly applicable in all Member States and does not therefore have to be implemented into national law.
Appropriate monitoring, evaluation and reporting obligations are envisaged in the proposal. First, the practical application of the Regulation would be monitored through regular meetings of the EJN-civil, bringing together experts from Member States. In addition, a full evaluation of the application of the Regulation would be carried out by the Commission ten years after the Regulation enters into force. The evaluation would be done on the basis of, among others, input received from Member State authorities, external experts and stakeholders.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
• Chapter I delineates the scope of the Regulation that applies to civil matters regarding the protection of adults (Article 1) by providing for a non-exhaustive list of matters covered under the Regulation and an exhaustive list of the matters excluded from the Regulation. It also presents the subject matter of the Regulation (Article 2) and the definitions of the terms used in the Regulation (Article 3).
• Chapter II lays down the general rules on international jurisdiction with a direct reference to the rules provided for in Chapter II of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention. Articles 6 and 7 of the Regulation provide for an additional and non-exclusive ground of jurisdiction applicable in the EU when a choice of jurisdiction has been made by an adult. That choice should be followed under three cumulative conditions listed in Article 6, with the obligation to inform the Central Authority of the Member State where the adult has their habitual residence.
• Chapter III sets out the rules on applicable law with a direct reference to Chapter III of the HCCH 2000 Protection of Adults Convention.
• Section 1 of Chapter IV provides for the automatic recognition of measures taken by Member States' authorities, to give effect to the principle of mutual recognition, which is based on the principle of mutual trust in the EU. The grounds for non-recognition are kept to the necessary minimum, and aim, in particular, to safeguard the fundamental rights of adults even in cross-border situations. For instance, regardless of the national procedures and legislation, a measure taken without giving the adult the opportunity to be heard may not be recognised. Recourse to the public policy exception can be made in exceptional circumstances only, in particular in case of manifest violations of fundamental rights of adults. Section 2 of that Chapter abolishes exequatur (procedures to declare a measure taken in one Member State enforceable in another Member State) for measures taken by the authorities of a Member State. Section 3 lays down the procedural rules that apply when invoking, contesting or seeking recognition, or seeking enforcement of a measure before the authorities of a Member State.
• Chapter V sets out the rules on the acceptance of authentic instruments in one Member State that have been drawn up by competent authorities in another Member State, thereby facilitating their circulation in the EU. Acceptance of authentic instruments ensures that they have the same full and complete evidentiary effect in other Member States as they do in their Member State of origin. This includes both the contents of the recorded instruments and the facts contained within them. Authentic instruments also have the same presumption of authenticity and enforceability as in their Member State of origin.
• Section 1 of Chapter VI on cooperation establishes Central Authorities to assist in the operation of the Regulation and improve the protection of adults in cross-border cases falling within the scope of the Regulation. The proposal sets out specific procedures for: (i) the locating of an adult or a person likely to provide support to the adult; (ii) obtaining the Central Authority’s consent before an adult is placed in another Member State; and (iii) appointing a public authority or a person acting on behalf of or under the supervision of a public authority as a representative of the adult abroad. Section 2 sets out rules for the direct cooperation and communication between authorities, if necessary through the Central Authorities, to assist with the implementation of a measure or in cases of serious danger. Article 27 provides for a legal basis for direct communication between judicial and administrative authorities. Section 3 sets out general rules on cooperation between Central Authorities or competent authorities of different Member States. It also lays down rules on the right to legal aid for applicants who benefit from legal aid in their Member State of origin. This ensures the applicant’s access to justice in proceedings on the recognition or non-recognition of a measure, or to the service of a document in another Member State.
• Chapter VII establishes a European Certificate of Representation that will enable representatives of adults to easily and efficiently show their powers in another Member State. Member States should appoint an authority to issue the certificate. This authority should have sufficient knowledge of the case to which the certificate relates and access to the relevant information in order to swiftly issue the certificate upon request. This certificate does not replace other certificates used in certain Member States. Attestations accompany any protection measure or authentic instrument for their recognition, enforcement, or their acceptance by competent authorities of other Member States. However, the proposed certificate should be used as a stand-alone document to show the representative’s powers, in particular when they need to deal with non-judicial actors on behalf or in support of the adult.
• Chapter VIII strives to improve providing of information about the protection of an adult to competent authorities in the EU. This ensures that measures taken in another Member State or powers of representation granted by the adult in another Member State are respected across the EU. It therefore obliges Member States to set up one or more register(s) of measures taken by their authorities. In addition, when national law provides for powers of representation confirmed by a competent authority, Member States must set up a register of those confirmed powers of representation. Member States must also ensure that those registers, as well as any other existing register of powers of representation set up under national law, are connected together through an interconnection system developed by the Commission. A minimum set of data is to be recorded in the register to provide sufficient information to the competent authorities of other Member States about the existence of a measure or powers of representation in relation to a specific adult.
• Chapter IX provides for the mandatory use of digital communication between competent authorities or Central Authorities, and the optional use of digital communication between natural persons and competent authorities.
• In its Annexes, the proposal contains a series of forms that should reduce the need for translations and ease the communication and the transfer of information in cross-border cases in the EU.
• Annexes I and II aim to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of measures taken by the authorities of a Member State and the acceptance of authentic instruments drawn up by the authorities of a Member State.
• Annexes IV to X are standard forms that aim to facilitate the communication between natural persons and competent authorities or between competent authorities or Central Authorities of different Member States.
• Lastly, the proposal contains a form to be used by the competent authorities for issuing the European Certificate of Representation (Annex III).