European Parliament’s Position on Proposed EU Regulation on the Protection of Adults

As previously discussed on this blog by Pietro Franzina, the European Commission presented in May 2023 a proposal for a Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of measures and cooperation in matters relating to the protection of adults. The proposal aims to facilitate the cross-border protection of adults who, by reason of an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties, are not in a position to protect their interests. It builds on the 2000 Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults (the ‘2000 Hague Convention’), while seeking to strengthen judicial cooperation and simplify the circulation of protective measures and powers of representation within the European Union.

On 20 October 2026, the European Parliament adopted its position at first reading on the proposed Regulation, by 531 votes to 93, with 41 abstentions. The Parliament’s position retains the basic architecture of the Commission proposal, but introduces a number of amendments that affect both the scope of the proposed instrument and the mechanisms through which it is intended to operate. Some of these amendments refine or clarify the Commission’s approach; others represent more significant changes, most notably the deletion of the proposed system of interconnected protection registers and the reformulation of the European Certificate of Representation as a European Certificate of Support and Representation.

This post examines the main features of the Parliament’s first-reading position, focusing on the provisions that are likely to be particularly relevant to the future operation of the instrument.

1. Scope and definitions

The Parliament has revised the provisions on the subject matter and scope of the proposed Regulation, placing greater emphasis on support for adults in exercising their legal capacity.

Article 1(c), which in the Commission proposal referred to the law applicable to the “representation of the adult”, now refers to the law applicable to the “support and representation of the adult”. The change is also reflected in Article 2(3). The Commission proposal contained a non-exhaustive list of matters falling within the scope of the Regulation, including the determination of incapacity, the institution of protective regimes, guardianship and curatorship, the designation of persons responsible for the adult’s person or property, and decisions concerning placement and the administration of property. The Parliament has replaced that list with a reference to Article 3 of the 2000 Hague Convention, while expressly adding support measures and powers of representation granted by the adult:

Article 2(3)

The matters referred to in paragraph 1 may, in particular, include the measures set out in Article 3 of the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults (‘the 2000 Hague Convention’), attached to this Regulation, and also:

(a) measures to support an adult in exercising his or her legal capacity;

(b) powers of representation granted by an adult.

This is more than a drafting adjustment. The new wording makes explicit that the Regulation is not confined to traditional protective measures involving the appointment of a representative or the restriction of an adult’s autonomy. It also encompasses measures intended to support the adult in exercising legal capacity. The amendment is consistent with the revised definition of “protection” in Article 3(1)(2), which is not found in the Commission proposal:

‘protection’ means representation, support or other measures that enable adults to exercise their legal capacity through supported decision-making, co-decision-making or representation, or that is directed to protecting the person or property of adults.

The Parliament has also amended the definition of “representative”. Whereas the Commission proposal referred to a person appointed or designated to represent the adult, the new definition expressly includes persons authorised by law and those whose role is to support, rather than necessarily represent, the adult.

Article 3(2) also defines “court” as encompassing both judicial authorities and other authorities competent to take protection measures or decide on recognition. This reflects the diversity of institutional arrangements in the Member States and avoids making the application of the Regulation dependent on the formal designation given to the authority concerned.

Taken together, these amendments make the text more explicit about the different forms that protection may take. They do not, however, replace the basic personal scope of the proposal, which remains centred on adults who, by reason of an impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties, are not in a position to protect their interests.

2. Jurisdiction: choice of court and incidental questions in succession proceedings

The Commission proposal already recognised the possibility for an adult to choose the authorities of a Member State other than that of their habitual residence. The Parliament has retained this additional ground of jurisdiction, but has revised its conditions and procedural framework.

One significant change concerns the Member States whose courts may be chosen. The Commission proposal did not specify a closed list of connecting factors for the choice. The Parliament, by contrast, requires the choice to concern a Member State connected with the adult in one of the ways listed in Article 6(1)(b): the adult’s nationality, habitual residence, the habitual residence of a person close to the adult who is prepared to undertake their protection, or the location of the adult’s property.

The relevant part of Article 6(1) therefore reads:

Article 6(1)(b)

the choice of court referred to in point (a) was, at the time the choice was made, in favour of a Member State:

(i) of which the adult is a national;

(ii) of the adult’s habitual residence;

(iii) of habitual residence of a person close to the adult prepared to undertake protection of that adult; or

(iv) in which property of the adult is located.

The Parliament has also clarified that the adult must have been in a position to make the choice at the relevant time. In addition, the chosen court must notify the court of the Member State of the adult’s habitual residence before taking any measure. The Commission proposal, by comparison, required notification to the Central Authority of that Member State when the chosen authorities exercised jurisdiction. The Parliament’s text thus gives the notification a more direct judicial dimension and specifies when it must take place.

The non-exclusive nature of the jurisdiction based on the adult’s choice, already present in the Commission proposal, is retained in Article 7. The choice does not prevent the courts having jurisdiction under the 2000 Hague Convention from exercising their jurisdiction where the chosen court has not acted or has declined jurisdiction.

A more substantial addition is Article 8, which addresses incidental questions arising in succession proceedings. The Commission proposal contained no equivalent provision. Under the new rule, where the outcome of succession proceedings before a court of a Member State depends on an incidental question concerning the representation of an adult, that court may determine the question even if it does not have jurisdiction under the Regulation. The determination produces effects only in the succession proceedings in which it was made.

The provision also covers the situation in which a legal act undertaken, or to be undertaken, on behalf of an adult in succession proceedings requires judicial permission or approval. The court hearing the succession proceedings may grant that permission or approval notwithstanding the absence of jurisdiction under the Regulation. In both cases, the court must notify the relevant court in the Member State of the adult’s habitual residence or the court that has taken a protection measure, insofar as it is aware of that measure.

Article 8 (Incidental questions)

1. If the outcome of succession proceedings before a court of a Member State depends on the determination of an incidental question relating to representation of an adult, a court in that Member State may determine that question for the purposes of those proceedings even if that Member State does not have jurisdiction under this Regulation.
2. The determination of an incidental question pursuant to paragraph 1 shall produce effects only in the proceedings for which that determination was made.
3. If the validity of a legal act undertaken or to be undertaken on behalf of an adult in succession proceedings before a court of a Member State requires permission or approval by a court, a court in that Member State may decide to permit or approve such a legal act even if it does not have jurisdiction under this Regulation.
4. The court exercising jurisdiction under paragraph 1 or 3 shall, without delay, notify the courts of the Member State of habitual residence of the adult or the court of the Member State that took a measure, insofar as it is aware of that measure, using the form set out in Annex V. That notification shall be made either directly or through the Central Authority of that Member State designated pursuant to Article 23.

The new provision is a targeted response to the practical difficulties that may arise where succession proceedings require a court to address a question of representation that would ordinarily fall within the jurisdictional rules of the Regulation. Its effects are expressly limited to the proceedings in which the incidental question arises.

3. Applicable law

The Parliament has retained the Commission’s decision to rely on Chapter III of the 2000 Hague Convention for the determination of the law applicable to the protection of adults. The central choice-of-law framework is therefore unchanged.

The Parliament’s text nevertheless retains specific provisions addressing territorial and inter-personal conflicts-of-laws, as well as the non-application of the Regulation to internal conflicts-of-laws within a Member State. These provisions are relevant where the law designated by the Regulation belongs to a State comprising several territorial units or legal systems.

The amendments in this area do not amount to a departure from the Commission’s approach. Rather, the Parliament has maintained the Convention-based framework while preserving the additional rules needed to apply it in the EU context.

4. Recognition and enforcement of measures

The Parliament has retained the Commission’s general approach to recognition and enforcement. Measures taken in one Member State are to be recognised in the others without any special procedure, and a measure enforceable in the Member State of origin is enforceable elsewhere without a declaration of enforceability. The prohibition on reviewing the substance of a measure is also maintained.

The most relevant amendment concerns the opportunity for the adult to be heard. The Commission proposal already included the absence of such an opportunity as a possible ground for refusing recognition. Its formulation, however, referred to a measure taken in judicial or administrative proceedings without the adult having been given the opportunity to be heard, subject to an exception for urgency.

The Parliament has reformulated the provision in Article 14(2), referring to a “genuine and effective opportunity” to be heard and expressly identifying the adult’s inability to express their views as a possible serious ground justifying the absence of a hearing:

Article 14(2)

The recognition of a measure taken in another Member State may be refused if the measure was taken without the adult having been provided a genuine and effective opportunity to be heard, except where there were serious grounds, taking into account, in particular:

(a) the urgency of the case;

(b) that the adult was unable to express his or her views.

The amendment should not be presented as introducing a new ground for refusal: the Commission proposal already addressed the adult’s right to be heard. The Parliament has instead adjusted the formulation and the conditions under which the absence of a hearing may be relevant. In particular, the reference to a genuine and effective opportunity places the quality of the opportunity, rather than merely its formal availability, at the centre of the assessment. The express reference to the adult’s inability to express their views also makes the exception more specific.

Other provisions in this part of the text remain broadly aligned with the Commission proposal. These include the grounds for refusal based on public policy and incompatible later measures, the documents required for recognition and enforcement and the possibility of obtaining an attestation. The Parliament has also retained the provisions on legal aid, including the entitlement of a person who benefited from legal aid in the Member State of origin to the most favourable legal aid or exemption available under the law of the Member State in which recognition or enforcement is sought.

5. Cooperation between authorities

The Parliament has retained the Commission’s general framework for cooperation between Central Authorities and competent authorities. This includes the designation of Central Authorities, their meetings and tasks, assistance in locating an adult or a person likely to provide protection and cooperation in connection with the placement of an adult in another Member State.

The text also maintains provisions concerning the designation of an authority in another Member State as a representative, serious danger to the adult, alternative dispute resolution, the implementation of measures, the exchange of information and the protection of confidential information. These provisions continue to rely on cooperation between the authorities concerned, rather than establishing a single centralised EU authority.

The most significant change in this area is not, therefore, the abandonment of the Commission’s cooperation framework, but the removal of one of the instruments through which the Commission had intended to support it: the system of national protection registers and their interconnection.

6. The European Certificate of Support and Representation

The Parliament has retained the European Certificate proposed by the Commission, but has revised both its name and its scope. The Commission had envisaged a European Certificate of Representation, designed primarily to allow representatives to demonstrate their powers in another Member State. The Parliament has renamed it the European Certificate of Support and Representation, reflecting the broader approach to protection adopted in Articles 1 to 3.

The change is substantive. The Certificate is no longer framed exclusively around the representative’s authority to act on behalf of the adult. It also covers the authority to support the adult. This is reflected in the provisions governing its application, issuance, contents and effects.

A particularly important amendment concerns who may apply. Under Article 37(1) of the Commission proposal, an application could be made by a representative authorised to represent the adult. Article 43(1) of the Parliament’s text provides instead:

Article 43(1)

The Certificate shall be issued upon an application made by an adult or by a representative authorised, by means of a measure taken or powers of representation confirmed in a Member State, to represent or support the adult (‘the applicant’).

The Parliament has thus expressly recognised the adult’s own standing to apply for the Certificate, in addition to that of a representative. This is consistent with the broader conception of support and representation underlying the revised text.

The Certificate remains optional and does not replace national documents used for similar purposes. Its effects are also broadly retained: it is intended to facilitate the demonstration of the relevant powers across Member States, without a separate recognition procedure, and to provide a presumption as to the matters certified.

The Parliament has, however, introduced a more clearly defined limit on its duration. The Commission proposal provided for a validity period of one year, while allowing the issuing authority to set a longer or shorter period where justified. The Parliament retains that flexibility but adds an express maximum period of five years and provides that the Certificate may not remain valid beyond the duration of the underlying measure or confirmed powers of representation:

Article 46(4)

The Certificate shall be valid for a period of one year.

Notwithstanding the first subparagraph, the issuing authority may, where justified, lengthen or shorten the period of validity, in particular where the measure or confirmed powers of representation on the basis of which the Certificate is to be issued has a period of validity longer or shorter than one year. In any event, the Certificate shall not be valid for a period exceeding the period of validity of the measure or confirmed powers of representation on the basis of which the Certificate is issued, or a maximum period of five years, whichever is shorter.

The five-year ceiling is therefore a new limitation, rather than a feature already present in the Commission proposal.

The Parliament has also expressly addressed the possibility of issuing the Certificate in digital form. Under Article 47, where national law allows it, the Certificate may be issued digitally and must feature a qualified electronic seal or signature or be delivered, upon request, to the applicant’s European Digital Identity Wallet in accordance with the relevant EU framework. This is a specific development of the Certificate regime. It should be distinguished from the broader digitalisation of communication between authorities, which was already part of the Commission proposal.

7. Protection registers and electronic communication

One of the most consequential differences between the two texts concerns the system of protection registers.

The Commission proposal included a separate chapter requiring Member States to establish and maintain one or more registers recording information on protection measures and, where national law provided for their confirmation, powers of representation. It also required the interconnection of those registers through a system developed by the Commission. The purpose was to enable competent authorities and Central Authorities in other Member States to access relevant information, subject to the conditions laid down in the proposal.

The Parliament has removed this entire system. Its text contains no equivalent to the Commission’s provisions on the establishment, content and interconnection of protection registers. This is a significant structural change. The Commission had treated the registers as an essential component of the cooperation mechanism, intended to improve the availability of information and reduce the risk of parallel proceedings or the failure to take account of existing measures and powers of representation. The Parliament’s position no longer imposes a common EU obligation to create and interconnect such registers.

This deletion should not, however, be confused with the Parliament’s approach to electronic communication. The Commission proposal already provided for a decentralised IT system, based on e-CODEX, for communication between authorities, as well as for an electronic access point through which individuals and legal persons could communicate with courts and competent authorities. The Parliament retains and develops this framework in Chapter VIII. It also introduces the specific possibility of issuing the Certificate in digital form, including through the European Digital Identity Wallet, as discussed above.

The resulting model therefore continues to rely on digital communication and cooperation between authorities, but without the additional register infrastructure envisaged by the Commission. The distinction matters: the Parliament has not abandoned digitalisation; it has removed a particular information-sharing mechanism that the Commission had proposed alongside it.

8. Final provisions

The Parliament has also revised and supplemented a number of the final provisions.

Among other things, the text includes provisions on monitoring and evaluation, the preparation of a public practice guide and national factsheets, and accessibility of the information, forms and applications made available under the Regulation.

These additions are intended to support the practical application of the instrument and make information about national systems more accessible. They complement the cooperation framework, although they do not alter the central private international law rules.

Concluding remarks

The European Parliament’s first-reading position preserves the basic structure of the Commission proposal and its reliance on the 2000 Hague Convention. It does not, however, merely endorse the Commission’s text. Its amendments are particularly relevant in many respects.

The Parliament’s position is now before the Council as part of the ordinary legislative procedure.