The Union has set itself the objective of maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice in which the free movement of persons is ensured. For the gradual establishment of such an area, the Union is to adopt measures relating to judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications, particularly when necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market.

In accordance with point (c) of Article 81(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), such measures may include measures aimed at ensuring the compatibility of the rules applicable in the Member States concerning conflict of laws and of jurisdiction.

The European Council meeting in Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999 endorsed the principle of mutual recognition of judgments and other decisions of judicial authorities as the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in civil matters and invited the Council and the Commission to adopt a programme of measures to implement that principle.

A programme of measures for the implementation of the principle of mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters

OJ C 12, 15.1.2001, p. 1.

The European Council meeting in Brussels on 4 and 5 November 2004 adopted a new programme called ‘The Hague Programme: strengthening freedom, security and justice in the European Union’

OJ C 53, 3.3.2005, p. 1.

On 17 July 2006 the Commission adopted the Green Paper on the conflict of laws in matters concerning matrimonial property regimes, including the question of jurisdiction and mutual recognition. This Green Paper launched wide consultations on all aspects of the difficulties faced by couples in Europe when it comes to the liquidation of their common property and the legal remedies available. The Green Paper also addressed all issues of private international law encountered by couples in unions other than marriages, including couples with registered partnerships, and issues specific to them.

At its meeting in Brussels on 10 and 11 December 2009, the European Council adopted a new multiannual programme called ‘The Stockholm Programme — An open and secure Europe serving and protecting citizens’

OJ C 115, 4.5.2010, p. 1.

In the ‘EU Citizenship Report 2010: Dismantling the obstacles to EU citizens' rights’, adopted on 27 October 2010, the Commission announced that it would adopt a proposal for legislation to eliminate the obstacles to the free movement of persons, in particular the difficulties experienced by couples in managing or dividing their property.

On 16 March 2011, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes and a proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions regarding the property consequences of registered partnerships.

At its meeting of 3 December 2015, the Council concluded that no unanimity could be reached for the adoption of the proposals for the regulations on matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships and that therefore the objectives of cooperation in this area could not be attained within a reasonable period by the Union as a whole.

From December 2015 to February 2016, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Croatia Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden addressed requests to the Commission indicating that they wished to establish enhanced cooperation between themselves in the area of the property regimes of international couples and, specifically, of the jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes and jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions regarding the property consequences of registered partnerships, and asking the Commission to submit a proposal to the Council to that effect. By letter to the Commission in March 2016, Cyprus indicated its wish to participate in the establishment of the enhanced cooperation; Cyprus reiterated this wish during the work of the Council.

On 9 June 2016, the Council adopted Decision (EU) 2016/954 authorising such enhanced cooperation.

According to Article 328(1) TFEU, when enhanced cooperation is being established, it is to be open to all Member States, subject to compliance with any conditions of participation laid down by the authorising decision. It is also to be open to them at any other time, subject to compliance with the acts already adopted within that framework, in addition to those conditions. The Commission and the Member States participating in enhanced cooperation should ensure that they promote participation by as many Member States as possible. This Regulation should be binding in its entirety and directly applicable only in the Member States which participate in enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions on the property regimes of international couples, covering both matters of matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships, by virtue of Decision (EU) 2016/954, or by virtue of a decision adopted in accordance with the second or third subparagraph of Article 331(1) TFEU.

In accordance with Article 81 TFEU, this Regulation should apply in the context of the property consequences of registered partnerships having cross-border implications.

To provide unmarried couples with legal certainty as to their property and offer them a degree of predictability, all the rules applicable to the property consequences of registered partnerships should be covered in a single instrument.

The way in which forms of union other than marriage are provided for in the Member States' legislation differs from one State to another, and a distinction should be drawn between couples whose union is institutionally sanctioned by the registration of their partnership with a public authority and couples in de facto cohabitation. While some Member States do make provision for such de facto unions, they should be considered separately from registered partnerships, which have an official character that makes it possible to take account of their specific features and lay down rules on the subject in Union legislation. To ensure the smooth functioning of the internal market, barriers to the free movement of people who have entered into a registered partnership need to be eliminated, particularly those creating difficulties for such couples in the administration and division of their property. In order to achieve those objectives, this Regulation should bring together provisions on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition or, as the case may be, acceptance, enforceability and enforcement of decisions, authentic instruments and court settlements.

The Regulation should cover matters arising from the property consequences of registered partnerships. ‘Registered partnership’ should be defined here solely for the purpose of this Regulation. The actual substance of the concept should remain defined in the national laws of the Member States. Nothing in this Regulation should oblige a Member State whose law does not have the institution of registered partnership to provide for it in its national law.

The scope of this Regulation should include all civil-law aspects of the property consequences of registered partnerships, both the daily management of the partner's property and its liquidation, in particular as a result of the couple's separation or the death of one of the partners.

This Regulation should not apply to areas of civil law other than the property consequences of registered partnerships. For reasons of clarity, a number of questions which could be seen as having a link with the property consequences of registered partnerships should be explicitly excluded from the scope of this Regulation.

Accordingly, this Regulation should not apply to questions of general legal capacity of the partners; however, this exclusion should not cover the specific powers and rights of either or both partners with regard to property, either as between themselves or as regards third parties, as these powers and rights should fall under the scope of this Regulation.

This Regulation should not apply to other preliminary questions such as the existence, validity or recognition of a registered partnership, which is covered by the national law of the Member States, including their rules of private international law.

As maintenance obligations between spouses are governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009

Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (OJ L 7, 10.1.2009, p. 1).

Issues of entitlements to transfer or adjustment between partners of rights to retirement or disability pension, whatever their nature, accrued during the registered partnership and which have not generated pension income during the registered partnership are matters that should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation, taking into account the specific systems existing in the Member States. However, this exclusion should be strictly interpreted. Hence, this Regulation should govern in particular the issue of classification of pension assets, the amounts that have already been paid to one partner during the registered partnership, and the possible compensation that would be granted in case of pension subscribed with common assets.

This Regulation should allow for the creation or the transfer resulting from the property consequences of registered partnerships of a right in immovable or movable property as provided for in the law applicable to the property consequences of registered partnerships. It should, however, not affect the limited number (‘numerus clausus’) of rights in rem known in the national law of some Member States. A Member State should not be required to recognise a right in rem relating to property located in that Member State if the right in rem in question is not known in its law.

However, in order to allow the partners to enjoy in another Member State the rights which have been created or transferred to them as a result of the property consequences of a registered partnership, this Regulation should provide for the adaptation of an unknown right in rem to the closest equivalent right under the law of that other Member State. In the context of such an adaptation, account should be taken of the aims and the interests pursued by the specific right in rem and the effects attached to it. For the purposes of determining the closest equivalent national right, the authorities or competent persons of the State whose law is applied to the property consequences of a registered partnership may be contacted for further information on the nature and the effects of the right. To that end, the existing networks in the area of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters could be used, as well as any other available means facilitating the understanding of foreign law.

The adaptation of unknown rights in rem as explicitly provided for by this Regulation should not preclude other forms of adaptation in the context of the application of this Regulation.

The requirements for the recording in a register of a right in immoveable or moveable property should be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. It should therefore be the law of the Member State in which the register is kept (for immoveable property, the lex rei sitae) which determines under what legal conditions, and how, the recording must be carried out and which authorities, such as land registers or notaries, are in charge of checking that all requirements are met and that the documentation presented or established is sufficient or contains the necessary information. In particular, the authorities may check that the right of a partner to a property mentioned in the document presented for registration is a right which is recorded as such in the register or which is otherwise demonstrated in accordance with the law of the Member State in which the register is kept. In order to avoid duplication of documents, the registration authorities should accept such documents, drawn up in another Member State by the competent authorities the circulation of which is provided for by this Regulation. This should not preclude the authorities involved in the registration from asking the person applying for registration to provide such additional information, or to present such additional documents, as are required under the law of the Member State in which the register is kept, for instance information or documents relating to the payment of revenue. The competent authority may indicate to the person applying for registration how the missing information or documents can be provided.

The effects of the recording of a right in a register should also be excluded from the scope of this Regulation. It should therefore be the law of the Member State in which the register is kept which determines whether the recording is, for instance, declaratory or constitutive in effect. Thus, where, for example, the acquisition of a right in immoveable property requires a recording in a register under the law of the Member State in which the register is kept in order to ensure the erga omnes effect of registers or to protect legal transactions, the moment of such acquisition should be governed by the law of that Member State.

This Regulation should respect the different systems for dealing with matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships applied in the Member States. For the purposes of this Regulation, the term ‘court’ should therefore be given a broad meaning so as to cover not only courts in the strict sense of the word, exercising judicial functions, but also for example notaries in some Member States who, in certain matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships, exercise judicial functions like courts, and the notaries and legal professionals who, in some Member States, exercise judicial functions in dealing with the property consequences of a registered partnership by delegation of power by a court. All courts as defined in this Regulation should be bound by the rules of jurisdiction set out in this Regulation. Conversely, the term ‘court’ should not cover non-judicial authorities of a Member State empowered under national law to deal with matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships, such as the notaries in most Member States where, as is usually the case, they are not exercising judicial functions.

This Regulation should allow all notaries who are competent in matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships in the Member States to exercise such competence. Whether or not the notaries in a given Member State are bound by the rules of jurisdiction set out in this Regulation should depend on whether or not they are covered by the term ‘court’ for the purposes of this Regulation.

Acts issued by notaries in matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships in the Member States should circulate in accordance with this Regulation. When notaries exercise judicial functions they should be bound by the rules of jurisdiction set out in this Regulation, and the decisions they give should circulate in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation on recognition, enforceability and enforcement of decisions. When notaries do not exercise judicial functions they should not be bound by those rules of jurisdiction, and the authentic instruments they issue should circulate in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation on authentic instruments.

To reflect the increasing mobility of couples and facilitate the proper administration of justice, the rules on jurisdiction set out in in this Regulation should enable citizens to have their various related procedures handled by the courts of the same Member State. To that end, this Regulation should seek to concentrate the jurisdiction on the property consequences of registered partnerships in the Member State whose courts are called upon to handle the succession of a partner in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 or the dissolution or annulment of the registered partnership.

This Regulation should provide that, where proceedings on the succession of a partner are pending before the court of a Member State seised under Regulation (EU) No 650/2012, the courts of that State should have jurisdiction to rule on matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships arising in connection with that succession case.

Similarly, matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships arising in connection with proceedings pending before the court of a Member State seised with an application for dissolution or annulment of a registered partnership should be dealt with by the courts of that Member State, if the partners so agree.

Where matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships are not linked to proceedings pending before the court of a Member State on the succession of a partner or on dissolution or annulment of the registered partnership, this Regulation should provide for a scale of connecting factors for the purposes of determining jurisdiction starting with the habitual residence of the partners at the time the court is seised. The last step of the scale of jurisdiction factors should point to the Member State under whose law the mandatory registration of the partnership was made in order to establish it. These connecting factors are set in view of the increasing mobility of citizens and to ensure that a genuine connecting factor exists between the partners and the Member State in which jurisdiction is exercised.

Given that the institution of registered partnership is not provided for in all Member States, the courts of a Member State whose law does not provide for the institution of registered partnership may exceptionally need to decline jurisdiction under this Regulation. In such case, the courts shall act swiftly and the party concerned should have the possibility to submit the case in any other Member State that has a connecting factor granting jurisdiction, irrespective of the order of these jurisdiction grounds, while at the same time respecting the parties' autonomy. Any court seised after a declining of jurisdiction, other than the courts of the Member State under whose law the registered partnership was created, which has jurisdiction on the basis of a choice of court agreement or the appearance of the defendant, may also exceptionally need to decline jurisdiction under the same conditions. Finally, if no court has jurisdiction to deal with the situation in light of the other provisions of this Regulation, an alternative jurisdictional rule should be included in this Regulation to avoid any risk of denial of justice.

In order to increase legal certainty, predictability and the autonomy of the parties, this Regulation should, under certain circumstances, enable the parties to conclude a choice of court agreement in favour of the courts of the Member State of the applicable law or of the courts of the Member State under whose law the registered partnership was created.

This Regulation should not prevent the parties from settling the case amicably out of court, for instance before a notary, in a Member State of their choice where this is possible under the law of that Member State. This should be the case even if the law applicable to the property consequences of a registered partnership is not the law of that Member State.

In order to ensure that the courts of all Member States may, on the same grounds, exercise jurisdiction in relation to the property consequences of registered partnerships, this Regulation should provide in an exhaustive way the ground on which such subsidiary jurisdiction may be exercised.

In order to remedy, in particular, situations of denial of justice, this Regulation should provide for a forum necessitatis allowing a court of a Member State, on an exceptional basis, to rule on the property consequences of a registered partnership which is closely connected with a third State. Such an exceptional basis may be deemed to exist when proceedings prove impossible in the third State in question, for example because of civil war, or when a partner cannot reasonably be expected to initiate or conduct proceedings in that State. Jurisdiction based on forum necessitatis should, however, be exercised only if the case has a sufficient connection with the Member State of the court seised.

In the interests of the harmonious functioning of justice, the giving of irreconcilable decisions in different Member States should be avoided. To that end, this Regulation should provide for general procedural rules similar to those of other Union instruments in the area of judicial cooperation in civil matters. One such procedural rule is a lis pendens rule, which will come into play if same case on the property consequences of registered partnerships is brought before different courts in different Member States. That rule will then determine which court should proceed to deal with the case.

In order to allow citizens to avail themselves, with all legal certainty, of the benefits offered by the internal market, this Regulation should enable partners to know in advance which law will apply to the property consequences of their registered partnership. Harmonised conflict-of-law rules should therefore be introduced in order to avoid contradictory results. The main rule should ensure that the property consequences of a registered partnership are governed by a predictable law with which it is closely connected. For reasons of legal certainty and in order to avoid fragmentation, the law applicable should govern the property consequences of the registered partnership as a whole, that is to say, all the property consequences covered by the registered partnership, irrespective of the nature of the assets and regardless of whether the assets are located in another Member State or in a third State.

The law determined by this Regulation should apply even if it is not the law of a Member State.

To facilitate partners' management of their property, this Regulation should authorise them to choose the law applicable to the property consequences of their registered partnership, regardless of the nature or location of the property, among the laws with which they have close links such as because of their habitual residence or nationality. However, in order to avoid depriving the choice of law of any effect and thereby leaving the partners in a legal vacuum, such choice of law should be limited to a law that attaches property consequences to registered partnerships. This choice may be made at any moment, before the registration of the partnership, at the time of the registration of the partnership or during the course of the registered partnership.

To ensure the legal certainty of transactions and to prevent any change of the law applicable to the property consequences of registered partnerships being made without the partners being notified, no change of law applicable to the property consequences of registered partnership should be made except at the express request of the parties. Such a change by the partners should not have retrospective effect unless they expressly so stipulate. Whatever the case, it may not infringe the rights of third parties.

Rules on the material and formal validity of an agreement on the choice of applicable law should be set up so that the informed choice of the partners is facilitated and their consent is respected with a view to ensuring legal certainty as well as better access to justice. As far as formal validity is concerned, certain safeguards should be introduced to ensure that partners are aware of the implications of their choice. The agreement on the choice of applicable law should at least be expressed in writing, dated and signed by both parties. However, if the law of the Member State in which the two partners have their habitual residence at the time the agreement is concluded lays down additional formal rules, those rules should be complied with. For example, such additional formal rules may exist in a Member State where the agreement is included in a partnership property agreement. If, at the time the agreement is concluded, the partners are habitually resident in different Member States which lay down different formal rules, compliance with the formal rules of one of these States would suffice. If, at the time the agreement is concluded, only one of the partners is habitually resident in a Member State which lays down additional formal rules, those rules should be complied with.

A partnership property agreement is a type of disposition on partners' property the admissibility and acceptance of which vary among the Member States. In order to make it easier for property rights acquired as a result of a partnership property agreement to be accepted in the Member States, rules on formal validity of a partnership property agreement should be defined. At least the agreement should be expressed in writing, dated and signed by both parties. However, the agreement should also fulfil additional formal validity requirements set out in the law applicable to the property consequences of registered partnership as determined by this Regulation and in the law of the Member State in which the partners have their habitual residence. This Regulation should also determine which law is to govern the material validity of such an agreement.

Where no applicable law is chosen, and with a view to reconciling predictability and legal certainty with consideration of the life actually lived by the couple, this Regulation should provide for that the law of the State under whose law the mandatory registration of the partnership was made in order to establish it apply to the property consequences of the registered partnership.

Where this Regulation refers to nationality as a connecting factor, the question of how to consider a person having multiple nationalities is a preliminary question which falls outside the scope of this Regulation and should be left to national law, including, where applicable, international Conventions, in full observance of the general principles of the Union. This consideration should have no effect on the validity of a choice of law made in accordance with this Regulation.

With regard to the determination of the law applicable to the property consequences of a registered partnership in the absence of a choice of law and a partnership property agreement, the judicial authority of a Member State, at the request of either of the partners, should, in exceptional cases — where the partners have moved to the State of their habitual residence for a long duration — be able to arrive at the conclusion that the law of that State may apply if the partners have relied on it. Whatever the case, it may not infringe the rights of third parties.

The law determined as the law applicable to the property consequences of registered partnerships should govern it from the classification of property of one or both partners into different categories during the registered partnership and after its dissolution to the liquidation of the property. It should include the effects of the property consequences of the registered partnership on a legal relationship between a partner and third parties. However the law applicable to property consequences of registered partnerships may be invoked by a partner against a third party to govern such effects only when the legal relations between the partner and the third party arose at a time where the third party knew or should have known of that law.

Considerations of public interest, such as the protection of a Member State's political, social or economic organisation, should justify giving the courts and other competent authorities of the Member States the possibility, in exceptional cases, of applying exceptions based on overriding mandatory provisions. Accordingly, the concept of ‘overriding mandatory provisions’ should cover rules of an imperative nature such as rules for the protection of the family home. However, this exception to the application of the law applicable to the property consequences of registered partnerships requires a strict interpretation in order to remain compatible with the general objective of this Regulation.

Considerations of public interest should also allow courts and other competent authorities dealing with matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships in the Member States to disregard, in exceptional circumstances, certain provisions of a foreign law where, in a given case, applying such provisions would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy (ordre public) of the Member State concerned. However, the courts or other competent authorities should not be able to apply the public policy exception in order to set aside the law of another State or to refuse to recognise –or, as the case may be, accept –, or enforce a decision, an authentic instrument or a court settlement from another Member State when doing so would be contrary to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘Charter’), and in particular Article 21 thereof on the principle of non-discrimination.

Since there are States in which two or more systems of law or sets of rules concerning matters governed by this Regulation coexist, there should be a provision governing the extent to which this Regulation applies in the different territorial units of those States.

In the light of its general objective, which is the mutual recognition of decisions given in the Member States in matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships, this Regulation should lay down rules relating to the recognition, enforceability and enforcement of decisions similar to those of other Union instruments in the area of judicial cooperation in civil matters.

In order to take into account the different systems for dealing with matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships in the Member States, this Regulation should guarantee the acceptance and enforceability in all Member States of authentic instruments in matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships.

Authentic instruments should have the same evidentiary effects in another Member State as they have in the Member State of origin, or the most comparable effects. When determining the evidentiary effects of a given authentic instrument in another Member State or the most comparable effects, reference should be made to the nature and the scope of the evidentiary effects of the authentic instrument in the Member State of origin. The evidentiary effects which a given authentic instrument should have in another Member State will therefore depend on the law of the Member State of origin.

The ‘authenticity’ of an authentic instrument should be an autonomous concept covering elements such as the genuineness of the instrument, the formal prerequisites of the instrument, the powers of the authority drawing up the instrument and the procedure under which the instrument is drawn up. It should also cover the factual elements recorded in the authentic instrument by the authority concerned, such as the fact that the parties indicated appeared before that authority on the date indicated and that they made the declarations indicated. A party wishing to challenge the authenticity of an authentic instrument should do so before the competent court in the Member State of origin of the authentic instrument under the law of that Member State.

The term ‘the legal acts or legal relationships recorded in an authentic instrument’ should be interpreted as referring to the contents as to substance recorded in the authentic instrument. A party wishing to challenge the legal acts or legal relationship recorded in an authentic instrument should do so before the courts having jurisdiction under this Regulation, which should decide on the challenge in accordance with the law applicable to the property consequences of the registered partnership.

If a question relating to the legal acts or legal relationships recorded in an authentic instrument is raised as an incidental question in proceedings before a court of a Member State, that court should have jurisdiction over that question.

An authentic instrument which is being challenged should not produce any evidentiary effects in a Member State other than the Member State of origin as long as the challenge is pending. If the challenge concerns only a specific matter relating to the legal acts or legal relationships recorded in the authentic instrument, the authentic instrument in question should not produce any evidentiary effects in a Member State other than the Member State of origin with regard to the matter being challenged as long as the challenge is pending. An authentic instrument which has been declared invalid as a result of a challenge should cease to produce any evidentiary effects.

Should an authority, in the application of this Regulation, be presented with two incompatible authentic instruments, it should assess the question as to which authentic instrument, if any, should be given priority, taking into account the circumstances of the particular case. Where it is not clear from those circumstances which authentic instrument, if any, should be given priority, the question should be determined by the courts having jurisdiction under this Regulation or, where the question is raised as an incidental question in the course of proceedings, by the court seised of those proceedings. In the event of incompatibility between an authentic instrument and a decision, regard should be had to the grounds of non-recognition of decisions under this Regulation.

The recognition and enforcement of a decision on the property consequences of a registered partnership under this Regulation should not in any way imply the recognition of the registered partnership which gave rise to the decision.

The relationship between this Regulation and the bilateral or multilateral conventions on the property consequences of registered partnerships to which the Member States are party should be specified.

In order to facilitate the application of this Regulation, provision should be made for an obligation requiring Member States to communicate certain information regarding their legislation and procedures relating to the property consequences of registered partnerships within the framework of the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters established by Council Decision 2001/470/EC

Council Decision 2001/470/EC of 28 May 2001 establishing a European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 174, 27.6.2001, p. 25).

Equally, to facilitate the application of this Regulation and to allow for the use of modern communication technologies, standard forms should be prescribed for the attestations to be provided in connection with the application for a declaration of enforceability of a decision, authentic instrument or court settlement.

In calculating the periods and time limits provided for in this Regulation, Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council

Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1182/71 of the Council of 3 June 1971 determining the rules applicable to periods, dates and time limits (OJ L 124 8.6.1971, p. 1).

In order to ensure uniform conditions for the implementation of this Regulation, implementing powers should be conferred on the Commission with regard to the establishment and subsequent amendment of the attestations and forms pertaining to the declaration of enforceability of decisions, court settlements and authentic instruments. Those powers should be exercised in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council

Regulation (EU) No 182/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 2011 laying down the rules and general principles concerning mechanisms for control by Member States of the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (OJ L 55, 28.2.2011, p. 13).

The advisory procedure should be used for the adoption of implementing acts establishing and subsequently amending the attestations and forms provided for in this Regulation.

The objectives of this Regulation, namely the free movement of persons in the Union, the opportunity for partners to arrange their property relations in respect of themselves and others during their life as a couple and when liquidating their property, and greater predictability and legal certainty, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of this Regulation, be better achieved at Union level, where appropriate by means of enhanced cooperation between Member States. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, the Union has therefore competence to act. In accordance with the principle of proportionality set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

This Regulation respects fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in the Charter, in particular Articles 7, 9, 17, 21 and 47 concerning, respectively, respect for private and family life, the right to found a family according to national laws, property rights, the principle of non-discrimination and the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. This Regulation should be applied by the courts and other competent authorities of the Member States in compliance with those rights and principles,