ECJ, judgement of. 21.6.2018 - C-20/17 - (Oberle)
Central standards: EU Succession Regulation Art. 4; FamFG §§ 105, 343
(International jurisdiction for the issue of a certificate of inheritance where the deceased's last habitual residence was in another Member State)
Guiding principle:
Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession must be interpreted as precluding a provision of law of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, even if the deceased did not have his habitual residence in that Member State at the time of his death, the courts of that Member State retain their jurisdiction to issue national succession certificates in connection with a succession with cross-border implications if the assets of the estate are located on the territory of that Member State or if the deceased was a national of that Member State.
Problem:
The decision concerns the question of whether international jurisdiction for the issue of national certificates of succession is conclusively governed by Art. 4 et seq. EU Succession Regulation. The referring court was the KG Berlin. The applicant was a French national who applied for the issue of a limited certificate of inheritance for real property located in Germany. However, according to Article 4 of the EU Succession Regulation, the French courts had international jurisdiction.
According to Art. 62 para. 3 of the EU Succession Regulation, the European Certificate of Succession does not replace the certificates of inheritance existing at national level, but is independent of them, so that an heir is in principle free to decide whether to apply for an ENZ or a national certificate of inheritance. Until the proceedings, it was disputed whether this provision only applies to the material effects of the certificate of inheritance or also covers the responsibility for issuing the certificate of inheritance.
For the reasons:
29 By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 4 of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as precluding a provision of the law of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, even if the deceased was not habitually resident in that Member State at the time of his death, the courts of that Member State retain jurisdiction to issue national succession certificates in relation to a succession with cross-border implications where the assets of the estate are located in the territory of that Member State or where the deceased was a national of that Member State.
30 Firstly, it should be noted that Regulation No 650/2012 applies to all civil law aspects of succession, with the exception of tax and customs matters and administrative matters, in accordance with Article 1(1) in conjunction with recital 9 in the preamble. Article 1(2) of the Regulation in turn excludes various issues from its scope of application, which do not include national succession certificates or the associated procedures.
31 Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 650/2012 clarifies that the term „succession“ means „any form of transfer of assets, rights and obligations by reason of death, whether by intestate succession through a disposition of property upon death or by intestate succession“.
32 Furthermore, this Regulation applies to successions with cross-border implications, as can be seen from recitals 7 and 67. This is the case here, as the estate comprises assets located in different Member States.
33 As regards the specific question whether Article 4 of Regulation No 650/2012 determines the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States to issue national succession certificates, it must be recalled that, according to the Court's settled case-law, the rules on jurisdiction, in so far as they do not refer to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining their meaning and scope, have, throughout the Union, a Autonomous and standardised interpretation which must be found taking into account not only the wording of the provision, but also its context and the objective pursued by the provision in question (see, to that effect, judgments of 18 December 2014, Sanders and Huber, C-400/13 and C-408/13, EU:C:2014:2461, para. 24, and of 1 March 2018, Mahnkopf, C-558/16, EU:C:2018:138, para. 32).
34 The wording of Article 4 of Regulation No 650/2012 determines the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in whose territory the deceased had his habitual residence at the time of his death to rule on succession matters in respect of the entire estate.
35 In this respect, the wording of this provision does not indicate that the application of the general rule of jurisdiction laid down therein depends on the existence of a succession involving several Member States. Nevertheless, this rule is based on the existence of a succession with cross-border implications.
36 In addition, the heading of Article 4 of Regulation No 650/2012 indicates that this provision is intended to Determination of general competence of the courts of the Member States, while the national allocation of jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 2 of the Regulation is governed by national rules.
37 From the wording of this Art. 4 it is clear that the general rule of jurisdiction standardised there applies to „the entire estate“ which, as the Advocate General also stated in point 67 of his Opinion, indicates that it should in principle be applicable to all proceedings in matters of succession before the courts of the Member States.
38 As regards the interpretation of the word „decisions“ in that provision, it must be determined whether the European Union legislature intended it to be limited to decisions taken by the national courts in the exercise of their judicial function. In the present case, as stated in paragraph 27 of this judgment, it is clear from the order for reference that the procedure for the issue of national succession certificates falls under voluntary jurisdiction and that the decisions to issue such certificates contain only findings of fact, but no rules which may become final.
39 In that regard, the term „courts“ in Article 4 of Regulation No 650/2012, as defined in Article 3(2) of that regulation, does not provide any indication of the scope of the term „judgments“, as the Advocate General also notes in point 64 of his Opinion.
40 It must therefore be held that the mere wording of Article 4 of Regulation No 650/2012 does not make it possible to determine whether the contentious or non-contentious nature of the proceedings affects the applicability of the rule of jurisdiction laid down in that provision and whether the term „judgments“, within the meaning of that provision, is to be understood as referring only to the adoption of a purely judicial decision. In that regard, a literal interpretation of that provision does not provide an answer to the question whether proceedings for the issue of national succession certificates, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, are to be subsumed under Article 4.
41 As regards the analysis of the systematic context of that provision, it is apparent from Article 13 of Regulation No 650/2012 that, in addition to the court having jurisdiction to rule on the succession under that regulation, the courts of the Member State of the habitual residence of a person who, under the law applicable to the succession, may make a declaration of acceptance or waiver of the succession, of a legacy or of a reserved share, or a declaration limiting the liability of the person concerned for the debts of the estate, have jurisdiction to receive those declarations.
42 Article 13, in conjunction with recital 32 of Regulation No 650/2012, aims to simplify the official channels for heirs and legatees by derogating from the rules of jurisdiction set out in Articles 4 to 11 of that Regulation. As a result, the courts with jurisdiction to rule on succession matters for the entire estate in accordance with Art. 4 of the Regulation also have jurisdiction to receive declarations of succession. Consequently, the rule of jurisdiction in Art. 4 also covers proceedings that do not lead to the issue of a judicial decision.
43 That interpretation is confirmed by recital 59 in the preamble to Regulation No 650/2012, which states that its provisions apply irrespective of whether decisions on a succession with cross-border implications have been given in contentious or non-contentious proceedings.
44 Thus, Article 4 of Regulation No 650/2012 determines the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States for proceedings concerning measures in matters of succession relating to the entire succession, such as in particular the issue of national succession certificates, irrespective of the contentious or non-contentious nature of these proceedings.
45 That interpretation is not invalidated by Article 64 of Regulation No 650/2012, which provides that the European Certificate of Succession is to be issued in the Member State whose courts have jurisdiction pursuant to Articles 4, 7, 10 or 11 of that regulation.
46 As the Advocate General stated in point 90 of his Opinion, the European Certificate of Succession created by the provisions of Chapter VI of Regulation No 650/2012 is subject to an autonomous legal regime. In this context, Article 64 of the Regulation serves to clarify that both the courts and certain other authorities have jurisdiction to issue such a certificate of succession, whereby it determines, by reference to the rules on jurisdiction in Articles 4, 7, 10 and 11 of the Regulation, in which Member State that certificate must be issued.
47 It should also be noted that, pursuant to Article 62(2) and (3) of Regulation No 650/2012, the use of the European Certificate of Succession is not mandatory and this certificate does not replace the national documents used in the Member States for similar purposes, such as the national certificates of succession.
48 In those circumstances, Article 64 of Regulation No 650/2012 cannot be interpreted as meaning that national succession certificates are excluded from the scope of the rule of jurisdiction laid down in Article 4 of that regulation.
49 As regards the objectives pursued by Regulation No 650/2012, it is apparent from recitals 7 and 8 in the preamble thereto that it is intended, in particular, to facilitate the enforcement of the rights of heirs and legatees, other persons close to the deceased and creditors of the estate in the context of a succession with cross-border implications and to enable EU citizens to organise their succession.
50 From the same perspective, recital 27 in the preamble to Regulation No 650/2012 emphasises that the provisions of that regulation are designed to ensure that, in most situations, the authority dealing with the succession applies its own law.
51 In this regard, Article 21(1) of Regulation No 650/2012, with the general conflict-of-law rule on the applicable law, and Article 4 of the Regulation on the general jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States are both based on the criterion of the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death.
52 However, the application of national law in determining the general jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States to issue national succession certificates would run counter to the objective of Regulation No 650/2012, as stated in recital 27 in the preamble thereto, which is to ensure consistency between the provisions on jurisdiction and those on the law applicable in this area.
53 Furthermore, in accordance with the general objective of the Regulation set out in recital 59, namely the mutual recognition of decisions in matters of succession given in the Member States, recital 34 of the Regulation states that there should be no irreconcilable decisions in the different Member States.
54 This objective is consistent with the principle of uniformity of succession laid down in particular in Article 23(1) of Regulation No 650/2012, according to which the law applicable under that regulation is to govern „the entire succession“.
55 This principle of unity of succession also underlies the rule laid down in Article 4 of Regulation No 650/2012, since it also provides that the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States to rule on succession matters „in respect of the whole of the estate“ is governed by that rule.
56 As the Advocate General recalled in points 109 and 110 of his Opinion, the Court has already held that an interpretation of the provisions of Regulation No 650/2012 which would entail a division of succession would be incompatible with the objectives of that regulation (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 October 2017, Kubicka, C-218/16, EU:C:2017:755, paragraph 57). Since one of those objectives is the creation of uniform rules for succession cases with cross-border implications, the achievement of that objective requires the harmonisation of the rules on the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States in both contentious and non-contentious proceedings.
57 The interpretation of Article 4 of the Regulation, according to which that provision establishes the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States in proceedings for the issue of national succession certificates, works in the interests of the proper administration of justice within the Union towards the realisation of that objective by limiting the risk of parallel proceedings before the courts of the different Member States and of contradictions resulting therefrom.
58 On the other hand, the fulfilment of the objectives pursued by Regulation No 650/2012 would be compromised if, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the provisions of Chapter II of that regulation, in particular Article 4 thereof, were interpreted as not governing the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States in proceedings for the issue of national succession certificates.
59 It follows from all those considerations that Article 4 of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, even if the deceased did not have his habitual residence in that Member State at the time of his death, the courts of that Member State retain jurisdiction to issue national succession certificates in relation to a succession with cross-border implications where the assets of the estate are located in the territory of that Member State or where the deceased was a national of that Member State.