ECJ of 1 March 2018 - Case C-558/16 (Mahnkopf)
Central standardsArt. 1 para. 1, Art. 67 para. 1 and Art. 68 lit. l EuErbVO, § 1371 I BGB
(Qualification of the lump-sum increase in the statutory inheritance share of the surviving spouse)
Guiding principle:
Article 1(1) 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 meaning that a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which, in the event of the death of a spouse, a lump-sum equalisation of gains is to be made by increasing the surviving spouse's share of the estate, falls within the scope of that regulation.
Problem:
In a judgement from 2015, prior to the entry into force of the EU Succession Regulation, the BGH ruled in favour of a qualification under matrimonial property law in the decades-long dispute over the qualification of Section 1371 (1) BGB. The proceedings before the ECJ are based on a request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Art. 267 TFEU from the Berlin Court of Appeal. In the proceedings, a certificate of inheritance was to be issued. In addition to the surviving spouse, there was also a joint child. The competent court argued that Section 1371 I BGB, on the basis of which the additional quarter had been awarded, belonged to matrimonial property law and not to inheritance law. It therefore did not fall within the scope of the regulation.
Valuation:
The ECJ ruled that the quarter from Section 1371 I BGB should be qualified under inheritance law. As a result, an increase of the spouse's statutory inheritance share by 1/4 in accordance with Section 1371 (1) BGB can only be considered in the case of German inheritance law.
However, this does not mean that a lump-sum increase in the spouses' inheritance share must always be made in every case with German inheritance law in accordance with Sections 1931 (3) and 1371 (1) BGB. § Section 1371 I BGB presupposes that the spouses have lived under the statutory matrimonial property regime.
The question now arises as to whether the „statutory matrimonial property regime“ within the meaning of Section 1371 I BGB can also be a foreign law regime. This depends on whether the foreign matrimonial property regime contains provisions that are comparable to the German provisions from a functional-systematic perspective.
This question should probably be answered in the negative. No other legal system provides for a lump-sum equalisation of gains in the event of death. If one were to fall back on § 1371 I BGB, this would otherwise result in overcompensation.
If the heir receives an increase under Section 1371 I BGB and can then additionally receive the compensation provided for there under the foreign matrimonial property regime, he would receive a double privilege from the matrimonial property regime, although Section 1371 I BGB only provides for the lump-sum increase in order to avoid an arithmetical equalisation.
For the reasons:
31 By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 1(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a lump-sum equalisation of gains is to be made on the death of a spouse by increasing the surviving spouse's share of the estate, falls within the scope of the Directive.
32 As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, according to the Court's settled case-law, it follows from the requirements of both the uniform application of European Union law and the principle of equality that the terms of a provision of European Union law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must, as a general rule, have the same meaning and scope throughout the European Union. Autonomous and standardised interpretation (judgment of 18 October 2016, Nikiforidis, C-135/15, EU:C:2016:774, para. 28 and the case law cited therein), dwhich must be found taking into account not only its wording but also the context of the provision and the objective pursued by the provision in question (see, inter alia, judgment of 18 May 2017, Hummel Holding, C-617/15, EU:C:2017:390, para. 22 and the case-law cited therein).
33 According to the wording of Article 1(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 apply to succession by reason of death. Article 1(2) of the Regulation exhaustively lists the areas that are excluded from its scope of application; according to letter d of this provision, these include „matters relating to matrimonial property regimes“. Article 3(1)(a) of this Regulation clarifies that succession by reason of death „any form of transfer of assets, rights and obligations by reason of death, whether by way of an intended succession through a disposition of property upon death or by way of intestate succession“, includes.
34 Furthermore, recital 9 in the preamble to Regulation No 650/2012 states that its scope should cover all civil law aspects of succession.
35 According to its seventh recital, Regulation No 650/2012 is intended to remove obstacles to the free movement of persons in the enforcement of their rights in connection with a succession having cross-border implications in order to facilitate the proper functioning of the internal market. In particular, the rights of heirs and legatees as well as other persons close to the deceased and the creditors of the estate must be effectively safeguarded in the European judicial area.
36 To this end, Regulation No. 650/2012 provides for the introduction of a European Certificate of Succession which must enable every heir, legatee or legal successor named in this certificate to prove his legal status and his inheritance claims in another Member State (cf. in this sense Judgment of 12 October 2017, Kubicka, C-218/16, EU:C:2017:755, para. 59).
37 As regards the context of the provision at issue, it should be noted that, according to recitals 11 and 12 in the preamble to Regulation No 650/2012, that regulation was not intended to apply to areas of civil law which do not concern succession, and in particular not for questions of matrimonial property law, including the marriage contracts found in some legal systems, insofar as these do not regulate questions of inheritance law.
38 In the present case, it is clear from the request for a preliminary ruling that, pursuant to Section 1371 (1) BGB, in the event of a termination of the community of accrued gains, the statutory inheritance share of the surviving spouse is increased by one quarter of the inheritance in the event of equalisation of accrued gains.
39 In its observations, the German Government has pointed out that this provision of national law relating to the division of a community of property is to be applied exclusively in the event of the dissolution of the marriage by the death of one of the spouses. Thus, a lump-sum property settlement of the assets acquired during the marriage should take place by compensating for the disadvantage resulting from the termination of the community of accrued gains due to the death of a spouse, without the need for an exact determination of the existence and value of the initial and final assets.
40 As the Advocate General stated in points 78 and 93 of his Opinion, according to the information available to the Court, Section 1371(1) of the Civil Code does not concern the division of assets between the spouses, but the rights of the surviving spouse to the items already included in the estate assets. In these circumstances, the main purpose of the provision does not appear to be the division of property or the termination of the matrimonial property regime, but rather the determination of the share of the estate to be allocated to the surviving spouse in relation to the other heirs. Such a provision therefore primarily concerns succession after the death of a spouse and not matrimonial property regimes. Consequently, national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings relates to matters of succession within the meaning of Regulation No 650/2012.
41 Moreover, the scope of application of Regulation 2016/1103 does not preclude such an interpretation. Although this regulation was adopted in order to cover - as is clear from its 18th recital - all civil law aspects of matrimonial property regimes, which concern both the day-to-day management of the spouses„ assets and the division of property, in particular following the separation of the couple or the death of one of the spouses, “succession following the death of a spouse" is expressly excluded from the scope of the regulation in accordance with Article 1(2)(d).
42 Finally, as the Advocate General stated in point 102 of his Opinion, it is possible to, if the share accruing to the surviving spouse is allocated to the right of succession in accordance with a national provision such as Section 1371 (1) BGB, information on this share is included in the European Certificate of Succession with all the effects specified in Article 69 of Regulation No. 650/2012. Pursuant to Article 69(1) of this Regulation, the European Certificate of Succession shall produce effects in all Member States without any special procedure being required. According to Art. 69 para. 2, it is presumed that the person named in the Certificate as the legatee has the legal status and rights specified in the Certificate and that these rights are not subject to any conditions and/or limitations other than those specified in the Certificate (Judgment of 12 October 2017, Kubicka, C-218/16, EU:C:2017:755, para. 60)
43 It must therefore be held that, in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, the attainment of the objectives pursued by the European Certificate of Succession would be significantly impaired if that certificate did not contain all the information relating to the rights of the surviving spouse in the estate.
44 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first question is that Article 1(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for a lump-sum equalisation of gains on the death of a spouse by increasing the surviving spouse's share of the estate, falls within the scope of that regulation.
The second and third questions
45 In view of the answer to the first question, there is no need to answer the second and third questions.
Costs
46 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. The costs incurred by other parties in submitting observations to the Court are not recoverable.