ECJ , judgement of 16.07.2020 - C-80/19

Central standards: Art. 3 para. 2, Art. 3 para. 1 lit. g and i, Art. 5, 7 and 22 EU Succession Regulation

(habitual residence, European Certificate of Succession)

Author's lead sentences (originals abridged):

(1) A „succession with cross-border implications“ exists if the deceased was a national of one Member State and resided in another Member State at the time of death, but had not severed his links with the first Member State - where the assets of the estate are located, while the beneficiaries reside in these two Member States.

2. if notaries of a Member State act as „courts“ within the meaning of the Regulation, certificates of succession issued by them may be regarded as „decisions“ within the meaning of that provision.

3. notaries, who are not „courts“ within the meaning of the Regulation, may - notwithstanding the provisions of Art. 4 et seq. EU Succession Regulation - issue national succession certificates, which may be regarded as „authentic instruments“ and have the intended effects.

For the reasons:

On the questions referred

On the first and fifth questions

33 By its first and fifth questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that there is a „succession with cross-border implications“ where the deceased was a national of a Member State and, at the time of his death, was resident in another Member State but had not severed his links with the first Member State, and whether, in that case, the deceased's last habitual residence within the meaning of that regulation must be in a single Member State.

34 Firstly, it should be noted that Regulation No 650/2012 was adopted on the basis of Article 81(2) TFEU, which only concerns civil matters with a cross-border element.

35 According to recitals 1 and 7 in the preamble to this Regulation, one of its objectives is to remove obstacles to the free movement of persons who encounter difficulties in enforcing their rights in connection with a cross-border succession in order to facilitate the proper functioning of the internal market. According to its 67th recital, the Regulation aims to ensure the swift, straightforward and efficient settlement of cross-border successions.

36 In order to determine whether a succession has a cross-border element and therefore falls within the scope of Regulation No 650/2012, it is necessary, first, as the Advocate General stated in point 34 of his Opinion, to identify the Member State of the deceased's habitual residence at the time of his death and, second, to determine whether that habitual residence can be located in a Member State other than that in which the deceased had his last habitual residence by virtue of the fact that another connecting factor under succession law is located in another Member State.

3 7In this regard, it should be noted that although the term „habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death“ within the meaning of Regulation No 650/2012 is not defined in any of the provisions, the Recitals 23 and 24 useful information included.

38 According to recital 23 in the preamble to that regulation, it is for the authority dealing with the succession to determine the habitual residence of the deceased, that authority having regard both to the fact that the general connecting factor is the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death and to the fact that the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death is not the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death. all the circumstances of the testator's life in the years before his death and at the time of his death and must take all relevant facts into account, in particular the duration and regularity of the deceased's residence in the country concerned and the circumstances and reasons relating thereto. The habitual residence thus determined should show a particularly close and firm connection between the estate and the state concerned.

39 In this respect, recital 24 in the preamble to the Regulation lists various cases in which it may prove complex to determine habitual residence. If the deceased was a national of a State or had all his substantial assets in that State, his nationality or the place where those assets are located could be a particular factor in the overall assessment of all the factual circumstances, as stated in the last sentence of that recital, if the deceased moved to another State to work there for professional or economic reasons, possibly for a long period of time, but maintained a close and stable link with his State of origin.

40 It follows that the habitual residence of the deceased must be established by the authority dealing with the inheritance case on the basis of a Overall assessment of the circumstances of the individual case in a single Member State.

41 As the Advocate General stated in essence in point 42 of his Opinion and as is apparent from the case-law of the Court, an interpretation of Regulation No 650/2012, according to which the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of his death could be determined in several Member States would lead to a division of the succession, since habitual residence is the criterion for the application of the general rules laid down in Articles 4 and 21 of that regulation, according to which both the jurisdiction of the courts over the entire succession and the law applicable to the entire succession under the regulation are determined by habitual residence. Such an interpretation would therefore be incompatible with the objectives of that regulation (see, to that effect, judgments of 12 October 2017, Kubicka, C-218/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:755, para. 57, and of 21 June 2018, Oberle, C-20/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:485, paras. 53 to 55).

42 In addition, it must be examined whether the estate has a cross-border connection because another connecting factor under inheritance law is located in a Member State other than the one in which the deceased last had his habitual residence.

43 In this regard, it should be noted that the Court of Justice has ruled that a succession has cross-border implications if the estate comprises assets located in different Member States and, in particular, in a Member State other than that in which the deceased was last resident (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 June 2018, Oberle, C-20/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:485, para. 32). In addition, Regulation No 650/2012 provides examples of other circumstances that may indicate the existence of a succession involving several Member States.

44 As the Advocate General also stated in essence in point 65 of his Opinion, a set of concordant indications, such as those referred to in recitals 23 and 24 in the preamble to Regulation No 650/2012 and, in particular, those referred to in paragraphs 38 and 39 of the present judgment, may lead to the conclusion, subject to the checks to be carried out by the referring court, that a succession, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, falls within the scope of Regulation No 650/2012 because it has a cross-border element.

45 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the first and fifth questions is that Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that there is a „succession with cross-border implications“ where the deceased was a national of one Member State and, at the time of his death, was resident in another Member State, but had not severed his links with the first Member State, where the assets of the estate are located, while the beneficiaries of the succession are resident in those two Member States. The last habitual residence of the deceased within the meaning of this Regulation shall be determined by the authority dealing with the succession in only one of those Member States.

The second question

46 By its second question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3(2) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that Lithuanian notaries may be regarded as „courts“ within the meaning of that regulation.

47According to the first subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 650/2012, judicial authorities and members of the legal professions with competence in matters of succession are not covered by the For the purposes of this provision, the term „court“ shall mean a court or tribunal exercising judicial functions or acting by delegation of power from or under the authority of a court or tribunal, provided that it guarantees its impartiality and the right of the parties to be heard and that its decisions can be challenged before or reviewed by a court or tribunal in accordance with the law of the Member State in which it operates and have similar force and effect as a decision of a court or tribunal in the same case.

48 Furthermore, it is apparent from recital 20 in the preamble to Regulation No 650/2012 that the term „court“ in the context of that regulation is to be understood broadly and also includes notaries when they exercise judicial functions in certain inheritance matters.

49 For the rest, the categorisation of notaries as a „court“ it is not decisive that a Member State has not notified, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 650/2012, that the notaries are exercising judicial functions (Judgment of 23 May 2019, WB, C-658/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:444, para. 64).

50 It should also be noted that Article 3(2) of Regulation No 650/2012 clarifies that the For the purposes of this Regulation, the term „court“ shall include not only courts but also all other public authorities and all other legal practitioners with competence in matters of succession who exercise judicial functions and fulfil the requirements set out in this provision (Judgment of 23 May 2019, WB, C- 658/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:444, para. 40).

51 In this regard, the Court of Justice has already held that an authority exercises judicial functions if it can be competent in disputes under inheritance law. This criterion applies irrespective of whether the procedure for issuing a certificate of succession is contentious or non-contentious (judgment of 23 May 2019, WB, C-658/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:444, para. 56).

52 In the present case, it should be noted that, under Article 1 of the Law on Notaries, Lithuanian notaries are granted the right to determine undisputed subjective rights.

53 It must therefore follow, as the Advocate General stated in point 81 of his Opinion, that a Lithuanian notary is not competent to rule on the points at issue between the parties and that he is not authorised to establish facts which are not clear and unambiguous or to rule on disputed facts.

54 It must therefore be assumed that, subject to review by the referring court, the issue of a national certificate of succession by Lithuanian notaries does not involve the exercise of judicial functions.

55 However, according to the wording of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 650/2012, the status of „court“ within the meaning of that provision may also result from the fact that those authorities and professionals are acting in the exercise of a delegation of powers or under the supervision of a court. It is for the referring court to determine whether that is the case where Lithuanian notaries issue a national certificate of succession.

56 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the second question is that Article 3(2) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to review by the referring court, Lithuanian notaries do not exercise judicial functions when they issue a national succession certificate. However, it is for the referring court to determine whether the notaries are acting in the exercise of a delegation of powers or under the supervision of a court and, consequently, whether they can be categorised as „courts“ within the meaning of that provision.

The third question

57 By its third question, the referring court asks, in the event that it were to regard Lithuanian notaries as „courts“ within the meaning of Regulation No 650/2012, whether certificates of succession issued by Lithuanian notaries may be regarded as „decisions“ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation No 650/2012 and whether notaries may apply the rules of jurisdiction laid down in Chapter II of that regulation for the purposes of issuing certificates of succession.

58 Under Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation No 650/2012, the following definitions apply „judgment“ means any judgment given by a court of a Member State in a succession case, whatever the judgment may be called.

59 It follows from that provision that the only condition laid down in that regulation for an act to be categorised as a „judgment“ is that it be delivered by a „court or tribunal“ within the meaning of Article 3(2) of that regulation.

60 Accordingly, if the referring court were to take the view that Lithuanian notaries could be categorised as „courts“ within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 650/2012, the certificate of succession issued by one of those notaries could be categorised as a „judgment“ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(g) of that regulation.

61 As regards the rules of jurisdiction, the Court has held that Regulation No 650/2012, and in particular Article 4 thereof, determines international jurisdiction for proceedings concerning measures relating to the succession as a whole, such as, in particular, the issue of national succession certificates, irrespective of the contentious or non-contentious nature of those proceedings, as is also apparent from recital 59 in the preamble to that regulation (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 June 2018, Oberle, C-20/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:485, paragraphs 44 and 45).

62 As is apparent from recital 22 in the preamble to Regulation No 650/2012, notaries, when exercising judicial functions or acting in the exercise of a delegation of powers or under the authority of a court, are bound by the rules of jurisdiction in Chapter II of that regulation and the decisions they issue should be governed by the provisions on the recognition, enforceability and enforcement of decisions contained in Chapter IV of that regulation.

63 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the third question is that Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that the referring court considers that Lithuanian notaries may be categorised as „courts“ within the meaning of that regulation, certificates of succession issued by them may be regarded as „decisions“ within the meaning of that provision, so that notaries may apply the rules of jurisdiction laid down in Chapter II of that regulation for the purposes of issuing certificates of succession.

The fourth question

64 By its fourth question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 4 and 59 of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that notaries of a Member State who are not classified as „courts“ within the meaning of that regulation are entitled to issue certificates of succession without complying with the general rules of jurisdiction laid down by that regulation and whether certificates of succession are recognised as „authentic instruments“, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(i) of that regulation, which produce effects in other Member States.

65 More specifically, by the first part of the fourth question, the referring court asks whether, if Lithuanian notaries are not categorised as „courts“ within the meaning of Regulation No 650/2012, they are bound by the rules of jurisdiction in Chapter II („Jurisdiction“) of Regulation No 650/2012 in order to ensure the uniform treatment of a succession and whether, before issuing a national certificate of succession, they must determine which courts, if any, would have jurisdiction under those rules.

66 In that regard, it follows from the clear wording of recital 22 in the preamble to Regulation No 650/2012 that notaries are not bound by the rules on jurisdiction if they do not exercise judicial functions.

67 Furthermore, the Court has already held that Article 4 of Regulation No 650/2012 determines the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States in proceedings concerning measures relating to succession in respect of the entire estate (judgment of 21 June 2018, Oberle, C-20/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:485, para. 44). By contrast, non-judicial authorities are not covered by the rules of jurisdiction in Chapter II of Regulation No 650/2012.

68 Accordingly, if the referring court considers that Lithuanian notaries cannot be categorised as „courts“ within the meaning of Article 3(2) of Regulation No 650/2012, they are not subject to the rules on jurisdiction laid down in Regulation No 650/2012, nor are they required to determine which courts, if any, would have jurisdiction to hear the case under the provisions of Chapter II of that regulation.

69 Moreover, the principle of unity does not apply absolutely to an estate, as the Advocate General essentially stated in point 79 of his Opinion. Regulation No 650/2012 governs the situation in which the authorities of several Member States are involved in the same succession. Where the heirs or legatees have their habitual residence in a Member State other than that in which the succession is being or is to be administered, the authorities of the Member State of their habitual residence may, in accordance with Article 13 of Regulation No 650/2012, receive declarations relating to the succession. This is in line with the objective set out in recital 32 of Regulation No 650/2012 to take account of the interests of heirs and legatees.

70 That interpretation is not invalidated by Article 64 of Regulation No 650/2012, which concerns the issue of the European Certificate of Succession and is intended to clarify that the rules of jurisdiction laid down in Articles 4, 7, 10 and 11 of that regulation apply not only to courts within the meaning of Article 3(2) of that regulation, but also to the other authorities which, under national law, are competent to deal with the succession. The European Certificate of Succession created by Regulation No 650/2012 is subject to an autonomous legal regime, which is contained in the provisions of Chapter VI of that regulation (judgment of 21 June 2018, Oberle, C-20/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:485, paragraph 46).

71 By the second part of its fourth question, the referring court also asks, in essence, whether, whether the national certificate of succession is to be categorised as an „authentic instrument“ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(i) of Regulation No 650/2012 and what effects it has.

72 According to Article 3(1)(i) of Regulation No 650/2012, an „authentic instrument“ means an document in matters of succession which has been formally drawn up or registered as an authentic instrument in a Member State and the authenticity of which is established on the one hand by the signature and the content of the authentic instrument and on the other hand by an authority or other body authorised to do so by the Member State of origin.

73 Furthermore, it is apparent from recital 62 in the preamble to that regulation that the term „authenticity“ should be interpreted autonomously and refers to a number of aspects such as the authenticity of the document, the formal requirements for the document, the powers of the authority drawing up the document and the procedure by which the document is drawn up. Authenticity should also cover the acts authenticated by the authority concerned in the instrument, such as the fact that the named parties appeared before that authority on the named date and made the named declarations.

74 It is for the national court to determine whether those conditions are met. Although the referring court alone has jurisdiction to assess the facts of the main proceedings and to interpret national law, the Court, which is required to provide the national court with relevant answers, is nevertheless authorised, in the context of a reference for a preliminary ruling, to give guidance on the basis of the file before it.

75 In the present case, as the Advocate General stated in point 87 of his Opinion, a certificate of succession is, under national law, an authentic instrument and notaries are authorised, under Article 26 of the Law on notaries, to issue certificates of succession containing information which is deemed to be established.

76 Therefore, subject to the checks to be carried out by the referring court, a national certificate of succession such as that at issue in the main proceedings appears to fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 3(1)(i) of Regulation No 650/2012.

77 In the event that the referring court were to consider the national succession certificate to be an authentic instrument within the meaning of that provision, it should be noted, first, as regards its effects, that the first subparagraph of Article 59(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 states that an authentic instrument drawn up in one Member State has, in another Member State, the same evidentiary effects as, or the most comparable effects to, those of the Member State of origin. Recital 61 in the preamble to that Regulation states that the formal probative force of an authentic instrument in another Member State, or the closest equivalent effect, should be determined by reference to the nature and extent of the formal probative force of the authentic instrument in the Member State of origin. Thus, the formal probative value of an authentic instrument in another Member State is governed by the law of the Member State of origin.

78 In addition, under the second subparagraph of Article 59(1) of Regulation No 650/2012, a person who wishes to use an authentic instrument in another Member State may request the authority drawing up the authentic instrument in the Member State of origin to complete the form corresponding to that set out in Annex 2 to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1329/2014 of 9 December 2014 laying down the forms provided for in Regulation No 650/2012 (OJ 2014 L 359, p. 30).

79 Secondly, under Article 60(1) of Regulation No 650/2012, authentic instruments which are enforceable in the Member State of origin are declared enforceable in another Member State in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 45 to 58 of that regulation.

80 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the fourth question referred is that Articles 4 and 59 of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that notaries of a Member State who are not classified as „courts“ within the meaning of this Regulation shall be authorised to issue national succession certificates without complying with the general rules on jurisdiction laid down in this Regulation. If the referring court considers that the national succession certificates fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 3(1)(i) of that regulation and may therefore be regarded as „authentic instruments“ within the meaning of that provision, those succession certificates produce, in the other Member States, the effects conferred on authentic instruments by Article 59(1) and Article 60(1) of Regulation No 650/2012.

The sixth question

81 By its sixth question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Articles 4, 5, 7 and 22 of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a court having jurisdiction in matters of succession may be designated on the basis of the will of the deceased and the agreement between his beneficiaries and that a succession law of a Member State may be applied which is different from that which would result from the application of the criteria laid down in that regulation.

82 As regards the determination of the court having jurisdiction in matters of succession, it should be noted that Article 4 of Regulation No 650/2012 lays down a general rule that the courts of the Member State in whose territory the deceased had his habitual residence at the time of his death have jurisdiction to rule on the succession as a whole, whereas Article 5(1) of that regulation contains provisions derogating from that general rule, according to which the parties to the succession proceedings may agree that the courts of a Member State other than the one which would have jurisdiction under the criteria laid down by that regulation are to have jurisdiction.

83 Under Article 5(1) of Regulation No 650/2012, the parties to the proceedings may agree that the courts of the Member State whose law the deceased has chosen to apply to the succession in accordance with Article 22 of that regulation are to have exclusive jurisdiction in matters of succession.

84 Article 5(2) and Article 7 of Regulation No 650/2012 set out the formal requirements that must be met for the choice of court agreement to be valid. Specifically, it follows from Article 5(2) and Article 7(b) of that regulation that the agreement must be in writing, dated and signed by the parties to the proceedings or, as provided for in Article 7(c) of the regulation, that the parties to the proceedings must agree on the jurisdiction of the court seised. c of the Regulation, the parties to the proceedings must have expressly recognised the jurisdiction of the court seised.

85 In the present case, although it is not apparent from the file before the Court that the parties to the succession proceedings concluded an agreement in accordance with the abovementioned conditions conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Lithuanian courts, the referring court points out that the deceased's surviving spouse, who was of German nationality and was living with her in Germany at the time of her death, stated that he consented to such jurisdiction.

86 As the Advocate General stated in point 121 of his Opinion, it is for the referring court to determine whether such a declaration in the main proceedings is capable of conferring jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 7(c) of Regulation No 650/2012. c of Regulation No 650/2012.

87 Furthermore, it should be noted that, according to recital 29 in the preamble to Regulation No 650/2012, that regulation must not be interpreted as precluding the parties from settling the succession out of court in a Member State of their choice by mutual agreement if that is possible under the law of that Member State and even if the law applicable to the succession is not the law of that Member State.

88 As regards the question whether the will of the deceased and the agreement between his beneficiaries may lead to the application of the law of succession of a Member State other than that which would result from the application of the criteria laid down in Regulation No 650/2012, it should be noted that, under the first subparagraph of Article 22(1) of that regulation („choice of law“), a person may choose, for the succession, the law of the State to which he belongs at the time of the choice or at the time of his death. In addition, according to Art. 22 para. 2 of this Regulation, the choice of law must be made expressly in a declaration in the form of a disposition of property upon death or must result from the provisions of such a disposition.

89 As the Commission stated in its written observations, Article 22(2) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be read in the light of recital 39 in the preamble thereto, according to which the choice of law may result from a disposition of property upon death, in particular where the testator has made reference to specific provisions of the law of the State to which he belongs.

90 Since, in the present case, Lithuanian law is the law of the Member State of which the testator was a national at the time of her death, that law could validly be chosen under Article 22(1) of Regulation No 650/2012. In that regard, it is for the referring court to determine whether such a choice arises from the provisions of the will at issue in the main proceedings, in accordance with Article 22(2) of that regulation.

91 Furthermore, it is apparent from the file before the Court that the will in question was drawn up on 4 July 2013, before the entry into force of Regulation No 650/2012 in Lithuania, and that the person concerned died after 17 August 2015, that is to say, after the entry into force of that regulation. Therefore, pursuant to Art. 83 (1) of Regulation No. 650/2012, the transitional provisions referred to in this Article may also be relevant.

92 Article 83(2) of that regulation concerns cases in which the deceased had chosen the law applicable to his succession before 17 August 2015. As the Advocate General stated in point 102 of his Opinion, the aim of that provision is to respect the wishes of the deceased and the choice of law is only valid if the conditions laid down in that provision are met. By contrast, Article 83(4) governs cases in which a disposition of property upon death does not contain a choice of law.

93 Specifically, in the event that a disposition of property upon death was made before 17 August 2015 in accordance with the law which the testator was able to choose in accordance with this Regulation, that law shall be deemed to be the law chosen to apply to the succession in accordance with the aforementioned Article 83(4).

94 That provision is applicable in the present case since, first, the will at issue in the main proceedings was drawn up before 17 August 2015 and, second, Lithuanian law could be chosen in accordance with the first subparagraph of Article 22(1) of Regulation No 650/2012, since the deceased was a Lithuanian national at the time the will was drawn up. Consequently, that law, under which the will was drawn up, is deemed to be the law chosen to apply to the succession at issue in the main proceedings.

95 Finally, it should be pointed out in this connection that, according to recital 27 in the preamble to the Regulation, the provisions of that regulation are designed to ensure that the authority dealing with the succession applies its own law in most situations.

96 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the sixth question is that Articles 4, 5, 7 and 22 and Article 83(2) and (4) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a court having jurisdiction in matters of succession may be designated and a succession law of a Member State applied on the basis of the will of the deceased and the agreement between his beneficiaries, which are different from those which would result from the application of the criteria laid down in that regulation.

Costs

97 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.

For these reasons, the Court (First Chamber) ruled in favour of the applicant:

(1) 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 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 „succession having cross-border implications“ exists if the deceased was a national of one Member State and resided in another Member State at the time of death, but had not severed his links with the first Member State, where the assets of the estate are located, while the beneficiaries of the succession reside in those two Member States. The last habitual residence of the deceased within the meaning of this Regulation shall be determined by the authority dealing with the succession in only one of those Member States.

(2) Article 3(2) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to review by the referring court, Lithuanian notaries do not exercise judicial functions when they issue a national succession certificate. However, it is for the referring court to determine whether the notaries are acting in the exercise of a delegation of powers or under the supervision of a court and, consequently, whether they can be categorised as „courts“ within the meaning of that provision.

(3) Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that the referring court considers that Lithuanian notaries may be categorised as „courts“ within the meaning of that regulation, certificates of succession issued by them may be regarded as „decisions“ within the meaning of that provision, so that notaries may apply the rules of jurisdiction laid down in Chapter II of that regulation for the purposes of issuing certificates of succession.

(4) Articles 4 and 59 of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that notaries of a Member State who are not classified as „courts“ within the meaning of that regulation are authorised to issue national succession certificates without complying with the general rules of jurisdiction laid down by that regulation. If the referring court considers that the national succession certificates fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 3(1)(i) of that regulation and may therefore be regarded as „authentic instruments“ within the meaning of that provision, those succession certificates produce, in the other Member States, the effects which Article 59(1) and Article 60(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 confer on authentic instruments.

(5) Articles 4, 5, 7 and 22 and Article 83(2) and (4) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that a court having jurisdiction in matters of succession may be designated on the basis of the will of the deceased and the agreement between his beneficiaries and that a succession law of a Member State may be applied which is different from that which would result from the application of the criteria laid down in that regulation.