# C_2021471EN.01001002.xml

| 22.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 471/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 471/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 9 September 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Köln — Germany) — RK v CR

(Case C-422/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Succession - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Article 6(a) - Declining of jurisdiction - Article 7(a) - Jurisdiction - Examination by the court second seised - Article 22 - Choice of law applicable - Article 39 - Mutual recognition - Article 83(4) - Transitional provisions)

(2021/C 471/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberlandesgericht Köln

Parties to the main proceedings

Defendant and appellant: RK

Applicant and respondent: CR

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 7(a) 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, in order for there to have been a declining of jurisdiction, within the meaning of Article 6(a) of that regulation, in favour of the courts of the Member State whose law was chosen by the deceased, it is not necessary for the court previously seised to have expressly declined jurisdiction, but that intention must be unequivocally apparent from the decision that it delivered in that regard. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 7(a) 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, in order for there to have been a declining of jurisdiction, within the meaning of Article 6(a) of that regulation, in favour of the courts of the Member State whose law was chosen by the deceased, it is not necessary for the court previously seised to have expressly declined jurisdiction, but that intention must be unequivocally apparent from the decision that it delivered in that regard.

| 2. | Article 6(a), Article 7(a) and Article 39 of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the court of the Member State seised following a declining of jurisdiction is not competent to examine whether the conditions set out in those provisions were satisfied in order for the court previously seised to decline jurisdiction. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 6(a), Article 7(a) and Article 39 of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the court of the Member State seised following a declining of jurisdiction is not competent to examine whether the conditions set out in those provisions were satisfied in order for the court previously seised to decline jurisdiction.

| 3. | Article 6(a) and Article 7(a) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the rules of jurisdiction set out in those provisions also apply in the event that, in his or her will, drawn up before 17 August 2015, the deceased had not chosen the law applicable to the succession, and that the designation of that law can be inferred from Article 83(4) of that regulation alone. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 6(a) and Article 7(a) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the rules of jurisdiction set out in those provisions also apply in the event that, in his or her will, drawn up before 17 August 2015, the deceased had not chosen the law applicable to the succession, and that the designation of that law can be inferred from Article 83(4) of that regulation alone.

---

(1)  OJ C 443, 21.12.2020.

---