# C_2021053EN.01001502.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Justyna Gawlica, Notary in Krapkowice — Krapkowice (Poland) lodged on 12 August 2020 — OKR

(Case C-387/20)

(2021/C 53/19)

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Justyna Gawlica, Notary in Krapkowice

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: OKR

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 22 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 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a person who is not a citizen of the European Union is also entitled to choose the law of his or her native country as the law governing all matters relating to succession? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 22 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 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a person who is not a citizen of the European Union is also entitled to choose the law of his or her native country as the law governing all matters relating to succession?

| 2. | Must Article 75, in conjunction with Article 22, of Regulation No 650/2012 be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a bilateral agreement between a Member State and a third country does not govern the choice of law applicable to a case involving succession but indicates the law applicable to that case involving succession, a national of that third country residing in a Member State bound by that bilateral agreement may make a choice of law?
  and in particular:






  — | must a bilateral agreement with a third country expressly exclude the choice of a specific law and not merely govern the lex successionis using objective connecting factors in order for its provisions to take precedence over Article 22 of Regulation No 650/2012? |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 75, in conjunction with Article 22, of Regulation No 650/2012 be interpreted as meaning that, in the case where a bilateral agreement between a Member State and a third country does not govern the choice of law applicable to a case involving succession but indicates the law applicable to that case involving succession, a national of that third country residing in a Member State bound by that bilateral agreement may make a choice of law?

and in particular:

—

must a bilateral agreement with a third country expressly exclude the choice of a specific law and not merely govern the lex successionis using objective connecting factors in order for its provisions to take precedence over Article 22 of Regulation No 650/2012?

| — | is the freedom to choose the law governing succession and to make the applicable law uniform by making a choice of law — at least to the extent determined by the EU legislature in Article 22 of Regulation No 650/2012 — one of the principles underlying judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters in the European Union, which may not be infringed even where bilateral agreements with third countries apply which take precedence over Regulation No 650/2012? |
| --- | --- |

—

is the freedom to choose the law governing succession and to make the applicable law uniform by making a choice of law — at least to the extent determined by the EU legislature in Article 22 of Regulation No 650/2012 — one of the principles underlying judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters in the European Union, which may not be infringed even where bilateral agreements with third countries apply which take precedence over Regulation No 650/2012?

---

(1)  OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107.

---