OLG Karlsruhe; 2024-07-22; 14 W 50/24 (Wx)
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:DE:OLGKARL:2024:0722.14W50.24WX.00
Date: 2024-07-22
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Germany

82024DE0722(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case before the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) concerns the assessment of the testator's habitual residence in order to determine international jurisdiction.
The testator, a German citizen, began to suffer from increasing dementia and became a nursing case. Initially, he was cared for in various nursing homes in Germany. Subsequently, against his will or at least without his consent, he was placed by his wife (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) in a nursing home in Poland, where he later died. The testator had no assets in Poland, did not speak Polish, and had family and social connections only in Germany.
The plaintiff applied to the Amtsgericht Singen (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) for a certificate of inheritance naming her as the sole heir. The Court of First Instance rejected the application, invoking Article 4 of the Succession Regulation (1) and holding that German courts lacked international jurisdiction. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the testator’s habitual residence had remained in Germany.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that international jurisdiction in inheritance matters derives from Article 4 of the Succession Regulation, which takes precedence over the provisions of the FamFG (2). According to Article 4, ‘the courts of the Member State in which the deceased had his habitual residence at the time of death shall have jurisdiction to rule on the succession as a whole’. The concept of habitual residence must be interpreted autonomously by the authority dealing with succession. This authority ‘should make an overall assessment of the circumstances of the life of the deceased during the years preceding his death and at the time of his death, taking account of all relevant factual elements’ (Recitals 23 and 24 of the Succession Regulation).
On this basis, the Court of Appeal found that the testator had no subjective connection to Poland. In addition to the objective criterion of actual residence, habitual residence requires a subjective will to stay (animus manendi). The testator, who suffered from dementia, was transferred to a Polish nursing home for financial reasons and against or without his will. He had no personal, social, linguistic, or economic ties to Poland beyond receiving care there until his death. Accordingly, his continued residence in Poland did not establish a new habitual residence. The Court of Appeal held that the testator’s habitual residence, within the meaning of Article 4 of the Succession Regulation, remained in Germany.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal annulled the first-instance order on lack of jurisdiction, held that the Court of First Instance has both international and local jurisdiction, and referred the matter back for further proceedings.
(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 and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession.
(2) Gesetz über das Verfahren in Familiensachen und in den Angelegenheiten der freiwilligen Gerichtsbarkeit (FamFG) (Act on Proceedings in Family Matters and in Matters of Non-Contentious Jurisdication).