Latvijas Republikas Augstākā tiesa; 2018-04-27; C04002517
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:LV:AT:2018:0427.C04002517.6.L
Date: 2018-04-27
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Latvia

82018LV0427(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case before the Latvijas Republikas Augstākā tiesa (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) concerns a cross-border succession.
An owner of real estate located in Spain, Latvia and Russia died in Germany, and before his death, he temporarily lived in Latvia and Andorra. As the deceased also owned a property located in Latvia, the children of the deceased initiated the proceedings before the Latvian notary. The notary stated that the deceased’s last habitual residence was in Andorra, and his property was in Latvia, accepted the application and confirmed the children’s right to inherit.
Subsequently, the deceased's parents (hereinafter ‘the plaintiffs’) also filled out an application for inheritance with the notary, but the notary rejected the application. The notary claimed that the application had been filed late and that the certificate of inheritance had already been issued to the heir of higher rank.
The plaintiffs complained to the Rīgas apgabaltiesa (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’), claiming that the notary failed to make a general assessment of the circumstances of the deceased’s life before death, which led to incorrect conclusions regarding Latvian jurisdiction. The plaintiffs alleged a misapplication of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 (1). The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint and upheld the notary’s decision.
The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the notary and the Court of First Instance had not thoroughly assessed the case's circumstances, in particular, the fact that the deceased had several residences and properties in several countries, both within and outside the European Union.
The Supreme Court cited Article 4 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012, according to which ‘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’. However, Article 10 provides exceptions to the general rule where the deceased’s habitual residence at the time of death was not in a Member State and sets out several conditions for applying such an exception. Article 10, read in conjunction with Recital 30, suggests that it is first necessary to determine whether any of the additional criteria make it impossible to determine the competent Member State. The Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiffs that, to establish the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death, it is necessary to establish circumstances and facts which show that the person had a close and stable connection with the country in question, i.e. where the centre of his family, social, cultural, financial and economic interests was located.
Although there are documents in the case file with various details of several residences of the deceased (Russia, Latvia, Spain, Andorra, Germany), neither the notary nor the Court of First Instance assessed any of them in the context of the habitual residence criteria, which led to incorrect conclusions.
The Supreme Court annulled the decision of the Court of First Instance and referred the case back to the same court for a new hearing.
(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.