Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:485
Date: 2018-06-21
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber), 21 June 2018 1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions, acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession, and creation of a European Certificate of Succession — Regulation No 650/2012 — General jurisdiction — Application to successions with cross-border implications (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 650/2012, Art. 4) 2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions, acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession, and creation of a European Certificate of Succession — Regulation No 650/2012 — General jurisdiction — Scope — Contentious or non-contentious proceedings — Irrelevant (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 650/2012, Art. 4) 3. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions, acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession, and creation of a European Certificate of Succession — Regulation No 650/2012 — European Certificate of Succession — Jurisdiction to issue the certificate — Article 64 — Purpose of the provision (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 650/2012, Art. 64) 4. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions, acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession, and creation of a European Certificate of Succession — Regulation No 650/2012 — General jurisdiction — Scope — Legislation of a Member State providing that its courts are to have jurisdiction to issue national certificates of succession despite the fact that the deceased was not habitually resident in that Member State — Not permissible (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 650/2012, Art. 4) 1. According to its wording, Article 4 of Regulation No 650/2012 establishes the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the deceased had his habitual residence at the time of death to rule on the succession as a whole. In that regard, it should be stated that, although there is nothing in the wording of that provision to indicate that the application of the general rule of jurisdiction set out therein would be conditional upon there being a succession involving several Member States, the fact remains that that rule is based on there being a succession with cross-border implications. In addition, it is apparent from the heading of Article 4 of Regulation No 650/2012 that that provision is to govern the determination of the general jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States, while the allocation of jurisdiction at national level is to be established according to national rules, in accordance with Article 2 of that regulation. (see paras 34-36) 2. See the text of the decision. (see paras 43, 44) 3. As was noted by the Advocate General in point 90 of his Opinion, the European Certificate of Succession, which was created by Regulation No 650/2012, is subject to an autonomous legal regime, established by the provisions of Chapter VI of that regulation. Against that background, the aim of Article 64 of that regulation is to explain that both courts and certain other authorities are to have jurisdiction to issue such a certificate of succession while also specifying, making reference to the rules of jurisdiction contained in Articles 4, 7, 10 and 11 of that regulation, the Member State in which the issuing of such a certificate is to take place. (see para. 46) 4. Article 4 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 precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that, although the deceased did not, at the time of death, have his habitual residence in that Member State, the courts of that Member State are to retain jurisdiction to issue national certificates of succession, in the context of a succession with cross-border implications, where the assets of the estate are located in that Member State or the deceased was a national of that Member State. As was recalled by the Advocate General in points 109 and 110 of his Opinion, the Court has thus already held that an interpretation of the rules of Regulation No 650/2012 which would lead to the fragmentation of the succession would be incompatible with the objectives pursued by that regulation (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 October 2017, Kubicka, C‑218/16, EU:C:2017:755, paragraph 57). Indeed, as one of those objectives is to establish a uniform regime applicable to successions with cross-border implications, achieving that objective involves harmonising the rules relating to the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States in both contentious and non-contentious proceedings. An interpretation of Article 4 of that regulation whereby that provision determines the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States as regards the procedures for issuing national certificates of succession seeks, in the interests of the sound administration of justice within the European Union, to achieve that objective, by limiting the risk of parallel proceedings before the courts of different Member States and of contradictions that may arise as a result. (see paras 56, 57, 59, operative part)