Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:217
Date: 2025-03-27
Language of the case: Polish
Court formation: Ninth Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Poland

Anonymised version 
Translation C-57/24 – 1 
Case C-57/24 [Ławida] i 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
26 January 2024 
Referring court: 
Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach (Poland) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
24 October 2023 
Appellant: 
BA 
BR 
  
ORDER 
24 October 2023 
The Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach III Wydział Cywilny Odwoławczy (Regional 
Court in Gliwice, Poland, 3rd Division, dealing with Civil Appeals) 
[…] 
following the hearing on 24 October 2023 in Gliwice of the case brought by BA 
[…] 
for the court to approve the heir being freed from the legal consequences of failure 
to submit, in a timely manner, a declaration of waiver of the succession 
as a result of the appellant’s appeal 
 
i This case has been given a fictitious name which does not correspond to the real name of either of the parties to the proceedings. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 10. 2023 – CASE C-57/24 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
against the order of the Sąd Rejonowy w Gliwicach (District Court in Gliwice, 
Poland) 
of 17 February 2022, […] decides: 
to refer the following question concerning the interpretation of the provisions of 
EU law to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling 
pursuant to Article 267 TFEU: 
Must Article 13 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 (OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107) be interpreted as meaning that it does not 
apply in a situation where, in addition to a declaration of waiver of the succession 
being received, that declaration must additionally be approved by a court in order 
to be effective pursuant to the laws of the Member State of habitual residence of 
the person submitting it, for instance where the declaration is submitted after the 
expiry of the deadline? 
GROUNDS 
for the order of 24 October 2023 – as a request for a preliminary ruling 
I. Subject matter of the present case 
1 The appellant BA, represented by her legal representative – her father BR – made 
an application for the court to approve her being freed from the legal 
consequences of failure to submit, in a timely manner, a declaration of waiver of 
the succession following the death of her relative ZJ, and submitted the relevant 
declaration at the same time. 
2 The testator died in Germany, where he also had his habitual residence at the time 
of his death. 
3 The appellant lives in Poland, as do other persons who were statutory heirs of the 
deceased, and who have already waived the succession. 
II. Provisions of national law relied on 
4 Pursuant to Article 1012 of the ustawa z dnia 23 kwietnia 1964 r. Kodeks cywilny 
(Civil Code of 23 April 1964, consolidated text: Dziennik Ustaw (Journal of 
Laws) of 2023, item 1610, ‘the CC’), an heir may either accept the succession 
without a limitation of liability for debts (simple acceptance), or accept the 
succession with a limitation of that liability (acceptance with the benefit of 
inventory), or else waive the succession. 
ŁAWIDA 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
5 Pursuant to Article 1015 of the CC, a declaration concerning the acceptance or 
waiver of the succession may be made within six months following the day on 
which the heir becomes aware of his or her entitlement (paragraph 1). The absence 
of the heir’s declaration within the time limit set forth in paragraph 1 is 
tantamount to acceptance of the succession with the benefit of inventory 
(paragraph 2). 
6 Pursuant to Article 1018 of the CC, a declaration concerning the acceptance or 
waiver of the succession made on condition or with the reservation of a time limit 
is invalid (paragraph 1). A declaration concerning the acceptance or waiver of the 
succession may not be revoked (paragraph 2). A declaration concerning the 
acceptance or waiver of the succession must be made before a court of law or 
before a notary public. It may be made orally or in writing with an officially 
certified signature. The power of attorney for making the declaration concerning 
the acceptance or waiver of the succession must be made in writing with an 
officially certified signature (paragraph 3). 
7 Therefore, according to Polish law, a declaration of waiver of the succession may 
be made before a court. Article 640 of the ustawa z dnia 17 listopada 1964 r. 
Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Code of Civil Procedure of 17 November 1964, 
consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2023, item 1550, ‘the CCP’) determines the 
territorial jurisdiction of the court, stipulating that a declaration of simple 
acceptance of the succession, a declaration of acceptance of the succession with 
the benefit of inventory or a declaration of waiver of the succession may be made 
before a notary public or before the district court in whose district the person 
making the declaration is domiciled or resident. The notary public or the court 
immediately forwards the declaration, together with attachments, to the probate 
court (paragraph 1). The declarations referred to in the first paragraph may also be 
submitted to the probate court in the course of proceedings to determine the rights 
to the succession (paragraph 2). 
8 Pursuant to Article 628 of the CCP, the probate court – that is to say, the court 
before which succession proceedings should take place if Polish courts have 
jurisdiction over the matter – is the court of the last place of habitual residence of 
the testator, and if his or her place of habitual residence in Poland cannot be 
determined, the court of the place where the estate or part thereof is located (court 
of the estate). If none of the above can be determined, the probate court is the sąd 
rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy (District Court for the Capital City of Warsaw, 
Poland). 
9 Under Article 1020 of the Civil Code, an heir who has waived the succession is 
excluded from it as if he or she had predeceased the opening of the succession. 
10 A declaration concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession is a 
declaration of intent that does not have a designated addressee and has legal 
effect, if made within the statutory time limit, following its submission to a court 
or to a notary public. Pursuant to Article 1015(1) of the CC, the deadline for 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 10. 2023 – CASE C-57/24 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
making a declaration concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession is a 
mandatory time limit under substantive law, which means that upon its expiry, the 
right to exercise that individual right expires, and a declaration submitted after the 
deadline has no legal effect. The expiry of the deadline is taken into account ex 
officio and it cannot be extended (see order of the Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme 
Court, Poland) of 13 December 2012, Ref. No V CSK 18/12 […]). 
11 It is only possible – albeit in strictly defined and enumerated situations – to be 
freed from the legal consequences of failure to submit, in a timely manner, a 
declaration of waiver of the succession or its acceptance with a limitation of 
liability. Indeed, pursuant to Article 1019(1) of the CC, if a declaration concerning 
the acceptance or waiver of the succession has been made in error or under 
coercion, the provisions on defects in the declaration of intent apply with the 
following modifications: 
1) the heir must apply to be freed from the legal consequences of the 
declaration to a court of law; 
2) the heir should at the same time declare whether and in what manner he or 
she accepts or waives the succession. 
Pursuant to Article 1019(2) of the CC, an heir who, in error or under coercion, 
failed to make a declaration within the time limit, may be freed from the legal 
consequences of his or her failure to observe the deadline in the above manner. 
12 What is significant for the case at hand is that pursuant to Article 1019(3) of 
the CC, being freed from the legal consequences of the declaration 
concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession requires the approval 
of a court. 
13 In the case at hand, the appellant, relying on the above provision, requested 
the court to approve her being freed from the legal consequences of failure to 
submit, as a result of an error, a declaration of waiver of the succession 
following the death of ZJ within the stipulated six-month time limit, and thus 
requested that the court assess in substantive terms whether her failure to 
submit the declaration within the stipulated deadline was indeed the result of 
an error, and submitted that declaration at the same time. 
III. Jurisdiction 
14 Pursuant to 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 (OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107) (‘the regulation’), the courts of the 
Member State in which the deceased had his habitual residence at the time of 
death have jurisdiction to rule on the succession as a whole. 
ŁAWIDA 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
15 However, under the special provision of Article 13 of the regulation, in addition to 
the court having jurisdiction to rule on the succession pursuant to the regulation, 
the courts of the Member State of the habitual residence of any person who, under 
the law applicable to the succession, may make, before a court, a declaration 
concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession, of a legacy or of a reserved 
share, or a declaration designed to limit the liability of the person concerned in 
respect of the liabilities under the succession, have jurisdiction to receive such 
declarations where, under the law of that Member State, such declarations may be 
made before a court. 
16 It is therefore beyond doubt that where a declaration concerning the acceptance or 
waiver of the succession is submitted within the stipulated six-month time limit, 
the courts of the Member State of the habitual residence of any person who, under 
the law applicable to the succession, may make, before a court, a declaration 
concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession, also have jurisdiction. 
In such a case, pursuant to Article 28 of the regulation, a declaration concerning 
the acceptance or waiver of the succession, of a legacy or of a reserved share, or a 
declaration designed to limit the liability of the person making the declaration, is 
valid as to form where it meets the requirements of: (a) the law applicable to the 
succession pursuant to Article 21 or Article 22; or (b) the law of the State in which 
the person making the declaration has his or her habitual residence. 
17 Pursuant to Article 15 of the regulation, where a court of a Member State is seised 
of a succession matter over which it has no jurisdiction under the regulation, it 
shall declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction. 
18 Pursuant to Article 1099 of the CCP, the court is required to consider, of its own 
motion and at all stages of the proceedings, whether the national courts have 
jurisdiction. If the court finds that there is no national jurisdiction, it must reject 
the application or motion subject to Article 1104(2) or Article 1105(6) 
(paragraph 1), which are not applicable in the case at hand. A finding that the 
national courts have no jurisdiction constitutes a ground of invalidity of the 
proceedings (paragraph 2). 
IV. Doubts raised by the referring court 
19 As the testator had his habitual residence in Germany at the time of his death, 
under the general rule laid down in Article 4 of the regulation, the jurisdiction to 
rule on his succession as a whole lies in principle with the German courts. 
The referring court is not aware of any proceedings pending before the German 
courts regarding the testator’s estate. 
The appellant, who has her habitual residence in Poland, did not initiate any such 
proceedings. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 10. 2023 – CASE C-57/24 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
She only made an application for the Polish court to approve her being freed from 
the legal consequences of failure to submit, in a timely manner, a declaration of 
waiver of the succession, and submitted that declaration at the same time. 
20 Pursuant to Article 13 of the regulation, as an exception to the aforementioned 
rule, in addition to the German court, which has jurisdiction to rule on the 
testator’s succession under Article 4 of the regulation, Polish courts have 
jurisdiction to receive declarations of waiver of the succession from persons who 
are habitually resident in Poland. 
21 The problem in the case at hand is whether the jurisdiction laid down in 
Article 13 of the regulation also covers cases in which receiving such a 
declaration entails the need, due to its late submission, to approve the 
declaration in order for it to have the legal effect of excluding from 
inheritance an heir who waives the succession of the testator concerned. 
22 A narrow interpretation of the concept of ‘receiving’ a declaration referred to in 
Article 13, as an act which is essentially technical in nature, amounting to the 
receipt of the declaration by the court, leads to the conclusion that the courts of the 
Member State of habitual residence of the person making the declaration of 
waiver of the succession only have jurisdiction to that extent. On this 
interpretation, the alternative path, which is open to the legal successor in terms of 
the rules of jurisdiction and conflict-of-laws rules in the place of his or her 
habitual residence, does not include declarations that are not just submitted, but 
must also be approved by the probate court, such as a declaration that the heir 
wishes to be freed from the legal consequences of failure to submit, in a timely 
manner, a declaration of waiver of the succession. In those circumstances, it 
should be assumed that such declarations may be submitted, pursuant to the rules 
on succession, exclusively before the authorities that have jurisdiction over the 
case under Article 4 of the regulation. 
23 That is the interpretation favoured by the Advocate General in his opinion 
submitted on 20 January 2022 in Case C-617/20; in the opinion, the Advocate 
General agrees with the views expressed in the legal literature that Article 13 of 
Regulation No 650/2012 should be interpreted as not applying in a situation 
where, in order to produce certain legal effects provided for in the law applicable 
to the succession, the court must take measures which go beyond the mere 
acceptance of the declaration, such as, for instance, issuing a ruling or instituting 
other proceedings (see points 38 and 39 of the opinion). 
In its judgment of 2 June 2022, the Court of Justice did not address this issue, as it 
was not the subject of the question referred in Case C-617/20. 
24 […] 
25 It should also […] be stated that the scope of the jurisdiction set forth in Article 13 
of the regulation is not clear, yet it concerns an issue that is important also from 
the practical point of view. 
ŁAWIDA 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
26 Admittedly, in accordance with the general rules of interpretation, the scope of 
jurisdiction provided for in Article 13 of the regulation, as an exception to the rule 
provided for in Article 4 thereof, should be interpreted restrictively. 
27 However, it should be pointed out that according to the settled case-law of the 
Court, it follows from the need for uniform application of EU law and from the 
principle of equality that the terms of a provision of EU law which makes no 
express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining 
its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform 
interpretation throughout the European Union; that interpretation must take into 
account not only its wording but also its context and the objective pursued by the 
legislation in question (judgments of 1 March 2018, Mahnkopf, C-558/16, 
EU:C:2018:138, paragraph 32, and of 9 September 2021, UM (Contract 
transferring ownership mortis causa), C-277/20, EU:C:2021:708, paragraph 29). 
28 Meanwhile, Article 13 of the regulation, read in the light of recital 32 thereof, 
aims to simplify procedures for heirs and legatees by providing a derogation from 
the rules of jurisdiction set out in Articles 4 to 11 of that regulation (judgment of 
21 June 2018, Oberle, C-20/17, EU:C:2018:485, paragraph 42). 
Moreover, bearing in mind that it follows from recital 67 of the regulation that in 
order for a succession with cross-border implications within the Union to be 
settled speedily, smoothly and efficiently, the heirs should be able to demonstrate 
easily their status and/or rights and powers, it appears that it may be argued that 
the scope of the court’s competence under Article 13 of Regulation 650/2012 
includes not only actions related to receiving the declaration referred to in that 
provision, but also other actions reserved for the court in such proceedings, 
including the court’s approval for the heir being freed from the legal consequences 
of failure to submit, in a timely manner, a declaration of waiver of the succession. 
Such an interpretation is also possible given the objective of the regulation, which, 
according to recital 7, is intended to facilitate the proper functioning of the 
internal market by removing the obstacles to the free movement of persons who 
wish to assert their rights in the context of a succession having cross-border 
implications. In particular, in the European area of justice, the rights of heirs and 
legatees, of other persons close to the deceased and of creditors of the estate must 
be effectively guaranteed (see judgments of 1 March 2018, Mahnkopf, C-558/16, 
EU:C:2018:138, paragraph 35, and of 1 July 2021, Vorarlberger Landes- und 
Hypotheken-Bank, C-301/20, EU:C:2018:528, paragraphs 27 and 34). 
Moreover, it can be pointed out that in its case-law, the Court of Justice has 
already indicated the existence of individual rights which do not directly arise 
from the literal wording of legislation (for example, the passenger’s right to 
compensation also in the event of a flight delay – see judgment of 19 November 
2009, Sturgeon and others, Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07, 
EU:C:2009:716, paragraph 69). 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 24. 10. 2023 – CASE C-57/24 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
29 Admittedly, recital 33 of the regulation indicates that it should not be possible for 
a person who wishes to limit his or her liability for the debts under the succession 
to do so by a mere declaration to that effect before the courts or other competent 
authorities of the Member State of his habitual residence where the law applicable 
to the succession requires him or her to initiate specific legal proceedings, for 
instance inventory proceedings, before the competent court, and that a declaration 
made in such circumstances by a person in the Member State of his or her habitual 
residence in the form provided for by the law of that Member State should 
therefore not be formally valid for the purposes of the regulation, nor should the 
documents instituting the legal proceedings be regarded as declarations for the 
purposes of the regulation. 
30 It should be noted, however, that Regulation No 650/2012 distinguishes between a 
‘declaration concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession’ and a 
‘declaration designed to limit the liability of the person concerned in respect of the 
liabilities under the succession’. This is clearly indicated, for instance, in the 
wording of Article 13 itself, which provides for the possibility of a person making 
before a court in the Member State of his or her habitual residence ‘a declaration 
concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession, of a legacy or of a reserved 
share, or a declaration designed to limit the liability of the person concerned in 
respect of the liabilities under the succession’. 
31 The principles of proper legislation and the reasonable legislator standard indicate 
that if different terms are used in a legal act, then they have different meanings, 
content and legal consequences attached to them. 
32 Meanwhile, recital 33, cited above, which limits the scope of the jurisdiction 
provided for in Article 13 of the regulation, literally applies only to declarations 
designed to limit the liability of the person concerned in respect of the liabilities 
under the succession – which declarations entail, as a rule, the need for the court 
to take further actions as a consequence of the declaration made, such as, for 
instance, initiating inventory proceedings – and does not apply to a declaration of 
waiver of the succession, which does not entail the need to initiate further 
proceedings, but only possible approval if the declaration is made after the expiry 
of the provided deadline, and the appellant in the present case requests precisely 
such approval. 
33 […] 
34 An answer resulting in a narrow interpretation of the jurisdiction laid down in 
Article 13 of the regulation will result in the court finding ex officio, pursuant to 
Article 15 of the regulation, that it has no jurisdiction, and the application that 
initiated the proceedings in the present case will be rejected pursuant to 
Article 1099(1) of the CCP.