Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2022:876
Date: 2022-11-10
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Translation C-651/21 – 1 
Case C-651/21 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
25 October 2021 
Referring court: 
Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
25 October 2021 
Applicant in the main proceedings: 
M. Ya. M. 
  
ORDER 
[…] 
THE SOFIYSKI RAYONEN SAD (District Court, Sofia), […] 
[…] 
having examined civil case No […], held as follows: 
The proceedings are based on Article 267 TFEU. 
1 The proceedings concern the referral of questions of interpretation to the Court of 
Justice of the European Union (‘the Court’) in relation to the obligations of 
national courts in the registration by courts which do not in principle have 
jurisdiction in proceedings concerning matters of succession under Regulation 
(EU) No 650/2012 […] of declarations of acceptance or waiver of a succession. 
Specifically, those questions arise in relation to the possibilities and obligations to 
register such declarations of acceptance or waiver of a succession with a court that 
appears to have jurisdiction over all matters of succession under the general rules, 
after they have already been registered once by a court having jurisdiction under 
Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […]. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 10. 2021 – CASE C-651/21 
 
2  
PARTIES TO THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS: 
2 Applicant: M. Ya. M., residing in Bulgaria […] 
[…] 
3 The applicant submits that he is the heir of his grandmother M. T. G., who died on 
29 March 2019, but requests that the court register the declaration of another 
person, the Greek national H. H. – husband of his deceased grandmother. 
FACTS OF THE DISPUTE 
4 The proceedings were instituted […] on the application of M. Ya. M., who claims 
to have become the heir of M. T. G., a Bulgarian national, who died […] in 
Greece, and submits a certificate of succession issued by the Bulgarian authorities. 
The place where the deceased was last habitually resident has not been established 
in the proceedings, and the court can obtain information regarding that matter only 
if it finds that it has jurisdiction to register, a second time, the waiver that has 
already been effected (see paragraph 6 below). 
5 According to the certificate submitted, the designated heirs of the deceased […] 
testatrix M. T. G. are her husband – the Greek national H. H. – her daughter I. M. 
N. and her grandson – the applicant M. Ya. M. 
6 However, the applicant’s request does not seek the registration of his personal 
declaration of acceptance or waiver of the succession, but the registration of the 
waiver of the succession by H. H. A record of the civil case […] of the 
Magistrate’s Court, Athens, Hellenic Republic, was submitted in the proceedings, 
stating that the husband of the deceased M. G. T. appeared before that court on 
28 June 2019 and declared his waiver of the succession. According to the request, 
the husband of the deceased testatrix stated that she had last resided in the town of 
H., region of Attica, Greece. 
7 The applicant M. Ya. M. is not acting as an authorised representative of the 
husband H. H., but submits that his interest in the registration of the waiver is that 
of an heir of equal status, since the registration of that waiver would increase his 
share in the inheritance. 
PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL LAW and CASE-LAW OF NATIONAL 
COURTS RELIED ON: 
Zakon za nasledstvoto (Law on succession, ‘the ZN’, published in the 
‘Darzhaven vestnik’ [Bulgarian Official Journal; ‘DV’] No 22 of 29 January 1949, 
last amended: DV No 47 of 23 June 2009): 
8 ‘Article 1. Succession shall open at the time of death of the deceased, at his or her 
last place of residence. 
M. YA. M. 
 
3 
9 Article 5. (1) The children of the deceased shall inherit in equal shares. 
10 Article 9. (1) The spouse and each child shall inherit in equal shares. 
11 Article 10. (1) Descendants of the deceased who died before the latter or who 
have been disqualified by conduct shall be replaced in the intestate succession by 
their descendants, without any limitation as to degree. 
12 Article 48. Succession shall take place upon acceptance. Acceptance shall take 
effect upon the opening of the succession. 
13 Article 49. (1) Acceptance may be effected by written declaration made to the 
judge at the Rayonen sad (district court) in whose district the succession is 
opened; in that case, the acceptance shall be entered in a book specifically 
intended for that purpose. 
14 Article 51. (1) At the request of any interested party, the judge of the district 
court, after summoning the person entitled to inherit, shall set a time limit for the 
latter to make a declaration of acceptance or waiver of the succession. If 
proceedings have been brought against the heir, that time limit shall be set by the 
court before which the proceedings have been brought. 
15 (2) If the heir fails to respond within the time limit given to him or her, he or she 
shall lose the right to accept the succession. 
16 (3) The heir’s declaration shall be registered in the book provided for in 
Article 49(1). 
17 Article 52. Waiver shall be effected in accordance with the procedure provided 
for in Article 49(1); it shall be registered in accordance with the same procedure.’ 
Grazhdanski protsesualen kodeks (Code of Civil Procedure; ‘the GPK’; 
published in DV No 59 of 20 July 2007, entered into force on 1 March 2008; last 
amended: DV No 15 of 19 February 2021): 
18 ‘Article 26. (1) Parties to civil proceedings shall be the persons on whose behalf 
and against whom the proceedings are brought. 
(2) Except in the cases provided for by law, no person may assert third-party 
rights before a court in his or her own name. 
19 Article 118. (1) Each court shall decide itself if the proceedings brought before it 
come under its jurisdiction. 
(2) If the court finds that the proceedings do not come under its jurisdiction, it 
shall refer them to the court having jurisdiction. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 10. 2021 – CASE C-651/21 
 
4  
20 Article 530. Proceedings in matters of non-contentious jurisdiction which are 
provided for by this or any other law shall be governed by the rules of this 
Chapter, except where special rules are laid down. 
21 Article 531. (1) Proceedings in matters of non-contentious jurisdiction shall be 
instituted by a written application of the person concerned. 
22 Article 532. The application shall be heard in closed session unless the court 
considers that the correct resolution of the case requires that it be heard in open 
court. 
23 Article 533. The court is obliged to examine, of its own motion, whether the 
requirements for the decision sought are met. It may, of its own motion, take 
evidence and take into account facts which the applicant has not presented. 
24 Article 540. In addition to the general provisions of this Code of Civil Procedure, 
the provisions relating to contentious proceedings shall apply mutatis mutandis to 
proceedings in matters of non-contentious jurisdiction, with the exception of 
Articles 207 to 266 and Articles 303 to 388.[’] 
Pravilnik za administratsiata v sadilishtata (Regulations on Court 
Administration, issued by the Vissh sadeben savet [Supreme Judicial Council, 
Bulgaria], published in DV No 68 of 22 August 2017, last amended and 
supplemented: DV No 91 of 23 October 2020): 
25 ‘Article 39. (1) The following books and registers shall be kept at the registry in 
electronic and/or paper form: … 
11. a book of acceptance or waiver of succession; 
26 Article 49. The book of acceptance or waiver of succession shall be kept in 
accordance with Article 49 of the Law on succession.’ 
Order No 60082 of 14 June 2021 of the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme 
Court of Cassation, Bulgaria) […], 1st Civil Division […]: 
27 According to Article 118(1) of the GPK, each court is to decide itself if the 
proceedings brought before it come under its jurisdiction. An error by a party in 
determining jurisdiction is not penalised in the GPK in such a way as to constitute 
an obstacle to legal protection and does not deprive the party of the right to seek 
protection and support. According to Article 118(2) of the GPK, if the court finds 
that a case does not come under its jurisdiction, it is to refer it to the court having 
jurisdiction. In that event, the case is to be considered pending before the court 
with jurisdiction from the day on which the application was lodged with the court 
without jurisdiction and the proceedings conducted by the latter are to remain 
effective. 
M. YA. M. 
 
5 
28 The procedure for the acceptance of succession on the basis of an inventory under 
Article 61 of the ZN is a matter of non-contentious jurisdiction. In the case of 
matters not covered by the rules on proceedings in matters of non-contentious 
jurisdiction, the provision of Article 540 of the GPK provides for the applicability 
of the general rules on contentious proceedings, whereby Article 118 of the GPK 
is not among the exceptions expressly provided for. 
29 According to the first sentence of Article 61(1) of the ZN, acceptance of the 
succession on the basis of an inventory must be declared in writing to the judge at 
the district court within a period of three months of the heir becoming aware of 
the opening of the succession. The provision does not specify which court has 
local jurisdiction in respect of a declaration of acceptance of a succession on the 
basis of an inventory. In accordance with the first alternative of Article 49(1) of 
the ZN, the judge at the district court in whose district the succession is opened 
has such jurisdiction. According to Article 1 of the ZN, the succession is opened 
at the last place of residence of the deceased. 
30 It is possible that the succession will consist of assets located in the districts of 
different district courts. In that case, too, the court having local jurisdiction is to 
be determined in accordance with the provision in the first alternative of 
Article 49(1) of the ZN. The purpose of this is to ensure that the acceptances of a 
succession (and waivers of a succession – Article 52 of the ZN) in a given 
succession case are concentrated at the district court of the place where the 
succession is opened. If, proceeding from the place where the assets are located, 
the person summoned to the succession requests registration of the acceptance of 
the succession on the basis of an inventory in the districts of two courts, one of 
which does not coincide with the district in which the succession was opened, it 
cannot be assumed that they are declarations of acceptance of parts of the 
succession, as such acceptance would be ineffective under Article 54 of the ZN. 
This would constitute an error in the determination of jurisdiction due to a failure 
to comply with the provision in the first alternative of Article 49(1), whereby the 
court wrongly seised must refer the request to the court having local jurisdiction.’ 
Order No 315 of 23 June 2015 of the Supreme Court of Cassation […], 1st 
Civil Division, […]: 
31 ‘Acceptance and waiver of a succession are unilateral and irrevocable declarations 
of will; they are highly personal in nature and depend entirely on the personal 
judgement of the person summoned to the succession. For that reason, it is not 
permissible to authorise the creditors of the summoned heir to accept the 
succession under the provision of Article 134 of the Zakon za zadalzheniata i 
dogovorite (Law on obligations and contracts; ‘the ZZD’). 
32 If the summoned heir has not accepted the succession and has been set a time limit 
in accordance with Article 51 of the ZN, he or she must declare his or her will 
personally and independently. For that reason, the application of the fictions 
provided for in the GPK in accordance with Articles 40 and 41 of the GPK, as 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 10. 2021 – CASE C-651/21 
 
6  
well as summoning by affixing a notification at the address of the person 
concerned or by means of [publication in] the ‘Darzhaven vestnik’ (Bulgarian 
Official Journal), which presuppose the appointment of a special representative, is 
excluded in the proceedings under Article 51 of the ZN. The special representative 
would not be able to make a declaration of will as to whether the heir accepts or 
waives the succession, which depends entirely on the personal discretion of the 
summoned heir and affects his or her financial position. It should be borne in 
mind that the purpose of the law is to strike a balance between the interests of all 
persons concerned without limiting or impairing the right to accept a succession.’ 
CONNECTION WITH EU LAW. NEED FOR AN INTERPRETATION 
33 Several questions arise for the referring court in the present case, the first of which 
concerns the possibility to register the waiver of a succession by one heir at the 
request of another. The possibility of such a request arose after the introduction of 
the provision of Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […], which 
comprehensively regulates jurisdiction in matters of succession in the European 
Union. That provision introduced subsidiary jurisdiction (in derogation from the 
other provisions of the regulation) for the courts of the place of habitual residence 
of the heirs, enabling those courts to register the acceptance and waiver of a 
succession in cases where the habitual residence of the deceased was not located 
in another State. 
34 Thus, a conflict of jurisdictions arises, since, under the general rules of the 
regulation, jurisdiction is determined by the habitual residence of the deceased and 
not by that of the heir. The court which rules on matters of succession is in 
principle that of the place where the deceased was last habitually resident, but 
there is a possibility that it may not be aware of registrations of waivers and 
acceptances of the succession effected before the courts of the place of habitual 
residence of the heirs. 
35 In that respect, the regulation creates a gap in the legal regime, as it provides for 
concurrent (or supplementary) jurisdiction of the courts of different States – those 
of the place in which the deceased was last habitually resident and those of the 
place in which the heirs were last habitually resident – but does not oblige the 
latter courts to notify the court having jurisdiction in principle of waivers and 
acceptances that have been effected. 
36 The absence of such a procedural obligation is not in line with the approach of the 
Bulgarian legislature and the case-law of the national courts cited above, in 
accordance with which all declarations of acceptance and waiver of a succession 
must be registered in one place in a single court register from which relevant 
information can be provided. That approach is in line with the requirement to 
ensure legal certainty, as one of the principles of EU law which must operate in 
the application of Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […]. In the present 
case, legal certainty is created by the possibility to store all data on the acceptance 
M. YA. M. 
 
7 
and waiver of a person’s succession in one place, as established as one of the 
purposes of the regulation in recital 23 thereof. 
37 Since such an obligation to notify is not expressly provided for in the text of 
Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […], the question for the referring court is what is 
the nature of the proceedings before it. The applicant in the present proceedings 
does not wish to have his own waiver of the succession of the deceased registered, 
but that of one of the other heirs. Bulgarian law does not provide for such a 
procedure, and the principle of personal protection of rights before a court, 
enshrined in Article 26(2) and Article 531(1) of the GPK, does not permit the 
registration of declarations of other persons in the book intended for acceptances 
and waivers of successions pursuant to Article 49(1) of the ZN. 
38 Therefore, the referring court must first determine whether the provision of 
Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 650/201[2] […] provides for an implicit 
prohibition on having a waiver of a succession effected in the State of the heir’s 
habitual residence registered again with the court of another Member State in 
which the deceased may have been habitually resident. It would appear that the 
registration of two waivers or two declarations containing different content – a 
waiver and an acceptance of a succession – should not be permissible in order to 
ensure that contradictory declarations cannot be registered. On the other hand, a 
contravention of the system under which all acceptances and waivers of a 
succession are to be registered in one place, as enshrined in Bulgarian law, does 
not appear to be in line with the spirit of the principle of the protection of legal 
certainty, as a principle of EU law. 
39 If the question posed above is answered in the negative, and jurisdiction under 
Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […] does not preclude a subsequent 
registration of an acceptance or waiver of a succession in another State of the 
European Union, it will be necessary to answer the question as to which person 
may request such a registration. This is because Bulgarian procedural law does not 
provide for the possibility for a waiver of a succession already registered in 
another State to be registered with a Bulgarian court; such a declaration can be 
made only by the heir in person. Therefore, the question arises as to whether an 
heir may request to have a waiver by another heir which was registered in the 
State in which the latter is habitually resident registered in the State where the 
deceased may have habitually resided, even though there is no express procedural 
rule for this in the latter State. 
40 The referring court takes the view that the effective application of Article 13 of 
Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […], taking into account the regulatory purpose 
stated in recital 32 – in accordance with which the acceptance or waiver of a 
succession should not require the heir to travel to the State in which the deceased 
was habitually resident and to appoint an authorised representative in that State – 
requires that any heir may request the registration of a waiver previously effected 
in another State. In the present case, that would make it possible to exclude the 
application of Bulgarian procedural law, because it would be necessary to exclude 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 10. 2021 – CASE C-651/21 
 
8  
the principle of procedural autonomy of the Member States in order to ensure the 
effective application of the provision cited at the beginning of the paragraph. 
41 The contrary view – according to which it is permissible for a waiver by an heir to 
be simultaneously registered both in the State in which he or she is habitually 
resident and in the State in which the deceased was habitually resident at the time 
of his or her death, but such registration can be requested only by the heir waving 
the succession – would render the provision of Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 
No 650/2012 […] meaningless. This is because ensuring legal certainty by storing 
the data on all registered acceptances and waivers in one place would require all 
heirs to make their personal declarations in one place, thereby depriving the 
regulation of its purpose. On the other hand, the States are obliged to cooperate in 
the application of EU law pursuant to Article 4(3) [TEU], with the result that it is 
necessary that decisions of one Member State given in application of EU law can 
be registered in other Member States. 
OBSERVATIONS OF THE REFERRING COURT: 
42 A major difficulty for the referring court is that of determining whether it is seised 
of a request by a proper party to the proceedings, who is not the person waiving 
the succession. In principle, Bulgarian procedural law ensures that waivers and 
acceptances of successions are registered only at the request of the person 
declaring them. The present case concerns a special situation, however, due to the 
possible necessity to register a waiver that has already been effected. 
43 As regards the first question referred, the referring court takes the view that it 
should be permissible for more than one waiver of a succession to be registered in 
several States, as this relieves the burden on the parties concerned, who do not 
have to arrange for the translation of multiple court decisions and then send them 
by post to another State. On the other hand, the registration of several waivers 
does not affect legal certainty so seriously, since the legal systems of the States 
provide for rules governing the procedure to be followed in the event of several 
successive declarations of acceptance or waiver and, in the event of a dispute 
concerning the rights of succession, the court seised of a request can decide on the 
legal effects of the waivers and acceptances effected, taking into account the order 
in which they were effected. 
44 Moreover, as regards the second question referred, the referring court takes the 
view that there is a lacuna in the text of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012, since it 
does not contain an obligation for the court which has jurisdiction only to register 
waivers of a succession effected by the heirs to forward its judicial decision to the 
court having jurisdiction in all matters of succession under the general rules of the 
regulation. For that reason, and in order to avoid disputes between heirs and to 
take account of the registered will of the person waiving the succession, it should 
be permissible for that will to be entered in the registers of the last habitual 
residence of the deceased at the request of any heir. 
M. YA. M. 
 
9 
QUESTIONS REFERRED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING: 
45 In the light of the foregoing, the proceedings in the present case must be stayed 
and the following questions on the interpretation of Article 13 of Regulation (EU) 
No 650/2012 […] must be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union 
for a preliminary ruling: 
46 (1) Is Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […], read in conjunction with 
the principle of the protection of legal certainty, to be interpreted as precluding, 
after an heir has already had registered with a court of the State in which he or she 
is habitually resident his or her acceptance or waiver of the succession of a 
deceased person who was habitually resident in another State of the European 
Union at the time of his or her death, a request to have that waiver or acceptance 
subsequently registered in the latter State? 
47 (2) If the answer to the first question is that such registration is permissible, is 
Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […], read in conjunction with the 
principles of the protection of legal certainty and the effective implementation of 
EU law, and the obligation of cooperation between States under Article 4(3) 
[TEU], to be interpreted as permitting a request for the registration of a waiver of 
the succession of a deceased person effected by an heir in the State in which he or 
she is habitually resident by another heir residing in the State in which the 
deceased was habitually resident at the time of his or her death, irrespective of the 
fact that the procedural law of the latter State does not provide for the possibility 
to have a waiver of a succession registered on behalf of another person? 
On those grounds, the District Court, Sofia […] hereby makes the following 
ORDER: 
48 THE PROCEEDINGS in the civil case […] ARE STAYED pending the ruling 
of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the questions set out below 
pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 267 TFEU. 
49 The following questions ARE REFERRED TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE 
OF THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING pursuant to 
Article 267 TFEU: 
50 1. Is Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […], read in conjunction with the 
principle of the protection of legal certainty, to be interpreted as precluding, after 
an heir has already had registered with a court of the State in which he or she is 
habitually resident his or her acceptance or waiver of the succession of a deceased 
person who was habitually resident in another State of the European Union at the 
time of his or her death, a request to have that waiver or acceptance subsequently 
registered in the latter State? 
51 2. If the answer to the first question is that such registration is permissible, is 
Article 13 of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 […], read in conjunction with the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 25. 10. 2021 – CASE C-651/21 
 
10  
principles of the protection of legal certainty and the effective implementation of 
EU law, and the obligation of cooperation between States under Article 4(3) 
[TEU], to be interpreted as permitting a request for the registration of a waiver of 
the succession of a deceased person effected by an heir in the State in which he or 
she is habitually resident by another heir residing in the State in which the 
deceased was habitually resident at the time of his or her death, irrespective of the 
fact that the procedural law of the latter State does not provide for the possibility 
to have a waiver of a succession registered on behalf of another person? 
[…] [information on court administration] 
[…]. [information on rights of appeal] 
[…] [signature] […]