Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2024-12-13; III Cp 1834/2024
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2024:III.CP.1834.2024
Date: 2024-12-13
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82024SI1213(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerned the jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts in succession proceedings where parallel proceedings were pending in another Member State.
The Okrajno sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) declared that it lacked jurisdiction, relying on Article 17 of the Succession Regulation (1). It reasoned that succession proceedings concerning the same estate and the same parties were already pending in Croatia, where the notary, acting as a court-appointed official, had convened a succession hearing.
The heir appealed, arguing that the deceased had been a Slovenian citizen with both registered and actual residence in Slovenia, and that all heirs were Slovenian citizens.
The Court of Appeal held that jurisdiction must be determined solely under the Succession Regulation. Under Article 14, succession proceedings begin ex officio when the competent authority receives the death certificate or equivalent document; in both Slovenia and Croatia, proceedings are initiated in this manner. The case file showed that the Croatian authority was the first seised, as the Croatian notary had issued invitations to the succession hearing several months before the Slovenian court received the death certificate.
Accordingly, under Article 17 of the Regulation, the Slovenian court should have stayed its proceedings until the Croatian authorities either declare themselves not competent or conclude the succession proceedings. The Court of First Instance erred in immediately declaring a lack of jurisdiction, as no Croatian authority had yet made a decision on competence.
The Court of Appeal further recalled that Article 4 of the Regulation designates the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death as the principal connecting factor. If the deceased’s habitual residence was in Slovenia—as alleged by the parties—jurisdiction would lie with the Slovenian courts, and the Croatian authorities would be required under Article 15 to declare of their own motion that they lack jurisdiction. However, such a declaration had not yet been issued.
Consequently, the Court of First Instance should not have declared a lack of its jurisdiction, but should have stayed the proceedings pending the decision of the Croatian court.
For these reasons, the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal, annulled the impugned decision and remitted the case to the Court of First Instance for a new procedure.
(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.