Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2025-06-09; III Cp 735/2025
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2025:III.CP.735.2025
Date: 2025-06-09
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82025SI0609(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, decided by the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerned international jurisdiction in succession proceedings and, in particular, the determination of the deceased’s habitual residence at the time of death.
The Court of First Instance held that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on the succession to A. A. after finding that the deceased had been habitually resident in Germany at the time of death. It therefore held that the courts of that Member State had jurisdiction over the succession as a whole.
One of the heirs (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) appealed, submitting that the deceased had lived in Slovenia for the last seven years of his life, had had permanent residence there, and had left assets consisting of funds held in bank accounts and a motor vehicle.
The Court of Appeal held that, since both Germany and Slovenia are Member States of the European Union, jurisdiction had to be assessed under the Succession Regulation (1). Under Article 4 thereof, jurisdiction in matters of succession lies with the courts of the Member State in which the deceased had his habitual residence at the time of death, and the succession as a whole is to be dealt with in a single set of proceedings, irrespective of where the assets are located. Referring to Recital 23 of the Succession Regulation, the Court of Appeal stated that habitual residence must be determined in the light of all the circumstances of the deceased’s life in the years preceding death and at the time of death, including in particular the duration and regularity of the deceased’s presence in the State concerned and the conditions and reasons for that presence.
The Court of Appeal further stressed that, although the court must examine international jurisdiction of its own motion, it cannot do so without the cooperation of the heirs, who must state the facts relevant to that assessment. In the present case, the Court of First Instance had requested the plaintiff to provide information relevant to the deceased’s habitual residence, including in which State he had lived in the last five years before his death, where he had spent most of his time, how often he had been in Slovenia, why he had had registered residence in Germany rather than in Slovenia, and whether succession proceedings were already pending in Germany. The plaintiff failed to reply within the time limit. In those circumstances, the Court of First Instance was entitled to assume that the deceased had his habitual residence in Germany. Under Article 15 of the Succession Regulation, the Court of First Instance correctly declared that it lacked jurisdiction.
The Court of Appeal also held that the plaintiff’s justification for not responding to the court’s request was not substantiated. Furthermore, the decision could not be altered by his assertion that the deceased had a permanent residence in Slovenia, as this assertion was found to be false. The bank statement sent by a German bank to an address in Slovenia likewise did not support a different conclusion regarding the deceased’s habitual residence.
The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Court of First Instance.
(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.