Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:376
Date: 2025-05-22
Language of the case: French
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary of the subject matter of the dispute 
1 XY, a French national, died on 29 July 2020 in Belgium, where she had 
established her habitual residence. 
2 She leaves as her heir her sister BC, a French national and French resident for tax 
purposes who resides in France. 
3 XY’s estate consists of movable and immovable property, located in both Belgium 
and France. 
4 The succession was opened by Mr Marchant, a notary in Uccle (Belgium), on 
12 October 2020. He drew up the certificate of inheritance on the same day. 
5 The matter was referred to SCP ATTAL & Associés, a notary in Paris (France), 
for it to draw up the declaration of succession in France. 
6 BC paid an advance of EUR 15 300 to be deducted from the French notary’s fee 
on 2 March 2021; the advance was calculated based on the estimate of the total of 
the gross assets of the estate to be declared, located in France and in Belgium, that 
is to say, EUR 2 750 000. 
7 The French declaration of succession was signed on 18 March and lodged on 
23 March 2021 at the competent registration authority. 
8 Mr Marchant, the Belgian notary, drew up the declaration of succession in 
Belgium on 24 April 2021, including all the assets located in both France and 
Belgium. 
9 BC paid the Belgian notary’s fee of EUR 16 621.30 (exclusive of tax), calculated 
on the basis of the total gross assets of the estate as determined by him, that is to 
say, EUR 2 838 422.41. 
10 The French notary applied to the registrar of the tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Court 
of Paris) to obtain a certificate of verification of the costs for the purposes of the 
taxation of his remuneration, consisting of his fee calculated based on the gross 
ATTAL ET ASSOCIÉS 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
assets declared in France (EUR 2 716 652.41) and disbursements in the amount of 
EUR 14 177.60. 
11 The registrar of the Court of Paris drew up the certificate of verification of the 
costs on 20 July 2022, which he calculated to be a sum of EUR 14 052.61, 
rejecting only the disbursements relating to copying and accepting the fee as 
calculated by the French notary based on the total gross assets of the estate. 
12 BC contested the certificate of verification of the costs by registered letter with 
acknowledgment of receipt received on 24 June 2022 at the registry of the Court 
of Paris. 
13 After several letters requesting observations, the parties were summonsed to 
appear at the hearing held on 28 September 2023. 
14 The case was deferred to the hearing of 7 December 2023, which BC attended in 
person and SCP ATTAL & Associés attended represented by its counsel. 
15 1. BC refers to her written pleadings and requests that the certificate of 
verification of the costs be set aside and a new certificate drawn up with the 
French notary’s fee calculated on the basis of EUR 660 331.87, representing the 
share of the gross assets located in France only. She therefore requests that the 
difference in the fee paid in advance be refunded. 
15.2.  She puts forward two pleas in law: 
(a) the basis for calculation of the notary’s fee must be the same as the basis for 
calculation of the fiscal charges; however, pursuant to the Franco-Belgian 
Convention of 20 January 1959, the tax base in France consists of the value of the 
assets located in France only; 
(b) the French notary’s remuneration, calculated on the basis of the total gross 
assets of the estate, without taking into account the remuneration of the Belgian 
notary, who is the notary with territorial jurisdiction to determine the succession 
as the deceased’s habitual residence is in Belgium, also calculated on the basis of 
the total gross assets of the estate, constitutes a restriction on the free movement 
of capital under Article 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union (TFEU) because it reduces the value of the estate. 
15.3.  BC does not contest the principle that the French notary should be 
remunerated for the declaration of succession, but simply the basis of that 
remuneration and therefore its amount. She has, moreover, paid for the other 
documents drawn up by the French notary, such as certificates of ownership, 
without raising any objection. 
16 1. SCP ATTAL & Associés refers to its written pleadings and requests that 
the certificate be confirmed and that the rejected amount of EUR 124.99 (incl. tax) 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 4. 2024 – CASE C-321/24 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
be included, namely that a sum of EUR 14 177.60 (incl. tax) is payable in total. In 
addition, it also applies for EUR 2 400 in procedural costs. 
16. 2. It takes the view that: 
(a) the basis for its fee must include all the assets of the estate, whether located 
in France or in another State; 
(b) the tax basis in fact consists of all the assets of the estate, whether located in 
France or in another State, but tax is payable only on the property located in 
France, in accordance with the Franco-Belgian Convention; 
(c) its fee, calculated on the basis of the value of the total gross assets of the 
estate located in France and in Belgium, is payable. 
17 17.1. Deliberations on the case began on 11 January 2024 and were then 
adjourned to 29 February 2024 to seek the observations of the parties on the 
possibility of a question being referred for a preliminary ruling regarding the plea 
in law raised by BC alleging infringement of Article 63 TFEU. 
17. 2. BC sent her observations by email received on 15 February 2024, stating 
that she was in favour of a question being referred for a preliminary ruling 
because it is lawful to ask about the compatibility with EU law of the double 
financial burden consisting in the two notaries’ fees. 
17. 3. SCP ATTAL & Associés stated that they had no observations to submit by 
email of 28 February 2024, requesting simply that any costs of referring a 
question for a preliminary ruling are not charged to it because the request was not 
made by it. 
18 The deliberations were adjourned to 4 April 2024. 
II- Applicable national law and case-law 
Procedural context of the referral 
19 The president of the relevant court or a judge delegated by him or her acts as the 
costs judge. A costs judge has jurisdiction to hear and determine challenges to the 
certificates of verification of the costs listed in Article 695 of the code de 
procédure civile (Code of Civil Procedure) in accordance with procedure laid 
down in Articles 704 to 718 of that code. He or she also has jurisdiction to rule on 
challenges related to the fees charged by officers of the court or by court or public 
officials, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Articles 719 to 721 of the 
Code of Civil Procedure which provides for direct referral of the matter to the 
judge. 
20 A notary is a court or public official; the status of such officials was laid down in 
Ordinance No 45-2590 of 2 November 1945 on the status of notaries. 
ATTAL ET ASSOCIÉS 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
21 Article L444-1 of the code de commerce (Commercial Code) provides that the 
remuneration of a notary may consist of: 
- a fee, or a regulated tariff, determined by legislation in respect of an act over 
which officers of the court have a monopoly; 
- fees freely agreed with the client for the services which officers of the court 
perform concurrently with other professionals. 
22 The documents drawn up by a notary, remuneration for which takes the form of a 
fee, are listed in Table 5 annexed to Article R444-3(1) of the Commercial Code. 
23 In addition, the notary can also claim the reimbursement of those costs and 
expenses which he or she has paid, based on the actual cost of the expenditure or 
at a flat rate in accordance with Article R 444-12 of the Commercial Code. Those 
costs and expenses are provided for in annexed Article 4-8(6), by reference to 
Article R444-3(2) of the Commercial Code. 
24 Fees are expenses under Article 695(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure, as are 
regulated expenses under paragraph 5 of the same article. 
25 Where issues arise in relation to costs, the parties or the officer of the court may 
refer the matter to the registrar of the court having jurisdiction, who is to verify 
the amount of the costs and issue a certificate of verification of the costs under 
Articles 704 and 705 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court having jurisdiction 
is determined by Article 52 of the Code of Civil Procedure: either the court before 
which the costs relating to proceedings have been incurred or the court within the 
jurisdiction of which the officer of the court performs his or her duties where the 
applications relating to costs, fees or expenses were not incurred in the context of 
proceedings. 
26 Under Articles 708 and 709 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the certificate of 
verification of the costs is open to challenge: the president of the court or the 
judge delegated in that regard is to rule on the challenge by making an order 
fixing the costs, after receiving observations from the parties or having sought 
their observations. The judge may also refer an application to a hearing of the 
court pursuant to Article 712 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 
27 Under Articles 710 and 711 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the judge rules on the 
application for costs to be fixed and on applications relating to the recovery of 
expenses by making, including ex officio, the necessary reimbursements and 
indicating the amounts already collected in advance. 
Applicable substantive legislation 
28 A declaration of succession is a requirement under Article 800 of the code général 
des impôts (General Tax Code) and must be obtained by the heirs. It is a 
document which provides information to the tax authorities to enable them to 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 4. 2024 – CASE C-321/24 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
calculate the tax payable on the inheritance, which must include the deceased’s 
estate (assets and liabilities) and state the identity of the heirs. 
29 Under Article 800 and 802 of the General Tax Code, the declaration of succession 
must be detailed and complete, including assets located in France and abroad, in 
accordance with the principle of territoriality as laid down in Article 750b of the 
General Tax Code (see Official Tax Journal BOI-ENR-DMTG-10-50-70-
17/03/2014 produced by SCP ATTAL & Associés as document No 4). 
30 France and Belgium signed a tax convention on 20 January 1959 which provides 
for a mechanism to take into account the tax paid in one of the States in order to 
avoid double taxation. 
31 A notary must necessarily be involved in the case of estates of greater than 
EUR 5 000 and where the estate includes immovable property. Article L312-1-4 
of the code monétaire et financier (Monetary and Financial Code) allows the heir 
to close the deceased’s accounts and have the funds transferred to him or her by 
proving his or her status as the heir by a statement signed by all the heirs 
indicating that the estate does not include immovable property and where the 
amount is less than EUR 5 000, the amount fixed by the Decree of 7 May 2015 
adopted pursuant to Article L312-4-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code. In 
other cases, a document containing statements confirming matters of common 
knowledge drawn up by a notary is mandatory in order to prove his or her status 
as heir under Article 730-1 of the Civil Code, and the involvement of a notary is 
again mandatory where the estate includes immovable property, as he or she takes 
care of the notices of estate transfer made in the Land Register at the relevant 
Land Registration Authority (Article 4 of décret No 55- 22 du 4 janvier 1955 
portant réforme de la publicité foncière (Decree No 55-22 of 4 January 1955 
reforming land registration). 
32 The declaration of succession is a document referred to in point 8 of Table 5 of 
annexed Article 4-7 to Article R444-3(I) of the Commercial Code listing the 
services provided by notaries. 
33 The rate specified for the declaration of succession is fixed by Article A444-63 of 
the Commercial Code. The fee collected by the notary for the declaration of 
succession is calculated in proportion to the total gross assets of the estate as 
follows: 
- from EUR 0 to EUR 6 500: 1.548%; 
- from EUR 6 500 to EUR 17 000: 0.851%; 
- from EUR 17 000 to EUR 30 000: 0.580%; 
- over EUR 30 000: 0.426%. 
ATTAL ET ASSOCIÉS 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
34 French case-law does not require that the basis for calculation of the tax payable 
and the basis for calculation of the notary’s fee are the same: in the case cited by 
BC, the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, France) found in favour of the 
First President of the cour d’appel de Versailles (Court of Appeal, Versailles, 
France), who found that the tax base was the same as the basis for the emolument, 
without making this a generally applicable rule (Commercial Division of the 
Court of Cassation, 4 October 2011, Appeal No 10-20.218). However, the Court 
of Cassation has held that the two bases for assessment could not be the same 
because the notary’s fee must be calculated on the basis of total gross assets of the 
estate, there being no need to deduct the liabilities, even though the liabilities will 
be deducted in order to calculate the inheritance tax (First Civil Chamber of the 
Court of Cassation, 6 February 1996, Appeal No 93-21.108). 
III- European Union law 
35 Article 63(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) 
prohibits all restrictions on the movement of capital between Member States and 
between Member States and third countries. 
36 The principle of the free movement of capital laid down in Article 63(1) TFEU 
has its origin in Article 67(1) of the 67(1) of the Treaty establishing the European 
Economic Community, the original version of which required the Member States 
to abolish progressively between themselves restrictions on the movement of 
capital belonging to persons resident in Member States and discrimination based 
on the nationality or on the place of residence of the parties or on the place where 
such capital is invested. 
37 Article 1 of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the 
implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty [establishing the European Economic 
Community] provides for the abolition of restrictions on movements of capital 
taking place between persons resident in Member States, as set out in Annex I to 
that directive. Under point D of Section XI of Annex I to that directive, 
inheritances and legacies are personal capital movements. 
38 In paragraph 16 of its judgment of 30 June 2016 (Case C-123/15, 
EU:C:2016:496), the Court of Justice of the European Union held that: 
‘inheritances consisting in the transfer to one or more persons of assets left by a 
deceased person constitute, according to the settled case-law of the Court, 
movements of capital within the meaning of Article 63 TFEU, except in cases 
where their constituent elements are confined within a single Member State (see, 
to that effect, judgments of 23 February 2006 in van Hilten-van der Heijden, 
C-513/03, EU:C:2006:131, paragraphs 39 to 42; of 17 January 2008 in Jäger, 
C-256/06, EU:C:2008:20, paragraphs 24 and 25; of 17 October 2013 in Welte, 
C-181/12, EU:C:2013:662, paragraphs 19 and 20; and of 3 September 2014 in 
Commission v Spain, C-127/12, not published, EU:C:2014:2130, paragraphs 52 
and 53)’. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 4. 2024 – CASE C-321/24 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
39 The Court of Justice of the European Union held in its judgment of 26 May 2016, 
Commission v Greece, C-244/15, EU:C:2016:359, that it was apparent from 
settled case-law that, ‘with regard to inheritances, the measures which Article 63 
TFEU prohibits as constituting restrictions on the movement of capital include 
those the effect of which is to reduce the value of the inheritance of a resident of a 
Member State other than the Member State in which the assets concerned are 
situated and which taxes the transfer of those assets by way of inheritance (see, 
inter alia, judgments of 11 December 2003 in Barbier, C-364/01, EU:C:2003:665, 
paragraph 62, and of 17 October 2013 in Welte, C-181/12, EU:C:2013:662, 
paragraph 23)’. 
40 The reduction of the value of an inheritance through the application of national 
legislation therefore constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital. The 
Court held in its judgment of 23 February 2006, van Hilten-van der Heijden, 
C-513/03, EU:C:2006:131, paragraph 44: ‘it follows from the case-law that the 
measures prohibited by Article 73b(1) of the Treaty, as being restrictions on the 
movement of capital, include those which are likely to discourage non-residents 
from making investments in a Member State or to discourage that Member State’s 
residents to do so in other States or, in the case of inheritances, those whose effect 
is to reduce the value of the inheritance of a resident of a State other than the 
Member State in which the assets concerned are situated and which taxes the 
inheritance of those assets’ (see also judgments of the Court of 17 October 2013, 
Welte, C-181/12, EU:C:2013:662, paragraphs 25 and 26, and of 11 September 
2008, Eckelkamp, C-11/07, EU:C:2008:489, paragraphs 41 to 45). 
41 The Court of Justice of the European Union has further held that unfavourable tax 
treatment which may deter non-residents from acquiring or retaining immovable 
property situated or investments located in a Member State constitutes a 
restriction on the free movement of capital (see judgments of the Court of 
31 March 2011, Schröder, C-450/09, EU:C:2011:198, paragraphs 32 and 33; of 
12 April 2018, Commission v Belgium, C-110/17, EU:C:2018:250, paragraph 40; 
and of 11 September 2014, Verest and Gerards, C-489/13, EU:C:2014:2210, 
paragraph 21). 
42 Article 65(1) TFEU provides for derogations from the principle of the free 
movement of capital: 
- Article 65(1)(a) allows Member States ‘to apply the relevant provisions of 
their [tax] law which distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same 
situation with regard to their place of residence or with regard to the place where 
their capital is invested’; 
- Article 65(1)(b) allows Member States ‘to take all requisite measures to 
prevent infringements of national law and regulations, in particular in the field of 
taxation and the prudential supervision of financial institutions, or to lay down 
procedures for the declaration of capital movements for purposes of 
ATTAL ET ASSOCIÉS 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
administrative or statistical information, or to take measures which are justified 
on grounds of public policy or public security’. 
43 It should be added that the measures provided for in Article 65(1) must not 
constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on the free 
movement of capital, in accordance with paragraph 3 of the same article. 
44 The Court of Justice of the European Union has strictly interpreted the derogation 
provided for in the field of taxation by Article 65(1)(a) TFEU as meaning that 
national provisions which distinguish between taxpayers who are not in the same 
situation with regard to their place of residence or the place where their capital is 
invested are not automatically compatible with Article 63 TFEU because that 
derogation is itself limited by Article 65(3) [TFEU], which provides that the 
national provisions must not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a 
disguised restriction on the free movement of capital (see judgments of the Court 
of 4 September 2014, Commission v Germany, C-211/13, EU:C:2014:2148, 
paragraphs 45 and 46, and of 8 June 2016, Hünnebeck, C-479/14, EU:C:2016:412, 
paragraphs 50 to 53). 
45 Differences in treatment can be authorised only if they relate to situations which 
are not objectively comparable or if they are justified by an overriding reason in 
the public interest (see judgments of the Court of 30 June 2016, Max-Heinz 
Feilen, C-123/15, EU:C:2016:496, paragraphs 25 and 26; of 3 September 2014, 
Commission v Spain, C-127/12, EU:C:2014:2130, paragraph 73; of 6 June 2000, 
Verkooijen, C-35/98, EU:C:2000:294, paragraph 43; of 7 September 2004, 
Manninen, C-319/02, EU:C:2004:484, paragraph 29; of 8 September 2005, 
Blanckaert, C-512/03, EU:C:2005:516, paragraph 42; and of 17 September 2009, 
Glaxo Wellcome, C-l82/08, EU:C:2009:559, paragraph 68). 
46 With regard to the derogation provided for in Article 65(1)(b) [TFEU], the Court 
further recalled in its judgment of 21 May 2019, Commission v Hungary 
[(Usufruct Over Agricultural Land)], C-235/17, EU:C:2019:432, paragraph 103, 
that, ‘as a derogation from the fundamental principle of the free movement of 
capital, Article 65(1)(b) TFEU must be interpreted strictly (judgment of 6 March 
2018, SEGRO and Horváth, C-52/16 and C-113/16, EU:C:2018:157, 
paragraph 96)’. 
47 The Court of Justice of the European Union found in its judgment of 18 June 
2020, Commission v Hungary [(Transparency of associations)], C-78/18, 
EU:C:2020:476, paragraph 76, ‘as the Court has consistently held, a State 
measure which restricts the free movement of capital is permissible only if, in the 
first place, it is justified by one of the reasons referred to in Article 65 TFEU or by 
an overriding reason in the public interest and, in the second place, it observes 
the principle of proportionality, a condition that requires the measure to be 
appropriate for ensuring, in a consistent and systematic manner, the attainment of 
the objective pursued and not to go beyond what is necessary in order for it to be 
attained (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 May 2019, Commission v Hungary 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 4. 2024 – CASE C-321/24 
 
10  
Anonymised version 
(Rights of usufruct over agricultural land), C-235/17, EU:C:2019:432, 
paragraphs 59 to 61 … )’. 
48 Thus, the requisite measure within the meaning of Article 65(1)(b) [TFEU] must 
have the very aim of preventing infringement of laws and regulations (see 
judgment of 2 March 2023, PrivatBank and Others, C-78/21, EU:C:2023:137, 
paragraph 60). 
49 Procedures for the declaration of capital movements for purposes of 
administrative or statistical information or measures justified on grounds of public 
policy or public security must observe ‘the principle of proportionality, a 
condition which requires them to be appropriate for ensuring the attainment of the 
objective legitimately pursued and not go beyond what is necessary in order for it 
to be attained (see, to that effect, judgment of 6 March 2018, SEGRO and 
Horváth, C-52/16 and C-113/16, EU:C:2018:157, paragraphs 76 and 77)’ 
(judgment of the Court of 31 May 2018, Zheng, C-190/17, EU:C:2018:357, 
paragraph 37). 
50 Lastly, BC relies on 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 acceptable and enforcement of authentic instruments 
in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of 
Succession, which allows the court having jurisdiction and the applicable law to 
be determined if a challenge is made. However, a challenge did not have to be 
settled in the case of XY’s estate and the notary did not perform a judicial rule, 
which seems to rule out the application of that regulation. 
IV- Questions referred for a preliminary ruling which are necessary to 
resolve the dispute 
51 Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides: ‘the 
Court of Justice of the European Union shall jurisdiction to give preliminary 
rulings concerning: 
(a) the interpretation of the Treaties; 
(b) the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices or 
agencies of the Union; 
Where such a question is raised before any court or tribunal of a Member State, 
that court or tribunal may, if it considers that a decision on the question is 
necessary to enable it to give judgment, request the Court to give a ruling thereon. 
Where any such question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of 
a Member State against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under 
national law, that court or tribunal shall bring the matter before the Court. 
ATTAL ET ASSOCIÉS 
 
11 
Anonymised version 
If such a question is raised in a case pending before a court or tribunal of a 
Member State with regard to a person in custody, the Court of Justice of the 
European Union shall act with the minimum of delay.’ 
52 In the present case, XY’s estate concerns two Member States – France and 
Belgium – in which the deceased owned movable and immovable property. The 
deceased resided in Belgium whereas her sole heir resides in France, and property 
is located in the two Member States. Her succession therefore entails personal 
capital movements involving two Member States of the European Union. 
53 BC, who is XY’s heir, has a legal obligation to use the services of a notary to 
draw up a French declaration of succession, as required by French law, since the 
value of the estate is greater than EUR 5 000 and includes immovable property. 
That French declaration of succession must list all the deceased’s assets, whether 
they are located in France or in Belgium. 
54 She also lodged a declaration of succession in Belgium, which was drawn up by 
the Belgian notary. 
55 BC paid the taxes relating to the inheritance in France, calculated based solely on 
the movable and immovable property located in France, and then paid the taxes 
relating to the inheritance in Belgium, calculated based on all the movable and 
immovable property located in France and in Belgium but reduced by the taxes 
paid in France, in accordance with the Franco-Belgian Tax Convention of 
20 January 1959. The application of that convention is therefore an effective 
means of preventing an infringement of the free movement of capital as it avoids 
the assets in the estate being taxed twice. 
56 In addition, BC also paid the Belgian notary’s fee, calculated on the basis of the 
total gross assets of the estate, and she paid, in advance, the French notary’s fee, 
likewise calculated on the basis of the total gross assets of the estate, both 
movable and immovable assets, located in France and in Belgium, in accordance 
with the draft costs (see document No 4 lodged by BC). 
57 The French notary argues that, by applying French law, he can calculate his 
remuneration based on the total gross assets of the estate, whether they are located 
in France or not, in accordance with Article 800 of the General Tax Code and 
Article A444-63 of the Commercial Code. He issued his invoice accordingly. 
58 The value of the inheritance received by BC is therefore reduced by the notary’s 
remuneration, calculated on the basis of the total gross assets of the estate, which 
may constitute a breach of the free movement of capital. 
59 This court therefore asks what conclusions are to be drawn from the law as it 
stands, which may deter a national of one Member State from investing in other 
Member States, in the light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European 
Union cited above: 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 4. 2024 – CASE C-321/24 
 
12  
Anonymised version 
60 Question No 1: is Article 63(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union to be interpreted as precluding the dual remuneration of the notaries of two 
Member States of the European Union involved in the same succession, which 
includes assets in the two Member States, the calculation of which is also based 
on the total gross assets of the estate, without taking into account the remuneration 
paid to the other notary, whereas the involvement of the notary is a legal 
requirement? 
61 Question No 2: is Article 63(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union to be interpreted as precluding the remuneration of a notary, whose 
involvement in a succession including assets in two Member States of the 
European Union is a legal requirement, from being calculated based on the total 
gross assets of the estate and not just on the gross assets located in his or her 
Member State? 
62 In addition, while a declaration of succession is a requirement imposed by tax law, 
the remuneration of the notary is not itself fiscal in nature. Neither the national 
legislation nor the Franco-Belgian Convention provides that the notary’s 
remuneration is to be based on the same basis for calculation as the taxation due. 
Under domestic case-law, the basis for that remuneration does not necessarily 
have to be the same as the basis for the calculation of taxation. 
63 At the present stage, the legislation laying down the rules governing the 
calculation of the remuneration of the notary who draws up a declaration of 
succession does not itself fall within the scope of derogation provided for in 
Article 65(1)(a) [TFEU]. 
64 However, the involvement of a notary is a requirement under tax legislation and 
appears to be a condition for application of the Franco-Belgian Convention of 
20 January 1959, which effectively prevents a separate infringement of the free 
movement of capital by avoiding double taxation. 
65 In that regard, the Court of Justice of the European Union has ruled on the 
application of tax legislation which had the effect of reducing the value of an 
inheritance and not on the remuneration of the notary, a court or public official, 
which has the same effect and the involvement of whom is mandatory where an 
inheritance involves assets greater than EUR 5 000 or includes immovable 
property. 
66 The legislation at issue in the main proceedings could therefore be viewed as a 
derogation – the ‘relevant provision’ of tax law within the meaning of 
Article 65(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 
67 This court therefore asks about the scope of that derogation laid down in EU law: 
68 Question No 3: are Articles 63(1) and 65(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that the dual remuneration of 
two notaries, involved in the same succession, which is again calculated based on 
ATTAL ET ASSOCIÉS 
 
13 
Anonymised version 
the total gross assets of the estate located in two Member States, can constitute a 
‘relevant provision of their tax law’ derogating from the prohibition on restricting 
movements of capital laid down in the first of those articles, whereas the 
involvement of the notary is a legal requirement? 
69 Lastly, the purpose of the legislation laying down the rules for calculating the 
remuneration of the notary is not per se to prevent infringements or to declare 
movements of capital, and does not appear to be justified on grounds related to 
public policy or public security. 
70 Nevertheless, the involvement of the notary is a requirement for the tax 
authority’s information purposes, with a view to calculating the taxes charged on 
the inheritance and may be intended to prevent tax infringements from being 
committed. 
71 At the present stage, the Court has not ruled on the remuneration of the notary, in 
so far as it is the consequence of legislation which may be intended to prevent tax 
infringements or of legislation providing for a procedure for declaring capital 
movements for administrative or statistical purposes. 
72 This court therefore asks about the scope of that derogation: 
73 Question No 4: are Articles 63(1) and 65(1)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning 
of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that the dual remuneration of 
two notaries, involved in the same succession, which is again calculated based on 
the total gross assets of the estate located in the two Member States, can constitute 
an essential measure to thwart tax infringements or a procedure for the declaration 
of capital movements for administrative or statistical information purposes 
derogating from the prohibition on restricting capital movements laid down in the 
first of those articles, whereas the involvement of the notary is a legal 
requirement? 
74 The proceedings must be stayed pending the response from the Court to those 
questions referred for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of 
Articles 63(1) and 65(1)(a) and (b) TFEU. 
V – ON THOSE GROUNDS 
I, the delegated costs judge, ruling in open court by secondment to the registry, by 
interlocutory order: 
Having regard to Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European 
Union, 
REQUEST the Court of Justice of the European Union to rule on the following 
questions referred for a preliminary ruling: 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 4. 4. 2024 – CASE C-321/24 
 
14  
Anonymised version 
- Question No 1: is Article 63(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union to be interpreted as precluding the dual remuneration of the 
notaries of two Member States of the European Union involved in the same 
succession, which includes assets in the two Member States, the calculation of 
which is also based on the total gross assets of the estate, without taking into 
account the remuneration paid to the other notary, whereas the involvement of the 
notary is a legal requirement? 
- Question No 2: is Article 63(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the 
European Union to be interpreted as precluding the remuneration of a notary, 
whose involvement in a succession including assets in two Member States of the 
European Union is a legal requirement, from being calculated based on the total 
gross assets of the estate and not just on the gross assets located in his or her 
Member State? 
- Question No 3: are Articles 63(1) and 65(1)(a) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that the dual 
remuneration of two notaries, involved in the same succession, which is again 
calculated based on the total gross assets of the estate located in two Member 
States, can constitute a ‘relevant provision of their tax law’ derogating from the 
prohibition on restricting movements of capital laid down in the first of those 
articles, whereas the involvement of the notary is a legal requirement? 
- Question No 4: are Articles 63(1) and 65(1)(b) of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as meaning that the dual 
remuneration of two notaries, involved in the same succession, which is again 
calculated based on the total gross assets of the estate located in the two Member 
States, can constitute an essential measure to thwart tax infringements or a 
procedure for the declaration of capital movements for administrative or statistical 
information purposes derogating from the prohibition on restricting capital 
movements laid down in the first of those articles, whereas the involvement of the 
notary is a legal requirement? 
STAY THE PROCEEDINGS at the request of the parties pending the response 
from the Court of Justice of the European Union to the questions referred for a 
preliminary ruling, 
…