Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:34
Date: 2025-01-23
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Germany

summary, the certificate takes effect in Member States other than the issuing State without the need for any procedure and without any right of challenge or scrutiny. If the decision given in a dispute were included, that decision would benefit, through the certificate, from a procedure for recognition which not only differed from that laid down in Chapter IV, but was also privileged, the parallel existence of which is not referred to anywhere and is not justified. (43) 4. Effects of the characteristics of the European Certificate of Succession on the admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling 53. An authority which issues a certificate under Article 67 of Regulation No 650/2012 records in that certificate certain matters relating to the succession, once it has conducted the examination required by Article 66 of the regulation. 54. The issuing authority’s conclusion concerns the truth of the information stated by the applicant and its compatibility with the legislation applicable to the succession. However, as I pointed out above, that authority is not vested with the power, in that context, to settle any disputes which may arise in connection with the substance of the succession. (44) 55. If the issuing authority is unable to grant rights or powers in proceedings leading to a decision having binding legal effect, it is not acting in a judicial capacity in that connection. (45) 56. The foregoing is not precluded by the fact that, as Article 64 of Regulation No 650/2012 states, the body issuing the certificate may be a ‘court’ within the meaning of Article 3(2), and also another authority competent to deal with successions under its national law. (46) 57. The fact that the authority which issues a European Certificate of Succession may be a court does not mean that that court is acting in a judicial capacity when it issues the certificate. A court of a Member State may, independently of its strictly judicial functions, exercise other functions of a non-judicial nature. In the context of the latter, that court is not entitled to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. (47) 58. The reference to that ‘other’ authority seems to me to indicate that the issue of a European Certificate of Succession (under Article 67 of Regulation No 650/2012) does not involve the exercise of judicial power. Otherwise, the separate reference to that authority would be unnecessary, for Article 3(2) of Regulation No 650/2012 already classifies authorities that are not formally part of the judiciary as courts where they are exercising judicial functions. (48) 59. The fact that Article 64 (‘Competence to issue the Certificate’) of Regulation No 650/2012 refers to Articles 4, 7, 10 and 11 of the regulation should not be misleading. The reference to competence does not define the (judicial or non-judicial) nature of the actions of the issuing authority: (49) it merely clarifies where and to whom the application for the certificate should be made. (50) 60. Finally, my view is borne out by the judgment of 16 November 2023, (51) in which the Court rejected the argument that Spanish notaries exercise official authority acting as courts because they issue European Certificates of Succession. (52) 61. In the light of the above, I believe that the reference for a preliminary ruling should be declared inadmissible. However, in case the Court does not agree with that view, I shall propose answers to the questions which have been referred to it. B. Question 1 62. The referring court requests an interpretation of point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 in order to determine, in short, whether it refers to challenges raised in a procedure other than the procedure for the issue of the certificate or whether it also covers challenges which, as a result of the application for the certificate itself, are raised by persons having an interest in the succession. In the latter case, the referring court seeks to ascertain whether the issuing authority has competence to examine those challenges. 63. The question has been referred for a preliminary ruling in a case in which, as already stated, the testator’s son and grandchildren have raised a challenge to a key element of the succession (the validity of the will itself). In my view, that challenge means that point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 applies and that it is not possible to issue the certificate. 64. That it is not possible to issue the certificate is confirmed by the fact that, on the form which has to be used for the European Certificate of Succession in accordance with Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014, the issuing authority is mandatorily required to declare that none of its elements have been challenged. 65. I accept that it is not possible to give an unequivocal answer to the first question merely in the light of the wording of the text, since it does not specify the authority before which the elements to be certified (53) must be challenged, and the language versions are open to different interpretations: – some suggest that the challenge (dispute) is underway at the time when the application for the certificate is made, which would indicate that the challenge has been raised in different proceedings; (54) – others suggest that the challenge is raised after the application for the certificate and in the same court. (55) 66. A systematic analysis sheds some more light. A combined reading of point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) and Article 65(3)(l) of Regulation No 650/2012 suggests that the former provision covers, from the outset, the disputes to which Article 65 refers, that is disputes pending in another court. (56) 67. Point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1), which refers to decisions external to the proceedings for production of the certificate, leads to the same conclusion. It is reasonable to conclude that those decisions may include decisions covering elements relating to the subsequent certificate of succession. 68. In the light of the first subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Regulation No 650/2012, I am inclined to the view that point (a) of the second subparagraph must also cover challenges brought before the issuing authority, since, otherwise, it would be possible for that authority to issue a certificate containing elements ‘which have not been established’, contrary to the requirements of that provision. (57) 69. A comparison of the wording of Article 65(3)(l) of Regulation No 650/2012 (which stipulates that there must be ‘no dispute … pending relating to the elements to be certified’) with that of point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1), which uses, in general, broader terms, seems to me to be an additional argument to that effect. (58) 70. In addition, the aim of Regulation No 650/2012, in general, and the purpose of the European Certificate of Succession, in particular, support an interpretation of point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) to the effect that it includes challenges raised in the course of the procedure for the issue of the certificate. 71. The certificate was created in the interests of enabling ‘a succession with cross-border implications … to be settled speedily, smoothly and efficiently’. (59) It therefore contributes to the removal of ‘obstacles to the free movement of persons who currently face difficulties in asserting their rights in the context of a succession having cross-border implications.’ (60) 72. In order to achieve those aims, the EU legislature attributed to the certificate the legal effects described above, which apply in Member States other than the issuing State without the need for any procedure or scrutiny. 73. In my opinion, the importance of those effects, which are associated not only with enabling persons having a direct interest to take steps relating to a cross-border succession but also with the protection of third parties and the security of legal transactions throughout the European Union, precludes an interpretation of point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 which limits it to pending disputes that are unconnected with the procedure commenced for the issue of the certificate. 74. That being the position, the difficulty is not whether the authority required to apply Article 67 of Regulation No 650/2012 is entitled to examine any challenges raised by other possible beneficiaries of the succession, (61) but rather what that authority is required to do if those challenges are such that, in fact, they cast doubt on essential elements of the succession (as has occurred in this case, since other possible heirs have challenged the validity of the handwritten will on which the application for the certificate is based). 75. I have already pointed out that, in that situation, it is simply not possible for the national authority to issue the certificate. (62) It should be stressed that the same conclusion is reached in the light of the wording of Form V, laid down in Annex 5 to Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014, in which the issuing authority must declare that none of the elements of the certificate have been challenged. 76. Article 66 of Regulation No 650/2012 provides that, in the context of the examination preceding the issue of the certificate, the issuing authority must inform certain persons about the application and must hear those persons if it considers this necessary for the purposes of establishing that which it has been requested to certify. 77. If the option of hearing those interested parties results in the denial by those parties (as has occurred in this case) of the validity of an essential element of the certificate, the issuing authority may not issue that certificate. Naturally, and I shall say this in my analysis of the third question, there must be some basis for that denial in order to have the preclusive effect provided for in point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Regulation No 650/2012. (63) C. Question 2 78. The referring court asks whether the issuing authority may issue a European Certificate of Succession ‘even if challenges have been raised in the procedure for issuing the European Certificate of Succession, but they have already been examined in the proceedings for the issuance of a certificate of inheritance under German law’. 79. In my view, the answer can be derived from point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Regulation No 650/2012, which prohibits the issue of a certificate where it ‘would not be in conformity with a decision covering the same elements [those which are to be certified]’. 80. Under that provision, the competent authority must reject the application for a certificate if it would have to include in that certificate statements that are incompatible with what has been ordered or declared by an earlier decision. On the other hand, if that incompatibility is not present, the earlier decision does not preclude the issuance of the certificate. (64) 81. In view of the categorical nature of the rule, and its position in the scheme of the regulation, the ‘decision’ to which point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 refers is an act the provisions of which are binding on the issuing authority. (65) In other words, the issuing authority may not go against any elements relating to the contents of the certificate which have already been decided on in an earlier decision covering those elements. 82. The decision to which that provision refers takes precedence, therefore, over the issuing authority’s view concerning the matters to be included in the certificate. 83. In their written observations to the Court, the German Government and the Commission point out that the decision to which point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 refers must be final under national law. (66) 84. That provision does not expressly stipulate that the decision must be final. However, I believe that this requirement can be inferred from other details: – point (a) of the same article prohibits the certificate from being issued in relation to elements that are being challenged; and – the requirement laid down in Article 65(3)(l), to the effect that the application for the certificate must contain a declaration stating that no dispute is pending in relation to elements to be certified. 85. It is for the referring court to determine whether, in this case, the procedure for issuing the national certificate of succession is such that it leads to a ‘decision’ for the purposes of point (b) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Regulation No 650/2012. (67) D. Question 3 86. In the event that the reply to the first question is in the affirmative, the referring court asks the Court whether any challenge, even if it has not been substantiated, justifies a refusal to issue the certificate under point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Regulation No 650/2012. 87. That provision is silent regarding the importance of such a challenge. It may be deduced, therefore, that, in principle, the issuing authority is required to examine any challenge to elements of the certificate raised by interested parties or beneficiaries of the succession. 88. If there is no serious basis for the challenge and it therefore lacks any cogency under the applicable law, it can hardly prevent the issuing authority from considering that the elements it is required to certify have been established for the purposes of Article 67(1) of Regulation No 650/2012. 89. Refusal to issue the document because an essential element of the certificate has been challenged, without the slightest basis for that challenge having been put forward, would be liable to frustrate the proceedings without any real grounds, thereby unfairly depriving the heirs, legatees, executors of the will or administrators of the estate of an effective instrument for the settlement of a succession having cross-border implications. 90. However, it is possible that the challenge is such that, as a result, the issuing authority feels that subsequent enquiries are necessary, pursuant to Article 66(1) of the regulation, in order to confirm the information and declarations of the applicant. Whether or not that is the case can only be answered in the light of the circumstances of each case. E. Question 4 91. The referring court has submitted its fourth question in the event that the reply to the first question is in the negative. Should the Court, in line with what I propose, answer the first question in the affirmative, it will not need to reply to the fourth question. In any event, I shall examine that question. 92. The referring court asks about the form in which it must state the reasons that led it to reject the challenges and to issue the European Certificate of Succession. 93. It should be recalled that the issuing authority must use Form V, provided for in Annex 5 to Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014. (68) The use of that form enables a European Certificate of Succession issued in one Member State to be identified immediately as such in any other Member State. 94. Article 68 of Regulation No 650/2012 provides for information which, transferred to the corresponding sections of the form, must be included in the certificate. The contents of the certificate may vary depending on the purposes for which it is issued. (69) 95. Form V does not provide for an indication of the reasoning on which the issuing authority bases its view that the elements which it certifies have been established. The EU legislature did not consider it necessary for the certificate to set out that reasoning in order for its objective to be fulfilled. (70) 96. Heirs, legatees, administrators or executors of the estate who use the certificate must not (and, in fact, may not) (71) attach any other documents to the form. (72) 97. Those rules are consistent with the activities which precede the issue of the certificate and with the effects that it produces in relation to the administration of a succession with cross-border implications. In accordance with Articles 66 and 67 of Regulation No 650/2012, the issuing authority does not decide on the substance of the succession, adopting a reasoned decision which it includes in the European Certificate of Succession so that it may be recognised in other Member States. (73) V. Conclusion 98. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court of Justice declare that the request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Lörrach (Local Court, Lörrach, Germany) is inadmissible. In the alternative, I propose that the Court reply to that court in the following terms: Point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that an authority required to issue a European Certificate of Succession must examine any challenges raised in the procedure for issuing the certificate by persons having an interest in the succession, in order to establish the elements to be certified by it. It is not possible to issue a European Certificate of Succession which includes elements that are inconsistent with an earlier final judgment. It is not possible to issue a European Certificate of Succession where a challenge to a key element of the succession, such as the validity of the will, has been raised in the procedure for issuing that certificate, if that challenge has been substantiated to the minimum degree required under the applicable law. An issuing authority is not required to set out in a European Certificate of Succession the reasons which led it to issue that certificate. 1 Original language: Spanish. i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 2 Regulation 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). Regulation No 650/2012 does not apply in Ireland or in Denmark; any reference in this Opinion to ‘Member States’ must be taken to exclude those two countries. 3 I shall also refer to it below as ‘the certificate’ where it is not necessary to differentiate it from other documents used for certification. 4 Judgments of 1 March 2018, Mahnkopf (C‑558/16, EU:C:2018:138); of 21 June 2018, Oberle (C‑20/17, EU:C:2018:485); of 17 January 2019, Brisch (C‑102/18, EU:C:2019:34); of 1 July 2021, Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank (C‑301/20, EU:C:2021:528); and of 9 March 2023, Registrų centras (C‑354/21, EU:C:2023:184; ‘judgment in Registrų centras’). 5 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) of 9 December 2014 establishing the Forms referred to in Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 (OJ 2014 L 359, p. 30). 6 At the hearing, the representative of E. V. G.-T. explained that the estate includes immovable property and bank accounts in Germany and in other Member States. 7 In the referring court’s view, P. T.’s son and grandchildren only claimed that the testator was occasionally confused, which is not sufficient to assume testamentary incapacity or to confirm that challenge by further investigation. In order to assume testamentary incapacity, specific facts should have been adduced from which it was possible to conclude that there were defects that impaired the testator’s will to such an extent that he no longer understood the meaning and consequences of a will. 8 A number of signatures of the testator were submitted to the referring court: only one, from 1956, is different. All signatures after that year match the signature on the will. 9 E. V. G.-T.’s representative in the proceedings stated that, if the proceedings were stayed, he would lodge an application for a national certificate of succession. Any challenges by other possible beneficiaries of the estate would then be examined under national law. That fact explains the second question in the reference, which, on the date it was submitted to the Court of Justice, was still hypothetical. It was confirmed at the hearing that that application was made, that no one lodged a challenge in the proceedings, and that the national certificate was issued on 24 July 2023. 10 Paragraph 10 et seq. of its written observations. At the hearing, the German Government argued that the reference is admissible, pointing out that the Court tends to give a broad interpretation of Article 267 TFEU. In support of its position, the German Government also relied on the judgment of 9 September 2021, RK (Declining of jurisdiction) (C‑422/20, EU:C:2021:718). The Commission, for its part, stated that the reply depends on which powers national legal systems have granted to the authorities responsible for issuing the European Certificate of Succession. I set out my views on those positions below; see, in particular, footnotes 17, 23 and 49. 11 See point 57 and footnote 47 of this Opinion. In matters of succession, specifically, see the order of 1 September 2021 in OKR (Reference for a preliminary ruling from a notary acting as a deputy for another notary) (C‑387/20, EU:C:2021:751, paragraph 21). 12 Order of 1 September 2021 in OKR (Reference for a preliminary ruling from a notary acting as a deputy for another notary) (C‑387/20, EU:C:2021:751, paragraph 23). 13 Loc. cit., paragraph 24, and the case-law cited. 14 Judgments of 21 June 2018, Oberle (C‑20/17, EU:C:2018:485, paragraph 46), and in Registrų centras, paragraph 40. The European Certificate of Succession is not similar either to certificates which, under other regulations on cooperation in civil and commercial matters, accompany a judicial decision of one Member State for the purposes of the recognition and enforcement of that decision in another Member State. See point 44 et seq. below. 15 Article 63(1) of Regulation No 650/2012. 16 Article 62(2) of Regulation No 650/2012. 17 The nature of those effects, and the fact that they are identical in any Member State, makes it necessary to reject the interpretation put forward by the Commission at the hearing in relation to the admissibility of the reference for a preliminary ruling, which I reproduced above in footnote 10. Acceptance of that interpretation would mean that the European Certificate of Succession had different effects depending on the Member State of production and that, possibly, such effects would be those inherent to a judicial decision. There is no basis for any of that in Regulation No 650/2012; rather, it conflicts with the intention of the EU legislature to create a uniform regime for the certificate. 18 Article 63 and Article 69(2) of Regulation No 650/2012. Recital 71 of the regulation describes that proof as ‘accurate’; other language versions also include the corresponding adjective in Article 69(2). The regulation contains rules on rectification, modification or withdrawal of the certificate, and also rules for challenging the decision to issue the certificate (or, as the case may be, not to do so). However, it does not state what evidence is capable of overturning the presumption of accuracy associated with the document. See footnote 20 below. 19 Having the material scope indicated in recital 71. 20 Article 69(1) of Regulation No 650/2012. It is possible to challenge a certificate containing material errors or because it establishes matters the veracity of which is disputed; this must be done in the State of origin of the document, before the authorities indicated in Articles 71 and 72 of the regulation. That centralisation ensures unity in the treatment of every European Certificate of Succession. It should be recalled that the certificate, as such, does not circulate: it is kept by the issuing authority which is responsible for issuing certified copies and, should the need arise, for informing persons to whom those copies are provided that they are not the same as the original (Article 70(1) and Article 71(3) of Regulation No 650/2012). 21 Article 69(3) and (4) of Regulation No 650/2012. 22 Article 69(5), and judgment in Registrų centras. 23 The absence of those features should be a sufficient basis for refuting the position maintained by the German Government at the hearing, at which that government itself accepted the need, for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU, for the referring body’s actions to culminate in a decision of a judicial nature. 24 See Chapter IV, relating to ‘decisions’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation No 650/2012. In the case of European instruments for judicial cooperation, the term ‘recognition’ is reserved for the binding legal effects that apply to decisions of a judicial nature (and, specifically in relation to marriage breakdown, of certain authentic instruments and agreements: see Chapter IV of Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast) (OJ 2019 L 178, p. 1); judgment of 15 November 2022, Senatsverwaltung für Inneres und Sport (C‑646/20, EU:C:2022:879). 25 Nor is it ‘accepted’, as occurs, pursuant to Article 59 of Regulation No 650/2012, in the case of an authentic instrument issued in one Member State, the evidentiary effects of which are invoked in another Member State. The unity of the regime and the effects of the European Certificate of Succession render unnecessary such ‘acceptance’, which does apply to other instruments. 26 Not even where it is clearly contrary to public policy in the Member State where the certificate is produced. 27 Article 66(1) of Regulation No 650/2012. In the light of Articles 65 and 68 of that regulation, the verification concerns, in part, simple details and facts relating to the deceased, the applicant or other beneficiaries: see Article 68(e), (f), (g) and (h) of that regulation. Other details on the certificate require a syllogism in order to establish, for example, that the right or power asserted by the applicant is, in fact, the effect provided for in the applicable law. 28 Article 66(1) and (3) of Regulation No 650/2012. 29 Article 66(2) of Regulation No 650/2012. 30 Article 66(4) of Regulation No 650/2012. 31 Loc. cit. The reason and purpose of that ‘hearing’ are, clearly, limited. 32 On the meaning of the term ‘challenged’ in point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Regulation No 650/2012, which varies between the different language versions, see point 62 et seq. of this Opinion. 33 On what the activity involves, see footnote 27 of this Opinion. 34 Or the necessary procedural apparatus. Compare the ‘procedural’ rules and ‘procedural’ guarantees for the issue of the certificate (inter alia, Article 66(4) of Regulation No 650/2012) with those of other regulations, such as Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure (OJ 2007 L 199, p. 1), or Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure (OJ 2006 L 399, p. 1). 35 Which is the justification for the arrangements for its smooth circulation between Member States. 36 Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 15). 37 Judgment of 16 June 2016, Pebros Servizi (C‑511/14, EU:C:2016:448, paragraph 29). 38 Loc. cit., paragraph 30. 39 Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1). 40 Judgments of 28 February 2019, Gradbeništvo Korana (C‑579/17, EU:C:2019:162, paragraph 39), and of 4 September 2019, Salvoni (C‑347/18, EU:C:2019:661, paragraph 30). 41 Judgments of 28 February 2019, Gradbeništvo Korana (C‑579/17, EU:C:2019:162, paragraph 41), and of 4 September 2019, Salvoni (C‑347/18, EU:C:2019:661, paragraph 31). 42 In accordance with Article 47(1) of Regulation No 650/2012, it is not mandatory for the foreign judgment to be accompanied by the attestation referred to in Article 46(3): the authority to which the application is made for enforcement of that judgment may accept other documents or even dispense with documents. Bearing in mind the particulars which, in line with the mandatory form, the European Certificate of Succession contains, it is unlikely to be suitable as a replacement for that attestation. 43 Regulations laying down a procedure for the recognition and enforcement of judgments without any intermediate proceedings, and without any right to object to the circulation of the judgment, ensure the rights of the defence by laying down themselves minimum procedural guarantees which do not exist in Regulation No 650/2012 for the purposes of production of the European Certificate of Succession. See, for example, the guarantees laid down in the regulations cited in footnote 34 of this Opinion. 44 In other words, in connection with the elements which it is required to certify or other closely related elements, such as, in the present case, the alleged invalidity of the will on the grounds of the testator’s lack of capacity or the forgery of his signature. 45 See judgment of 23 May 2019, WB (C‑658/17, EU:C:2019:444, paragraph 55): ‘… In order for an authority to be regarded, in the light of the specific nature of its activities, as exercising a judicial function, it must be given the power to decide a legal dispute …’ 46 Member States may entrust the issue of European Certificates of Succession to courts in general, and in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 72(2) of Regulation No 650/2012, that is, after a challenge is raised against an issuing authority’s refusal to issue a certificate under Article 67 which ends with a finding that that refusal was unjustified. A certificate issued by a court after the resolution of a challenge is not to be confused with that decision. 47 This was confirmed by the Court in relation to references made by Austrian courts examining an application for registration of a contract for the sale of immovable property in the land register (judgment of 14 June 2001, Salzmann (C‑178/99, EU:C:2001:331)) or ruling on the obligation to disclose the annual accounts and the annual report (judgment of 15 January 2002, Lutz and Others (C‑182/00, EU:C:2002:19)). Also in that connection, with regard to the activities of Italian courts relating to the confirmation of the memorandum of association of a company (judgment of 19 October 1995, Job Centre (C‑111/94, EU:C:1995:340)) or an application for inclusion of a debt in the liabilities (judgment of 19 April 2012, Grillo Star Fallimento (C‑443/09, EU:C:2012:213)). The German courts do not act in a judicial capacity either when they rule on the appointment of an additional liquidator in respect of the assets (order of 12 January 2010 in Amiraike Berlin (C‑497/08, EU:C:2010:5)) or on the entry in the commercial register of the transfer of a company’s registered office (order of 10 July 2001 in HSB-Wohnbau (C‑86/00, EU:C:2001:394)). 48 See recital 20 of Regulation No 650/2012 and judgment of 23 May 2019, WB (C‑658/17, EU:C:2019:444, paragraph 53). 49 In the judgment of 9 September 2021, RK (Declining of jurisdiction) (C‑422/20, EU:C:2021:718), the Court interpreted Articles 6 and 7 of Regulation No 650/2012 in a case the background to which was the (lack of) jurisdiction of the German courts to issue a declaration of succession and, possibly, also a European Certificate of Succession. At the hearing, the German Government referred to paragraph 37 of that judgment to argue that the German authority which issues a European Certificate of Succession is a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU. In my opinion, the judgment merely clarifies the operation of a rule laid down for the purposes of ruling on the succession, which Article 64 of Regulation No 650/2012 extends to the issue of the European Certificate of Succession for the reasons that I explain in the next footnote. I can find no support in that judgment for inferences of any other kind. 50 The use, for the purposes of issuing the certificate, of the same geographical criteria as those which underpin international jurisdiction guarantees that, most of the time, the issuing authority is required only to consult its own law when verifying that the elements it has to certify are (legally) correct. The rule is also aimed at ensuring that, in general, there is only one issuing authority and, therefore, one European Certificate of Succession; if there are several, which, because they serve different purposes, include different annexes, it is aimed at ensuring consistency between them. It also enables the same court in the same Member State to decide on matters of substance in relation to the succession and, in the light of decisions adopted in that connection, to hear any challenges to the decision to issue or not to issue a European Certificate of Succession. 51 Judgment in NC (Transfer of a Spanish notary’s office) (C‑583/21 to C‑586/21, EU:C:2023:872). 52 The Court stated in paragraph 50 of that judgment that ‘the competence of Spanish notaries to issue European Certificates of Succession … does not equate to the exercise of such powers, either. It is apparent … from Article 67(1)(a) of the said regulation that the said certificates cannot be issued if the elements to be certified are being challenged.’ 53 Nor does the compulsory form published as Annex 5 to Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014 in the 24 official languages of the European Union. 54 Thus, in Spanish, German and English: ‘son objeto de un recurso’, ‘anhängig sind’ and ‘are being challenged’. 55 In the French version, ‘si les éléments à certifier sont contestés’; in the Portuguese, ‘forem objeto de contestação’; and in the Italian, ‘sono oggetto di contestazione’. 56 At the time when the application for the certificate is submitted. For the same reason, point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 must also include any disputes which commence during the processing of the certificate. 57 A certificate thus issued would be vitiated by uncertainty from the time of its issue, since, in accordance with Article 71(2) of Regulation No 650/2012, it must be modified or withdrawn, including of the issuing authority’s own motion if that is possible under national law, ‘where it has been established that the Certificate or individual elements thereof are not accurate.’ 58 Article 65(3)(l) reads ‘no dispute is pending’, ‘aucun litige … n’est pendant’, ‘kein Rechtsstreit in Bezug auf den zu bescheinigenden Sachverhalt anhängig ist’, ‘non vi sono controversie pendenti’; ‘nu există cauze pendinte referitoare la elementele care urmează să fie atestate’; point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) reads ‘the elements to be certified are being challenged’, ‘si les éléments à certifier sont contestés’, ‘wenn Einwände gegen den zu bescheinigenden Sachverhalt anhängig sind’, ‘gli elementi da certificare sono oggetto di contestazione’, ‘elementele care trebuie certificate fac obiectul unei contestații’. 59 Recital 67 of Regulation No 650/2012. 60 Recital 7 of Regulation No 650/2012 and judgment in Registrų centras, paragraphs 41 and 42. 61 With the limited aim of satisfying the authority of the truth of that which is to be certified. 62 In that connection, see judgment of 16 November 2023, NC (Transfer of a Spanish notary’s office) (C‑583/21 to C‑586/21, EU:C:2023:872) paragraph 50 of which I reproduced in footnote 52 of this Opinion. 63 Point 86 et seq. below. 64 I stress that the issue of a European Certificate of Succession which reflects the contents of a prior judicial decision on the substance of the succession must not be misleading as to the nature of the document: see points 50 to 52 above. 65 There is no definition of ‘decision’ for the purposes of Article 67; I therefore conclude that the definition in Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation No 650/2012 also applies here. 66 Paragraphs 20 and 22 of the Commission’s observations (‘endgültige’, ‘bestands- beziehungsweise rechtskräftige[n]’) and paragraph 33 of the German Government’s observations ((‘gegen die kein ordentlicher Rechtsbehelf (Artikel 42 EuErbVO) mehr eingelegt werden kann)’. At the hearing, the Spanish Government agreed with that view. 67 As the representative of E. V. G.-T. stated at the hearing, a national certificate like that issued in Germany on 24 July 2023 is not a final decision. 68 Article 67(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 and judgment in Registrų centras, paragraph 46, which cites the judgment of 17 January 2019, Brisch (C‑102/18, EU:C:2019:34, paragraph 30). 69 Judgment in Registrų centras, paragraph 45. The form consists of a cover and annexes, which must be filled in depending on the circumstances of the case and the purpose for which the certificate is requested. Provision is made for the use of additional sheets where two or more sets of particulars are to be set out because there is more than one applicant for the certificate, more than one representative of the applicant, more than one disposition of property on death, more than one matrimonial property regime or equivalent of the deceased, or more than one heir, legatee, executor of the will or administrator of the estate. 70 I am not ruling out that knowledge of the issuing authority’s thoughts on the evidence submitted by the applicant and any challenges raised by other persons may be of interest for the purposes of raising the challenge provided for in Article 72(1) of Regulation No 650/2012: when challenging the decision of the issuing authority (to issue or not to issue the certificate), that authority’s assessment of whether the contents of the certificate have been established is indirectly refuted. 71 Any addition to the certificate would disrupt its common appearance, which is precisely what enables its circulation in different Member States. 72 Compare this with Article 46(3) of Regulation No 650/2012. Anyone applying for the recognition of a judgment of one Member State in another Member State must provide a certified copy of that judgment. That is the only way it is possible to perform the (limited) scrutiny, which, where appropriate, would justify a refusal to recognise the judgment under Article 40. 73 The certification of judgments is, as I stated, provided for in Article 46(3) of Regulation No 650/2012. Annex I to Implementing Regulation No 1329/2014 contains the form for that purpose.