Višje sodišče v Ljubljani; 2023-01-17; II Cp 64/2023
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2023:II.CP.64.2023
Date: 2023-01-17
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82023SI0117(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerned the international jurisdiction of the Slovenian courts in succession proceedings.
The Court of First Instance, relying on Article 15 of the Succession Regulation (1), declared that it lacked jurisdiction, having found that the deceased’s habitual residence at the time of death was in Germany, and therefore terminated the succession proceedings.
The deceased’s daughter (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) appealed. She submitted that the Court of First Instance had not established all facts relevant to determining the deceased’s habitual residence within the meaning of Recitals 23 and 24 of the Regulation. In particular, she argued that the deceased had lived in Germany solely for work-related reasons, while maintaining all remaining personal, family and economic ties in Slovenia, where he owned property, received his pension, and where his close relatives—including the plaintiff—reside.
The Court of Appeal first found an essential procedural violation under Article 339(2)(8) of the ZPP (2), since the plaintiff had not been given an effective opportunity to comment on all relevant circumstances. She had not been adequately informed about the steps taken in the proceedings, especially concerning the attempted service of documents on the other heir in Germany. The impugned decision, therefore, constituted a ‘surprise decision’ and had to be annulled for this reason alone.
The Court of Appeal further recalled that, under the Succession Regulation, international jurisdiction must be determined on the basis of the deceased’s habitual residence at the time of death, interpreted autonomously under European Union law. The court assessing jurisdiction must evaluate all relevant factual circumstances, including those listed illustratively in Recitals 23 and 24, and determine where the deceased had the centre of his life interests. However, the Court of First Instance failed to do so: it did not investigate the deceased’s family ties, did not assess whether his presence in Germany was limited to economic reasons, and did not hear the relevant witness identified by the plaintiff. Its factual findings were therefore incomplete and premature.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal, annulled the impugned decision, and remitted the case to the Court of First Instance for renewed proceedings, in which it must verify whether succession proceedings are pending in Germany and fully determine the facts relevant for assessing the deceased’s habitual residence and, consequently, international jurisdiction.
(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.
(2) Zakon o pravdnem postopku (Civil Procedure Act).