62024CJ0321_RES
Case C‑321/24
BC
v
S. C. P. Attal et Associés
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judiciaire de Paris (France))
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 October 2025
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Free movement of capital – Article 63(1) TFEU – Succession – Mandatory use of a notary for the purpose of drawing up a declaration of succession in a Member State other than that in which the succession was opened – Legislation of that Member State providing that that notary’s fees are calculated on the basis of the total gross assets of the estate – Parallel exercise by the Member States of their powers of taxation – No restriction on the free movement of capital)
Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope – Notary fees for drawing up a declaration of succession – Succession involving assets situated in two Member States and subject to inheritance tax in each of those States – Mandatory use of a notary for drawing up the declaration of succession in one of those States – Situation with cross-border elements – Payment of the notary’s fees not involving cross-border movement of capital, but nevertheless linked to the cross-border nature of the succession – Included
(Art. 63(1) TFEU)
(see paragraphs 29-33)
Free movement of capital and liberalisation of payments – Restrictions – Notary fees for drawing up a declaration of succession – Succession involving assets situated in two Member States and subject to inheritance tax in each of those States – Mandatory use of a notary for drawing up the declaration of succession in one of those States – Notary’s fees calculated on the basis of the total gross assets of the estate irrespective of the location of the assets concerned – Legislation applying without distinction to domestic and cross-border situations – No discrimination – Declaration of succession covering, in accordance with a double taxation agreement and national law, all the assets of the estate – Failure to take into account the fees paid to a notary established in another Member State, also calculated on the basis of the total gross assets of the estate – Disadvantage arising from the parallel exercise of the Member States’ tax competences – No restriction
(Art. 63(1) TFEU)
(see paragraphs 39-47, operative part)
Résumé
In the context of a dispute concerning the fees of a French notary whose use was mandatory in the context of a cross-border succession involving assets situated in France and Belgium, the Court of Justice rules on the compatibility with Article 63 TFEU of national legislation which provides that the remuneration of a notary drawing up the declaration of succession is to be calculated on the basis of the total gross assets of the estate, without taking into account the fees paid to a notary established in another Member State, also calculated on the basis of the total gross assets of the estate.
BC, who resides in France, is, following the death of her sister who resided in Belgium, the sole heir of movable and immovable property situated in both France and Belgium.
The succession was opened in Belgium by a notary established in that Member State. In return for the declaration of succession drawn up by that notary, BC paid that notary fees calculated on the basis of the value of the total gross assets of the estate including the assets situated in France and in Belgium, in accordance with Belgian law.
BC was also required, under French law, to use the services of a notary established in France to draw up the declaration of succession in that Member State for the purpose of calculating the French inheritance tax.
BC brought legal proceedings before the tribunal judiciaire de Paris (Court of Paris, France), which is the referring court, by which she challenged the method of calculating the French notary’s fees. She requested that that remuneration be calculated on the basis of the gross assets corresponding solely to assets located in France, and not on the basis of the total gross assets of the estate.
Findings of the Court
The Court finds, first, that the situation at issue falls within the scope of movement of capital within the meaning of Article 63(1) TFEU.
It is apparent from the case-law that the tax treatment of successions falls within the TFEU provisions on the movement of capital, except in cases where their constituent elements are confined within a single Member State. (
1
)
In the present case, the succession at issue – opened in Belgium and devolving upon a person resident in France, and which involves assets situated in France and in Belgium and is subject, in each of those Member States, to inheritance tax – is cross-border in nature.
That cross-border nature is not called into question, according to the Court, by the fact that the fees of the notary established in France are not part of the deceased person’s estate and do not give rise to a cross-border movement of capital, given that that notary is remunerated independently and separately from the notary established in Belgium.
The declaration of succession drawn up by the notary in France identifies movable and immovable property situated both in France and abroad in order to enable the French tax authorities to calculate the tax duties relating to the estate, pursuant inter alia to the relevant provisions of the Franco-Belgian Convention for the avoidance of double taxation in relation to inheritance tax. (
2
)
The involvement of a notary in France is therefore a necessary step in the calculation of those duties, so that the method of calculating the notary’s fees, determined on the basis of the total gross assets of the estate as recorded by the notary, is inextricably linked to the cross-border nature of the succession in question.
Given that the situation at issue falls within the scope of the free movement of capital, the Court then examines whether the French legislation on the method of calculating notaries’ fees in respect of declarations of succession in such a situation constitutes a restriction on the movement of capital prohibited by Article 63 TFEU.
The Court notes, first of all, that the legislation at issue, since it does not introduce any difference in treatment between purely domestic situations and cross-border situations, is not discriminatory. Notaries’ fees, which constitute, in principle, just and equitable remuneration of the notary, are calculated in all cases on the basis of the total gross assets of the estate, irrespective of where the assets concerned are located.
It is true that such legislation is liable to place cross-border situations at a disadvantage in that it results in an heir being required, in the case of a cross-border succession, to pay fees in each of the Member States in which the assets of the estate are located and therefore having to bear a heavier burden than that which he or she would have incurred in the case of a purely domestic succession.
Nevertheless, the notary’s fees in France are calculated on the basis of the total gross assets of the estate because the declaration of succession drawn up by that notary must list those assets in order to enable the French tax authorities to calculate the tax duties relating to the estate, pursuant, inter alia, to the Franco-Belgian Convention. Those fees must therefore be regarded, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, (
3
) as disadvantages, in the form of additional costs, arising from the parallel exercise of the tax competences of the French Republic and the Kingdom of Belgium. In the absence of harmonisation at EU level, such disadvantages do not constitute restrictions on the freedoms of movement, provided that such a parallel exercise of tax competences is not discriminatory.
Given that the legislation at issue is not discriminatory and that the additional costs which it creates affect cross-border capital movements between France and Belgium in the same way as those within France, that legislation does not establish a restriction on the free movement of capital prohibited by Article 63(1) TFEU.
(
1
)	See, to that effect, judgments of 23 February 2006, van Hilten-van der Heijden (C‑513/03, EU:C:2006:131, paragraph 41); of 21 December 2021, Finanzamt V (Inheritance – Partial allowance and deduction of reserved portions) (C‑394/20, EU:C:2021:1044, paragraph 29); and of 12 October 2023, BA (Inheritance – Public housing policy in the European Union) (C‑670/21, EU:C:2023:763, paragraph 38).
(
2
)	Convention between France and Belgium for the avoidance of double taxation and the resolution of certain other questions relating to inheritance tax and registration charges, signed in Brussels on 20 January 1959.
(
3
)	See, by analogy, judgments of 8 September 2005, Mobistar and Belgacom Mobile (C‑544/03 and C‑545/03, EU:C:2005:518, paragraph 31), and of 22 September 2022, Admiral Gaming Network and Others (C‑475/20 to C‑482/20, EU:C:2022:714, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited).