1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 13 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 (OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107).
2 The request has been made in proceedings brought by BA, a minor who is habitually resident in Poland, whose legal representative is BR, in order to be freed from the legal consequences of her failure to make, within the required time limit, a declaration of waiver of the succession of ZJ, a deceased relative, who habitually resided in Germany.
3 Recitals 7 and 32 of Regulation No 650/2012 state: ‘(7) The proper functioning of the internal market should be facilitated by removing the 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. In the European area of justice, citizens must be able to organise their succession in advance. The rights of heirs and legatees, of other persons close to the deceased and of creditors of the succession must be effectively guaranteed. … (32) In order to simplify the lives of heirs and legatees habitually resident in a Member State other than that in which the succession is being or will be dealt with, this Regulation should allow any person entitled under the law applicable to the succession to make declarations concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession, of a legacy or of a reserved share, or concerning the limitation of his liability for the debts under the succession, to make such declarations in the form provided for by the law of the Member State of his habitual residence before the courts of that Member State. This should not preclude such declarations being made before other authorities in that Member State which are competent to receive declarations under national law. Persons choosing to avail themselves of the possibility to make declarations in the Member State of their habitual residence should themselves inform the court or authority which is or will be dealing with the succession of the existence of such declarations within any time limit set by the law applicable to the succession.’
4 Article 4 of that regulation, entitled ‘General jurisdiction’, provides: ‘The courts of the Member State in which the deceased had his habitual residence at the time of death shall have jurisdiction to rule on the succession as a whole.’
5 Chapter II of that regulation, entitled ‘Jurisdiction’, includes Articles 4 to 19 thereof. Article 13 of that regulation, entitled ‘Acceptance or waiver of the succession, of a legacy or of a reserved share’, provides: ‘In addition to the court having jurisdiction to rule on the succession pursuant to this Regulation, the courts of the Member State of the habitual residence of any person who, under the law applicable to the succession, may make, before a court, a declaration concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession, of a legacy or of a reserved share, or a declaration designed to limit the liability of the person concerned in respect of the liabilities under the succession, shall have jurisdiction to receive such declarations where, under the law of that Member State, such declarations may be made before a court.’
6 Under Article 15 of Regulation No 650/2012, entitled ‘Examination as to jurisdiction’: ‘Where a court of a Member State is seised of a succession matter over which it has no jurisdiction under this Regulation, it shall declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction.’
7 Article 21 of that regulation, entitled ‘General rule’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof: ‘Unless otherwise provided for in this Regulation, the law applicable to the succession as a whole shall be the law of the State in which the deceased had his habitual residence at the time of death.’
8 Article 23 of that regulation, entitled ‘The scope of the applicable law’, provides in paragraphs 1 and 2(e) thereof: ‘1. The law determined pursuant to Article 21 or Article 22 shall govern the succession as a whole. 2. That law shall govern in particular: … (e) the transfer to the heirs and, as the case may be, to the legatees of the assets, rights and obligations forming part of the estate, including the conditions and effects of the acceptance or waiver of the succession or of a legacy.’
9 Chapter III of Regulation No 650/2012, entitled ‘Applicable law’, includes Articles 20 to 38 thereof. Article 28 of that regulation, entitled ‘Validity as to form of a declaration concerning acceptance or waiver’, provides: ‘A declaration concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession, of a legacy or of a reserved share, or a declaration designed to limit the liability of the person making the declaration, shall be valid as to form where it meets the requirements of: (a) the law applicable to the succession pursuant to Article 21 or Article 22; or (b) the law of the State in which the person making the declaration has his habitual residence.’
10 Article 1012 of the Ustawa - Kodeks cywilny (Law establishing the Civil Code) of 23 April 1964 (Dz. U. No 16, item 93), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the Civil Code’), provides that an heir may either accept the succession without a limitation of liability for the deceased’s debts (simple acceptance), or accept the succession with a limitation of that liability (acceptance of the succession with the benefit of inventory), or else waive the succession.
11 Pursuant to Article 1015 of that code, a declaration concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession may be made within six months following the day on which the heir becomes aware of his or her entitlement. The absence of the heir’s declaration within that time limit is tantamount to acceptance of the succession with the benefit of inventory.
12 Article 1018 of the Civil Code provides, in paragraph 1 thereof, that a declaration concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession made on condition or with the reservation of a time limit is invalid. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of that article provide, respectively, that such a declaration may not be revoked and that it must be made before a court of law or before a notary public.
13 Article 1019(1) of the Civil Code provides: ‘If a declaration concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession has been made in error or under coercion, the provisions on defects in the declaration of intent apply with the following modifications: (1) the heir must apply to be freed from the legal consequences of the declaration to a court of law; (2) the heir should at the same time declare whether and in what manner he or she accepts or waives the succession.’
14 Pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 1019 of the Civil Code, an heir who failed to make a declaration concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession within the time limit on account of an error or coercion vitiating that declaration, may be freed from the legal consequences of his or her failure to observe that deadline if the conditions laid down in paragraph 1 of that article are satisfied.
15 Under Article 1019(3) of the Civil Code, being freed from the legal consequences of the declaration concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession requires the approval of a court.
16 Article 628 of the Ustawa - Kodeks postępowania cywilnego (Law establishing the Code of Civil Procedure), of 17 November 1964 (Dz. U. of 1964, No 43, item 296), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, provides that the competent probate court is the court of the last place of habitual residence of the deceased, and if his or her place of habitual residence in Poland cannot be determined, the court of the place where the estate at issue or part thereof is located. If none of the above can be determined, the probate court is the Sąd Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy w Warszawie (District Court, miasto stołeczne Warszawa, Warsaw, Poland).
17 Article 640 of that code provides that a declaration of simple acceptance of the succession, a declaration of acceptance of the succession up to the amount of the net assets or a declaration of waiver of the succession may be made before a notary public or before the Sąd Rejonowy (District Court, Poland) in whose district the person making the declaration is domiciled or resident. That notary public or that court is immediately to forward that declaration, together with its attachments, to the probate court before which the succession proceedings must be brought, in the event that the Polish courts have jurisdiction. Such declarations may also be submitted to that probate court in the course of proceedings to determine the succession rights.
18 BA, the applicant in the main proceedings, is a minor residing in Poland. She is related to the late ZJ who died in Germany, the country where he was habitually resident.
19 Due to the failure of her legal representative, BR, to make the declaration concerning the waiver of ZJ’s succession, on account of an error in calculating the period required to make that declaration, BA, acting through BR, applied to the Sąd Rejonowy w Gliwicach (District Court, Gliwice, Poland) in order that it approve her being freed from the legal consequences of such failure.
20 Following the rejection of that application for approval by that court, BA appealed against that rejection before the Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach (Regional Court, Gliwice, Poland), which is the referring court.
21 The referring court asks whether the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of the habitual residence of any person also covers - in order to receive a declaration from that person concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession, of a legacy or of a reserved share, or a declaration designed to limit the liability of the person concerned in respect of the liabilities under the succession, as provided for in Article 13 of Regulation No 650/2012 - situations in which a national court is asked to approve the heir being freed from the legal consequences of the failure to make such a declaration within the required time limit.
22 It submits that a narrow interpretation of the term, used in that article, ‘to receive’ the declaration, leads to the finding that the courts of the Member State of the habitual residence of the person who made the declaration concerning the waiver of the succession have jurisdiction only to receive such declarations. Consequently, Article 13 of that regulation does not cover situations in which an heir applies to such a court in order that it approve him or her being freed from the legal consequences of the failure to make, within the required time limit, a declaration of waiver of the succession. The referring court states that it follows from that narrow interpretation of Article 13 of Regulation No 650/2012 that, in the present case, it has no jurisdiction to approve BA being freed from the legal consequences of the failure to make the declaration at issue in the main proceedings and that only the courts referred to in Article 4 of that regulation, namely, in the present case, the German courts, have jurisdiction to approve such an application.
23 According to the referring court, that position was defended by Advocate General Szpunar, who, in his Opinion delivered on 20 January 2022 in Case C‑617/20, argued that Article 13 of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply where, in order for the declarations referred to in that article to produce certain legal effects provided for in the law applicable to the succession, the court must take measures which go beyond the mere acceptance of such declarations, such as issuing a ruling or instituting other proceedings than the succession proceedings (Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar in T.N. and N.N. (Declaration concerning the waiver of succession), C‑617/20, EU:C:2022:49, points 38 and 39).
24 However, relying on the judgment of 21 June 2018, Oberle (C‑20/17, EU:C:2018:485, paragraph 42), the referring court states that Article 13, read in the light of recital 32 of Regulation No 650/2012, aims to simplify the procedures for heirs and legatees, by providing a derogation from the rules of jurisdiction set out in Articles 4 to 11 of that regulation. Furthermore, in order for a succession with cross-border implications within the European Union to be settled speedily, smoothly and efficiently, the heirs should be able to demonstrate easily their status and/or rights and powers. Thus, the referring court asks whether the scope of the court’s jurisdiction covered by Article 13 of Regulation No 650/2012 includes not only measures related to receiving the declaration referred to in that article, but also other measures taken by that court in succession proceedings, including that court’s approval for the heir to be freed from the legal consequences of the failure to make, in a timely manner, a declaration of waiver of the succession.
25 Such an interpretation is also consistent with the objective of Regulation No 650/2012, which, under recital 7 thereof, is intended to facilitate the proper functioning of the internal market by removing the obstacles to the free movement of persons who wish to assert their rights in the context of a succession having cross-border implications.
26 In those circumstances, the Sąd Okręgowy w Gliwicach (Regional Court, Gliwice) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘Must Article 13 of [Regulation No 650/2012] be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply in a situation where, in addition to a declaration of waiver of the succession being received, that declaration must additionally be approved by a court in order to be effective pursuant to the laws of the Member State of habitual residence of the person submitting it, for instance where the declaration is submitted after the expiry of the deadline?’
27 By its single question referred, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 13 of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State in which a person habitually resides who applies to be freed from the legal consequences of failing to make, within the required period, a declaration of waiver of a succession, have jurisdiction to approve such an application.
28 At the outset, it should be noted that, according to settled case-law of the Court, it follows from the need for uniform application of EU law and from the principle of equality that the terms of a provision of EU law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purposes of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union; that interpretation must take into account not only its wording but also its context and the objective pursued by the legislation in question (judgment of 2 June 2022, T.N. and N.N. (Declaration concerning the waiver of succession), C‑617/20, EU:C:2022:426, paragraph 35).
29 In the first place, as regards the wording of Article 13 of Regulation No 650/2012, that article provides that, in addition to the court having jurisdiction to rule on the succession pursuant to that regulation, the courts of the Member State of the habitual residence of any person who, under the law applicable to the succession, may make, before a court, a declaration concerning the acceptance or waiver of the succession, of a legacy or of a reserved share, or a declaration designed to limit the liability of the person concerned in respect of the liabilities under the succession, are to have jurisdiction to receive such declarations where, under the law of that Member State, such declarations may be made before a court.
30 Article 13 thus provides for an alternative forum of jurisdiction which aims to enable heirs who do not have their habitual residence in the Member State the courts of which have jurisdiction to rule on the succession, in accordance with the general rules laid down in Articles 4 to 11 of Regulation No 650/2012, to make their declarations concerning the acceptance or waiver of succession before a court of the Member State in which they have their habitual residence (judgment of 2 June 2022, T.N. and N.N. (Declaration concerning the waiver of succession), C‑617/20, EU:C:2022:426, paragraph 37).
31 It is also apparent from the wording of Article 13 of Regulation No 650/2012 that the courts of the Member State of the habitual residence of the heir are to have jurisdiction only to ‘receive’ those declarations (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 June 2018, Oberle, C‑20/17, EU:C:2018:485, paragraph 41).
32 Thus, Article 13 does not cover the jurisdiction of those courts to approve the heir’s application to be freed from the legal consequences of failing to make a declaration, within the required time limit, of the waiver of the succession.
33 In the second place, with regard to the context of Article 13 of Regulation No 650/2012, it must be borne in mind that that article forms part of Chapter II of that regulation, which governs all the grounds of jurisdiction in matters of succession (see, to that effect, judgment of 2 June 2022, T.N. and N.N. (Declaration concerning the waiver of succession), C‑617/20, EU:C:2022:426, paragraph 36).
34 The rule of jurisdiction which follows from Article 13, as referred to in paragraph 30 of this judgment, is complemented by a conflict-of-laws rule contained in Article 28 of Regulation No 650/2012, which forms part of Chapter III thereof governing the applicable law, and which specifically governs the validity as to form, in particular, of declarations concerning the waiver of succession. In that regard, it should be noted that those declarations are valid as to form if, according to point (a) of that article, they meet the requirements of the law applicable to the succession (lex successionis) or, according to point (b) thereof, they meet the requirements of the law of the State in which the person making that declaration has his or her habitual residence (judgment of 2 June 2022, T.N. and N.N. (Declaration concerning the waiver of succession), C‑617/20, EU:C:2022:426, paragraph 38).
35 It is apparent from a combined reading of Articles 13 and 28 of Regulation No 650/2012 that there is a close correlation between those two articles, with the result that the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of the habitual residence of the heir to receive declarations concerning the waiver of succession is subject to the condition that the law on succession in force in that State provides for the possibility of making such a declaration before a court (see, to that effect, judgment of 2 June 2022, T.N. and N.N. (Declaration concerning the waiver of succession), C‑617/20, EU:C:2022:426, paragraph 40).
36 In particular, as regards a judicial decision such as that applied for by the applicant in the main proceedings, approving the heir being freed from the legal consequences of his or her failure to make the declaration, within the required period, concerning the waiver of the succession, as provided for by the law on succession in force in the Member State of the habitual residence of that heir, it should be noted that, first, Article 28 of Regulation No 650/2012 is conceived in such a way as to recognise the validity of the declarations referred to in that article, in particular where the conditions laid down by the law of the State of the habitual residence of the heir making the declaration - when the law of that State is applicable - are satisfied (see, to that effect, judgment of 2 June 2022, T.N. and N.N. (Declaration concerning the waiver of succession), C‑617/20, EU:C:2022:426, paragraph 39). Secondly, such a judicial decision of approval clearly is not a measure of receipt of a declaration as referred to by Article 13 of that regulation and, therefore, does not fall within the scope of that article.
37 In the third place, that interpretation is supported by the objectives pursued by Regulation No 650/2012. According to recital 7 thereof, that regulation aims to facilitate the proper functioning of the internal market by removing the obstacles to the free movement of persons who wish to assert their rights arising from a cross-border succession. That recital states, in particular, that, in the European area of justice, the rights of heirs and legatees, of other persons close to the deceased and of creditors of the estate must be effectively guaranteed (judgment of 2 June 2022, T.N. and N.N. (Declaration concerning the waiver of succession), C‑617/20, EU:C:2022:426, paragraph 42).
38 In that regard, it follows from the case-law of the Court that Article 13 of Regulation No 650/2012, read in the light of recital 32 thereof, according to which the purpose of that provision is to simplify the lives of heirs and legatees habitually resident in a Member State other than that in which the succession is being or will be dealt with, aims to simplify procedures for heirs and legatees by providing a derogation from the rules of jurisdiction set out in Articles 4 to 11 thereof (judgment of 2 June 2022, T.N. and N.N. (Declaration concerning the waiver of succession), C‑617/20, EU:C:2022:426, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).
39 Thus, as stated in paragraph 30 of this judgment, in order to pursue that objective, the EU legislature provided in Article 13 of Regulation No 650/2012 for an alternative forum of jurisdiction to that provided for in Articles 4 to 11, and granted jurisdiction to the courts of the Member State of habitual residence of any person who, in particular, makes a declaration of waiver of the succession, to receive such a declaration.
40 However, it follows from the case-law of the Court that the jurisdiction referred to in Article 13 of Regulation No 650/2012 has a limited scope which cannot therefore cover the situation where, in order for the declarations referred to in that article to produce certain legal effects provided for in the law applicable to the succession, the court must take measures which go beyond merely receiving a declaration, such as issuing a ruling or instituting other proceedings than the succession proceedings (see, by analogy, judgment of 2 June 2022, T.N. and N.N. (Declaration concerning the waiver of succession), C‑617/20, EU:C:2022:426, paragraph 44).
41 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 13 of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State in which a person habitually resides who applies to be freed from the legal consequences of failing to make a declaration of waiver of a succession, within the required period, do not have jurisdiction to approve such an application.
42 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.