Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)

7 November 2024 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Article 10(1) - Subsidiary jurisdiction in matters of succession - Deceased person habitually resident in a third State at the time of death - Criterion of the location of the assets of the estate in a Member State - Decisive point in time - Assessment at the time of death )

In Case C‑291/23 [Hantoch], (i)

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Regional Court, Düsseldorf, Germany), made by decision of 27 April 2023, received at the Court on 8 May 2023, in the proceedings

LS

v

PL,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),

composed of I. Jarukaitis, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber, D. Gratsias and E. Regan (Rapporteur), Judges,

Advocate General: M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

–        the Spanish Government, by I. Herranz Elizalde, acting as Agent,

–        the European Commission, by L. Hohenecker and W. Wils, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 10 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 between LS and PL concerning the succession of a deceased person in Egypt.

 Legal context

3        Recitals 7, 23, 30 and 37 of Regulation No 650/2012 read as follows:

‘(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.

…

(23)      In view of the increasing mobility of citizens and in order to ensure the proper administration of justice within the Union and to ensure that a genuine connecting factor exists between the succession and the Member State in which jurisdiction is exercised, this Regulation should provide that the general connecting factor for the purposes of determining both jurisdiction and the applicable law should be the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death. In order to determine the habitual residence, the authority dealing with the succession should make an overall assessment of the circumstances of the life of the deceased during the years preceding his death and at the time of his death, taking account of all relevant factual elements, in particular the duration and regularity of the deceased’s presence in the State concerned and the conditions and reasons for that presence. The habitual residence thus determined should reveal a close and stable connection with the State concerned taking into account the specific aims of this Regulation.

…

(30)      In order to ensure that the courts of all Member States may, on the same grounds, exercise jurisdiction in relation to the succession of persons not habitually resident in a Member State at the time of death, this Regulation should list exhaustively, in a hierarchical order, the grounds on which such subsidiary jurisdiction may be exercised.

…

(37)      In order to allow citizens to avail themselves, with all legal certainty, of the benefits offered by the internal market, this Regulation should enable them to know in advance which law will apply to their succession. Harmonised conflict-of-laws rules should be introduced in order to avoid contradictory results. The main rule should ensure that the succession is governed by a predictable law with which it is closely connected. For reasons of legal certainty and in order to avoid the fragmentation of the succession, that law should govern the succession as a whole, that is to say, all of the property forming part of the estate, irrespective of the nature of the assets and regardless of whether the assets are located in another Member State or in a third State.’

4        Chapter II of that regulation, entitled ‘Jurisdiction’, includes, inter alia, Articles 4 and 10 thereof.

5        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.’

6        Article 10 of the same regulation, entitled ‘Subsidiary jurisdiction’, provides:

‘1.      Where the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death is not located in a Member State, the courts of a Member State in which assets of the estate are located shall nevertheless have jurisdiction to rule on the succession as a whole in so far as:

(a)      the deceased had the nationality of that Member State at the time of death; or, failing that,

(b)      the deceased had his previous habitual residence in that Member State, provided that, at the time the court is seised, a period of not more than five years has elapsed since that habitual residence changed.

2.      Where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph 1, the courts of the Member State in which the assets of the estate are located shall nevertheless have jurisdiction to rule on those assets.’

 The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling

7        The deceased, who was born in Egypt, lived and worked for many years in Germany, where he also started a family. On the date of his death in Egypt, 18 March 2017, he had dual German and Egyptian nationality.

8        After retiring in Germany, the deceased resided principally in Egypt. He was covered by German health insurance and entitled to a retirement pension in Germany. He transferred the payments from that pension scheme from a German bank account, maintained solely for that purpose, to his bank account in Egypt, by way of a standing order. Because he received a retirement pension under the German insurance fund for physicians, he was also liable to pay tax in Germany.

9        LS and PL are descendants of the deceased. PL is the sole testamentary heir.

10      LS brought an action before the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Regional Court, Düsseldorf, Germany), the referring court, requesting certain information from PL and the payment of a sum of money in respect of a right to a reserved share of the inheritance. LS argues that the referring court has international jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim. She contends that, at the time of the opening of the succession, the deceased held assets of the estate in Germany consisting of – in addition to the assets held with the German bank – inter alia, claims against the tax authorities and against a private health insurance provider.

11      PL disputes the international jurisdiction of the referring court.

12      According to the referring court, the deceased had his last habitual residence, within the meaning of Article 4 of Regulation No 650/2012, in Egypt. However, that court could have a subsidiary international jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 650/2012, based on the presence of assets of the estate in Germany. The referring court has doubts, however, as to the interpretation of that provision.

13      The referring court observes that the German legal literature is divided as to which point in time must be referred to in order to assess the condition relating to the presence of assets of the estate in the Member State of the court seised, for the purposes of Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 650/2012. For some, it is the time of death that is decisive, while for others it is the time the action is filed.

14      According to that court, the answer to that question is of considerable relevance, since, in the present case, at the time of his death, the deceased had a credit balance in a German bank account – an asset of the estate located in Germany – but that account had already been closed at the time the action was filed.

15      In those circumstances, the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Regional Court, Düsseldorf) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Must an interpretation of Article 10 of [Regulation No 650/2012] with regard to the question whether any estate assets existed in the Member State of the court seised be based on the time of the [opening of the] succession or on the time when the action was filed?’

 Consideration of the question referred

16      By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 10(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether the subsidiary jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which assets of the estate are located may be exercised, in order to rule on the succession as a whole, it is necessary to examine whether those assets were still located in that Member State at the time those courts were seised or rather at the time of death.

17      In accordance with settled case-law, in order to interpret a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgment of 1 August 2022, Sea Watch, C‑14/21 and C‑15/21, EU:C:2022:604, paragraph 115 and the case-law cited).

18      As regards, in the first place, the wording of Article 10(1) of Regulation No 650/2012, it must be noted that that provision establishes a rule of jurisdiction providing that, where the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of his or her death is not located in a Member State, the courts of a Member State in which assets of the estate are located are nevertheless to have jurisdiction to rule on the succession as a whole if the deceased had the nationality of that Member State at the time of his or her death or, failing that, if the deceased had his or her previous residence in that Member State.

19      While it is true that Article 10(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 does not specify which point in time must be taken into account in order to assess whether assets of the estate are located in a Member State, Article 10(1)(a) of that regulation explicitly provides that the ‘time of death’ is the relevant date both for determining the Member State in which the deceased’s habitual residence was situated and for assessing his or her nationality. As for Article 10(1)(b) of that regulation, it requires that the deceased’s ‘previous’ habitual residence be taken into account where he or she did not have, at the time of death, the nationality of the Member State concerned.

20      Article 10(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 therefore bases the subsidiary jurisdiction of the Member State in which assets of the estate are located on conditions which are to be met at the time of death at the latest.

21      In the second place, as regards the context of which Article 10(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 forms part, it is apparent both from Articles 4 and 10 of that regulation and from recitals 23 and 30 thereof that, for the purposes of assessing whether the criteria for establishing general jurisdiction or subsidiary jurisdiction are met, that regulation generally refers to the time of death.

22      That fact also demonstrates that, unless otherwise indicated, it is that point in time which must be taken into account in order to assess whether one of those jurisdiction criteria – in the present case, the criterion concerning the existence of assets of the estate in the Member State of the court seised, laid down in Article 10(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 – is satisfied.

23      Moreover, those jurisdiction criteria are intended to establish the existence of connecting factors between the deceased and the Member State exercising jurisdiction. In those circumstances, it is logical to take account of the location of the assets at the time of death of the deceased who owned them.

24      In the third place, that interpretation is supported by the objectives pursued by that regulation, which consist, inter alia, as is apparent from recitals 7 and 37 thereof, in ensuring that citizens are able to organise their succession in advance, with all legal certainty and in a predictable manner, and in effectively guaranteeing the rights of heirs and legatees, of other persons close to the deceased and of creditors of the succession.

25      The achievement of those objectives would be jeopardised if jurisdiction were to depend on circumstances arising after death, such as the liquidation or transfer to another Member State of the assets of the estate after the death.

26      It follows that, in order to determine whether, pursuant to Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 650/2012, the court seised may exercise subsidiary jurisdiction in the light of the presence of assets of the estate in the Member State of that court, it is necessary to refer not to the time that court was seised, but rather to the time of death.

27      In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that Article 10(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether the subsidiary jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which assets of the estate are located may be exercised, in order to rule on the succession as a whole, it is necessary to examine whether those assets were located in that Member State not at the time those courts were seised, but rather at the time of death.

 Costs

28      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national 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.

On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:

Article 10(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, in order to determine whether the subsidiary jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which assets of the estate are located may be exercised, in order to rule on the succession as a whole, it is necessary to examine whether those assets were located in that Member State not at the time those courts were seised, but rather at the time of death.

[Signatures]

*      Language of the case: German.

i      The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings.

© European Union
The source of this judgment is the Europa web site. The information on this site is subject to a information found here: Important legal notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.