HAVET & VANHUFFEL – Association d’avocats
On 1 March 2013, a man and his wife drew up a joint will under which each appointed the other as the sole heir of whichever of them died first. They also stipulated that their daughter would be the sole heir of the surviving spouse. The man, whose last habitual residence was in Germany, died on 5 October 2015. His wife died on 21 February 2022, and their daughter died on 5 January 2019. The man’s estate included, among other assets, immovable property located in the Czech Republic.
On 27 April 2023, the five children of the deceased daughter applied to the Fürth District Court in Germany for a European Certificate of Succession to settle the succession relating to that immovable property. They requested that the certificate identify the deceased man’s wife as his sole heir and recognise their own rights as her heirs, with each of them entitled to a one-fifth share. They also sought the express identification of the immovable property located in the Czech Republic in the certificate, since, under Czech law, this information was necessary to register the property in the Czech Land Register on the basis of that document alone.
On 19 July 2023, the Fürth District Court rejected the request to expressly identify the immovable property in the certificate. This refusal was upheld on 11 December 2023 by the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg. That court considered, in particular, that identifying specific assets did not necessarily fall within the purpose of the European Certificate of Succession and could raise difficulties if the issuing authority were required to verify whether the assets concerned had actually belonged to the deceased at the time of death.
The five applicants subsequently appealed to the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof). That court noted that there were differing interpretations in Germany as to whether specific estate assets could or should be identified in a European Certificate of Succession, particularly where the succession was governed by German law, which is based on the principle of universal succession.
The Federal Court of Justice also considered the specific features of Czech law, which allows, under certain conditions, property to be registered in the Land Register on the basis of a European Certificate of Succession accompanied by an additional document containing a declaration made by the heir. It therefore questioned whether the property had to be identified directly in the certificate, whether the applicable succession regime affected that requirement, and whether it was possible to rely on such an additional document.
In light of these questions, the Federal Court of Justice decided to stay the proceedings and refer three questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 68(l) of Regulation No 650/2012. In particular, it asked whether the certificate must contain the information required under the law of the Member State in which the immovable property is located, where that information is necessary for the heirs to be registered as owners in the Land Register.
Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 introduced the European Certificate of Succession to facilitate the settlement of cross-border successions. This document enables heirs to prove their status and rights in another EU Member State, particularly when estate assets are located abroad. Its purpose is to simplify procedures, speed up the process and ensure the effective exercise of heirs’ rights.
Article 68(l) of the Regulation provides that the certificate must indicate the share of the estate to which each heir is entitled and, where necessary, the rights or assets allocated to a particular heir. The information to be included depends on the purpose for which the certificate is requested. Its content may therefore vary according to the heirs’ needs, particularly when they wish to have their ownership rights over immovable property located in another Member State registered.
The Court of Justice of the European Union considers that the authority responsible for issuing the European Certificate of Succession must include the information necessary to identify immovable property whenever such identification is required for the certificate to serve its intended purpose. This is particularly relevant when heirs wish to register their ownership rights in the land register of another Member State and the legislation of that State requires the property to be specifically identified in the certificate.
The expressions “where applicable” and “a particular heir”, used in Article 68(l), do not mean that identifying a specific asset is mandatory only when that asset is allocated to one heir among several co-heirs. The Court clarifies that such identification may be necessary in various circumstances. The decisive criterion is whether the information is necessary in light of the purpose for which the certificate is requested.
The European Regulation allows Member States to establish the requirements governing the registration of rights in immovable property in their land registers. These requirements are governed, in particular, by the law of the State in which the property is located. A State may therefore refuse registration if the European Certificate of Succession submitted does not identify the property concerned. However, this national competence does not remove the obligation under EU law to issue a certificate containing the information necessary for its intended purpose.
The Court also examines whether the principle of “universal succession”, under which the deceased’s entire estate is transferred to the heirs, can exempt the issuing authority from specifying the immovable property concerned. The Court answers in the negative. The content of the certificate is determined by the European Regulation and the purpose for which it is issued, rather than by the specific features of the national succession regime applicable to the transfer of the estate.
The European Certificate of Succession is an autonomous instrument of EU law. Its content must therefore be interpreted uniformly across Member States. A specific national succession regime cannot restrict the obligations imposed by the Regulation. This approach ensures that heirs receive equivalent protection and can assert their rights regardless of the law applicable to the transfer of the estate.
The authority responsible for issuing the certificate must verify the information, declarations and evidence provided by the applicants. Under the conditions laid down in the Regulation, it may conduct investigations, request additional documents or seek information from the competent authorities of other Member States. However, it must distinguish between identifying an asset for the purposes of using the certificate and certifying that the asset actually belonged to the deceased, a question that does not necessarily fall within the scope of the Regulation. If a dispute arises concerning the matters to be certified, the authority must refuse to issue the certificate.
The Court also considers whether the issuing authority may omit information identifying the immovable property when national law allows heirs to submit a supplementary document to obtain registration in the land register. The Court finds that this possibility does not remove the obligation to include the information in the certificate. Where the information concerning the property is necessary for the intended purpose, it must be included in the certificate itself, even if a supplementary document could compensate for its absence. The objective is to avoid unnecessary procedures and ensure the effectiveness of the European document.
In conclusion, the Court establishes three essential principles. First, the issuing authority must identify the immovable property in the certificate when this information is necessary for its registration in the land register of another Member State. Second, the principle of universal succession does not justify an exemption from this obligation. Third, the existence of a national procedure allowing a supplementary document to be submitted does not exempt the authority from identifying the property in the certificate. The ruling therefore strengthens the protection of heirs and enhances the effectiveness of the European Certificate of Succession in cross-border successions.
For these reasons, the Court (Fourth Chamber) hereby rules:
1) Article 68(l) 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:
the authority issuing a European Certificate of Succession is required to include in that certificate the information necessary to identify immovable property forming part of the succession concerned and located in a Member State other than the Member State in which the certificate is issued, where the applicants seek the issuance of that certificate for the purpose of registering their ownership rights in respect of that property in the land register of that other Member State, and where the legislation of that Member State requires that such information be included in the certificate in order for the registration to be carried out on the basis of that document alone.
2) Article 68(l) of Regulation No 650/2012
must be interpreted as meaning that:
the fact that, under the law applicable to the succession concerned, the transfer of the deceased’s estate is subject to the principle of ‘universal succession’, whereby the deceased’s estate is transferred to the heirs in its entirety, does not relieve the authority issuing a European Certificate of Succession of the obligation to include in that certificate the information necessary to identify immovable property forming part of that estate and located in a Member State other than the Member State in which the certificate is issued, where the inclusion of that information in the certificate is necessary for the purpose for which it is issued, such as the registration, on the basis of that certificate alone, of ownership rights in respect of that property in the land register of that other Member State.
3) Article 68(l) of Regulation No 650/2012
must be interpreted as meaning that:
the authority issuing a European Certificate of Succession is not relieved of the obligation to include in that certificate the information necessary to identify immovable property forming part of the estate where the inclusion of that information is requested for the purpose of registration in the land register of the Member State in which the property is located, even where, under the law of that Member State, such registration may be obtained on the basis of an additional document submitted together with a European Certificate of Succession that does not contain that information.
To read the judgment, please follow this link :https://infocuria.curia.europa.eu/tabs/document/C/2024/C-0873-24-00000000RP-01-P-01/ARRET/328432-FR-1-html;