Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/12

(Case C-80/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 - Scope - Definition of ‘succession with cross-border implications’ - Definition of ‘habitual residence of the deceased’ - Article 3(2) - Definition of ‘court’ - Whether notaries are subject to the rules of international jurisdiction - Article 3(1)(g) and (i) - Definitions of ‘decision’ and ‘authentic instrument’ - Articles 5, 7 and 22 - Agreement on the choice of court and the law applicable to the succession - Article 83(2) and (4) - Transitional provisions)

(2020/C 297/15)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Interving parties: Kauno miesto 4-ojo notaro biuro notarė Virginija Jarienė, K.-D. E.

Operative part of the judgment

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 must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which the deceased, a national of one Member State, was residing in another Member State at the date of his or her death but had not cut ties with the first of those Member States, in which the assets making up his or her estate are located, while his or her successors have their residence in both of those Member States, falls within the scope of the concept of ‘succession with cross-border implications’. The last habitual residence of the deceased, within the meaning of that regulation, must be established by the authority dealing with the succession in only one of those Member States.

2.Article 3(2) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, subject to verification by the referring court, Lithuanian notaries do not exercise judicial functions when issuing certificates of succession. However, it is for the referring court to determine whether those notaries act by delegation or under the control of a judicial authority and whether, consequently, they can be classed as ‘courts’ within the meaning of that provision.

3.Article 3(1)(g) of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that the referring court should find that Lithuanian notaries can be classed as ‘courts’ within the meaning of that regulation, certificates of succession that they deliver can be regarded as ‘decisions’ within the meaning of that provision, with the result that, for the purposes of issuing such certificates, those notaries can apply the rules of jurisdiction laid down in Chapter II of that regulation.

4.Articles 4 and 59 of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that notaries of a Member State, who are not classed as ‘courts’ for the purposes of that regulation, can issue national certificates of succession without applying the general rules of jurisdiction laid down by that regulation. If the referring court finds that those certificates satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 3(1)(i) of that regulation and can, therefore, be regarded as ‘authentic instruments’, within the meaning of that provision, such certificates produce, in other Member States, the effects that Article 59(1) and Article 60(1) of Regulation No 650/2012 attribute to authentic instruments.

5.Articles 4, 5, 7 and 22, together with Article 83(2) and (4), of Regulation No 650/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that the testator’s wish and the agreement between his or her heirs can lead to the determination of a court having jurisdiction in matters of succession and the application of the law on succession of a Member State other than those which would result from the application of the criteria laid down by that regulation.

(1) Language of the case: Lithuanian.

OJ C 148, 29.4.2019.

ECLI:EU:C:2020:140