Last week (23 January 2025), the Court of Justice – asked by the Local Court of Lörrach, Germany (Amtsgericht Lörrach) to interpret Article 67(1) second subparagraph point (a) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 – delivered its judgment on the case No C-187/23, Albausy.
The referring court sought clarification on two key issues: (i) whether the Succession Regulation itself grants the authority handling an application for a European Certificate of Succession the jurisdiction to resolve disputes arising from challenges raised during the issuance procedure, and (ii) if so, in what form that authority must justify its rejection of such challenges while issuing the certificate.
The Spanish Government challenged the admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling, arguing that issuing a European Certificate of Succession does not constitute the exercise of a judicial function, even if the referring court qualifies as a “court or tribunal” under Article 267 TFEU. Recalling that “a national court may refer a question to the Court only if there is a case pending before it and if it is called upon to give judgment in proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature” (point 30), the Court of Justice states that “in taking, as the issuing authority with respect to the European Certificate of Succession, decisions pursuant to Article 67(1) of Regulation No 650/2012, the referring court does not exercise a judicial function” and, therefore, declares the request for a preliminary ruling inadmissible (point 66).
Nevertheless, in its reasoning, the Court of Justice clarifies that “a challenge to the elements to be certified, raised in the course of the procedure for issuing a European Certificate of Succession, must, in principle, preclude the issue of that certificate” (point 44) and that “in order to maintain the confidence of EU citizens in the European Certificate of Succession, it is imperative that that instrument… be issued only where there is no challenge to the elements to be certified” (point 64). Moreover, in the event of such a challenge, “the issuing authority, which does not have the power to rule on it, is required to refuse to issue the European Certificate of Succession sought” (point 65). To prevent indefinite obstruction of the issuance of the certificate due to challenges, even when such challenges have been examined and definitively rejected in court proceedings, the Court clarifies that, “the concept of a challenge, for the purposes of point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) of Regulation No 650/2012, must necessarily be interpreted as not covering challenges that have already been rejected by way of a final decision given by a judicial authority in court proceedings” (point 58).
On the topics addressed in the judgment, the readers of RDIPP may refer to:
Ginevra Greco, 2023, No 4, 914 ff.;
Ilaria Viarengo, 2020, No 3, 559 ff;
Francesca C. Villata, 2019, no 4, 714 ff;
Jacopo Re, 2018, No 4, 978 ff;
Ilaria Queirolo, 2018, No 4, 870 ff;
Francesca Maoli, 2018, No 3, 676 ff;
Zeno Crespi Reghizzi, 2017, No 3, 633 ff;
Domenico Damascelli, 2017, No 1, 67 ff;
Luigi Fumagalli, 2015, No 4, 779 ff;
Andrea Bonomi, 2013, No 2, 293 ff;
Andrea Bonomi, 2010, No 4, 874 ff.
Moreover, see, in our Book Series:
Jacopo Re, Book No 85;
Lenka Válková, Book No 87.