In one of our previous articles, Breach of duties by an estate administrator — considerations regarding jurisdiction under the European Succession Regulation, we examined whether disputes concerning the breach of the duties of an administrator of an estate constitute part of “matters of succession” within the meaning of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council (the “Regulation”) and whether their international jurisdiction is therefore governed by Article 4 of the Regulation.
The Supreme Court of the Czech Republic has referred this question to the Court of Justice of the European Union in proceedings in which we are representing the claimant. The case is currently being heard by the Court of Justice of the European Union in preliminary ruling proceedings under case number C-115/26 – Prozivý.
Before the Czech courts, we represented the opinion that claims concerning the fulfilment of an estate administrator’s duties should be decided by the courts of the same state that has jurisdiction over the probate proceedings as a whole. This legal opinion of ours has now been supported by both the European Commission itself and Portugal in their opinions, which we analyze in more detail below.
We regard both of these favorable opinions as a major success and a confirmation of our office’s position.
The Court of Justice has been asked two preliminary questions:
- whether jurisdiction to “rule on the succession as a whole” within the meaning of Article 4 of the Regulation also includes jurisdiction over proceedings concerning a claim by an heir requiring an administrator of an estate to produce books, documents and other records; and
- if this is not the case, whether the jurisdiction of the court in such proceedings is to be determined in accordance with the general provisions of Article 4 et seq. of the Brussels I bis Regulation.
Opinion of the European Commission
In assessing the preliminary questions, the European Commission focused primarily on the interpretation of the concept of “succession as a whole” within the meaning of Article 4 of the Regulation. According to the Commission, this is an autonomous concept of EU law, the meaning of which cannot be determined by reference to how the matter in question is classified under national law. The interpretation of this concept must therefore be uniform throughout the European Union and must be based not only on the wording of the Regulation, but also on its context and the objectives pursued by the legislation.
The Commission also pointed to the broad understanding of the concept of “succession” used in the Regulation and recalled that exceptions from the scope of the Regulation must be interpreted strictly. It also considered Article 23 of the Regulation to be significant, as that provision expressly includes among the matters governed by the law applicable to the succession the powers of heirs, executors and other administrators of the estate. According to the Commission, the jurisdiction of the court designated under Article 4 of the Regulation should extend to the same matters as those governed by the law applicable to the succession under Article 23, including the administration of the estate.
According to the Commission the documents requested by the heirs from the administrator of the estate (accounting books, other related documents and records, and accounts relating to the administration of the estate) are directly connected with the administration of the estate and clearly concern the exercise of the heir’s rights vis-à-vis the administrator of the estate.
The Commission also addressed the relationship between the Regulation and the Brussels I bis Regulation. In its view, the two Regulations must be interpreted consistently with one another, so that where a particular matter falls within the scope of the Regulation, it is excluded from the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation, and vice versa. Proceedings concerning succession are excluded from the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Since the Commission considers that a claim brought by heirs against an administrator of an estate concerns succession, such a claim is therefore excluded from the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation.
The Commission represented the opinion that proceedings in which an heir seeks to obtain from an administrator of an estate the production of documents relating to the administration of the estate fall within the scope of Article 4 of the Regulation. According to the Commission, such proceedings form part of the determination of the succession as a whole rather than constituting separate civil proceedings. Consequently, the Brussels I bis Regulation does not apply to such proceedings.
Opinion of the Portuguese Republic
Portugal, like the European Commission, proceeds on the basis that the concept of “succession” must be interpreted autonomously under EU law, independently of its classification under national law. It considers the principle of the unity of the succession, on which the Regulation is based, to be of particular importance.
Portugal also pointed out that the Regulation expressly governs matters relating to the administration of the estate. Article 23 of the Regulation refers to the powers of heirs, executors and other administrators of the estate, while Article 29 of the Regulation lays down specific rules concerning the appointment and powers of the administrator of the estate. The administration of the estate is therefore, according to Portugal, not a matter falling outside the framework of succession law, but rather one of the areas expressly contemplated by the Regulation in its regulation of succession.
Portugal also supported its argument by reference to the case-law of the Court of Justice. It referred to the judgments in Kubicka (C-218/16), Oberle (C-20/17), WB (C-658/17) and Mahnkopf (C-558/16), which emphasise the need for a uniform assessment of succession, the autonomous interpretation of the concepts used in the Regulation, and the assessment of individual legal situations according to their actual connection with succession.
The Portuguese Republic concluded that proceedings in which an heir seeks the production of documents relating to the administration of the estate fall within the scope of Article 4 of the Regulation.
In light of its answer to the first preliminary question, Portugal considered that there was no need to answer the second preliminary question.
Common Conclusions of the European Commission and the Portuguese Republic
The opinions of the European Commission and the Portuguese Republic are consistent in their essential conclusion. In their opinion, the administration of the estate constitutes an integral part of matters of succession and therefore proceedings in which an heir seeks from an administrator of an estate the production of documents relating to the administration of the estate fall within the jurisdiction of the courts under Article 4 of the Regulation. Jurisdiction under the Brussels I bis Regulation is therefore excluded.
The opinions do not constitute a final decision in the case. The interpretation of Article 4 of the Regulation will be determined by the Court of Justice of the European Union. Nevertheless, the opinions of the European Commission and the Portuguese Republic constitute a significant contribution to the ongoing debate and provide arguments in support of our argumentation and including the administration of the estate within the unified regime established by the Regulation.