The current volume of “Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego” — the leading Polish periodical in the field of private international law — is primarily devoted to the Regulation No 650/2012 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 (“the Succession Regulation”).

The article addresses the issues relating to the protection of forced heirs in international context with a particular focus on the provisions of the EU Succession Regulation pertaining thereto. It contrasts common law tradition with the solutions adopted in French law, whereby certain relatives are entitled to the hereditary reserve (la réserve héréditaire). The author discusses selected examples taken from a body of French case-law dealing with the issue in question. Amongst the cases touched upon by the author are those concerning the successions of Johnny Hallyday and Maurice Jarre, which were two cases widely discussed in the recent French jurisprudence.

The author advocates a flexible approach with respect to the interpretation of the term “Member State” as employed in the Succession Regulation, allowing the differentiation between “participating” and “non-participating” States. It does not mean that the term “Member State” should always be interpreted in a wide sense including the three non-participating States: Denmark, the Republic of Ireland, and the United Kingdom. Whether a wide or a narrow interpretation is appropriate depends on the context and the purpose of the single provision. Most provisions contained in the chapter on jurisdiction refer to participating Member States only. But some articles such as the Article 13 of the Regulation, provide a counter-example. A uniform interpretation of the concept of Member State in all provisions of the Succession Regulation seems far too sweeping. It reminds of Begriffsjurisprudenz and does not take account of the purpose of the single provisions. In particular, it disregards the need for the cross-border protection of individual rights in a Union with open frontiers.

The article discusses the impact of the EU Succession Regulation on the German system of private international law. The change came with some important differences introduced in the text of the Regulation as in comparison to previous German solutions (especially the use of the habitual residence as the main connecting factor instead of nationality), and, as a result of the number of decisions of the CJEU on the Regulation (in particular the Kubicka case).
The paper presents the most important, up-to-date German case-law relating to the EU Succession Regulation. It starts with the general remarks in that regard and continues to discuss judgments covering issues of jurisdiction, applicable law, and the European Certificate of Succession. Three conclusions are drawn therefrom. First, the cases show a general willingness of the courts to cope with the fundamental changes introduced by the Regulation. In particular, the concept of “habitual residence” is applied on the basis of an autonomous interpretation by reference to the case-law of the CJEU on Regulation Brussels IIa. Second, a number of decisions make apparent that the courts are sometimes slow to accept the consequences which flow from the changes brought about by the Regulation, and which oblige to re-consider the German practice in matters of international successions. That applies in particular to the issuing of the European Certificate of Succession. Third, German courts are generally ready to initiate cooperation with the CJEU by formulating preliminary questions (three questions posed by the end of 2019).

The article concerns the notion of “court” in the Succession Regulation. This notion is used in the Brussels I and Brussels Ia Regulations, where it does not necessarily have the same scope. The author attempts to interpret the concept in the light of the recitals to the Succession Regulation (in particular Recital 20) and of the case law of the Court of Justice. The very general description of the concept contained in Article 3(2) of the Regulation might potentially embrace other authorities and legal professionals, where they exercise judicial functions by way of delegation of power from the court. In the author’s view, the European Court, especially in Oberle and WB v Notariusz Przemysława Bac correctly navigated its way through the Succession Regulation and ruled in a way which is both coherent as regards the operation of the Regulation and consistent with the intentions of the legislator. The above judgments are analysed also with regard to Poland’s omission to notify notaries as “courts” under Article 79 of the Succession Regulation. The European Court found that the criteria for determining whether an authority or a legal professional, in particular a notary public, constitutes a “court” are
determined by Article 3(2) and not by Article 79. Consequently, Poland’s omission to notify was not conclusive, but was in any event correct in substance. The author expresses the opinion that the judgment is accurate on this point.

The article contains an overview of the rules relating to the scope of application of the EU private international law regulations. It addresses the treatment of the relevant preliminary questions, with special reference to the Succession Regulation. The issues are discussed in three steps. The first is connected with the way of interpreting the notions and concepts, such as marriage, adoption, legal capacity etc., where such matters as personal status, legal capacity or family relationship may come to the foreground as a preliminary question. The second is dealing with the law applicable to the preliminary question. The author compares pros and cons of the “independent reference” (lex fori) and the “dependent reference” (lex causae) solutions, considering the latter as less effective, producing more negative consequences. The third step embraces questions relating to the jurisdiction with respect to preliminary question.

The Regulations on Matrimonial Property (No 2016/1103) and on the Property Consequences of Registered Partnerships (No 2016/1104) are new important pieces in the “puzzle” of European private international law. This article particularly focuses on the relationship between the Matrimonial Property Regulations and the Succession Regulation, two instruments which will often be applied in parallel because of the close connection between the two areas they govern. The author examines in particular the scope of those instruments as well as their interaction with respect to jurisdiction and applicable law. At the same time, an attempt is also made to assess the position of Poland and of those other Member States that are bound by the Succession Regulation, but not by the Matrimonial Property Regulation.

The aim of the study is to discuss the impact of bilateral international treaties concluded by EU Member States with third countries on jurisdiction and recognition of judgments in matters of succession from Polish perspective. The author discusses the main problems in the interpretation of Article 75 of Regulation 650/2012 and the possible conflict of this solution with the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. The article indicates also practical problems related to the collision of bilateral treaties and Regulation No 650/2012 regarding, for example, the possibility of concluding choice-of-court agreements, recognition of foreign judgments in matters of succession and the possibility of issuing the European Certificates of Succession.

This paper argues that the principle of unity of succession is one of the key concepts of the Succession Regulation. By operation of this principle on the jurisdictional level, the Regulation tends to favor a perspective of a single Member State when it comes to all issues related to succession. The principle of unity of succession does not of course eliminate the need to proceed to the characterization and to delimitate the scopes of conflict of laws rules at stake. However, this principle — aiming to promote a unitary vision of a single estate in all the Member States bound by the Regulation — sets a tone for some interpretative techniques that tend to favor succession-related characterization of the issues having some importance in the context of succession with cross-border implications. According to the Author, effet utile-driven characterization, on the one hand, and succession-friendly characterization of the issues falling within ‘gray areas’ created by the operation of Article 1(2) of the Succession Regulation, on the other hand, are among them.

The EU Succession Regulation constitutes a remarkable achievement of unification of conflict of law rules at the European level. It has importantly changed the landscape for all those interested in succession law, in particular, the notaries and the
estate planning practitioners. The present article takes up a number of selected issues that arise under the Regulation. The paper first identifies certain general difficulties that result either from the complex nature of the matters addressed or from a somewhat ambiguous wording of the rules adopted by the EU legislator. The attention is devoted to the exceptions to the principle of the unity of legis successionis, the dispositions upon death, and the intertemporal questions resulting from the change of the conflict of laws rules in the Member States which occurred on 17th August 2015 when the Regulation started to be applied. The paper then moves to some of the more specific issues arising under the Regulation. To that effect, it first looks at the Polish Act of 2018 governing the ”succession administration” of the enterprise, which forms part of the estate. The argument is made that the rules contained in the 2018 Act should be applied by virtue of Article 30 of the Succession Regulation because they constitute “special rules” in the meaning of this provision. Second, the notion of a “court” under Article 3(2) of the Regulation is discussed in light of the recent judgment of the CJEU in case C-658/17 WB, where the European Court found that a Polish notary issuing the deed of certification of succession is not a “court” for purposes of Article 3(2). The paper provides a critical account of the Court’s decision.

The Act of 5 July 2018 on the succession administration of the business of a physical person introduced a possibility to carry out transactions relating to establishing and performing administration of the estate. In particular, the Act permits to appoint a succession administrator and empowers him or her to carry out legal transactions relating to the business of the deceased entrepreneur. A need to determine the law applicable to these legal transactions arises. The article contains an analysis of the conflict rules adopted in the EU Succession Regulation. From this analysis the author draws a conclusion that the appointment of the succession administrator and the legal acts relating thereto are subject to the law applicable to succession. Likewise one should classify legal transactions relating to the administration of the business undertaken by persons named in the Act to carry out administration in the period before the succession administration is established. The prerequisites of the validity of the legal transactions carried out by the effectively nominated succession administrator on the other hand are subject to the law applicable to the given legal transactions, as according to general rules relating thereto. This includes, inter alia, that the legal acts falling with the scope of the law applicable to succession (Article 23 of the Succession Regulation), are governed by that law.

The role of art. 57 § 1 of Polish Family and Guardianship Code in proceedings concerning international divorce is disputed and gives rise to many questions concerning its nature. The provision, addressed to the Polish courts dealing with divorce cases, obliges the seized court to rule on fault of spouses in the breakdown of marriage. It may then seem to remain unclear if the court shall apply art. 57 § 1 when the law applicable to divorce does not state for fault based grounds for dissolution of marriage, while the legal order applicable to maintenance obligation between former spouses requires, among other prerequisites, that the fault of the former spouse obliged to alimony is declared in court proceedings.

This paper analyses the judgement of Polish Supreme Court from 23rd of March 2016, in which this issue was raised. The Author rejects the opinion of Supreme Court that the provision in question has a procedural nature. The view, that it constitutes an example of overriding mandatory provision should also be denied. As a provision of double nature: material and procedural, it should be applied by Polish courts as an instrument that enables to rule on fault in all those cases when applicable law provides for fault grounds for divorce; it should be also applied by foreign court deciding on dissolution of marriage when Polish law is applicable.

The question of the law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of claims is widely discussed in the doctrinal debates. In common opinion, the existing European conflict-of-laws regulations do not provide for a rule governing this issue. In the case BGL BNP Paribas SA v. TeamBank AG Nürnberg (C‑548/18), the Court of Justice of the European Union confirmed this gape of the Rome I Regulation.
The gloss presents the justification of the European Union Court’s judgment, the reasons for the lack of the uniform conflict-of-laws regulation, and the consequences of this state. It also analyses briefly the European Commission’s proposal for the EU Regulation concerning the law applicable to the third-party effects of assignments of claims (COM(2018) 96 final), as a response to this situation. Finally, it examines the appropriate conflict-of-laws rules for proprietary effects of assignments of claims (the law of the assignor’s habitual residence and the law of the assigned claim).

Professor Paul Lagarde is one of the most outstanding contemporary lawyers dealing with private international law. An author of numerous publications in this field, he has been, for the last 60 years, a source of inspiration for scholars around the world. His impactful contributions has been profoundly studied, discussed and cited also in Poland, and in particular in Katowice, which has been the centre for private international scholarship in Poland since the 1970s.

On 12 September 2019, the premises of the Faculty of Law and Administration of the University of Silesia in Katowice (Poland) witnessed one of such events, which will arguably go down in history of private international law in Poland. On that day, the University hosted an international conference on the Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 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 (“the Succession Regulation”), and on the various issues relating to the succession matters within the European area of freedom, security and justice.