Views
Nothing Found
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria
News
CJEU on the (in)admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling on the Succession Regulation lodged by a notary in the case OKR, C-387/20
In its judgments delivered in the cases WB, C-658/17 and E.E., C-80/19, the Court of Justice already addressed the question whether a notary dealing with succession-related matters is a “court” for the purposes of the Succession Regulation. In these cases, however, the requests for a preliminary ruling originated from the proceedings pending before the national courts.
By contrast, in the case OKR, C-387/20, the request for a preliminary ruling is brought before the Court by a Polish notary [or, to be more specific, by a notarial clerk/assistant (fr. “clerc de notarie”, pl. “zastepca notarialny”), yet this nuance does not seem to affect the outcome of the case at hand].
Costa Rica signed the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention (and filed a declaration)
Last week Costa Rica signed the HCCH Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (2019 HCCH Judgments Convention). The HCCH news item is available here.
It should be noted that in order to consent to be bound by the treaty, Costa Rica would need to deposit an instrument of ratification, acceptance or approval. In the meantime, a signatory State has the obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force (article 18 of the UN Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).
Costa Rica made the following declaration: “in accordance with article 14, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the Republic of Costa Rica declares that it shall not apply Article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention.”
Article 14(1) of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention states the following: “No security, bond or deposit, however described, shall be required from a party who in one Contracting State applies for enforcement of a judgment given by a court of another Contracting State on the sole ground that such party is a foreign national or is not domiciled or resident in the State in which enforcement is sought.” Article 14(3) of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention allows States to file a declaration stating that they will not apply Article 14(1).
In this regard, it should be noted that many HCCH Conventions contain a similar provision. This is particularly the case of the HCCH 1980 Access to Justice Convention, whose objective is precisely, as its name suggests, to promote access to justice by ensuring that “the mere status as an alien or the absence of residence or domicile in a State are not grounds for discrimination with regard to access to justice in that State” (HCCH outline of this Convention).
The HCCH 1980 Access to Justice Convention strikes the right balance by eliminating such a requirement and at the same time allowing the enforceability of orders for costs (Chapter II, arts 14-17). The latter is somewhat similar to Article 14(2) of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention and undoubtedly was a source of inspiration during the negotiations.
The interesting fact is that Costa Rica is a party to the HCCH 1980 Access to Justice Convention. Thus, Costa Rica is not allowed to impose any security, bond or deposit on the basis of a person being a foreign national or of not having his or her domicile or residence in Costa Rica if the conditions of Article 14 of the HCCH 1980 Access to Justice Convention are met, at least in its relations with the Contracting States to the said Convention.
Nevertheless, the declaration of Costa Rica underlines the fact that some States continue to impose such a requirement (although admittedly this requirement is fading away in some regions of the world). And thus the promotion of the HCCH 1980 Access to Justice Convention and all other HCCH Conventions that promote the principle of non-discrimination continue to be all the more relevant.
***
The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention is not yet in force. In accordance with its article 28: “This Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of the period during which a notification may be made in accordance with Article 29(2) with respect to the second State that has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession referred to in Article 24.”
There are currently four signatory States: Costa Rica, Israel, Uruguay and Ukraine. The act of signing a treaty does not count towards the timeline specified in article 28 of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention as it is not an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.
ECJ, judgment of 9 September 2021, C-422/20 – RK ./. CR, on the interpretation of jurisdictional provisions of the European Succession Regulation (ESR)
Further to CoL’s posts on recent case law of the ECJ last week, we allow ourselves to draw CoL readers’ attention to the judgment of the ECJ of 9 September 2021, C-422/20 – RK ./. CR, on the interpretation of jurisdictional provisions of the European Succession Regulation (ESR), upon reference by the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Cologne, Germany. Neither the ECJ’s judgment, nor AG Maciej Szpunar’s Opinion of 8 July 2021 is yet available in English translation. The following summary draws on the original German texts.
The referring national court asked (1) whether it is required, for a declaration of lack of jurisdiction by the court previously seised as provided for in Article 7(a) ESR, that the latter court expressly declines jurisdiction, or whether an implicit declaration suffices if it is clear by interpretation that that court has in fact declined jurisdiction? The national court further asked (2) whether the court of a Member State whose jurisdiction is to emerge from a declaration of lack of jurisdiction by another Member State court is entitled to examine whether the conditions for such a declaration were in fact fulfilled. In particular, the referring court asked (a) whether the second court may examine whether the testator validly chose the applicable law in accordance with Article 22 ESR, whether (b) a request for a declaration of lack of jurisdiction, as required by Article 6(a) ESR has been brought by one of the parties in the first proceedings, and (c) whether the first court correctly assessed that the courts of the Member State of the chosen law are better placed to rule on the succession. In a last question, the referring court asked (3) whether Articles 6(a) and 7(a) ESR are applicable if the testator has not made an express or implied choice of law in a testamentary disposition before 17 August 2015 but the law applicable to the succession may be inferred from Article 83(4) ESR.
The ECJ held that (1) no express declaration of lack of jurisdiction is required under Article 6(a) ESR, as long as the first court’s intention can be clearly inferred from its decision, that (2) the second court has no competence to review the first court’s declaration of lack of jurisdiction and (3) that Articles 6(a) and 7(a) ESR remain applicable if the applicable law may only be inferred from Article 83(4) ESR.
As to the first question, the Court made clear that certain differences in the Spanish language version of the ESR in Article 6(a) – “abstenerse de conocer” (in translation something like: “abstain from assuming jurisdiction”) – on which the Spanish first court had relied – are of no relevance for the autonomous interpretation of the ESR, to be exercised acccording to general and well established principles in light of all of its language versions and its objectives (para. 30). These do not require any particular form for a declaration under Article 6(a), and requiring such a form would jeopardize the objective of the ESR as laid down in Recital 27 Sentence 1, i.e. “to ensure that the authority dealing with the succession will, in most situations, be applying its own law”.
In relation the second question, the Court made reference to AG Spzunar’s Opinion (para. 39) and confirmed the latter’s finding that no second review may take place of the first court’s decision under Article 6(a) ESR (paras. 40 et seq.), not least because such as decision is a “decision” in the sense of Article 3(1) (g) ESR that falls within the scope of Chapter IV of the ESR on the recognition of decisions of the courts of other Member States (para. 42). The Court concludes that the first court’s decision under Article 6(a) ESR is binding for the second court both in its result – declaration of lack of jurisdiction – as well as in relation to its underlying findings about the conditions that Article 6(a) ESR requires. In the latter respect the Court made expressly reference to its earlier judgment of 15 November 2012, C-456/11 – Gothaer Versicherung, which means that its notion of a European res iudicata developed there is to be extended to the type of conditions found fulfilled by the first court here: “Any other interpretation would jeopardize the principles of mutual recognition and mutual trust on which the system of the ESR grounds” (para. 45, translation is my one).
For answering the third question the Court explained that Article 83(4) ESR contains a presumption of a choice of law by the testator that is to be attributed the same effects as a choice of law directly undertaken under the ESR (para. 53).