Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 7 July 2020 – UE, HC v Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG

(Case C-301/20)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: UE, HC

Respondent: Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypothekenbank AG

Intervening party: Verlassenschaft des VJ

Question referred

Is Article 70(3) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 EU Succession Regulation’) ¹ to be interpreted as meaning that a copy of the certificate issued for an indefinite duration without indicating an expiry date, contrary to that provision,

is valid and effective indefinitely, or

is valid only for a period of six months from the date of issue of the certified copy, or

is valid only for a period of six months from another date, or

is invalid and unsuitable for use within the meaning of Article 63 of the EU Succession Regulation?

Is Article 65(1) of the EU Succession Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 69(3) thereof, to be interpreted as meaning that the certificate produces effects in favour of all persons who are mentioned on the certificate by name as heirs, legatees, executors of wills or administrators of the estate, with the result that even those who have not applied for the issue of the certificate themselves can use that certificate pursuant to Article 63 of the EU Succession Regulation?

Must Article 69 of the EU Succession Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 70(3) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that the legitimising effect of the certified copy of a certificate of succession must be recognised if it was still valid when it was first submitted but expired before the requested decision of the authority, or does that provision not preclude national law if the latter requires the certificate to be valid even at the time of the decision?

____________

¹ OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107.