November 2025 at the Court of Justice of the European Union

The Court’s activities are suspended during the so-called semaine blanche, i.e., between 3 and 7 November 2025. The first event related to private international law is the hearing that is set to take place on 12 November in case C-14/25, Thüringer Aufbaubank. The Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) is requesting the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims on the in the context of the enforcement in Austria of a claim on the basis of a German notarial deed:

Is Article 21(2) in conjunction with Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 … to be interpreted as meaning that certification of an enforceable authentic instrument (in this case, an enforceable notarial instrument drawn up by a German notary) as a European Enforcement Order, issued by the competent authority in the Member State of origin using the standard form in Annex III to that regulation, may not be reviewed in the Member State of enforcement even where – having regard to the date on which the authentic instrument was drawn up – the temporal scope of that regulation has manifestly not been respected?

The facts can be summarized as follows. On 14 February 2022, Thüringer Aufbaubank filed an application with the Judenburg District Court (District Court of Judenburg, Austria) for enforcement against LN of a claim of EUR 25,000, plus interest, on the basis of a notarial deed drawn up in Germany on 28 May 1999, which became enforceable on 1 June 1999. In support of its application, Thüringer Aufbaubank produced the notarial deed and a European Enforcement Order certificate issued, without objection, on 19 January 2021 by the competent German authorities, using the form set out in Annex III to Regulation No 805/2004.

The Bezirksgericht Judenburg dismissed the objection raised by LN and granted the application for enforcement under the simplified procedure provided for in Article 54b of the EO.

The Landesgericht Leoben (Regional Court, Leoben, Austria) reversed that decision and ordered that enforcement be suspended and the acts already performed be annulled. That court considered that the notarial deed drawn up in 1999 did not fall within the scope ratione temporis of Regulation No 805/2004, which applies only to enforceable titles issued on or after 21 January 2005. By way of consequence, the recognition and enforcement in Austria of the notarial deed drawn up in Germany should be governed by the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters, signed in Brussels on 27 September 1968 (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32, hereinafter the ‘Brussels Convention’), which requires a prior exequatur procedure. The court considered as well that the issue of a European Enforcement Order certificate by the competent German authorities could not alter that conclusion, since it was still possible for the Member State of enforcement to verify that the certificate clearly complied with the scope of that regulation.

An appeal for review was lodged by Thüringer Aufbaubank before the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria), which is the referring court.

The case has been assigned to a chamber of three judges – N. Piçarra, N. Fenger, and O. Spineanu-Matei as reporting judge-. No opinion has been requested.

A second hearing is scheduled for Wednesday 19 November. The Juzgado de Primera Instancia no 1 of Fuenlabrada (Spain) asks the Court to rule on the interpretation of the Montreal Convention of 1999 for the unification of certain rules for international carriage by air, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001, as well as on Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 of the Council of 9 October 1997 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 889/2002.

Must Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 be interpreted as meaning that the liability of a Community air carrier in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage is also to be governed by Article 33 of the Montreal Convention in the case of carriage within a Member State of the European Union?

May Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention be interpreted as meaning that the place where the carrier has a place of business through which the air transport contract has been entered into could be the principal and permanent residence of the passenger, if the contract was entered into online?

Must Article 33(1) of the Montreal Convention be interpreted as meaning that the place where the carrier has a place of business through which the contract has been entered into refers to the place in which the principal obligation of carriage by air was contracted for and not the place in which the ancillary service, from which the carrier’s liability arises, was contracted for, if the latter place differs from the former?

As to the facts of the case, it is worth mentioning that claimant in the main proceedings entered into an air transport contract with Vueling, an air carrier having its registered office in Viladecans (Barcelona), for a flight from Madrid airport to Barcelona airport, on 8 November 2023. The baggage was lost during that first leg of her journey. Because the applicant has not provided documentation, nor added any other information, regarding the contract for the second flight, from Barcelona to Rome (or regarding the return flights to Madrid), the referring court assumes that there was no ‘international carriage’, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Montreal Convention, and that the relevant carriage is national. By way of consequence, the Court of Justice is being asked to decide on the rules applicable to venue, i.e., to the distribution of local jurisdiction within a Member State (compare to C-213/18, Guaitoli, where the national court sought to ascertain whether Article 33, paragraph 1 of the Montreal Convention must be interpreted as governing not only the allocation of jurisdiction as between the States Parties to the convention, but also the allocation of territorial jurisdiction as between the courts of each of those States). An obvious question of legislative competence arises there.

The case has been assigned to a chamber of five judges (C. Lycourgos, O. Spineanu-Matei, S. Rodin, N. Piçarra and N. Fenger – reporting), with an opinion by advocate general D. Spielmann.

A third hearing concerning a private international law instrument will be held on 20 November. The referring court – the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 (District Court for Prague 1, Czech Republic) – has referred three questions on Regulation No 650/2012 on matters of succession in case C-98/24, Koda:

Must the provisions of Article 83(3) and (4) of Regulation No 650/2012, in conjunction with Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation No 650/2012, be interpreted as meaning that the term disposition of property upon death includes a declaration of disinheritance?

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 83(4) of Regulation No 650/2012 be interpreted as meaning that if, before 17 August 2015, the testator made several dispositions of property upon death that were in accordance with the law that the testator could have chosen in accordance with Regulation No. 650/2012, is the law deemed to have been chosen as the law applicable to the succession that law under which the testator last made a disposition upon death before 17 August 2015?

Must Article 26(2) of Regulation No 650/2012 be interpreted as meaning that, if the testator’s capacity to make a disposition was restricted due to the making of a disposition of property upon death before 17 August 2015 under the law that governed his or her succession as a whole, and if a subsequent change of that law has resulted in changes to the conditions for the exercise of his or her capacity to make a disposition, the testator’s capacity to make a disposition continues to be restricted in accordance with the law that would have been applicable to that testator’s succession if he or she had died on the day on which the agreement as to succession was concluded, regardless of the fact that, according to the law governing his or her succession as a whole at the time of death, the testator was entitled to terminate (revoke or modify) that agreement as to succession?

In the case at hand, the testator, L.K., had Czech and German nationality. He died on 24 August 2022 and was residing in the Czech Republic at the time. L.K. was married to E.K., who died on 9 January 2007.  They had two daughters, E.D. and N.K., as well as three grandchildren, who are the children of N.K. On 2 November 1999, L.K. and E.K. drew up a joint will (a “Berliner Testament”) in the Federal Republic of Germany, in accordance with the German Civil Code, which they partially amended on 8 February 2001 by means of a joint declaration.

After L.K.’s death, it emerged that he had left two authentic instruments relating to his estate. The first one is a declaration of disinheritance dated 23 June 2015, by which he disinherited his two daughters and their descendants. The second is a will dated 20 December 2017, in which he chooses Czech law as the law applicable to the succession, and appoints L.P. as sole heir.

The referring court states that, according to N.K. and her children, it is apparent from the joint will drawn up in 1999 that L.K. and E.K. intended to limit their freedom to make a will in the event of the death of one of them. Thus, in such a case, the survivor could only change the circle of his heirs by designating as such certain persons mentioned in the joint will and could therefore only choose between his daughters, E.D. and N.K., and their children.

On 18 January 2023, the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1, represented by a notary acting as judicial commissioner, issued an order stating that the law governing the entire succession was Czech law, pursuant to Article 22(1) of Regulation No 650/2012. It also terminated N.K.’s status as a party to the succession proceedings and decided to continue the proceedings with L.P. only.

N.K. and her children appealed against that decision to the Městský soud v Praze (Municipal Court, Prague, Czech Republic). By decision of 10 July 2023, that court upheld the order of 18 January 2023 in so far as it had terminated N.K.’s status as a party to the proceedings. It set aside the remainder of the decision, stating that the testator’s capacity to amend or revoke the part of the joint will in which he had designated his grandchildren as his heirs was governed by German law and not by Czech law. The appeal court therefore referred the case back to the the Obvodní soud pro Prahu 1 instructing it to determine the content of German law, while specifying that only after such a step had been taken could the dispute over inheritance law between L.P. and the children of N.K. be resolved.

The hearing will probably focus on the competence of the Czech notary to raise preliminary questions. At its end, advocate general M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona Will announce the date of delivery of his opinion. The chamber is composed by judges I. Jarukaitis, M. Condinanzi, R. Frendo, A. Kornezov and N. Jääskinen (reporting).

Finally, on Thursday 27th the Court will deliver its decision in case C-643/24, Manuel Costa Filhos. Here, the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça (Supreme Court of Justice, Portugal) has referred three questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Regulation No 1393/2007 on the service od documents (no longer in force) and Regulation No 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims:

In the event that, from a procedural perspective, the failure to send the standard form set out in Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 … cannot be rectified, on account of the declaratory proceedings having already given rise to a final judgment ordering payment, does Article 8(1) of that regulation, taking into account the right to a defence of the addressee of that document in accordance with the requirements of a fair trial, enshrined in the second paragraph of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in Article 6(1) of the [European Convention on Human Rights] preclude national legislation which considers service effected by registered letter with an acknowledgement of receipt to be invalid when it was not accompanied by the standard form set out in Annex II to that regulation?

Must Article 20(1) of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 …, which provides that ‘a judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order shall be enforced under the same conditions as a judgment handed down in the Member State of enforcement’, be interpreted as meaning that the judgment debtor may oppose enforcement based on a European Enforcement Order relying on the same grounds on which he or she could rely in the case of enforcement based on a judgment handed down in the Member State of enforcement, in particular on the ground that he or she did not participate in the declaratory proceedings and that the service, effected by registered letter with an acknowledgement of receipt, was invalid because it was not accompanied by the standard form set out in Annex II to Regulation [No 1393/2007]?

In view of the objectives which led to the creation of the European Enforcement Order (Article 1 of Regulation No 805/2004) and of the minimum requirements for the service of documents applicable to the proceedings in which the judgment certified as a European Enforcement Order was handed down (Articles 13 and 14 of that regulation), which, according to recital 14 of that regulation, are characterised by either full certainty (Article 13) or a very high degree of likelihood (Article 14) that the document served had reached its addressee, does Regulation No 805/2004 preclude national legislation, such as that contained in Article 729(d), read in conjunction with Article 696[(e)(i)], of the [Código de Processo Civil (Code of Civil Procedure)], according to which the judgment debtor may oppose the enforcement on the ground that he or she did not participate in the declaratory proceedings and that the service, effected by registered letter with an acknowledgement of receipt, was invalid because it was not accompanied by the standard form set out in Annex II to Regulation No 139[3]/2007?

The questions were raised in proceedings between a company incorporated under Portuguese law, Manuel Costa & Filhos, Lda (hereinafter “Manuel Costa”) and a company incorporated under Estonian law, OÜ Wine Port of Paldiski (hereinafter “Wine Port”), concerning the enforcement in Portugal of a judgment delivered and certified as a European Enforcement Order in Estonia.

Wine Port had brought an action for payment against Manuel Costa before an Estonian court. The document instituting the proceedings and other documents in the proceedings were served on Manuel Costa by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt. No translation into Portuguese was provided; the service was not accompanied by the standard form set out in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007 informing the latter company of its right to refuse to accept those documents.

Manuel Costa signed the acknowledgement of receipt, but did not take a position on the documents served and did not intervene in the proceedings before the Estonian court. In those circumstances, by a judgment served on Manuel Costa on 20 April 2022, the Estonian court ordered that company to pay the sum of EUR 41 831.47 to Wine Port.

On 22 June 2022, Manuel Costa was notified by registered letter that the judgment had become enforceable. The judgment was certified as a European Enforcement Order in accordance with Regulation No 805/2004. Wine Port brought enforcement proceedings against Manuel Costa before the Portuguese courts.

Manuel Costa raised an objection on the grounds that the service of the document instituting proceedings before the Estonian court was invalid in the absence of the standard form set out in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007. On this basis, the court of first instance ordered the suspension of enforcement. That decision was overturned on appeal.

Following an appeal lodged by Manuel Costa, the case came before Supremo Tribunal de Justiça.  This court states that, under Portuguese law, service of a document carried out without the standard form set out in Annex II to Regulation No 1393/2007 is null and void and that that nullity, together with the fact that the party against whom service was sought did not intervene in the proceedings on the substance in which the nullity was established, means that the judgment cannot be enforced. The Supremo Tribunal de Justiça further states that, according to the Court of Justice judgments C‑519/13, Alpha Bank Cyprus and C-354/15, Henderson, and the order in case C-346/21, ING Luxembourg, the absence of the standard form does not render the service invalid but merely gives rise to an obligation to regularise it. However, in those cases, the absence of the form was raised during the proceedings on the merits, that is to say, at a time when it was still possible to regularise said absence. In the case at hand that omission is relied on at a time when the main proceedings have come to an end, during the enforcement of the judgment delivered at the end of those proceedings.

The case has been assigned to the same chamber as C-14/25, Thüringer Aufbaubank, which will decide without an AG’s opinion.

— Update to the post of October 2025 at the Court of Justice: on 30 October 2025, the Court delivered its judgment in case C-398/24, Pome, not preceded by an opinion or a hearing. The ruling is concerned with the interpretation of Article 25, on choice of court agreements, of the Brussels I bis Regulation. A summary of the facts and the decision can be found at Geert van Calster’s blog.