December 2025 at the Court of Justice of the European Union – Update
The decision in case C-240/24, BNP Paribas Fortis, will be delivered on 18 December.
After a Belgium bank refused to acknowledge the legitimation effect of a European Certificate of Succession issued in Poland, the issuing notary (the Notary in Krapkowice Justyna Gawlica – Krapkowice, Poland) started on its own motion proceedings to withdraw the certificate. In this context, he referred the following questions to the Cour of Justice:
- Must Article 71(2) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 [on matters of succession] be interpreted as meaning that in the current proceedings to withdraw or modify a European Certificate of Succession that has been issued, the non-judicial authority issuing the certificate of succession is entitled to refer a question for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 of the TFEU?
and if the answer to that question is in the affirmative:
- Does Article 71(2) of the above regulation allow for the costs of proceedings to withdraw or modify a European Certificate of Succession to be charged, based on national law, to a bank that was not a participant in the proceedings to issue this certificate, has not filed an application for its withdrawal or modification, but has questioned the legitimation effects of the certificate presented to it in such a way that has led to the issuing authority of its own motion starting proceedings to withdraw or modify the certificate, conducted with the participation of that bank?
and if the answer to that question is in the affirmative:
3. Must Article 69(2) of the above regulation be interpreted as meaning that the bank to which a valid certified copy of a European Certificate of Succession is presented is not entitled to challenge the status as heir of the person identified in the certificate?
The case has been allocated to a chamber of three judges (M. Condinanzi, R. Frendo et N. Jääskinen as reporting judge). No opinion has been requested.
Additionally, I would like to report that on 11 December 2025, the Court of Justice published its ruling in case C-789/23, Tatrauskė. The request was made in proceedings between I. J. and the Registrų centras VĮ (Registers Centre, Lithuania), concerning the refusal by the latter of the request made by I. J. for the registration of information relating to her matrimonial property regime in the Lithuanian Register of Marriage Contracts. After the Regional Administrative Court of Vilnius dismissed as unfounded her action challenging the decision of the Registers Center , I.J. brought an appeal before the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania, the referring court. The question for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 21 of the TFUE:
Must Article 21(1) [TFEU] be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a marriage contract concluded in another Member State of the European Union may not be recorded in the Register of Marriage Contracts if the marriage contract does not contain the personal identification number of at least one of the parties to that contract, as provided by the Population Register of the Republic of Lithuania, where, in circumstances such as those of the present case, the competent authorities of the Member State in which the marriage contract was concluded refuse to provide an extract from that contract supplemented by the relevant personal identification information?
AG M. Szpunar’s opinion, published on May 22, 2025, was already commented on the blog. Following his views closely, the Court (Second Chamber) has ruled that Article 21(1) TFEU
must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which the registration in the Register of Marriage Contracts of a marriage contract concluded in another Member State is subject to the requirement that that contract contain the personal identification number, issued by that first Member State, of at least one of the two spouses, where such a requirement is not laid down in respect of the registration, in that register, of a marriage contract concluded in that Member State and where the information contained in that contract make it possible to identify the persons who concluded that contract.