Analysis
Mr Mahnkopf was married to Mrs Mahnkopf when he died on 29 August 2015. Both spouses, who had German nationality, were habitually resident in Berlin. The deceased made no disposition of property upon death and his sole heirs were his wife and only son. Mr and Mrs Mahnkopf were subject to the statutory property regime of community of accrued gains and had not entered into a marriage contract. In addition to assets situated in Germany, the estate included a half share in the co-ownership of a property in Sweden. The Amtsgericht Schonenberg, which was the Probate Court with jurisdiction in respect of the estate, issued a national certificate of inheritance on 30 May 2016 according to which Mrs Mahnkopf and her son each inherited one half of the deceased’s assets pursuant to the intestacy succession laws of Germany.
Mrs Mahnkopf’s half share of the estate resulted from the application of para 1931(1) of the Burgerliches Gesetzbuch under which the surviving spouse’s share on intestacy, which was one quarter, was increased by an additional quarter when both spouses were subject to the matrimonial property regime of community of accrued gains. Mrs Mahnkopf applied to a notary on 16 June 2016 for the issue of a European Certificate of Succession (the Certificate) pursuant to Regulation No. 650/2012 (the Regulation) designating her and her son as co-heirs. Mrs Mahnkopf wished to use the Certificate for the purpose of registering her and her son’s rights of ownership of the property in Sweden.
The Amtsgericht Schonenberg rejected the notary’s application for the Certificate on the ground that the share allocated to the surviving spouse was partly based, as regards one quarter of the estate, on the matrimonial property regime – as this in its view was not based on a succession regime, it did not fall within the scope of the Regulation. Mrs Mahnkopf appealed to the Kammergericht Berlin, which was the Higher Regional Court, and requested that the Certificate be issued with a note referring, for information purposes, to her succession rights based, as regards one quarter of the estate, on the community of accrued gains. Academic opinion was divided on the question as to whether the relevant rule was a matter of succession or a matter of matrimonial property. The court took the view that it was not a rule governing succession to the estates of deceased persons within the meaning of Art 1(1) of the Regulation and, in the absence of harmonisation of the provisions relating to matrimonial property regimes in the European Union, the increase in the surviving spouse’s share of the estate on intestacy resulting from the application of the rule concerning matrimonial property regimes could not be recorded, even for information purposes, in the Certificate. Nevertheless, the court decided to stay proceedings and refer to the Court of Justice a request for a preliminary ruling on the question, inter alia, whether Art 1 of Regulation falls to be interpreted as including within its scope provisions of national law which settle questions relating to matrimonial property regimes after the death of one spouse by increasing the surviving spouse’s share of the estate on intestacy.
Held (answering the question in the affirmative):
According to settled case law, it followed from a need for uniform application and the principle of equality that the terms of a provision of EU law which makes no express reference to the law of Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union. It was apparent from recitals to the Regulation that it should not apply to areas of civil law other than succession, in particular to questions relating to matrimonial property regimes – including marriage settlements – to the extent that such settlements do not deal with succession matters. As the Advocate General had observed, the relevant rule was not concerned with the division of assets between spouses but the issue of rights of the surviving spouse in relation to assets already counted as part of the estate. Accordingly, that provision did not appear to have as its main purpose the allocation of assets or liquidation of the matrimonial property regime but rather determination of the size of the share of the estate to be allocated to the surviving spouse as against the other heirs. Such a provision therefore principally concerned succession to the estate of a deceased spouse and not the matrimonial property regime. Consequently, the rule of national law such as that at issue in the present proceedings related to a matter of succession for the purposes of the Regulation. Further, as the Advocate General had also observed, classification of the share falling to the surviving spouse under a provision of national law such as in the present case allowed information concerning that share to be included in the Certificate with all the effects described in Art 69 of the Regulation. It followed, therefore, that the objectives of the Certificate would be greatly impeded in a situation such as that at issue in the present proceedings if it did not include full information relating to the surviving spouse’s rights regarding the estate. The answer to the first question was that Article 1 of the Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that a national provision, such as that at issue in the present proceedings, which prescribed on the death of one of the spouses a fixed allocation of accrued gains by increasing the surviving spouse’s share of the estate falls within the scope of the Regulation.
JUDGMENT [1] This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Art 1(1), 67(1) and 68(l) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council 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 …Continue reading "Mahnkopf v Mahnkopf [2018] WTLR 947"