Public policy in Succession Authentic Instruments

Articles 59 and 60 of the European Succession Regulation

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This chapter indicates the scope for difficulties in establishing the meaning of the public policy exceptions provided by Article 59(1) and Article 60(3) of the European Succession Regulation. Though EU jurisprudence from other EU Regulations concerning public policy exceptions for judgments offers some guidance, the lack of jurisprudence concerning the public policy of authentic instruments, diversity among national succession laws and the novelty of Article 59’s obligation of ‘acceptance’ may pose problems for authentic instruments in the Succession Regulation. The high probability of the Succession Regulation being operated by non-contentious probate practitioners, rather than by the courts more usually empowered by such European Regulations, is also suggested to potentially add to these difficulties. For those and other reasons it is suggested that cases involving the public policy exceptions should be capable of diversion to domestic or European courts for the determination of the public policy points at issue.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)366-396
Number of pages31
JournalInDret
Volume2
Publication statusPublished - 30 Apr 2017

Fingerprint

public policy
regulation
jurisprudence
EU
obligation
acceptance
Law
lack

Keywords

  • succession
  • authentic instruments
  • European law

Cite this

Public policy in Succession Authentic Instruments : Articles 59 and 60 of the European Succession Regulation. / Fitchen, Jonathan.

In: InDret, Vol. 2, 30.04.2017, p. 366-396.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{579a6f52bfb84c78b5fe07c399b2b675,
title = "Public policy in Succession Authentic Instruments: Articles 59 and 60 of the European Succession Regulation",
abstract = "This chapter indicates the scope for difficulties in establishing the meaning of the public policy exceptions provided by Article 59(1) and Article 60(3) of the European Succession Regulation. Though EU jurisprudence from other EU Regulations concerning public policy exceptions for judgments offers some guidance, the lack of jurisprudence concerning the public policy of authentic instruments, diversity among national succession laws and the novelty of Article 59’s obligation of ‘acceptance’ may pose problems for authentic instruments in the Succession Regulation. The high probability of the Succession Regulation being operated by non-contentious probate practitioners, rather than by the courts more usually empowered by such European Regulations, is also suggested to potentially add to these difficulties. For those and other reasons it is suggested that cases involving the public policy exceptions should be capable of diversion to domestic or European courts for the determination of the public policy points at issue.",
keywords = "succession, authentic instruments, European law",
author = "Jonathan Fitchen",
year = "2017",
month = "4",
day = "30",
language = "English",
volume = "2",
pages = "366--396",
journal = "InDret",
issn = "1698-739X",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Public policy in Succession Authentic Instruments

T2 - Articles 59 and 60 of the European Succession Regulation

AU - Fitchen, Jonathan

PY - 2017/4/30

Y1 - 2017/4/30

N2 - This chapter indicates the scope for difficulties in establishing the meaning of the public policy exceptions provided by Article 59(1) and Article 60(3) of the European Succession Regulation. Though EU jurisprudence from other EU Regulations concerning public policy exceptions for judgments offers some guidance, the lack of jurisprudence concerning the public policy of authentic instruments, diversity among national succession laws and the novelty of Article 59’s obligation of ‘acceptance’ may pose problems for authentic instruments in the Succession Regulation. The high probability of the Succession Regulation being operated by non-contentious probate practitioners, rather than by the courts more usually empowered by such European Regulations, is also suggested to potentially add to these difficulties. For those and other reasons it is suggested that cases involving the public policy exceptions should be capable of diversion to domestic or European courts for the determination of the public policy points at issue.

AB - This chapter indicates the scope for difficulties in establishing the meaning of the public policy exceptions provided by Article 59(1) and Article 60(3) of the European Succession Regulation. Though EU jurisprudence from other EU Regulations concerning public policy exceptions for judgments offers some guidance, the lack of jurisprudence concerning the public policy of authentic instruments, diversity among national succession laws and the novelty of Article 59’s obligation of ‘acceptance’ may pose problems for authentic instruments in the Succession Regulation. The high probability of the Succession Regulation being operated by non-contentious probate practitioners, rather than by the courts more usually empowered by such European Regulations, is also suggested to potentially add to these difficulties. For those and other reasons it is suggested that cases involving the public policy exceptions should be capable of diversion to domestic or European courts for the determination of the public policy points at issue.

KW - succession

KW - authentic instruments

KW - European law

M3 - Article

VL - 2

SP - 366

EP - 396

JO - InDret

JF - InDret

SN - 1698-739X

ER -