Declining of jurisdiction: Article 6
When the deceased has chosen his national law to govern his succession, the court which is seised, which in principle should be the court of the last habitual residence, may, at the request of one of the parties, decline jurisdiction in favour of a court in the Member State of which the deceased chose the law, on the grounds that such court is better placed to rule on the succession, notably as regards the habitual residence of the parties or the location of the assets.
Example : Example (cont’d):
Charlotte’s three children are unable to come to an agreement on how to share out the estate or on the choice of court.
The dispute is referred to the Toledo Court of First Instance and Charlotte’s eldest daughter requests that it decline jurisdiction in favour of an Austrian court on the following grounds:
Austrian law is applicable to the succession
the three heirs reside in Austria
Charlotte owned a family home in Austria but was only the tenant of her apartment in Toledo.
The Court of Toledo considers that these practical circumstances justify referring the matter to an Austrian court.
Such declining of jurisdiction will probably be more widely used than choice-of-court agreements, as an agreement is often difficult to find in disputes in matters of succession, even limited to the competent court.
Warning :
The court simply declines its competence and there is no need to request beforehand whether it accepts its jurisdiction or not. This only works between States participating in the Regulation.