What the Regulation does not say
The Regulation says nothing about the hypothesis in which the conflict rule of a third State might make the movable and immovable property subject to different rules of conflict.
According to the assets of the deceased, we might find ourselves in a situation where the rule of conflict of the third State makes a partial renvoi.
Accepting such a renvoi will result in the different assets that make up the estate of the deceased being subject to two different laws, thereby abandoning the principle of unity that is one of the foundations of the Regulation.
Example :
An Austrian died in the United Kingdom, leaving behind immovable property in Austria. Article 21[1] of the Regulation specifies English law. English private international law tends to make a distinction between movable and immovable property.
The former is subject to the law of the last domicile of the deceased. The latter is subject to the law of its location. English law therefore accepts that it applies to the movable property, but specifies that Austrian law must apply as the location of the immovable property.
Neither the letter of Article 34,[2] nor the terms of the Preamble can set aside the renvoi in this case. The majority of the doctrine argues in favour of it being accepted.