Civil Law And Cross-Border Family Wealth Management Litigation In Europe

1. Introduction

Cross-border family wealth management litigation concerns disputes over the ownership, administration, division, succession, protection and transfer of family assets where the family, spouses, heirs, trusts/foundations, companies or assets are connected with more than one European country.

Typical examples include:

• spouses living in France but owning property in Spain and Italy;
• a German family with investment assets in Austria;
• a deceased person habitually resident in Belgium leaving property in France;
• spouses who divorce in one Member State while their matrimonial assets are located in several others;
• family-owned companies held through different jurisdictions;
• inheritance disputes involving bank accounts, securities and real estate in several countries;
• disputes between heirs and surviving spouses concerning matrimonial-property rights;
• challenges concerning the administration or division of jointly owned family property.

The major legal difficulty is that family wealth does not fall under one single European legal regime. Matrimonial property, succession, maintenance, divorce, trusts, companies, taxation and property registration can be governed by different instruments.

The European approach therefore seeks to achieve:

one coherent determination of jurisdiction + applicable law + recognition/enforcement, while respecting the special character of family and succession law.

2. Meaning of Cross-Border Family Wealth Management

Family wealth management can involve:

During marriage

• matrimonial property;
• separate property;
• community property;
• jointly owned real estate;
• family businesses;
• investment portfolios;
• bank accounts;
• pensions;
• family homes.

On separation/divorce

• liquidation of matrimonial property;
• division of jointly acquired assets;
• ownership disputes;
• valuation of family businesses;
• allocation of investment assets.

On death

• inheritance;
• surviving spouse's rights;
• forced-heirship questions;
• wills;
• succession agreements;
• European Certificate of Succession;
• estate administration.

Across generations

• gifts;
• family settlements;
• succession planning;
• succession agreements;
• intergenerational transfers.

3. Why Cross-Border Family Wealth Litigation Is Complex

A single family may have:

Spouses → French residence

Marriage → Italian matrimonial-property regime

Family home → Spain

Bank account → Luxembourg

Investment portfolio → Germany

Family company → Netherlands

Deceased parent → habitual residence in Belgium

The question becomes:

Which court should decide which part of the family's wealth dispute, under which legal regime?

European law attempts to prevent every asset from generating a completely separate proceeding.

4. Main European Legal Framework

A. Regulation 2016/1103 — Matrimonial Property Regimes

Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 concerns:

• jurisdiction;
• applicable law;
• recognition;
• enforcement

in matters of matrimonial property regimes.

It applies through enhanced cooperation and is currently binding among 18 participating Member States.

It covers civil-law aspects of matrimonial property regimes, including:

• management of matrimonial property;
• liquidation of the regime;
• consequences of separation;
• consequences of death;
• relations with third parties in appropriate circumstances.

5. Regulation 650/2012 — Succession

Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 deals with:

• international succession;
• jurisdiction;
• applicable succession law;
• recognition and enforcement;
• authentic instruments;
• European Certificate of Succession.

It seeks to avoid fragmentation of a person's estate by using the deceased's habitual residence as a central connecting factor.

The CJEU has stressed that habitual residence for succession purposes should generally be identified in one Member State, because allowing several habitual residences could fragment the succession.

6. Brussels I bis and Its Limits

The Brussels I bis Regulation normally governs jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters.

However, matrimonial property regimes and succession are excluded from its substantive scope.

This distinction is extremely important.

A dispute may appear to concern "property", but if the property relationship arises directly from marriage, the matrimonial-property regime may apply instead of Brussels I bis.

Similarly, inheritance disputes may fall under the Succession Regulation.

7. Case Law 1 — De Cavel

De Cavel v De Cavel

CJEU, Case 143/78, judgment of 27 March 1979

This is a foundational European authority.

Facts

The dispute arose in the context of divorce proceedings and involved provisional measures concerning the property of spouses.

Decision

The CJEU examined whether disputes concerning property relationships arising directly from marriage fell within the civil-and-commercial jurisdiction regime.

It concluded that matrimonial property relationships resulting directly from the marriage or its dissolution fall outside the Brussels Convention's civil-and-commercial scope.

Importance

The decision created an important conceptual distinction between:

ordinary property dispute

and

property dispute arising directly from marriage.

Principle

The legal origin of the property relationship matters more than the simple fact that the dispute concerns property.

This principle later influenced the interpretation of Brussels I bis and Regulation 2016/1103.

8. Case Law 2 — Iliev

Iliev v Ilieva

CJEU, Case C-67/17, order of 14 June 2017

Facts

Former spouses had acquired property during their marriage.

Following the dissolution of the marriage, they disputed the liquidation of that property.

Decision

The CJEU held that a dispute concerning the liquidation of property acquired during marriage and arising directly from the matrimonial relationship falls outside Brussels I bis because it concerns rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship.

Importance

This case is particularly relevant to family wealth litigation because it prevents parties from treating a matrimonial-property dispute as an ordinary commercial/property claim merely because the immediate remedy concerns assets.

Principle

Matrimonial-property disputes are legally distinct from ordinary civil property litigation.

9. Case Law 3 — Mahnkopf

Mahnkopf

CJEU, Case C-558/16, judgment of 1 March 2018

Facts

A German national died, leaving a surviving spouse and a child.

The dispute concerned the surviving spouse's share in the deceased's estate and the interaction between:

• succession law; and
• matrimonial-property law.

The estate included immovable property in Sweden.

Decision

The CJEU examined whether a German rule increasing the surviving spouse's share because of the matrimonial property regime could fall within the scope of the Succession Regulation.

The Court held that a provision which determines the surviving spouse's share by reason of the death of the other spouse can fall within the concept of succession, despite having its origin partly in matrimonial-property law.

Importance

This is one of the most important cases for family wealth planning because the border between:

matrimonial property

and

succession

can materially affect which European Regulation applies.

Principle

The same financial result can involve both matrimonial-property and succession concepts; classification must focus on the legal function of the rule.

10. Case Law 4 — Oberle

Oberle

CJEU, Case C-20/17, judgment of 21 June 2018

Facts

Mr Oberle sought a German certificate of inheritance concerning an estate.

The deceased had cross-border connections.

The issue was whether the German court had jurisdiction to issue a national certificate concerning the succession.

Decision

The CJEU interpreted Article 4 of the Succession Regulation as conferring general jurisdiction over the succession as a whole on the courts of the Member State where the deceased had his or her habitual residence at the time of death.

The Court emphasised the principle of unity of the succession.

Importance

For family wealth management, this means that an estate containing:

• French property;
• German bank accounts;
• Italian securities;
• Spanish real estate

does not necessarily require four separate succession proceedings.

Principle

The Succession Regulation seeks to concentrate the succession in a single principal jurisdiction.

11. Case Law 5 — E.E.

E.E. (Jurisdiction and Law Applicable to Inheritance)

CJEU, Case C-80/19, judgment of 16 July 2020

Facts

The deceased had cross-border connections involving Lithuania and another State.

The case raised several issues concerning:

• habitual residence;
• jurisdiction;
• notaries;
• choice of court;
• choice of succession law;
• European Certificate of Succession.

Decision

The CJEU examined how the deceased's habitual residence should be identified.

The Court stressed that habitual residence must normally be established in one Member State so that the succession is not fragmented. It also examined when a notary can be regarded as a "court" for purposes of the Succession Regulation.

Importance

This case is highly relevant to wealthy families who use:

• notaries;
• estate planners;
• succession agreements;
• European Certificates of Succession.

Principle

Cross-border estate planning requires careful identification of the deceased's habitual residence and the legal capacity of the authority administering the succession.

12. Case Law 6 — Kubicka

Kubicka

CJEU, Case C-218/16, judgment of 12 October 2017

Facts

A Polish testator wished to leave property through a particular form of legacy.

The immovable property was situated in Germany, where that type of legacy did not exist in the same form.

Decision

The CJEU interpreted the Succession Regulation in a manner protecting the effectiveness of the testator's chosen succession arrangement.

The Court distinguished between:

• the substantive succession rights created by the succession law; and
• certain rights in rem and land-registration mechanisms of the Member State where the property is situated. 

Importance

This is significant for families holding property across multiple European States.

A succession arrangement may be governed by one country's succession law even though the property is located elsewhere, subject to the Regulation's limitations concerning rights in rem and registration.

Principle

The law governing succession does not automatically become the law of every property-registration system where estate assets are located.

13. Case Law 7 — UM

UM

CJEU, Case C-277/20, judgment of 9 September 2021

Facts

The case concerned a contractual transfer of ownership intended to operate on death.

The question was whether such an arrangement constituted an agreement as to succession under Regulation 650/2012.

Decision

The CJEU interpreted the concept of an agreement as to succession under Article 3(1)(b) of the Succession Regulation.

The classification determined whether the arrangement fell within the European succession framework.

Importance

Families frequently use:

• family agreements;
• lifetime gifts;
• death-triggered transfers;
• succession contracts.

The legal classification of such instruments can determine the applicable European rules.

Principle

The legal substance of a wealth-transfer arrangement, rather than its title, determines whether it constitutes an agreement as to succession.

14. Case Law 8 — Duftošek

Duftošek

CJEU, Case C-300/25, judgment of 24 September 2026

This is a particularly important recent authority.

Facts

A married couple had:

• agreed a separate-property regime;
• acquired immovable property in Paris jointly;
• subsequently divorced;
• maintained their last habitual residence in the Czech Republic.

After divorce, one spouse sought liquidation and division of the co-owned French property.

The question was whether the dispute fell under:

Brussels I bis

or

Regulation 2016/1103 on matrimonial property regimes.

Decision

The CJEU held that an application for liquidation and division of immovable property acquired solely by spouses during marriage under an agreed separate-property regime, brought after dissolution of the marriage, falls within the matrimonial-property regime Regulation.

Importance

This case is highly relevant to modern family wealth litigation because it shows that the fact that the asset is immovable property situated in another Member State does not necessarily turn the dispute into an ordinary property-rights case governed by Brussels I bis.

The matrimonial connection can remain decisive.

Principle

Post-divorce division of jointly owned property can fall within the matrimonial-property regime even when the property is situated in another Member State.

15. The Importance of Duftošek

The judgment provides a strong illustration of the European objective of avoiding fragmentation.

Imagine:

• matrimonial property in France;
• another house in Spain;
• investments in Germany.

If the disputes were treated solely as ordinary property disputes, each asset could potentially generate separate litigation based on its location.

The CJEU's broad interpretation of Regulation 2016/1103 can allow matrimonial-property disputes to be concentrated before a single appropriate court.

The Court expressly linked the broad interpretation with simplification, predictability and prevention of fragmented litigation.

16. What Is a Matrimonial Property Regime?

Under Regulation 2016/1103, the concept is interpreted broadly.

It includes property relationships:

• between spouses;
• between former spouses;
• potentially involving third parties;
• arising directly from marriage or its dissolution.

The CJEU has emphasised that the concept is an autonomous EU-law concept, rather than something determined separately by each Member State.

17. Family Wealth and Real Estate

Real estate creates one of the most difficult jurisdictional questions.

Normally, European jurisdiction rules give strong importance to the location of immovable property.

But family wealth litigation can change the analysis.

Example

French spouses own a house in Spain.

After divorce, one spouse seeks division of that house.

The question is not simply:

"Where is the house?"

The court must first ask:

Why does the claimant have the alleged property right?

If the claim arises directly from the matrimonial relationship, Regulation 2016/1103 may be relevant.

The recent Duftošek judgment illustrates this distinction.

18. Family Wealth and Succession

When a spouse dies, two separate legal layers may arise:

Layer 1 — Matrimonial property

What belongs to the surviving spouse because of the matrimonial-property regime?

Layer 2 — Succession

What belongs to the deceased's estate and passes to heirs?

This distinction is fundamental.

Example

Family assets = €10 million.

Before succession is calculated:

Step 1: determine the surviving spouse's matrimonial-property entitlement.

Step 2: identify what remains in the deceased's estate.

Step 3: distribute that estate under succession law.

This interaction was central to Mahnkopf.

19. Succession and Habitual Residence

Under Regulation 650/2012, the deceased's habitual residence at death is a central connecting factor.

It can influence:

• jurisdiction;
• applicable succession law;
• administration of the estate.

The CJEU's reasoning in Oberle and E.E. seeks to prevent the succession from being fragmented among multiple jurisdictions.

20. Choice of Succession Law

European succession law allows a person, within the Regulation's conditions, to choose the law of the State of which he or she is a national.

This can be an important estate-planning tool.

However, the choice must satisfy the Regulation's requirements.

The CJEU has recognised that the freedom of choice under the Succession Regulation is not restricted only to EU Member-State nationality; the chosen law can in appropriate circumstances be that of a third State.

21. Choice of Court

In certain succession circumstances, parties may also agree on jurisdiction in accordance with the Succession Regulation.

This can help families reduce uncertainty where:

• the deceased selected a particular national law;
• heirs live in different States;
• assets are distributed across Europe.

The E.E. case is particularly useful for understanding the relationship between choice of law and choice of court.

22. European Certificate of Succession

The European Certificate of Succession (ECS) facilitates proof of:

• heir status;
• beneficiary status;
• powers of executors;
• powers of administrators.

It is particularly useful where estate assets are located in several Member States.

Example

A deceased person leaves:

• German securities;
• French real estate;
• Belgian bank accounts.

An heir may use the ECS to demonstrate succession rights across participating Member States.

Mahnkopf and Oberle are important authorities for understanding the operation of the European succession system.

23. Family Businesses

Family wealth is often held through companies.

Example:

Family → Dutch holding company → French operating company → Spanish real estate

A dispute concerning the shares may involve:

• succession;
• matrimonial property;
• company law;
• shareholder rights;
• corporate governance;
• inheritance.

A crucial distinction must therefore be made between:

ownership of shares

and

ownership of company assets.

A spouse or heir inheriting shares does not automatically become the direct owner of the company's underlying property.

24. Third-Party Creditors

Family wealth disputes can also affect creditors.

For example:

Husband owns 50% of a family company.
Wife claims that the shares form part of the matrimonial estate.
A creditor seeks enforcement against the husband's assets.

The court may have to determine:

1. matrimonial-property rights;
2. company ownership;
3. third-party rights;
4. enforceability against creditors.

Regulation 2016/1103 expressly takes account, in its scope, of certain relationships between spouses and third parties arising directly from marriage.

25. Family Home

The family home receives special attention.

A family may have:

• home in France;
• investment property in Spain;
• holiday home in Italy.

The matrimonial-property framework may determine the spouses' property relationship even though the property itself is located elsewhere.

The CJEU's recent reasoning in Duftošek emphasises that Regulation 2016/1103 does not simply split the couple's property relationships according to the location of each asset.

26. Trusts and Foundations

Trusts create an additional complexity because European civil-law jurisdictions differ substantially in their treatment of trusts.

A family may use:

• an English trust;
• a Liechtenstein foundation;
• a Luxembourg company;
• a French matrimonial regime.

A court may have to separate:

matrimonial property

from

succession

from

trust/foundation ownership

from

corporate ownership.

The fact that an asset is described as "family wealth" does not determine its legal ownership.

27. Gifts and Lifetime Transfers

Family wealth management often involves lifetime gifts.

Examples:

• parent → child;
• spouse → spouse;
• family company → heir;
• donation of real estate;
• transfer of shares.

The legal classification can be critical because the transaction may fall under:

• ordinary property law;
• matrimonial-property law;
• succession law;
• gift law;
• company law.

The UM case demonstrates the importance of correctly classifying transfers intended to operate on death.

28. Forced-Heirship and Reserved Shares

European countries have different rules concerning:

• compulsory heirs;
• reserved shares;
• surviving-spouse rights;
• testamentary freedom.

A family may attempt to structure its wealth so that assets pass according to a chosen succession plan.

However, the applicable succession law must first be identified.

The Succession Regulation can determine the applicable law, but it does not harmonise the substantive inheritance law of all European countries.

29. Tax Is Separate

Family wealth litigation must distinguish:

private international law

from

tax law.

A European succession decision does not automatically determine:

• inheritance tax;
• gift tax;
• capital-gains tax;
• wealth tax;
• property tax.

Similarly, matrimonial-property classification does not necessarily determine tax treatment.

This is particularly important in high-value estates.

30. Asset Location Does Not Always Decide the Case

A common mistake is:

"The property is in France, therefore French courts must decide everything."

That is too simplistic.

The court must identify the legal nature of the dispute.

Ordinary property dispute

Location of the property can be decisive.

Matrimonial-property dispute

Regulation 2016/1103 may govern.

Succession dispute

Regulation 650/2012 may govern.

Company dispute

Company-law jurisdictional rules may apply.

Tax dispute

Tax law and bilateral/multilateral arrangements may apply.

31. Litigation Classification Is the First Step

A lawyer should first ask:

Question 1

Is this about marriage?

↓

Regulation 2016/1103 may apply.

Question 2

Is this about death/succession?

↓

Regulation 650/2012 may apply.

Question 3

Is it an ordinary civil/commercial dispute?

↓

Brussels I bis may apply.

Question 4

Is it about a company?

↓

Company-law rules may become relevant.

Question 5

Is it about tax?

↓

Separate tax rules apply.

32. Recognition and Enforcement

Family wealth litigation frequently ends with a judgment that must be used in another country.

Examples:

• Czech court determines matrimonial-property rights over French property;
• Belgian succession court determines heir status concerning Italian assets;
• German court issues a succession-related decision concerning Spanish property.

The relevant European instrument determines the mechanisms for:

• recognition;
• enforcement;
• authentic instruments;
• public documents;
• European certificates.

33. Digital Family Wealth

Modern family wealth is increasingly digital.

Assets may include:

• cryptocurrency;
• digital securities;
• online brokerage accounts;
• digital wallets;
• tokenised assets;
• intellectual property;
• online businesses.

This creates additional jurisdictional difficulties because the asset may not have a simple physical location.

The legal question becomes:

Which legal relationship gives the claimant the right to the digital asset?

It may still require classification under:

• matrimonial property;
• succession;
• company law;
• contract;
• property law.

34. Family Wealth and Cryptocurrency

Suppose:

• husband resides in France;
• wife resides in Belgium;
• marriage was concluded in Italy;
• crypto wallet is controlled through a German exchange;
• private keys are held by a trustee;
• husband dies.

Several legal questions arise:

1. Is the cryptocurrency matrimonial property?
2. Does it belong to the deceased's estate?
3. Which law governs succession?
4. Which court has jurisdiction?
5. What is the location of the asset?
6. How can the heir obtain control?
7. Does the exchange recognise the heir?
8. What evidence proves ownership?

The traditional European family-wealth framework must therefore be adapted to digital assets.

35. Case-Law Comparison Table

36. Major Legal Principles

Principle 1 — Classification comes first

Before deciding jurisdiction, determine whether the dispute concerns:

matrimonial property, succession, ordinary property, company law or another category.

Principle 2 — Matrimonial property is broader than a named marital regime

Regulation 2016/1103 adopts a broad autonomous concept.

It can cover property consequences arising directly from marriage or its dissolution.

Principle 3 — Succession seeks unity

The Succession Regulation aims to avoid fragmenting one estate across numerous Member States.

Oberle and E.E. are central authorities.

Principle 4 — Location of property is not always decisive

An asset may be located in France, Spain or Italy while the matrimonial or succession dispute is governed by a different European instrument.

Duftošek demonstrates this particularly clearly.

Principle 5 — Matrimonial property and succession must be separated

First determine:

what belongs to the spouse

and then:

what belongs to the deceased's estate.

Mahnkopf is the classic authority.

Principle 6 — European instruments pursue predictability

The objective is to reduce:

• parallel proceedings;
• conflicting judgments;
• fragmented asset litigation;
• unnecessary procedural costs.

The CJEU expressly connected the broad matrimonial-property approach with simplification and predictability in Duftošek.

37. Practical Hypothetical

Facts

A married couple:

• lives in Belgium;
• married in France;
• chose French matrimonial law;
• owns a villa in Spain;
• owns shares in a Luxembourg company;
• maintains bank accounts in Germany;
• owns investments in Italy.

They divorce.

Dispute

The husband argues that the Spanish villa belongs exclusively to him.

The wife argues that it is part of the matrimonial estate.

Legal analysis

The court should not begin merely with:

"The villa is in Spain."

It should first ask:

1. What matrimonial regime applies?
2. Is the claim a matrimonial-property dispute?
3. Does Regulation 2016/1103 apply?
4. Which court has jurisdiction under that Regulation?
5. Does the dispute concern third-party rights?
6. How should the Spanish property title be affected?
7. What recognition/enforcement mechanism applies in Spain?

Duftošek demonstrates why the matrimonial connection can remain decisive even where the disputed asset is immovable property in another Member State.

38. Death Scenario

Assume the husband later dies.

The legal analysis changes.

Stage 1

Determine the wife's matrimonial-property entitlement.

Stage 2

Determine the assets remaining in the husband's estate.

Stage 3

Apply the Succession Regulation.

Stage 4

Determine the applicable succession law.

Stage 5

Identify heirs and testamentary beneficiaries.

Stage 6

Use the European Certificate of Succession where appropriate.

This separation reflects the reasoning illustrated by Mahnkopf.

39. Main Litigation Risks

Cross-border family wealth disputes commonly involve:

1. forum disputes;
2. parallel proceedings;
3. classification disputes;
4. conflict between matrimonial and succession law;
5. real-estate registration problems;
6. company ownership disputes;
7. trust/foundation structures;
8. third-party creditor claims;
9. tax complications;
10. asset concealment;
11. valuation disputes;
12. digital asset tracing;
13. recognition/enforcement difficulties.

40. Family Wealth Management and Litigation Prevention

A well-structured cross-border family wealth plan should consider:

Before marriage

• matrimonial-property agreement;
• choice of applicable law where permitted;
• identification of existing assets.

During marriage

• records of ownership;
• documentation of contributions;
• treatment of family businesses;
• cross-border asset registers.

Estate planning

• valid will;
• succession-law choice where permitted;
• succession agreements where legally available;
• European Certificate of Succession planning.

Cross-border property

• title verification;
• local registration;
• identification of matrimonial status;
• coordination with local property law.

Corporate wealth

• shareholder agreements;
• succession arrangements;
• governance provisions;
• separation of company and personal assets.

41. Conclusion

Cross-border family wealth management litigation in Europe is fundamentally a problem of legal classification and coordination.

The same family asset may appear to be:

• ordinary property;
• matrimonial property;
• part of an estate;
• company property;
• trust property;
• or a digital asset.

The applicable European regime depends on why the claimant says that he or she owns or is entitled to the asset.

The foundational De Cavel and Iliev cases distinguish matrimonial-property disputes from ordinary civil litigation. Mahnkopf demonstrates the difficult boundary between matrimonial property and succession. Oberle and E.E. emphasise unity of succession and the importance of habitual residence. Kubicka demonstrates the interaction between succession law and local property-registration systems. UM illustrates the classification of death-related transfers.

Most importantly, the recent Duftošek (C-300/25) judgment of 24 September 2026 confirms that the European matrimonial-property framework can cover the liquidation and division of immovable property acquired by spouses under a separate-property regime after divorce, even where that immovable property is situated in another Member State.

The practical lesson is:

Do not begin a cross-border family wealth dispute by asking only where the asset is located. First determine whether the claim arises from marriage, divorce, succession, ordinary property ownership, company ownership or another legal relationship.

Ultra-Basic Revision Keywords

Family Wealth → Cross-Border Assets → Matrimonial Property → Succession → Brussels I bis → Regulation 2016/1103 → Regulation 650/2012 → Habitual Residence → Matrimonial Regime → Separate Property → Community Property → Family Home → Divorce → Liquidation → Estate → Heirs → Will → Succession Agreement → European Certificate of Succession → Choice of Law → Choice of Court → Immovable Property → Company Shares → Family Business → Trust → Foundation → Third-Party Creditors → Recognition → Enforcement → Property Registration → Digital Assets → Cryptocurrency → De Cavel → Iliev → Mahnkopf → Oberle → E.E. → Kubicka → UM → Duftošek.