The location of real estate in succession matters is a criterion of exclusive competence for French courts.
A ruling rendered by the Paris Court of Appeal on September 9, 2014, recalls this rule and consequently refuses exequatur for a judgment rendered in Congo-Brazzaville.
Whether assessed under common law via the Cornelissen jurisprudence, or under treaty law by the application of a cooperation agreement concluded with a foreign country, the competence of the foreign tribunal is one of the conditions required for any foreign judgment to receive exequatur in France.
The exclusive competence of the French judge has declined in certain cases, notably that of the French nationality of a party, which then allows for the admission of the competence of a foreign tribunal when the dispute is characteristically linked to the country in which the decision was rendered.
Nevertheless, one domain in particular remains where the French judge retains exclusive competence, excluding all foreign jurisdictional competence: that of the succession of real estate property.
The rule is set in French law by Article 44 of the Code of Civil Procedure: “In real estate matters, the jurisdiction of the place where the real estate is located is the only competent one.”.
This has always been applied in international matters, whenever real estate property is located in France, in exercise of Pelassa jurisprudence.
The case settled by the Paris Court of Appeal currently being commented on offers a perfect illustration of this principle.
In 2008, the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Brazzaville (Republic of the Congo) rendered a judgment pronouncing the opening of a succession and homologating a partition concerning apartments located in France, specifically in the Val-de-Marne, for the benefit of heirs.
In 2013, the heirs introduced a request for exequatur of the Congolese judgment before the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Créteil, in order to eventually be considered the owners of the real estate properties.
The request for exequatur was founded on the Franco-Congolese convention on judicial cooperation of January 1, 1974.
Among the conditions enumerated for the exequatur of the judgment figures the competence of the foreign tribunal.
Quite predictably, the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Créteil rejected the request for exequatur due to the exclusive competence of the French judge to rule on apartments located in France.
The heirs then appealed.
In its ruling rendered on September 9, 2014, the Paris Court of Appeal confirmed the first instance order.
It recalled that “the location of real estate in succession matters is a criterion of exclusive competence for French courts.”.
Consequently, the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Brazzaville did not have the competence to rule on the ownership of real estate properties located in France.
The exequatur of the Congolese judgment was thus refused.
The heirs are therefore not considered owners of the apartments.
The case has the merit of demonstrating that it is prudent to be advised in succession matters before introducing an action abroad.