21 Cdo 2704/2017

Meaning

The judgment of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic makes a significant contribution to the interpretation of Section 476b of the Civil Code with regard to language requirements and formal requirements of a allographic will (a will that is dictated by the testator and written down by someone else in the presence of witnesses). The court confirmed that a will can also be drawn up in a language other than the testator's mother tongue, but the testator must have a command of this language to the extent that he understands the meaning of his declaration of intent. If an allographic will does not meet these requirements, it is null and void. The decision also clarifies that the presence of more than two witnesses does not affect the validity of a will, provided that these witnesses were expressly consulted by the testator.

Facts of the case

The testator, a citizen of the Federal Republic of Germany, left two wills - a handwritten will from 2003, written in German, and an allographical will from 2008, written in Czech. The handwritten will designated his relatives as his heirs, while the allograph will bequeathed his entire estate to his wife H. S.. The allograph will was drawn up in a hospice where the testator was undergoing inpatient treatment towards the end of his life. The will stated that it was drawn up in the presence of two witnesses, but in fact the document contained three witness signatures and the testator's signature was illegible. According to the plaintiffs, the testator did not have sufficient knowledge of the Czech language and was in such poor health at the time the will was drawn up that he was unable to write or perceive.

https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/judikat/nscr/21-cdo-2704-2017

21 Cdo 5238/2017

Meaning

The decision of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic confirms the interpretation that Section 1481 of the Civil Code is also applicable to acts committed before the entry into force of the new Civil Code, provided that the case is decided under the new legislation.

Of considerable importance here is the interpretation of the term "unworthiness to inherit" within the meaning of Section 1481 BGB, according to which this can also be derived from conduct that did not lead to a final conviction if the criminal liability ceased to apply due to active remorse.

The decision also defines the limits of the applicability of the suspension of enforceability pursuant to Section 243 ZPO, in particular with regard to procedural decisions.

This judgment has the potential to significantly influence practice of inheritance law, and the interpretation of the substantive consequences of criminal conduct towards the testator.

Facts of the case

In the proceedings concerning the estate of the deceased K. Č. (hereinafter referred to as the "testatrix"), the Sokolov District Court decided to exclude A. F. from the proceedings due to his unworthiness to inherit pursuant to Section 1481 of the Civil Code (Act No. 89/2012 Coll., hereinafter referred to as the "Civil Code"). The unworthiness to inherit was derived from the fact that A. F. had not fulfilled his maintenance obligation towards the testator, his underage daughter, in the past. This was intentional conduct that could have constituted the offense of neglecting the obligation to pay maintenance. Although A. F. was acquitted of the criminal charge in 1985, this was due to active remorse, i.e. subsequent settlement of the arrears of maintenance payments.

https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/judikat/nscr/21-cdo-5238-2017

24 Cdo 614/2019

Meaning

The judgment of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic clarifies the requirements for the application of the institute of unworthiness to inherit pursuant to Section 1481 of the Civil Code (BGB). In particular, it specifies that the intentional criminal offense must have been committed during the testator's lifetime.

Furthermore, the court clarifies that criminal proceedings conducted after the deceased's death for an offense of theft of property do not in themselves constitute an obstacle to the continuation of proceedings on the right of succession.

The decision also emphasizes the need for the testator to expressly forgive the conduct complained of.

This judgment has a considerable impact on the interpretation of unworthiness to inherit and provides important guidance for comparable disputed cases.

Facts of the case

In the probate proceedings after the testator V. M., who died on April 26, 2016, the plaintiff A. P. claimed that he was the testamentary heir on the basis of a will dated April 10, 2016, the original of which was allegedly in his possession. According to this will, A. P. was to be the sole heir, while each of the testator's children (the defendants J. M., M. M. and J. T.) was to receive only CZK 10,000 each.

However, the original of the will was not presented during the proceedings; the plaintiff claimed that it had been stolen from the testator's house. A. P. made a number of personal statements about the relationship with the testator and the conduct of the defendant, which he claimed was reprehensible.

In the course of the proceedings, charges were brought against the plaintiff for the continuing offense of theft pursuant to Section 205 (1) and (3) of the Criminal Code. The accusation concerned assets of the deceased that were allegedly stolen after his death.

https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/judikat/nscr/24-cdo-614-2019

21 Cdo 171/2018

Meaning

The judgment of the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic confirms the strict requirement to comply with the formal requirements for handwritten wills within the meaning of Section 476a of the former Civil Code, in particular with regard to dating and the signing of amendments.

The decision makes a significant contribution to legal certainty by clarifying that changes to the content of a will made by the testator directly in the text must also meet the same formal requirements as the original will itself.

In this context, the principle of the testator's freedom to make a will takes a back seat to the need to protect legal certainty through formal requirements. The ruling has considerable practical relevance, as it clearly defines the limits of the admissibility of modifications to handwritten wills.

Facts of the case

The testator L. F., who died on September 19, 2013, drew up a will in her own handwriting on September 1, 2004, in which, among other things, she disposed of sums of money in a savings account. Deletions and handwritten additions were later found in the will, with which the testator replaced the originally appointed heiress with other beneficiaries: the Roman Catholic Parish - Mělník Provostry (CZK 400,000) and Czech Caritas (CZK 300,000).

However, these changes were neither dated nor signed by the testator. The plaintiffs - the two legal entities named - sought a declaration of their inheritance rights and argued that the deletions and additions had been made by the testatrix herself and that the lack of signature and date did not affect the validity of the amendments.

https://www.zakonyprolidi.cz/judikat/nscr/21-cdo-171-2018