An order for security for costs was being sought against an English solicitor who, in the capacity of executor, was seeking to recover part of the testator’s estate in Germany.
Held: It was discrimination unlawful in European law, to require security from a national of an EC member state before being allowed to take out a grant in an estate if such a security would not be required from a state’s own nationals: ‘Articles 59 and 60 must be interpreted as precluding a Member State from requiring security for costs to be given by a member of a profession established in another Member State who brings an action before one of its courts, on the sole ground that he is a national of another Member State.’
Europa 1. The principle of equal treatment set out in Article 59 of the Treaty applies in all cases where a member of a profession offers services, normally for remuneration, in a Member State other than that in which he is established, wherever the recipients of those services may be established. Where a Member State requires a national of another Member State who brings proceedings before one of its courts in the capacity of an executor to give security for costs solely on the ground that he is a foreigner, this constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality contrary to Articles 59 and 60 of the Treaty. 2. The right to equal treatment laid down in Community law may not be made dependent on the existence of international agreements, based on the principle of reciprocity, concluded between Member States. 3. The effectiveness of Community law cannot vary according to the various branches of national law which it may affect. The fact that the substantive proceedings come under the law of succession does not justify excluding the application of the right to freedom to provide services enshrined in Community law with respect to a member of a profession responsible for the case.
Times 16-Jul-1993, Ind Summary 23-Aug-1993, C-20/92,  EUECJ C-20/92,  ECR 1-377
Cited – QRS 1 APS and others v Frandsen CA 21-May-1999
The appellants were all Danish companies put into liquidation for asset stripping in contravention of Danish law. The respondent was resident in the UK and had owned them. The Danish tax authorities issued tax demands and the liquidators now sought . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Wills and Probate, European
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160853