For the readers of this blog, the following contribution presents a topic that may be of interest because it demonstrates the need to unify the regulation of the state as an heir in inheritance law and proposes improvements to Article 33 of the EU Succession Regulation at the level of its application. Currently, many issues arise from the regulation of heirless estates and Article 33 still does not provide a unified model. Instead, it leaves significant discretion to the Member States, which creates further legal uncertainty and practical problems.
Introduction
One of the most fascinating aspects of inheritance law is determining what happens when a person dies without leaving either a will or any lawful heirs. While inheritance is traditionally regarded as a private-law institution designed to transfer property between family members or other designated beneficiaries, every legal system must eventually answer the same question: who succeeds when no one else exists?
It is important to examine how national legal systems respond to the situation addressed by Article 33 of the EU Succession Regulation. The Regulation leaves the substantive law of heirless succession largely to national legislation. For this reason, the discussion includes not only EU Member States but also non-member states.
Across Europe, the prevailing solution is to recognize the State as the ultimate or last-degree heir. The legal position of the State is far from uniform. Some jurisdictions regard the State as an ordinary legal heir, inheriting under the same principles as private individuals. Others confer special procedural rights or impose limitations on the State’s liability, while several systems require judicial confirmation before the inheritance may pass.
Discussion of the Normative Backgrounds
- Section 1936 of the German Civil Code provides that where the deceased leaves neither relatives nor a surviving spouse or registered partner, the estate passes to the federal state of the deceased’s last residence. If the residence cannot be determined, succession passes to the relevant federal state based on an earlier residence or, ultimately, to the Federation. Before the State is declared heir, the probate court must establish that no private heirs exist. Depending on the circumstances, this may include a public notice procedure to identify unknown heirs. Only after the statutory period expires without legitimate claims is the State declared the sole heir. The State’s liability is limited to the value of the inherited estate.
- Spanish law treats the State as a true heir. Where no lawful heirs exist, the estate passes to the State or, in autonomous communities, to the competent regional authority. The State succeeds as an ordinary heir rather than merely acquiring ownerless property. After debts and expenses are satisfied, Article 956 of the Civil Code provides for the distribution of the remaining estate among charitable institutions and the State Treasury according to statutory proportions. Acceptance is deemed to occur under the benefit of inventory and the State acquires the estate only after the competent authority formally declares the absence of lawful heirs.
- Hungarian law recognizes the State as a statutory heir of last resort that cannot refuse inheritance. Hungarian law traditionally conceptualizes State succession within private law, although the State occupies a special position as a statutory successor of last resort. Where no heirs exist, the entire estate passes to the State following inheritance proceedings conducted by the courts after reasonable efforts to locate potential heirs.
- The Civil Code of the Czech Republic also designates the State as the statutory heir in the absence of private successors. Under Section 1634, the State is liable for the deceased’s debts only up to the value of the inherited estate.
- Portugal’s Civil Code (Articles 2152–2155) places the State at the end of the statutory order of succession, allowing it to inherit only when no surviving spouse or relatives exist. Although the State is treated as a successor rather than merely an owner of abandoned property, acquisition requires the completion of the legally prescribed procedure for vacant succession. The State cannot renounce the inheritance, but acquisition requires completion of the legally prescribed procedure for vacant succession. Judicial confirmation remains necessary before an estate is declared vacant in favor of the State.
- Article 4:189 of the Dutch Civil Code provides that where no heirs exist, the estate ultimately devolves upon the State as universal successor, subject to the statutory rules concerning administration and liquidation. The inheritance is deemed to be accepted under the benefit of inventory, limiting the State’s liability for the deceased’s debts to the value of the inherited estate.
- Under the Irish Law, Section 73 of the Succession Act, where no person is entitled to succeed, property passes to the State under statutory rules governing bona vacantia. The Minister for Finance may waive the State’s entitlement, wholly or partly, in favor of another person where justified by the circumstances.
- The Austrian Civil Code provides a special statutory mechanism through which the Republic acquires the estate where no heirs exist. Austrian law has traditionally distinguished the Republic’s position from that of an ordinary statutory heir, modern legal doctrine generally regards the Republic as acquiring the estate through a special statutory succession mechanism rather than merely appropriating ownerless property.
- Under Estonian law, succession opens upon the deceased’s death at the place of the last residence. Where no heirs exist, succession passes to the State, while local government succession may arise in specific cases provided by law. The successor cannot refuse the inheritance once succession has passed to the State or municipality under the statutory rules. Nevertheless, formal confirmation of heirship through notarial proceedings and where necessary judicial review, remains required before succession is recognized.
- Articles 809–811 of the French Civil Code regulate vacant successions and the administration of estates where heirs are unknown, absent or have failed to accept. Rather than transferring the estate directly to the State, the court appoints an administrator upon application by a creditor, notary or another interested party. The administrator inventories the estate, identifies creditors and potential heirs, preserves and manages assets and where necessary, liquidates property to satisfy outstanding obligations under judicial supervision. If no heirs ultimately establish their rights, the estate devolves to the State under the rules governing succession. Should heirs subsequently establish their rights, they may recover the estate in accordance with the rules governing vacant succession.
- Article 586 of the Italian Civil Code provides that, in the absence of other successors, the inheritance devolves upon the State automatically by operation of law. No formal acceptance is required, nor may the State renounce the inheritance. Liability for debts and legacies remains limited to the value of the inherited assets.
- Slovenian law provides that where no heirs exist, the estate ordinarily becomes State property. Slovenian law provides that where no heirs exist, the estate passes to the State. The succession procedure includes measures to identify possible heirs and protect creditors, while the State’s liability remains limited according to the statutory rules governing inheritance.
- Under Articles 768–773 of the Civil Code of Luxembourg, the State acquires an heirless estate only after completing a formal judicial procedure that includes sealing and inventorying the estate, issuing public notice and obtaining judicial authorization. The legislation further protects potential heirs by imposing liability on the State where these procedural requirements are not properly observed.
- Danish law provides that if a deceased person has no legal heirs or valid will beneficiaries, the estate passes to the state. The Minister of Justice may, upon request, allow the inheritance to be distributed according to a disputed will if it likely reflects the deceased’s final wishes. The Minister may also transfer all or part of the inheritance to people or organizations with a close connection to the deceased, such as a cohabitant, stepchildren, foster children, close relatives, or others who were especially close to the deceased.
- The Polish Civil Code gives priority to municipalities. Where the deceased leaves neither a surviving spouse nor eligible relatives, the estate passes to the municipality of the deceased’s last residence. Only if the last residence cannot be determined or the deceased resided abroad does the estate devolve upon the State Treasury.
- Before an estate is declared heirless, Romanian law requires a public summons procedure. If no successor appears within the prescribed period, a notary publishes notices inviting potential heirs to come forward. If no heirs appear, the inheritance is declared vacant and devolves upon the competent municipality. Acquisition takes effect retroactively from the opening of succession, while the municipality’s liability for the deceased’s debts remains limited to the value of the inherited estate.
- Bulgarian inheritance law divides heirless estates between the State and municipalities. Where no eligible heirs exist, or all refuse or lose the right to inherit, the estate generally passes to the State. However, movable property, residential homes, studios, garages, parcels of land and property designated primarily for residential construction become the property of the municipality in whose territory they are situated. This model allocates certain categories of property to the level of government most closely connected with the local community.
- Swiss law similarly prioritizes regional authorities. Where the deceased leaves no heirs, the estate passes to the canton of the deceased’s last residence or, where provided by cantonal law, to the designated commune. This reflects Switzerland’s federal structure, under which cantons exercise significant authority in matters of succession and public administration.
- Sweden provides the best-known example of this model. Where the deceased leaves neither a surviving spouse, relatives nor a valid testamentary beneficiary, the estate passes to the Swedish Inheritance Fund. Managed by the Swedish Legal, Financial and Administrative Services Agency, the Fund supports non-profit organizations and voluntary initiatives serving the public interest. Instead of becoming State property, heirless estates continue to benefit society through organized public-purpose activities.
- Iceland follows a comparable model. In the absence of heirs and testamentary beneficiaries, the estate does not merge with the State’s general assets but accrues to a dedicated public inheritance fund whose resources are used for public-benefit purposes.
Discussion of the Regulatory Models
These jurisdictions differ in their legal characterization of the State’s role, they share several common principles. Some regard the State as an ordinary heir, while others treat it as the ultimate recipient of heirless property following judicial or administrative proceedings. Many European systems require procedures aimed at identifying possible heirs, provide procedural safeguards and judicial oversight, protect creditors and limit the State’s liability to the value of the inherited estate.
European inheritance law demonstrates that the State is not always the public authority entitled to inherit heirless estates. Several jurisdictions instead give priority to local self-government, allowing municipalities, communes or cantons to succeed before the central government. Not all European jurisdictions transfer heirless estates to the State or local authorities. Some countries have adopted a distinct approach by directing such estates to dedicated public inheritance funds that serve broader social purposes. Rather than becoming part of the State’s general assets, heirless estates are used to finance charitable, cultural and community-based activities.
Despite these structural differences, these systems seek to ensure the continuity of ownership, protect creditors, identify potential heirs through appropriate legal procedures and limit public liability to the value of the inherited estate. Collectively, these models demonstrate that the transfer of heirless estates to the State or other public-benefit entities is not intended to expand public ownership but rather to preserve legal certainty and ensure that no estate remains without a lawful successor.
Nevertheless, several important legal issues remain unresolved. If the State acquires an heirless estate, it should also assume the corresponding obligations and the scope of those obligations should be clearly defined. In an increasingly interconnected world, migration and the growing complexity of private international law have given rise to numerous cross-border succession disputes that require careful consideration. For example, how should conflicts be resolved when two States assert claims over the same heirless estate? What should be the legal consequence if a State refuses to assume the deceased’s obligations on the ground that they are strictly personal and therefore non-transferable? Similarly, how should courts address situations in which one State recognizes inheritance rights for stepchildren while another does not, or where registered partnerships or unregistered family relationships are legally recognized in one jurisdiction but not in another? These examples illustrate only a small number of the complex issues arising in contemporary cross-border succession law.
Conclusion
Article 33 of the EU Succession Regulation serves as an important point of reference. An examination of the research topic reveals the considerable diversity of national approaches to heirless estates and highlights the absence of harmonized substantive rules in this area. This diversity raises an important question: would greater harmonization of the substantive legal rules governing heirless estates enhance legal certainty, predictability and consistency in cross-border succession matters?
This question shall be left open for future discussions…
