C-240/24

Provisional text ORDER OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber) 18 December 2025 (*) ( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice – Article 267 TFEU – Notary acting as a deputy for another notary – Definition of ‘court or tribunal’ – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Measures relating to the European Certificate of Succession – Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 – Refusal by a bank to recognise the European Certificate of Succession – Article 71 – Initiation by a notary, of his or her own motion, of the procedure for the withdrawal or modification of the European Certificate of Succession – No exercise of a judicial function – Inadmissibility ) In Case C‑240/24, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the zastępca notarialny zastępujący notariusza Justynę Gawlicę w Krapkowicach (notary acting as a deputy for the notary Justyna Gawlica in Krapkowice, Poland), made by decision of 16 March 2024, received at the Court on 27 March 2024, in the proceedings brought by N.T., interveners: O.T., S.T., BNP Paribas Fortis SA/NV, THE COURT (Ninth Chamber), composed of M. Condinanzi, President of the Chamber, N. Jääskinen (Rapporteur) and R. Frendo, Judges, Advocate General: M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona, Registrar: A. Calot Escobar, having regard to the written procedure, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: –        N.T., by M. de Abgaro Zachariasiewicz, radca prawny, –        the Polish Government, by B. Majczyna and S. Żyrek, acting as Agents, –        the Romanian Government, by M. Chicu, E. Gane and L. Ghiţă, acting as Agents, –        the European Commission, by J. Hottiaux and W. Wils, acting as Agents, having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to rule by reasoned order, pursuant to Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, makes the following Order 1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 69(2) and Article 71(2) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (OJ 2012 L 201, p. 107). 2        The request has been made in proceedings initiated by N.T., residing in Poland, following the death of her sister, K.T., a Polish and German national who had her habitual residence in Belgium, against the refusal of BNP Paribas Fortis SA/NV (‘BNP’), a bank which has its headquarters in Belgium, to release assets from a bank account opened by K.T. with that bank, despite N.T. presenting a European Certificate of Succession designating her as the sole heir.  Legal context  European Union law 3        Recital 70 of Regulation No 650/2012 is drafted as follows: ‘The [European Certificate of Succession] should be issued in the Member State whose courts have jurisdiction under this Regulation. It should be for each Member State to determine in its internal legislation which authorities are to have competence to issue the Certificate, whether they be courts as defined for the purposes of this Regulation or other authorities with competence in matters of succession, such as, for instance, notaries. …’ 4        Article 5 of Regulation No 650/2012, entitled ‘Choice-of-court agreement’, provides, in paragraph 1 thereof: ‘Where the law chosen by the deceased to govern his succession pursuant to Article 22 is the law of a Member State, the parties concerned may agree that a court or the courts of that Member State are to have exclusive jurisdiction to rule on any succession matter.’ 5        Chapter VI of Regulation No 650/2012, entitled ‘European Certificate of Succession’, contains Articles 62 to 73 of that regulation. 6        Article 64 of that regulation, entitled ‘Competence to issue the Certificate’, provides: ‘… The issuing authority shall be: (a)      a court as defined in Article 3(2); or (b)      another authority which, under national law, has competence to deal with matters of succession.’ 7        Article 66 of that regulation, entitled ‘Examination of the application’, provides, in paragraph 5 thereof: ‘For the purposes of this Article, the competent authority of a Member State shall, upon request, provide the issuing authority of another Member State with information held, in particular, in the land registers, the civil status registers and registers recording documents and facts of relevance for the succession or for the matrimonial property regime or an equivalent property regime of the deceased, where that competent authority would be authorised, under national law, to provide another national authority with such information.’ 8        Article 67 of that regulation, entitled ‘Issue of the Certificate’, provides, in paragraph 1(a) thereof: ‘The issuing authority shall issue the Certificate without delay in accordance with the procedure laid down in this Chapter when the elements to be certified have been established under the law applicable to the succession or under any other law applicable to specific elements. … The issuing authority shall not issue the Certificate in particular if: (a)      the elements to be certified are being challenged; or …’ 9        Article 69 of Regulation No 650/2012, entitled ‘Effects of the Certificate’, provides, in paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof: ‘1.      The Certificate shall produce its effects in all Member States, without any special procedure being required. 2.      The Certificate shall be presumed to accurately demonstrate elements which have been established under the law applicable to the succession or under any other law applicable to specific elements. The person mentioned in the Certificate as the heir, legatee, executor of the will or administrator of the estate shall be presumed to have the status mentioned in the Certificate and/or to hold the rights or the powers stated in the Certificate, with no conditions and/or restrictions being attached to those rights or powers other than those stated in the Certificate.’ 10      Article 71 of that regulation, entitled ‘Rectification, modification or withdrawal of the Certificate’, provides, in paragraph 2 thereof: ‘The issuing authority shall, at the request of any person demonstrating a legitimate interest or, where this is possible under national law, of its own motion, modify or withdraw the Certificate where it has been established that the Certificate or individual elements thereof are not accurate.’ 11      Article 72 of that regulation, entitled ‘Redress procedures’, provides, in paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof: ‘1.      … Decisions taken by the issuing authority pursuant to Article 71 … may be challenged by any person demonstrating a legitimate interest. The challenge shall be lodged before a judicial authority in the Member State of the issuing authority in accordance with the law of that State. 2.      If, as a result of a challenge as referred to in paragraph 1, it is established that the Certificate issued is not accurate, the competent judicial authority shall rectify, modify or withdraw the Certificate or ensure that it is rectified, modified or withdrawn by the issuing authority. …’  Polish law  The Notarial Code 12      Article 79 of the ustawa Prawo o notariacie (Law on the Notarial Code), of 14 February 1991 (Dz. U. No 22, item 91), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the Notarial Code’), provides: ‘The notary shall carry out the following activities: … (1b)      adopt measures relating to the European Certificate of Succession. …’ 13      Article 83 of that code provides, in paragraph 1 thereof: ‘In the case of a refusal to carry out a notarial activity, the party concerned may, within a week of notification of the grounds for the refusal, or, if he or she has not requested notification of the grounds for the refusal within the prescribed period, within a week of the date on which he or she became aware of the refusal, lodge a complaint with the regional court within the jurisdiction of which the registered office of the notary who refuses to carry out the notarial activity is located. The complaint shall be brought through that notary.’ 14      Article 89 of that code provides, in paragraph 1 thereof: ‘The parties to a notarial activity shall be jointly responsible for the remuneration due to the notary. …’ 15      Article 95t of that code provides: ‘The notary shall confirm through notarial records the issue, rectification, modification or withdrawal of the European Certificate of Succession or the suspension of its effects, and the refusal to carry out those activities. …’ 16      Article 95u of the Notarial Code provides, in paragraph 1 thereof: ‘The notary shall, of his or her own motion, provide a copy of the report on the issue or the refusal to issue a European Certificate of Succession, together with information relating to the available avenues of appeal. The notary shall set out the grounds for those activities within a week, at the request of the party to the notarial activity made within a week from the date of notification of the copy of the report, or if the party to the notarial activity who has not made such a request lodges a complaint within the statutory time limit.’ 17      Article 95v of that code is worded as follows: ‘Where it is established that there is a ground, as provided for by [Regulation No 650/2012], on which to modify or withdraw the European Certificate of Succession, the notary may also modify or withdraw it of his or her own motion.’ 18      Under Article 95w of that code: ‘The notary shall, of his or her own motion, provide a copy of the report on the rectification, modification or withdrawal of the European Certificate of Succession or on the suspension of its effects, and on the refusal to carry out those activities, together with information relating to the available avenues of appeal. The second sentence of Article 95u(1) shall apply mutatis mutandis. The notary shall also, of his or her own motion, provide a copy of the report including those activities to all persons to whom authenticated copies of the European Certificate of Succession were issued.’ 19      Article 95x of that code provides, in paragraph 1 thereof: ‘A complaint may be lodged in respect of a notarial activity relating to the issue, rectification, modification or withdrawal of a European Certificate of Succession, or to the suspension of its effects. Article 83 shall apply mutatis mutandis.’  Regulation of the Minister for Justice on maximum notarial fees 20      Article 10a of the rozporządzenie Ministra Sprawiedliwości w sprawie maksymalnych stawek taksy notarialnej (Regulation of the Minister for Justice on maximum notarial fees), of 28 June 2004 (Dz. U. of 2004, No 148, item 1564), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings, provides, in paragraph 2a thereof: ‘The maximum fee for notarial activities relating to the European Certificate of Succession, excluding the activities referred to in paragraphs 2b and 2c and in paragraph 12, is, as a general rule, 400 [zlotys (PLN) (approximately EUR 100)].’  The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling 21      K.T., who had dual Polish and German nationality and had her habitual residence in Belgium, died on 6 February 2023 in Poland. She was single and had no children. Her closest family was comprised of her parents and her sister N.T., all of whom resided in Poland. Before her death, K.T. drew up, before a Polish notary, a will in which she indicated Polish law as being the applicable law and designated her sister N.T. as the sole heir. 22      On 22 February 2023, that will was opened and read before the zastępca notarialny zastępujący notariusza Justynę Gawlicę w Krapkowicach (notary acting as a deputy for the notary Justyna Gawlica in Krapkowice, Poland) (‘the deputy notary’), in the presence of N.T. and K.T.’s parents. A choice-of-court agreement, in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation No 650/2012, was concluded by K.T.’s parents and N.T. Consequently, a certificate of succession was issued, designating N.T. as sole heir, together with an attestation consistent with Form II, as provided for and annexed to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1329/2014 of 9 December 2014 establishing the Forms referred to in Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession (OJ 2014 L 359, p. 30). In that attestation, the deputy notary set out the effects of the issued certificate of succession, in particular its legally binding nature, and referred to the classification of a court as resulted from the judgment of 23 May 2019, WB (C‑658/17, EU:C:2019:444). 23      The inheritance included, inter alia, funds lodged in a bank account opened with BNP. BNP refused to recognise N.T. as the sole heir of K.T. and requested that she present a European Certificate of Succession. 24      Despite the fact that, on 5 July 2023, the deputy notary issued such a certificate designating N.T. as the sole heir, BNP maintained its refusal to recognise her as the sole heir of K.T. and required her to produce a certificate of inheritance issued by a Belgian notary (verklaring van erfrecht). 25      On 18 September 2023, the deputy notary contacted N.T. and BNP and reminded them of the legal situation arising from the conclusion of the choice-of-court agreement and from the issue of the European Certificate of Succession. The deputy notary informed BNP of the possibility, on the basis of Article 71(2) of Regulation No 650/2012, of requesting the withdrawal or modification of an incorrect or irregular European Certificate of Succession and clarified that, in any event, such a certificate remained binding until withdrawn or modified. 26      On 3 November 2023, the deputy notary initiated, of his own motion, proceedings for the withdrawal or modification of the European Certificate of Succession in question, summoning N.T., her parents and BNP as parties. He granted them a period to produce information and documents capable of establishing the existence of a potential irregularity regarding that certificate. He also informed those parties that the initiation of those proceedings would entail procedural costs, such as a notarial fee and costs relating to the service of documents and translation. 27      The deputy notary states that, in accordance with Article 71(2) of Regulation No 650/2012, the Polish legislature has imposed on the notary, as an authority issuing the European Certificate of Succession, a legal obligation to modify or withdraw the issued certificate, including of the notary’s own motion, where it is not accurate. He specifies that the notary must accordingly ensure the accuracy of the issued European Certificate of Succession and clarify, where there is doubt, of the notary’s own motion or at the request of the parties concerned, whether it is accurate by means of a suitable investigation. In the context of such proceedings, it is therefore for the deputy notary not only to investigate the accuracy of the content of the European Certificate of Succession at issue in the main proceedings, but also to resolve the dispute in the main proceedings, which will require him to adopt a position on whether that certificate’s contents are consistent with the actual legal situation. 28      The deputy notary is of the opinion that, in that regard, he must establish the relevant circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, by relying, inter alia, on the preliminary ruling procedure and on the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents) (OJ 2020 L 405, p. 40). 29      Thus, according to the deputy notary, in the context of the procedure for the withdrawal or modification of a European Certificate of Succession, the issuing authority carries out judicial functions, which is supported by the scheme of Regulation No 650/2012. 30      In that regard, the deputy notary states that, by Article 66(5) of that regulation, the EU legislature considered it necessary to provide for a procedural means of obtaining evidence in other Member States, intended largely for non-judicial issuing authorities. He argues that the provision of that procedural means is linked to the fact that, in accordance with Article 67(1)(a) of Regulation No 650/2012, the issuing authority is not called upon to resolve disputes and is not empowered to use the instruments of judicial cooperation in civil matters intended for courts. However, in his view, the situation changes radically once the certificate is issued, where the issuing authority, under Article 71 of that regulation, is called on to withdraw or modify the certificate of succession in question. That authority may therefore use those instruments in the context of the procedure for the withdrawal or modification of a European Certificate of Succession, which explains why the legislature, in Article 71 of Regulation No 650/2012, did not insert a rule similar to that laid down in Article 66(5) of that regulation. Those factors lead the deputy notary to take the view that that issuing authority carries out judicial functions and may refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. 31      However, in view of the judgment of 23 May 2019, WB (C‑658/17, EU:C:2019:444), and the order of 1 September 2021, OKR (Reference for a preliminary ruling from a notary acting as a deputy for another notary) (C‑387/20, EU:C:2021:751), the deputy notary is unsure, in the first place, whether, in the circumstances of the case in the main proceedings, he is entitled to refer questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. 32      If this is the case, the deputy notary harbours doubts, in the second place, as to whether it is possible, under national law, to make BNP bear the notarial fees relating to the proceedings for the withdrawal or modification of the European Certificate of Succession when that bank neither participated in the proceedings for the issue of the European Certificate of Succession nor requested that that certificate be withdrawn or modified, but rather disputed the effects of the certificate which was presented to it, which led the issuing authority to initiate of its own motion proceedings for the withdrawal or modification of that certificate. 33      According to the deputy notary, under the applicable Polish law, in particular the Notarial Code and the Regulation of the Minister for Justice on maximum notarial fees, and in compliance with the general limits stemming from EU law, each party to those proceedings must bear the related notarial fees. In the circumstances of the present case, it submits, BNP must be included amongst the parties to those proceedings. 34      In the third place, the deputy notary asks whether Article 69(2) of Regulation No 650/2012 permits a bank, to which a valid certified copy of a European Certificate of Succession is presented, to dispute the status of the person designated in that document as heir. 35      In those circumstances, the deputy notary decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1)      Must Article 71(2) of Regulation [No 650/2012] be interpreted as meaning that[, in proceedings] to withdraw or modify a European Certificate of Succession that has been issued, the non-judicial authority issuing [that certificate] is entitled to refer a question for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 267 of the TFEU? (2)      [If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative,] does Article 71(2) of [that] regulation allow for the costs of proceedings to withdraw or modify a European Certificate of Succession to be charged, based on national law, to a bank that was not a participant in the proceedings to issue this certificate, has not filed an application for its withdrawal or modification, but has questioned the legitimation effects of the certificate presented to it in such a way that has led to the issuing authority of its own motion starting proceedings to withdraw or modify the certificate, conducted with the participation of that bank? (3)      [If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative,] must Article 69(2) of [that] regulation be interpreted as meaning that [a] bank to which a valid certified copy of a European Certificate of Succession is presented is not entitled to challenge the status as heir of the person identified in the certificate?’  Procedure before the Court 36      By decision of the President of the Court of 6 September 2024, the proceedings in the present case were stayed pending delivery of the judgment of 23 January 2025, Albausy (C‑187/23, EU:C:2025:34). 37      By letter of 28 January 2025, the Court Registry sent a copy of that judgment to the deputy notary and asked him whether, in the light of that judgment, he wished to maintain his request for a preliminary ruling. 38      In his response of 20 February 2025, the deputy notary informed the Court that he intended to maintain his request for a preliminary ruling since that judgment, relating to the procedure for issuing a European Certificate of Succession, has no impact on the subject matter and the conduct of the present proceedings, in which the deputy notary must resolve a dispute concerning the recognition of a European Certificate of Succession, which grants him the status of a ‘court or tribunal’ for the purposes of Article 267 TFEU.  Admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling 39      Under Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, where a request for a preliminary ruling is manifestly inadmissible, the Court, after hearing the Advocate General, may at any time decide to give judgment by reasoned order without continuing the proceedings. 40      It is appropriate to apply that provision in the present case. 41      According to settled case-law, the procedure provided for by Article 267 TFEU is a means of cooperation between the Court of Justice and national courts, by which the Court provides the national courts with the points of interpretation of EU law which they need in order to decide the disputes before them (judgment of 7 May 2024, NADA and Others, C‑115/22, EU:C:2024:384, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited). 42      It follows that, in order to be entitled to make a reference to the Court in preliminary ruling proceedings, the body making the reference must be capable of being classified as a ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, which it is for the Court to determine on the basis of the request for a preliminary ruling (judgment of 7 May 2024, NADA and Others, C‑115/22, EU:C:2024:384, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited). 43      In order to determine whether a body making a reference is a ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, which is a question governed by EU law alone, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent (see judgments of 30 June 1966, Vaassen-Göbbels, 61/65, EU:C:1966:39, p. 273; of 3 May 2022, CityRail, C‑453/20, EU:C:2022:341, paragraph 41; and of 7 May 2024, NADA and Others, C‑115/22, EU:C:2024:384, paragraph 35). 44      In addition, according to settled case-law, a national court may refer a question to the Court only if there is a case pending before it and if it is called upon to give judgment in proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature (judgment of 23 January 2025, Albausy, C‑187/23, EU:C:2025:34, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited). 45      In order to establish whether a national body, entrusted by law with different categories of function, must be classified as a ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU, it must be determined in what specific capacity, judicial or administrative, it is acting within the particular legal context in which it seeks a ruling from the Court, in order to ascertain whether there is a case pending before it and whether it is called upon to give judgment in proceedings intended to lead to a decision of a judicial nature (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 February 2017, Margarit Panicello, C‑503/15, EU:C:2017:126, paragraph 28, and orders of 1 September 2021, OKR (Reference for a preliminary ruling from a notary acting as a deputy for another notary), C‑387/20, EU:C:2021:751, paragraph 23, and of 19 May 2022, Frontera Capital, C‑722/21, EU:C:2022:412, paragraph 13). 46      In that context, it should be noted, as a preliminary point, that the system established by Regulation No 650/2012 is based on the premiss that the European Certificate of Succession is issued in accordance with the procedure laid down in Chapter IV of that regulation when the elements to be certified have been established under the law applicable to the succession. 47      Furthermore, in accordance with Article 64 of Regulation No 650/2012 read in the light of recital 70 thereof, the issue of such a certificate may be entrusted to a court or to authorities other than a court which, under national law, have competence to deal with matters of succession, such as notaries. 48      It is apparent from the order for reference that, under Polish law, both courts and notaries may be regarded as authorities which have competence to issue a European Certificate of Succession. More specifically, the Notarial Code provides in Article 79(1b) that notaries are to adopt measures relating to the European Certificate of Succession. 49      In the context of issuing such a certificate, as is provided for in Article 67(1) of Regulation No 650/2012, and in order to maintain the confidence of citizens in the European Certificate of Succession, the Court has already held that the issuing authority may not issue such a certificate the elements of which are not accurate and that, in the event of a challenge to the elements to be certified, that authority, which does not have the power to rule on it, is required to refuse to issue the European Certificate of Succession sought, which refusal may be challenged by means of the redress procedure provided for in Article 72 of that regulation before the judicial authority competent to rule on such a challenge (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 January 2025, Albausy, C‑187/23, EU:C:2025:34, paragraphs 43, 44, 64 and 65). The Court has inferred from this, that, in taking, as the issuing authority with respect to the European Certificate of Succession, decisions pursuant to Article 67(1) of that regulation, the referring body in question did not exercise a judicial function and, therefore, was not entitled to make a reference to the Court of Justice under Article 267 TFEU (see, to that effect, judgment of 23 January 2025, Albausy, C‑187/23, EU:C:2025:34, paragraph 66). 50      Accordingly, in the light of the case-law cited in paragraphs 43 to 45 and 49 above, it is necessary to ascertain whether the category of functions carried out by the issuing authority, a deputy notary in the present case, in proceedings for the withdrawal or modification of the European Certificate of Succession provided for in Article 71(2) of Regulation No 650/2012 and in the context of which that issuing authority referred questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, is distinct from the category of functions carried out by such an authority in issuing that certificate. 51      In that regard, it should be borne in mind that, when interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (see judgments of 17 November 1983, Merck, 292/82, EU:C:1983:335, paragraph 12, and of 23 January 2025, Albausy, C‑187/23, EU:C:2025:34, paragraph 39). 52      Under Article 71(2) of Regulation No 650/2012, the issuing authority is to modify or withdraw the European Certificate of Succession, at the request of any person demonstrating a legitimate interest or, where this is possible under national law, of its own motion, where it has been established that the certificate or individual elements thereof are not accurate. 53      In that regard, it must be noted that it is not apparent from the wording of Article 71(2) of Regulation No 650/2012 that it is the issuing authority which, with a view to withdrawing or modifying a European Certificate of Succession, must establish that that certificate or the elements thereof are inaccurate. 54      Indeed, it should be observed, as the European Commission submits, that, in that provision, the verb ‘establish’ is used in the passive or impersonal form in several linguistic versions, such as in the Spanish (se haya acreditado), German (wenn feststeht), Estonian (on kindlaks tehtud), English (it has been established), French (lorsqu’il a été établi), Italian (sia stato accertato), Finnish (jos on todettu) and Swedish (om det har fastställts) language versions. 55      That interpretation is further supported by Article 72(2) of Regulation No 650/2012, under which ‘if, as a result of a challenge as referred to in paragraph 1, it is established that the Certificate issued is not accurate, the competent judicial authority shall rectify, modify or withdraw the Certificate or ensure that it is rectified, modified or withdrawn by the issuing authority’. Therefore, only the judicial authority referred to in that provision may determine the succession rights or the contested elements in the European Certificate of Succession after carrying out a full examination of the substance of the case. Accordingly, the authority issuing that certificate is not entitled, even of its own motion, to modify or withdraw the certificate which it previously issued unless the competent judicial authority has first established which elements of that certificate are inaccurate and has not rectified, modified or withdrawn the certificate itself. 56      In those circumstances, it must be held that the issuing authority, a deputy notary in the present case, does not have the power to determine the contested elements of the European Certificate of Succession which he previously issued. 57      It is true that the procedure for the withdrawal or modification of a European Certificate of Succession is specific and independent from the procedure for issuing a European Certificate of Succession laid down in Article 67 of Regulation No 650/2012. 58      However, as submitted by the deputy notary, N.T. and the Romanian Government, the procedure for withdrawal or modification is laid down in Chapter VI of that regulation, relating to the European Certificate of Succession, and therefore constitutes a subsequent and supplementary step to the issue of that certificate which has been provided for by the EU legislature in order to secure the objectives pursued by that regulation. 59      Accordingly, the provisions set out in that chapter, which relate to the European Certificate of Succession, including those concerning the procedure for the withdrawal or modification of that certificate, do not grant the national authorities entitled to issue that certificate the competence to rule on potential disputes and to determine, in the event of a challenge, the rights and obligations of those seeking to benefit from or having an interest in the succession. 60      It follows that, in the present case, in modifying or withdrawing a European Certificate of Succession, the deputy notary is not called upon to resolve a dispute in which he must take a decision of a judicial nature, with the result that he does not exercise judicial functions, either as regards heirs and legatees with direct rights in the succession or, a fortiori, interested third parties such as the bank with which the deceased had an account. 61      In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the deputy notary cannot be classified as a ‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU. 62      Consequently, the present request for a preliminary ruling must, pursuant to Article 53(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, be declared manifestly inadmissible.  Costs 63      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring body, the decision on costs is a matter for that body. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby declares: The request for a preliminary ruling from the zastępca notarialny zastępujący notariusza Justynę Gawlicę w Krapkowicach (notary acting as a deputy for the notary Justyna Gawlica in Krapkowice, Poland), made by decision of 16 March 2024, is manifestly inadmissible. [Signatures] *      Language of the case: Polish.