On 4 June 2026, the European Commission published an important pre-closure letter concerning the compatibility of Article 913, paragraph 3 of the French Civil Code with the EU Succession Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 650/2012). Although this is not a court judgment and the provision itself has not been amended, the Commission’s intervention provides welcome clarification for internationally mobile families holding assets in France. Whilst focused on English-Law wills this matter is also highly relevant for all international families with French connections.
For several years a single provision of the French Civil Code has unsettled the estate planning of British nationals and other foreign families holding assets in France. Article 913, paragraph 3, introduced by the law of 24 August 2021 and applicable to successions opened from 1 November 2021, created a compensatory levy (prélèvement compensatoire) in favour of children. Where the deceased, or at least one of the children, was at death a national of an EU Member State or habitually resident in one, and where the foreign law governing the succession contained no reserved share protecting children, each child could levy compensation on assets situated in France up to the value of the French réserve they would otherwise have received.
The difficulty was obvious. The EU Succession Regulation (No. 650/2012) entitles a person to elect the law of their nationality to govern their entire estate. British nationals routinely chose English law precisely because it knows no forced heirship, allowing them to leave their French property to a surviving spouse. Article 913, paragraph 3, appeared to restore the réserve through the back door and to contradict that freedom of choice. Several hundred complaints reached the European Commission, which opened a review in 2022.
The Commission has now signalled that it intends to close the matter without formal infringement proceedings. Rather than condemn the text, it obtained from the French authorities a public statement of its intended meaning, published in June 2026, and considers that this resolves the legal uncertainty.
Two clarifications carry the result. First, France maintains that the réserve héréditaire is a matter of public policy and relies on Article 35 of the Regulation, which allows a Member State to set aside a foreign law manifestly incompatible with its ordre public. Second, and more important in practice, the French authorities confirm that the levy is intended to operate only where the applicable foreign law offers children no protective mechanism of any kind. They expressly accept that the English Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, which permits a child to apply to the court for reasonable financial provision, performs an equivalent protective function. On this reading, French judges should not apply the compensatory levy where English law governs the succession.
For British clients with French assets this is genuinely reassuring, but it would be premature to treat the question as settled. The clarification is an administrative position, not a judgment, and the French courts retain the last word. They have yet to decide whether a discretionary, litigation-based remedy can truly be equivalent to a mandatory entitlement, whether they will look beyond the mere existence of the 1975 Act to its practical accessibility and likely outcome, and whether an election of English law brings an estate within the scope of that Act at all where the testator is not domiciled in England and Wales. The retrospective reach of the new position is also unresolved. A ministerial circular is expected and should be studied closely when it appears.
The reasoning matters equally for what it does not cover. Where the succession is governed by the law of a jurisdiction that offers no comparable protection, the levy continues to apply to French assets. Many United States state laws, for instance, protect the surviving spouse through an elective share but offer descendants nothing equivalent, so families relocating from those jurisdictions cannot assume the same relief.
The practical lesson is unchanged. A choice-of-law clause is only as strong as the law behind it, and these arrangements are best reviewed before a move or an acquisition rather than after a death. We will continue to monitor how the French courts give effect to this welcome but still incomplete clarification.
How Rosemont Consulting Can Assist
For internationally mobile families, estate planning involving assets in multiple jurisdictions requires careful coordination between succession laws, tax considerations, matrimonial property regimes and asset protection objectives. The team at Rosemont Consulting in Monaco works with clients and their professional advisers to review cross-border estate structures, assess the impact of forced heirship and public policy rules, analyse the effectiveness of choice-of-law elections, and coordinate planning involving trusts, foundations, holding companies and family governance arrangements.
By bringing together expertise across Monaco, France and other international financial centres, Rosemont helps families identify potential succession risks before they arise and develop structures designed to preserve family objectives while remaining compliant with evolving legal and regulatory requirements.
Looking for help? Contact Stephane Alexandre at s.alexandre@rosemont.mc
Follow us on LinkedIn and don't miss our updates about Monaco, Malta, Mauritius, and the yachting industry.