Inheritance Acceptance Declarations: No Separate Appeals

Aug 22, 2025 Benn-Ibler Rechtsanwälte

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, hereinafter OGH) has recently held that decisions on the validity of inheritance acceptance declarations in probate proceedings are procedural and cannot be appealed separately.

No property assigned upon death – statements of inheritance are made without conditions

In the case at hand, the decedent had passed away intestate. Her lawful heirs consisted of her niece and two brothers, one of whom predeceased the conclusion of the proceedings. A notary public submitted unconditional declarations of acceptance of inheritance on behalf of each heir, assigning one third of the estate to each party. Subsequently, the brother who then passed away requested an inventory and valuation of the estate.

Review pursuant to Section 6a GKG

The court commissioner initiated a review to determine the validity of the declarations of inheritance, citing potential incompatibility under Section 6a of the Austrian Court Commissioners Act (Gerichtskommissärsgesetz, GKG) due to the notary’s prior role as court commissioner in a related probate matter. The court of first instance upheld the validity of the declarations, and the appeals court rejected the appeal from the brother’s estate, noting that the decision was procedural in nature and did not directly impact the legal standing of the appellant.

No independent contestability

The OGH agreed with this interpretation. Rulings regarding the validity of a declaration of acceptance of inheritance pertain only to procedural matters and do not create independent substantive legal effects. These effects, such as the liability of heirs, arise only when ownership is transferred. Consequently, a separate legal remedy is not available. Review may only occur through an appeal against the decision to transfer ownership.

Consequently, an independent appeal could not be pursued

As legal protection remains uninterrupted and the court retains the authority to re-evaluate its position during subsequent proceedings, the extraordinary appeal was denied.

OGH 2 Ob 84/25d (3 June 2025)