COURT OF APPEAL OF MILAN – JUDGMENT NO. 626/2026 – 11.3.2026
This case concerned a dispute before the Court of Appeal of Milan regarding the succession of R.G., a British citizen, who died in 2020 domiciled and resident in the United Kingdom, and who owned real estate in Italy. The family of R.G. was represented by Avv. Charlotte Oliver and Avv. Benedetta Ballatore of Oliver & Partners.
R.G. was divorced from his first wife and estranged from her and their two adult children. In 2008 he and his second wife bought a holiday home in Como, Italy, with the proceeds of a business they ran together.
R.G. made an Italian public will with a Notary in Como in 2009 (“testament pubblico”), leaving his share of the Italian property to his second wife and her two children. This Will included a clause stating that his future succession should be governed by English law: “Voglio che la mia successione sia regolata dalla legge inglese”. This clause anticipated the imminent coming into force of the EU Succession Regulation, which was intended to allow a choice of law of nationality (“professio iuris”).The EU Succession Regulation no. 650 came into force in 2012, applying to the estates of persons deceased on or after 17th August 2015.
It was important for R.G. to make this choice of law, knowing that English law allows complete “freedom of testamentary disposition”, to avoid the application of Italian law which entitles a spouse and children to a fixed statutory share of the estate. R.G. wanted to ensure that his children could not claim against his Italian estate, as his relationship with them had broken down.
R.G. later made a second Will in the United Kingdom in 2018, leaving his UK-based assets to his second wife. To avoid any doubt in relation to the Italian property, he also included in this new Will his intention that English law should govern his entire succession, referring to Article 22 of the EU Succession Regulation. He stated that the earlier Italian Will made in 2009 remained valid and was not revoked.
After the death of R.G. in 2020, his children made a claim against his UK estate under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents Act) 1975. They also began legal proceedings in Italy at the Tribunale di Como, claiming their right to their reserved share in Italian law (legittima) in relation to the property in Como. The children argued that the choice of English law in the two Wills was not a valid choice of law under the EU Succession Regulation. They agreed that English law should apply to the estate as the deceased was habitually resident in the UK at the time of his death, following Article 21 of the EU Regulation, but as English private international law follows a “scissionist” system, the succession to moveable property is governed by the law of the place of “domicile” and the succession to immovable property is governed by the law of the place where it is located (“lex re sitae”). According to their argument, English conflict-of-laws rules referred the succession to the Italian property back to Italian law by the mechanism of “renvoi” (or rinvio), and therefore to the application of Italian forced-heirship rules.
In the first-instance judgment, the Tribunale di Como entirely rejected these claims. The court held that EU Succession Regulation applied because R.G. had died after 17th August 2015. The court held that both the 2009 Italian will and the later 2018 UK will contained a valid choice of English law under Article 22 of the EU Regulation. The Will made in 2009 was recognized under the transitional provisions of the EU Regulation. The court confirmed that where a valid choice of law was made, Article 34 of the Regulation excluded the application of renvoi. As a result, substantive English succession law governed the entire succession of R.G., including the property in Italy, English law is founded on the principle of broad testamentary freedom with no forced heirship rights equivalent to those in Italy. The claimants had no rights against the Italian estate.
The children appealed to the Court of Appeal of Milan. They submitted a new argument that even if there was a valid choice of English law, this could not be effective as the deceased was also habitually resident in the country of which law he had chosen.
The Milan Court of Appeal also rejected the appeal in its entirety and agreed with the ruling of the Tribunale di Como. The Milan judges held that R.G. had made a clear choice of English law in both Wills, valid under Article 22 of the EU Regulation, even if the chosen law coincided with the law of the place of habitual residence that would have applied by default under Article 21. The Court of Appeal noted that the aim of the EU Regulation was to allow a testator the right to plan his succession in advance with clarity and certainty following his national law, not his place of residence, to avoid the fragmentation of an estate where assets located in different countries could be governed by different laws. A testator had a right even to make a choice of a law of a country that is not a party to the EU Regulation, as in the case of the United Kingdom. English law therefore governed all aspects of this succession, regardless of where the assets were located. The exclusion of the children from any claim to the Italian property was legally valid.
The appellants were also ordered to pay the legal costs of the appeal, as well as double the amount of the court fee as a penalty (used often as a deterrent to claimants bringing appeals without merit).