Arrêt E.E. v. Kauno (2020) states that the habitual residence of the deceased for succession requires which type of link with the state concerned?

Prepare for the DIPR Jurisprudence Test. Utilize flashcards, multiple-choice questions, and comprehensive explanations to enhance your understanding and readiness for the exam.

Multiple Choice

Arrêt E.E. v. Kauno (2020) states that the habitual residence of the deceased for succession requires which type of link with the state concerned?

Habitual residence for succession is about where the person had their ordinary life and meaningful, ongoing ties. The test here is whether the deceased really linked themselves to a state in a durable, stable way, not just by being there briefly or through isolated elements. Arrêt E.E. v. Kauno (2020) makes clear that to consider a state as the place of habitual residence for succession, there must be a close and stable link with that state. A mere link—for example, a temporary stay or a single connection—does not suffice. The court emphasizes enduring ties that reflect the person’s everyday life in the state, such as long-term residence, social and economic integration, family ties, housing, and a demonstrated intention to remain. Why the other options don’t fit: simply having a link isn’t enough if that connection isn’t close and stable; no link would contradict the concept of habitual residence; and linking solely by property ownership ignores the person’s actual lifestyle and sustained ties to a state. So, the best answer is that there must be a close and stable link with the state concerned.

Habitual residence for succession is about where the person had their ordinary life and meaningful, ongoing ties. The test here is whether the deceased really linked themselves to a state in a durable, stable way, not just by being there briefly or through isolated elements.

Arrêt E.E. v. Kauno (2020) makes clear that to consider a state as the place of habitual residence for succession, there must be a close and stable link with that state. A mere link—for example, a temporary stay or a single connection—does not suffice. The court emphasizes enduring ties that reflect the person’s everyday life in the state, such as long-term residence, social and economic integration, family ties, housing, and a demonstrated intention to remain.

Why the other options don’t fit: simply having a link isn’t enough if that connection isn’t close and stable; no link would contradict the concept of habitual residence; and linking solely by property ownership ignores the person’s actual lifestyle and sustained ties to a state.

So, the best answer is that there must be a close and stable link with the state concerned.

More practice questions