ARTICLES and NOTES - Notarius International

246 R. Süß, Overview: Age of majority Notarius International 3-4/2002
2. L´âge de la capacité de tester
2.1. Acquisition de la capacité de tester souvent avant
l’âge de la majorité
La capacité de tester, elle aussi, est acquise, dans la plupart
des ordres juridiques, à l’âge de 18 ans, mais - contrairement
à la majorité – elle peut aussi être acquise plus
tôt. La règle générale est que la capacité de tester est
souvent atteinte plus tôt que la majorité civile, mais
jamais après. Dans le tableau suivant, l’âge de la capacité
de tester n’est cité qu’au cas où il serait différent de
celui de la majorité civile.
Dans quelques Etats, les mineurs (à partir d'un certain
âge) peuvent au moins disposer par testament notarié
(p.e. en Allemagne et en Espagne) ou bien d'une partie
de leur patrimoine (p.e. en France, en Belgique et au
Luxembourg). Dans le tableau, ces réglementations spéciales
ne sont citées que partiellement.
2.2. Rattachement au domicile et à la nationalité
Dans la plupart des cas, l’âge de la capacité de tester est
rattaché parallèlement au statut héréditaire.
En fin de compte, le critère de rattachement est souvent
l’âge de la majorité. Il y a toutefois des divergences, notamment
dans les Etats qui connaissent la scission de la
succession (les Etats du Common Law, la Russie et la
CEI et la Chine). Dans le tableau suivant, le critère de
rattachement n’est cité qu’au cas où il serait différent de
celui de la majorité.
Overview: Age of majority and age of testamentary
capacity in other countries
1. Age of majority
1.1. Rule of thumb: Whoever is less than 18 years
old, is a minor. Whoever is older than 21 years, is of
full age.
Nowadays, in most legal systems majority is regularly
reached upon completition of the 18th year. There is no
system granting majority before age 18. Neither is there
a system denying majority after age 21.
- In Japan, Korea and Taiwan, e.g., majority is
reached with age 20.
- In several african, arabic and latin-american states,
majority is reached only upon age 21.
1.2. Law applicable to the age of majority
The law applicable to legal capacity is dealt with differently
in different countries. In countries whose legal system
is based on the so-called civil law system, the position
generally speaking is that this is seen as a question of
the law governing the person. Depending on whether
the particular country follows the nationality principle or
the law governing the person is based on domicile or habitual
residence, the law applicable to legal capacity will
be determined accordingly.
- In France therefore for example, which follows the
nationality principle, Article 3 (3) of the Code Civil
(Civil Code) provides that the age of legal capacity
has to be determined by the law of the person’s native
country.
- In Switzerland (domicile principle) on the other hand,
Article 35 of the Swiss Bundesgesetz über das Internationale
Privatrecht (Federal Code on Private International
Law) establishes the law applicable to the
question of the age of capacity by reference to the law
of the place of domicile of the people involved in the
transaction.
The position is the opposite in common law countries.
Here the question of legal capacity is not specially created,
in other words there is no separate law on legal capacity.
Instead legal capacity as the prerequisite for the validity
of a legal transaction is basically made subject to the
law that also governs the other aspects of the substantive
validity of the transaction. In England therefore for example,
as in the USA, the law of the contract also applies
to the question of whether the contract parties have sufficient
capacity to enter into the transaction in question or
have reached the age of majority 1 .
Example 1: An 18-year-old US citizen has inherited a property
in France from his grandparents, along with his brothers and sisters.
The property is now going to be sold. The American studies
in New York, but his parents live in Colorado. Under New York
law he would already have legal capacity, but not under Colorado
law. The French Notary who is dealing with the notarisation of the
sale agreement can leave the question of whether the American
heir has established a domicile in New York or whether the domicile
of his parents continues to apply to him open, because the laws
of the US States involved refer the question back to French law in
any event, if and to the extent that French law is the governing law
of the sale agreement.
The determination of domicile throws up interesting
questions in this context because in many countries legal
capacity is a prerequisite of establishing one’s own domicile.
Minors share the domicile of their parents.
Example 2: An Argentine couple with German origins domiciled
in Buenos Aires send their 18-year-old daughter to study in
Tübingen. Instead of studying however she falls in love with her
German teacher. After they conceive a child together they decide
to marry. The Notary that they instruct to notarise the marriage
contract attempts to establish whether the bride has the necessary
legal capacity to enter into the marriage contract or whether she requires
the consent of her parents, but is at a loss: Article 7 (1) of
the EGBGB (Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch -
Introductory Law to the German Civil Code) refers him for the determination
of the law applicable to legal capacity to the law of Argentina,
the bride’s native country. Under Article 126 of the Argentine
Código Civil (Civil Code), legal capacity is only attained at the
end of a person’s twenty-first year.
However, under Article 4 (1) sentence 2 of the EGBGB, the Notary
would have to refer back through Argentine law, the law of nationality,
to German law. Article 7 of the Argentine Código Civil
provides that the legal capacity of people living outside Argentina
has to be determined by the law of their domicile. Under Article 90
(6) of the Argentine Código Civil the domicile of a minor is the
1 For England see Bodley Head Ltd. v. Flegon [1972] I WMR 680;
North/Fawcett, Cheshire and North on Private International Law,
13th Edition 2000, page 583; for the USA see Scoles/Hay, Conflict of
Laws, 3rd Edition St. Paul, Minnesota, 2000, § 18.37 note 11.