A.4.2. Binding in an indirect manner?

One could attempt to limit the revocability in an indirect manner.Is it possible for a testator to be pushed in the ‘right direction in terms of succession law’? Article 4:4 paragraph 1 DCC aims at preventing this kind of practice and seems to succeed well. Last wills and testaments, too, as unilateral legal transactions, are null and void if their effect is obstructive in terms of succession law. This follows expressly from parliamentary history and case law. It also matches the purport of the provision. It is not possible, by means of a certain last will and testament, to prevent a(nother) testator from making or revoking a last will and testament. Neither is it possible to incite a(nother) testator to revoke or to make a disposition. It is not possible to bring about indirect binding in such a way. The prohibition is also directed at situations in which the person concerned, if he wishes to use his power to dispose by will, can not do so without negative consequences for him of whatever nature or without overcoming further obstacles. The cancellation of testamentary dispositions, specific legacies and so as a sanction if the testator who benefits does not make provisions in a certain manner is null and void, that is my conclusion under prevailing law. True, the fact that there are more possibilities in Germany causes me to have doubts but does not make me change tack.

With legislation as it stands one should, to be on the safe side, conclude that the prohibition of article 4:4 paragraph 1 DCC has a broad scope. For the time being I do not find in this an alternative to contractual succession law. I refer to no. 1, no. 2.1, no. 2.3.1, no. 2.3.2 and no. 2.4 of chapter III.