The contract for succession and distribution of property, or the contract of succession, is regulated in Slovenian law by the Code of Obligations (OZ), in Chapter V, or Articles 546 to 556.

The grantor undertakes in the contract of succession to deliver and distribute their property to their descendants, adopted children and their descendants. The grantor’s property is transferred to his/her their descendants immediately upon the conclusion of the contract of succession, and not only upon the death of the grantor (e.g. in the case of a lifetime support contract).

A contract of succession is valid if it is concluded in the form of a notarial deed. It must be agreed to by all the grantor’s descendants, adopted children and their descendants who would be legally called to inherit from them. If any descendant does not give consent, they can give it later in the same form. The succession and distribution remain valid if the non-consenting descendant dies before the grantor without leaving descendants, if they renounce the inheritance, if they are disinherited or if they are hereditarily unworthy. This is also confirmed by case-law, namely the judgment and decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, ref. no. II Ips 279/2013 of 5.2.2015, where it is established that a contract of succession is characterised by a prior arrangement of inheritance and that, in order to be valid, all the descendants called upon to inherit must be included in it or must consent to it. If this condition is fulfilled, there is a contract of succession, regardless of whether the grantor has reserved rights within the meaning of Article 111 of the Property Code (ZD). If, however, the condition of the inclusion of all the descendants called to inherit is not fulfilled, the court must consider, in the light of the contractual intention of the parties, whether the conditions for the validity of any other contract are fulfilled. In such a case, if there are gratuitous dispositions, those parts of the property that have been handed over to other heirs are treated as gifts and, after the death of the predecessor, are treated as gifts made by the predecessor to his heirs. This is not the case if the recipient of the property undertakes in the contract of succession to provide certain benefits or services to the grantor. In this case, the substance of the contract is that of a contract of usufruct, where the annuity recipient transfers his property to the annuity payer before their death.

Only the present property of the grantor, in whole or in part, shall be subject to the succession and distribution of property. The provision on the manner of distribution of the property to be in the grantor’s estate is invalid.

When the grantor dies, only the property not covered by the contract of succession and the property acquired by the grantor at a later date are included in the grantor’s estate. Property previously acquired by the grantor’s descendants by succession and distribution shall not form part of the grantor’s estate and shall not be taken into account in determining its value.

In the event that a descendant has not consented to the succession and distribution, those parts of the property that have been succeeded to other descendants shall be considered as gifts and, after the death of the grantor, shall be treated as gifts made by the predecessor to the heirs. The same applies if, after the succession and distribution agreed to by all the descendants, the grantor has a child or a descendant who has been declared dead appears.

The grantor may, at the time of succession and distribution, reserve to themselves, their spouse or another the right to enjoy all or part of the property succeeded, or may claim a life annuity in kind or in money, life maintenance or other compensation. If the usufruct or annuity for life is agreed for the grantor and their spouse jointly, in the event of the death of one of them, the usufruct or annuity shall continue in full to the other until their death, unless otherwise agreed or unless the circumstances of the case indicate otherwise. Also from the judgment of the High Court in Maribor, ref. no. I Cp 171/2015 of 19.5.2014, it follows that the grantor may, in the contract of succesion, stipulate life maintenance or other compensation which is in the grantor’s interest in life, as it enables them to maintain their standard of living or even provides them with a means of subsistence, especially when they transfer and distribute all or the main part of their property, and they have no other means of subsistence or when they are too meagre or insufficient to provide them with any other means of subsistence (e.g., a pension).

However, the grantor may also take their spouse into account in the succession and distribution, but they must agree to this. If the spouse is not taken into account in the succession and distribution, their right to the reserved share remains intact. In this case, the succession and distribution shall remain valid, but those parts of the deceased’s estate which they have given to their heirs shall be considered as gifts for the purpose of determining the value of the estate, which is used to determine the surviving spouse’s necessary share.

The heirs among whom the grantor has distributed his property are not liable for the debts of the grantor, unless otherwise provided in the contract of succession. The delivering creditors may challenge the succession and distribution under the conditions applicable to challenges to gratuitous dispositions.

The obligation of guarantee arising after a division between co-heirs also arises between the descendants after the succession and distribution of the property handed over and distributed to them by their predecessor or adoptive parent.

A grantor may revoke a contract of conveyance on the ground of gross ingratitude if, after the contract has been concluded, the descendant behaves towards them or their relative in such a way that, according to fundamental moral principles, it would be unjust for the descendant to keep what they have received. The same applies if the descendant fails to pay to the grantor or to someone else the maintenance agreed in the contract of succession, or if they fail to pay the grantor’s debts which they were ordered to pay in the contract of succession. In other cases of non-fulfilment of the obligations assumed in the contract of succession, the court decides, taking into account the importance of the obligations for the grantor and the other circumstances of the case, whether the grantor has the right to demand the return of the property given or whether they have only the right to compel fulfilment of the obligations. As is clear from the judgment and order of the Ljubljana High Court, ref. no. II Cp 3944/2021 of 23.5.2012, not any ingratitude is sufficient to justify revocation, but the conduct must be so reprehensible that, according to fundamental moral principles, it would be unjust for the descendant to retain the property handed over. Only conduct of such gravity as to reasonably justify the cancellation of the contract can be regarded as gross ingratitude. The assessment of the existence of gross ingratitude requires a comprehensive assessment of all the circumstances and actions between the descendant and the grantor.

A descendant who has had to return to the grantor what they received at the time of the succession and distribution may claim their necessary share after the death of the grantor if they are not disinherited, or unworthy to inherit from the grantor, or if they have not renounced the inheritance. In calculating their necessary share, those parts of the property which the grantor gave during their lifetime and distributed among their other descendants are to be regarded as gifts.