Charges on settling estates to be capped at 1% of deceased’s assets
France’s Constitutional Council has upheld a limit on bank inheritance fees, ruling that charges linked to settling estates are to be capped at 1% of the assets held in the establishment by the deceased.
The council did, however, remove parts of a 2025 law that would have made certain succession-related banking services completely free, including for estates involving deceased minors.
The decision, published in the Journal officiel on June 20, followed a constitutional challenge brought by Caisse d’Epargne Grand Est Europe.
Total abolition fees overturned
The law, adopted by parliament in May 2025, sought to remove bank inheritance fees in several situations, including when the deceased was a minor, when estates were considered straightforward, or when the amount involved fell below a threshold currently set at €5,910.
Such charges had been criticised as a “tax on grief”, particularly after a widely publicised case in which parents were billed €138 to close the Livret A savings account of their eight-year-old child following the child’s death in 2021.
The Constitutional Council ruled that preventing banks from charging any fees in these cases, regardless of the work required, was “a disproportionate infringement of the freedom to conduct business and freedom of contract”.
The judges acknowledged that inheritance procedures can require genuine administrative work by banks and removed the provisions that would have made these services entirely free.
Fee cap remains in force
Banks can continue charging inheritance fees, including in cases involving deceased minors, but those charges must remain within the limits introduced by the 2025 law.
The council upheld the reform’s other main measure: a limit on succession fees of 1% of the value of the deceased person’s accounts and savings products, subject to an overall ceiling set by decree, currently €850.
Caisse d’Epargne Grand Est Europe had argued that the cap could prevent banks from receiving sufficient payment for the work involved and would force them to bear the cost of a social policy measure.
The Constitutional Council rejected this argument, saying parliament had pursued a legitimate objective of protecting consumers from excessive charges.
It also noted that the rules concern only a limited part of banks’ activities.
The judges found that a 1% ceiling did not prevent banks from covering their costs, provided the government-set maximum amount was high enough.