The subject of this diploma paper are public notaries and their jurisdiction in cross-border proceedings. The focus will be on regulations and their impact on jurisdiction and conduct of proceedings of public notaries. Three regulations will be looked at separately, Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession, Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and nforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes and Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims. In the begining of this paper more will be said about how they define „court“ and whether it includes jurisdiction of public notaries in cross-border matters. The first part of the paper will explain Regulation 650/2012 and its relation to Regulation 2016/1103. The focus will be on the principle of the unity of the estate, habitual residence as a general connecting factor to determining jurisdiction and applicable law and European Certificate of Sucession. The second part of this paper will analyse Regulation 2016/1103 and its impact on cross-border cases concerning matrimonial property regime. This part will also discuss habitual residence as a general connecting factor for determining jurisdiction. Concerning the applicable law, there will be a review of the impact of widely placed autonomy of the will of the parties on the choice of applicable law. Finally, the last part will raise the question of why Croatian public notaries are not considered „court“ in the context of Regulation 805/2004, with an analisys of the most important arguments and decision of CJEU on which this position is based, all with an analisys of Pulaparking and Zulfikarpašić cases. The results will be compared with the conclusions on the role of public notaries as a „court“ under Regulation 1103/2016 and Regulation 1104/2016.