Judgment;Abstract — ECLI:EU:C:2021:1008
Date: 2021-12-14
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Grand Chamber
Subject matter: Citizenship of the Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Summary  C-490/20 – 1 
Case C-490/20 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
2 October 2020 
Referring court:  
Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
2 October 2020 
Applicant:  
V.M.A. 
Defendant:  
Stolichna Obsthina, Rayon ‘Pancharevo’ (Sofia municipality, 
‘Pancharevo’ district) 
  
Subject matter of the case in the main proceedings 
Proceedings at first instance before the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad 
(Administrative Court of the City of Sofia, Bulgaria), initiated by an action 
brought by V.M.A. against the refusal of Sofia municipality, ‘Pancharevo’ district, 
to issue a birth certificate for the girl S.D.K.A., born on 8 December 2019 in 
Barcelona, Kingdom of Spain, whose birth was attested by a Spanish birth 
certificate which names V.M.A. and K.D.K., who are both female, as the girl’s 
mothers. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the reference 
Interpretation of EU law; Article 267(1) TFEU 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-490/20 
 
2  
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
1. Must Article 20 TFEU and Article 21 TFEU and Articles 7, 24 and 45 of the 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as 
meaning that the Bulgarian administrative authorities to which an 
application for a document certifying the birth of a child of Bulgarian 
nationality in another Member State of the EU was submitted, which had 
been certified by way of a Spanish birth certificate in which two persons of 
the female sex are registered as mothers without specifying whether one of 
them, and if so, which of them, is the child’s biological mother, are not 
permitted to refuse to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate on the grounds that 
the applicant refuses to state which of them is the child’s biological mother? 
2. Must Article 4(2) TEU and Article 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights 
of the European Union be interpreted as meaning that respect for the 
national identity and constitutional identity of the Member States of the 
European Union means that those Member States have a broad discretion as 
regards the rules for establishing parentage? Specifically: 
– Must Art. 4(2) TEU be interpreted as allowing Member State to 
request information on the biological parentage of the child? 
– Must Article 4(2) TEU in conjunction with Article 7 and Article 24(2) 
of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that it is essential to strike a 
balance of interests between, on the one hand, the national identity and 
constitutional identity of a Member State and, on the other hand, the 
best interests of the child, having regard to the fact that, at the present 
time, there is neither a consensus as regards values nor, in legal terms, 
a consensus about the possibility of registering as parents on a birth 
certificate persons of the same sex without providing further details of 
whether one of them, and if so, which of them, is the child’s biological 
parent? If this question is answered in the affirmative, how could that 
balance of interests be achieved in concrete terms? 
3. Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the legal consequences of Brexit in 
that one of the mothers listed on the birth certificate issued in another 
Member State is a UK national whereas the other mother is a national of an 
EU Member State, having regard in particular to the fact that the refusal to 
issue a Bulgarian birth certificate for the child constitutes an obstacle to the 
issue of an identity document for the child by an EU Member State and, as a 
result, may impede the unlimited exercise of her rights as an EU citizen? 
4. If the first question is answered in the affirmative: does EU law, in particular 
the principle of effectiveness, oblige the competent national authorities to 
derogate from the model birth certificate which forms part of the applicable 
national law? 
STOLICHNA OBSHTINA, RAYON ‘PANCHAREVO’ 
 
3 
Legal provisions and case-law of the European Union 
Articles 18, 20 and 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (TFEU); 
Articles 7, 9, 21, 24 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European 
Union; 
Article 4(2) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU); 
Article 2(1) and (2)(a), Article 4 and Article 7(1)(d) and (4) of Directive 
2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on 
the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside 
freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) 
No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 
73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC; 
Judgments of the Court of Justice of 25 July 2008, Metock and Others, C-127/08, 
EU:C:2008:449; of 8 November 2012, Iida, C-40/11, EU:C:2012:691, and of 
5 June 2018, Coman and Others, C-673/16, EU:C:2018:385; of 20 November 
2001, Jany and Others, C-268/99, EU:C:2001:616, and of 4 December 1974, Van 
Duyn, 41/74, EU:C:1974:133; of 2 October 2003, Garcia Avello, C-148/02, 
EU:C:2003:539; of 1 April 2008, Maruko, C-267/06, EU:C:2008:179, and of 
14 October 2008, Grunkin and Paul, C-353/06, EU:C:2008:559; of 2 June 2016, 
Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff, C-438/14, EU:C:2016:401. 
Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) of 26 June 2014, 
Mennesson v. France (Application no. 65192/11), and advisory opinion of the 
ECtHR in response to a request from the French Cour de Cassation (Court of 
Cassation) (Request no. P16-2018-001) 
National legislation 
Konstitutsia na Republika Balgaria (Consitution of the Republic of Bulgaria), 
Article 25 and Article 46(1); 
Semeen kodeks (Family Code), Articles 60 and 61; 
Zakon za grazhdanskata registratsia (Law on the Registration of Citizens), 
Articles 42, 45, 69, 70, 72; 
Naredba No. RD-02-20-9 ot 21.05.2012 g. za funktsionirane na Edinnata sistema 
za grazhdanska registratsia (Regulation No. RD-02-20-9 of 21 May 2012 on the 
Operation of the Uniform System for the Registration of Citizens), Articles 7, 12, 
13, 14; 
Zapoved No. RD-02-14-2595 ot 15.12.2011 za utvarzhdavane na obraztsi na 
aktovete za grazhdansko sastoyanie, izdadena ot ministara na regionalnoto razvitie 
i blagoustroystvoto i ministara na pravosadieto (Regulation No. RD-02-14-2595 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-490/20 
 
4  
of the Minister for Regional Development and Public Works and of the Minister 
of Justice of 15 December 2011 on the Approval of Model Civil Status 
Certificates) 
Brief summary of the facts and procedure 
1 On 8 December 2019, in the city of Barcelona, Kingdom of Spain, the child 
S.D.K.A. was born, a birth certificate for whom was issued on which it was 
recorded that the mothers of the child were  V.M.A., a Bulgarian national, 
designated ‘Mother A’, and K.D.K., a UK national, designated ‘Mother’, both 
persons being female. 
2 By application of 29 January 2020, V.M.A., acting through her authorised 
representative, made a statement requesting that Sofia municipality, ‘Pancharevo’ 
district, issue a birth certificate for the child S.D.K.A. Attached to the statement 
was an officially certified translation into Bulgarian of an excerpt from the civil 
register of Barcelona and the birth certificate of S.D.K.A., which lists as the 
mothers of the child V.M.A., born in Sofia, Republic of Bulgaria, and K.D.K., 
born in Gibraltar, United Kingdom, both persons being female. 
3 According to the information contained in the birth certificate, V.M.A. and 
K.D.K. entered into a civil marriage in Gibraltar, United Kingdom, on 
23 February 2018. 
4 On 7 February 2020, Sofia municipality, ‘Pancharevo’ district, instructed the 
applicant in writing to produce, within seven days, evidence of the child’s 
parentage with respect to her biological mother. 
5 Referring to the instructions received, the applicant replied on 18 February 2020 
that she could not provide such information and that she was not required to do so 
under the laws in force in the Republic of Bulgaria. 
6 By letter dated 5 March 2020 and sent to the applicant on the same day, Sofia 
municipality, ‘Pancharevo’ district, refused to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate 
for the child S.D.K.A. 
7 On 3 April 2020, the authorised representative of V.M.A. brought legal 
proceedings before the Administrativen sad – Sofia grad (Administrative Court of 
the City of Sofia) against the refusal by Sofia municipality, ‘Pancharevo’ district, 
expressed in the letter of 5 March 2020, to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate for 
the child S.D.K.A. in accordance with the Spanish birth certificate issued. 
Main arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
8 According to the letter sent to the applicant on 5 March 2020 by Sofia 
municipality, ‘Pancharevo’ district, refusing to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate 
STOLICHNA OBSHTINA, RAYON ‘PANCHAREVO’ 
 
5 
for the child S.D.K.A., the grounds for that refusal are the lack of sufficient 
information regarding the child’s parentage with respect to her biological mother. 
It was further pointed out that the registration of two female parents on a child’s 
birth certificate was inadmissible, as same-sex marriages were currently not 
permitted in the Republic of Bulgaria and such a registration was contrary to 
public policy. 
9 In her application to the Administrativen sad Sofia grad (Administrative Court of 
the City of Sofia) the applicant submits that the refusal to issue a Bulgarian birth 
certificate to the child S.D.K.A. infringes both substantive and procedural law and 
also infringes Directive 2004/38 and is contrary to the case-law of both the CJEU 
and the ECtHR. According to the applicant, not a single substantive legal act of 
the Republic of Bulgaria creates an obligation on the administrative authority to 
determine the parentage of the child before issuing her with a Bulgarian birth 
certificate. In addition, the applicant refers to the case-law of the CJEU, according 
to which the host State may not impose additional conditions for respecting the 
existence of a marriage and the rights of family members deriving from it 
(judgments of 25 July 2008, Metock and Others, C-127/08, EU:C:2008:449; of 
8 November 2012, Iida, C-40/11, EU:C:2012:691, and of 5 June 2018, Coman 
and Others, C-673/16, EU:C:2018:385). 
10 The applicant disputes that grounds of public policy can be relied on by Sofia 
municipality, ‘Pancharevo’ district, and refers to the provisions of the Bulgarian 
Kodeks na mezhdunarodnoto chastno pravo (Code of Private International Law) 
and the relevant case-law of the CJEU (judgments of 20 November 2001, Jany 
and Others, C-268/99, EU:C:2001:616, and of 4 December 1974, Van Duyn, 
41/74, EU:C:1974:133). 
11 The applicant also claims that the fact that Sofia municipality, ‘Pancharevo’ 
district, requires evidence of the child’s biological parentage, on the absence of 
which the refusal to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate for the child S.D.K.A. is 
based, constitutes an unlawful interference with V.M.A.’s right to private life and 
with V.M.A. and K.D.K.’s right to family life and that those infringements were 
committed in a context of direct discrimination. 
Summary of the grounds for referral 
12 In support of the admissibility of its request for a preliminary ruling, the 
Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia) sets 
out the following reasons: the factual and legal situation of the case 
unquestionably falls within the scope of EU law. The referring court refers to the 
case-law of the CJEU according to which the substantive aspects of the law on 
civil status fall within the competence of the Member States and that EU law does 
not detract from that competence but that, in exercising those powers, the Member 
States must comply with EU law and, in particular, with the Treaty provisions on 
the freedom of every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-490/20 
 
6  
territory of the Member States. The Member States must therefore respect EU law 
in the exercise of that competence unless the case involves an internal situation 
which has no link with EU law (judgments of 2 October 2003, Garcia Avello, 
C-148/02, EU:C:2003:539; of 14 October 2008, Grunkin and Paul, C-353/06, 
EU:C:2008:559; of 5 June 2018, Coman and Others, C-673/16, EU:C:2018:385). 
Furthermore, the national court states that the CJEU has ruled that there is a link 
with EU law in the case of children who are nationals of one Member State and 
are also lawfully resident in the territory of another Member State (judgment of 
2 October 2003, Garcia Avello, C-148/02, EU:C:2003:539, paragraph 27). 
13 The child S.D.K.A. was born and resides in Barcelona, Kingdom of Spain; 
V.M.A., a Bulgarian national, and K.D.K, a United Kingdom national, were 
registered on the Spanish birth certificate as her mothers. At the same time, the 
applicant in the main proceedings is a Bulgarian national who exercised her right 
to freedom of movement and who married K.D.K. in Gibraltar, in the United 
Kingdom, and settled in Barcelona, Kingdom of Spain, where her daughter, 
S.D.K.A, was born. 
14 In those circumstances, the applicant is justified in relying on the right to move 
and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, enshrined in Article 21 
TFEU, in the context of her application for the certification of her daughter’s birth 
in the Republic of Bulgaria by being issued with a Bulgarian birth certificate 
containing the same information as the child’s Spanish birth certificate. 
15 Moreover, the refusal to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate intended to be used to 
apply for a Bulgarian identity document would deprive the child of the possibility 
of making full use of her rights as an EU citizen. This is because the issue of 
Bulgarian identity documents requires a Bulgarian birth certificate. This issue is 
all the more important because the other parent of the child is a UK citizen. 
Therefore, any acquisition of UK nationality by the child would not allow the 
child to gain valid EU citizenship given the legal consequences of Brexit. 
16 Finally, there is CJEU case-law in favour of the admissibility of questions on the 
interpretation of EU law by the CJEU. At the same time, the referring court cannot 
find a judgment ruling on issues identical to those in the present case which might 
help it to resolve the dispute before it. 
17 The Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia) 
gives the following main reasons for its request for a preliminary ruling. It is 
considered to be an established fact that a traditional marriage constitutes a fixed 
element of Bulgarian constitutional identity in accordance with the current state of 
social development and values of Bulgarian society; a traditional marriage is 
understood to mean as a voluntary union between a man and a woman, as 
expressly stipulated in the Bulgarian Constitution of 1991 (Article 46(1) of this 
Constitution). That legal rule is mandatory and does not provide for any 
exceptions. It can be found in Chapter II (‘Fundamental rights and fundamental 
duties of citizens’) of the Constitution. The current law of the Republic of 
STOLICHNA OBSHTINA, RAYON ‘PANCHAREVO’ 
 
7 
Bulgaria does not allow a marriage or any other form of partnership giving rise to 
any legal consequences to be entered into between persons of the same sex. 
18 This concept of the traditional family, which is visibly enshrined in the 
Constitution, is also reflected in the Family Code, which explicitly states that from 
the parentage of the ‘mother’ is determined by the birth and that the ‘mother’ of 
the child is ‘the woman’ who gave birth to the child, even in the case of artificial 
reproduction (Article 60 of the Family Code [SK]). Article 61 SK also determines 
the parentage of the ‘father’. In both cases the legislature uses the singular, which 
clearly indicates that the child’s parentage is based on one mother and/or one 
father. The Bulgarian legislature does not provide for any case in which the 
parentage of a child is based on two mothers or two fathers. In addition, the 
Bulgarian Family Code defines the term ‘mother’ as ‘the woman’ who gave birth 
to the child, even in the case of artificial reproduction. Therefore, and obviously 
with the exception of particular legally recognised procedures such as adoption, a 
woman who has not given birth to the child is not considered a ‘mother’ of the 
child within the meaning of Article 60 SK. Given that Articles 60 and 61 SK are 
of key significance in Bulgarian family law and inheritance law, the 
Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia) 
considers that those provisions also reflect the national identity and constitutional 
identity of the Republic of Bulgaria within the meaning of Article 4(2) TEU. 
19 These rules are also reflected in the relevant provisions of the Law on the 
Registration of Citizens. According to Article 72(3)(1), the registrar is to draw up 
the Bulgarian birth certificate by entering the following details: the name of the 
person to be registered, the date and place of birth, the sex and ‘the established 
parentage’. The term ‘parentage’ refers to ‘parentage’ as defined in Articles 60 
and 61 SK. Under Article 12(1) of Regulation No RD-02-20-9 of 21 May 2012 on 
the Operation of the Uniform System for the Registration of Citizens, when 
registering a the birth of a person who was born abroad, data relating to the 
registered person’s name, the date and place of birth, the sex and the ‘established 
parentage’ are entered on the birth certificate as set out in the copy that was 
produced or in the Bulgarian translation of the foreign document. 
20 At the same time, however, according to the pre-defined model civil status 
certificates stipulated by the Order of the Minister for Regional Development and 
Public Works and the Minister for Justice Order of 15 December 2011, the birth 
certificate is to contains details about the parents of the child that are divided into 
two columns, namely ‘mother’ and ‘father’. Aside from the legal arguments put 
forward by Sofia municipality, ‘Pancharevo’ district, which it set out in its letter 
rejecting the application, the latter was therefore not technically able to issue a 
birth certificate since, unlike the Spanish birth certificate, the model certificate 
does not provide for the registration of two mothers. 
21 In those circumstances, the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court 
of the City of Sofia) is uncertain, first, as to whether the refusal to register the 
birth of a Bulgarian national abroad, whose birth certificate issued by another 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-490/20 
 
8  
Member State lists two mothers, infringes her rights under Articles 20 and 21 
TFEU and Articles 7, 24 and 45 of the Charter. The refusal to issue a Bulgarian 
birth certificate could make it difficult for the child to exercise her right to free 
movement since the issue of Bulgarian identity documents requires a Bulgarian 
birth certificate. In the present case, the legal consequences of Brexit could also 
have an impact on the court’s assessment since the other mother listed on the 
Spanish birth certificate can no longer be regarded as an EU citizen but as a third-
country national. Thus, even if the refusal to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate has 
no legal effect on the child’s Bulgarian nationality, the refusal is liable to give rise 
to serious administrative obstacles to the issue of Bulgarian identity documents 
and, thus, impede the free movement of the child within the EU and the full 
exercise of her rights as an EU citizen. 
22 On the other hand, the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of 
the City of Sofia) is uncertain, however, as to whether reasons relating to the 
protection of public policy or national identity within the meaning of Article 4(2) 
TEU may justify such a restriction of the right to freedom of movement 
guaranteed by Article 21 TFEU and to what extent such a restriction requires an 
assessment of the proportionality of the infringement of the right to freedom of 
movement. According to the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative 
Court of the City of Sofia), given the current state of development of social 
conditions in the Republic of Bulgaria, the legal rules that determine a child’s 
parentage are of fundamental importance in Bulgarian constitutional tradition and 
in Bulgarian family and inheritance law, both from a legal perspective and with 
respect to values. Since, according to Article 4(2) TEU, the EU respects the 
national identity of the Member States, inherent in their fundamental structures, 
political and constitutional (judgment of 2 June 2016, Bogendorff von 
Wolffersdorff, C-438/14, EU:C:2016:401, paragraph 73), the Administrativen sad 
Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia) is uncertain as to whether 
an obligation imposed on the Bulgarian administrative authorities, when certifying 
a birth that has taken place abroad, to register two mothers on the Bulgarian birth 
certificate as the parents of the child, will not negatively affect the national 
identity of the Bulgarian State, which has not provided for the possibility of 
registering two parents of the same sex on the birth certificate. 
23 In the opinion of the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the 
City of Sofia) only the legislature is in a position to exercise its sovereignty and 
decide whether a child’s parentage can be determined not only from one mother 
but from two mothers and/or fathers. As far as the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad 
(Administrative Court of the City of Sofia) is aware, EU is silent on this issue. In 
particular, Article 9 of the Charter expressly provides that the right to start a 
family is guaranteed according to national laws that actually reflect respect for 
national identity and the constitutional identity recognised in Article 4(2) TEU. 
24 In that context, and having regard to the child’s best interests, the Administrativen 
sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia) takes account of the 
fact that it is necessary to find a solution at the level of the interests of the child, 
STOLICHNA OBSHTINA, RAYON ‘PANCHAREVO’ 
 
9 
who is not responsible for differences between EU Member States in the scale of 
values in social conditions. In the light of the foregoing, the Administrative Court 
of Sofia is uncertain as to whether Article 24(2) of the Charter obliges a Member 
State not to apply the fundamental rules of its national law. 
25 The Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia) 
therefore considers it essential to weigh up the various legitimate interests 
involved in the present case with a view to striking a balance: on the one hand, the 
constitutional identity and the national identity of the Republic of Bulgaria and, on 
the other, the interests of the child and, in particular, her right to private life and 
free movement. It is also necessary to examine whether such balance could be 
achieved by applying the principle of proportionality. In particular, the 
Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Sofia City Administrative Court) is having 
difficulties in assessing whether the registration of one of the two mothers listed 
on the Spanish birth certificate in the ‘mother’ column, and who is either the 
child’s biological mother or became a mother by way of another procedure (e.g. 
adoption), while the ‘father’ column remains empty (blank), would constitute a 
reasonable balance between the legitimate interests of Bulgarian society as a 
whole, on the one hand, and those of the child, on the other. It is clear that such a 
solution would create certain obstacles due to possible differences between the 
Spanish and Bulgarian birth certificates, but would at least allow the issuing of a 
Bulgarian birth certificate, thus avoiding or at least reducing any obstacles to the 
free movement of the child. However, the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad 
(Administrative Court of the City of Sofia) is also doubtful whether such a 
solution would be consistent with the right to respect for private and family life 
enshrined in Article 7 of the Charter. 
26 In the opinion of the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the 
City of Sofia) the relevant case-law of the Court does not provide an answer to the 
questions referred for a preliminary ruling. In particular, contrary to the judgment 
of 5 June 2018, Coman and Others (C-673/16, EU:C:2018:385), the issue before 
the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia) 
does not concern having a marriage concluded between same-sex persons in 
another Member State recognised, with a view to granting a derived right of 
residence for a third-country national, but relates to two persons of the same sex 
being recognised as mothers of a child of Bulgarian nationality born in another 
Member State by having their names included on the child’s Bulgarian birth 
certificate. Unlike in Coman, this question is linked to the method of establishing 
the parentage of a Bulgarian national. 
27 The circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings can also be 
distinguished from those which gave rise to the judgment of 14 October 2008, 
Grunkin and Paul (C-353/06, EU:C:2008:559). The present case is not concerned 
with how the surname of the child is determined, but with how the child’s 
parentage is established. According to the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad 
(Verwaltungsgericht der Stadt Sofia), the latter question is different in nature and 
has far greater consequences at the level of family and inheritance law. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-490/20 
 
10  
Furthermore, in Grunkin and Paul, the question of compliance with Article 4(2) 
TEU did not arise. 
28 The Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia) 
also examined the relevant case-law of the ECtHR, in particular its judgment of 
26 June 2014 in Mennesson v France (Application no 65192/11). The national 
court adds that the case-law of the ECtHR cited above in the first advisory opinion 
delivered in response to a request of the French Cour de Cassation (Court of 
Cassation) (Request no P16-2018-001) was further developed in the context of a 
review of the same case following the first judgment of the ECtHR in Mennesson. 
29 According to the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the 
City of Sofia), it is clear from this case-law of the ECtHR that the condition 
applied by the ECtHR is whether at least one of the parents entered on the birth 
certificate issued abroad is the child’s biological parent. In the present case, 
however, the applicant has refused to provide the defendant with details about the 
child’s biological mother, which clearly distinguishes the present case from the 
case before the ECtHR. Furthermore, there is nothing on the file to suggest 
whether this is a case of surrogacy. In any event, the above-mentioned judgment 
of the ECtHR is not directly applicable to the present case since the applicant 
refuses to provide information about the child’s biological parentage. In this case, 
the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia) 
questions whether the discretion which the European Convention on Human 
Rights confers on States should be interpreted more broadly than in the above-
mentioned case. Similarly, the judgment referred to above expressly recognises 
that States may refuse to register birth certificates issued abroad in civil status 
registers where other means of recognition of parentage, such as adoption, are 
available. The latter consideration coincides to a certain extent with the above-
mentioned imperative to strike a balance between the best interests of the child 
and the national identity and constitutional identity of the State within the 
meaning of Article 4(2) TEU. What is more, in this context, according to 
Article 110(2) SK, the adoption of a child of Bulgarian nationality who is 
habitually resident in another State is subject to the law of that State. In other 
words, the effectiveness and speed of the alternative remedy relied on by the 
ECtHR must be assessed in the light of Spanish law. 
30 Another important factor, noted by the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad 
(Administrative Court of the City of Sofia), is the lack of binding force of 
advisory opinions of the ECtHR, which are based on Protocol 16 to the European 
Convention on Human Rights (Article 5) and which, incidentally, has not been 
ratified by the Republic of Bulgaria. Unlike those advisory opinions, the 
judgments delivered by the CJEU under Article 267 TFEU are binding on the 
Bulgarian courts, which is an additional reason for the Administrativen sad Sofia-
grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia) to make the present request for a 
preliminary ruling. 
STOLICHNA OBSHTINA, RAYON ‘PANCHAREVO’ 
 
11 
31 Last but not least, if the CJEU concludes that EU law requires Member States to 
enter the birth certificate in the civil status register as it was drawn up in another 
Member State, the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the 
City of Sofia) would like to know how this can be implemented in practice. In 
particular, the model birth certificate which binds the administrative authorities, as 
mentioned above, provides for two columns: the ‘mother’ column and the ‘father’ 
column. More specifically, how can EU law and, in particular, the principle of 
effectiveness, be taken into account in these circumstances, where the model 
certificate is applicable, given that, in the present case, the Administrativen sad 
Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia) does not have jurisdiction 
to review the legality of the order that established that model certificate. 
32 The established model birth certificate is applicable law, and in the present case 
the court is not concerned with the question whether the Order of the Minister for 
Regional Development and Public Works, and the Minister for Justice Order of 
15 December 2011, and Regulation No RD-02-20-9 of the Minister for Regional 
Development and Public Works of 21 May 2012 on the Operation of the Uniform 
System for the Registration of Citizens are lawful in view of higher-ranking 
provisions of Bulgarian or European law. Nor does the Administrativen sad Sofia-
grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia) have jurisdiction, in the pending 
proceedings, to rule of its own motion on the validity of those legal instruments. 
Therefore, the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City 
of Sofia) cannot replace this approved model certificate with another for the 
purposes of the case, nor could the registrar replace that model with another. 
Should the CJEU conclude that EU law requires the registration of two mothers of 
the child on the birth certificate, how is such a ruling to be applied? 
33 In addition, the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City 
of Sofia) points out that the question of the new-born child’s right to citizenship 
does not arise in the present case. The child acquires Bulgarian nationality by 
virtue of Article 25(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria (‘A person 
is a Bulgarian national if at least one of their parents is a Bulgarian national or if 
they were born in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria and provided that they 
do not acquire any other nationality by parentage. Bulgarian nationality may also 
be acquired by naturalisation’) and under Article 8 of the Zakon za balgarskoto 
grazhdanstvo (Law on Bulgarian Nationality) (‘A person is a Bulgarian national 
by parentage if at least one of their parents is a Bulgarian national’). The failure to 
issue a Bulgarian birth certificate does not constitute a refusal of Bulgarian 
nationality. The minor is a Bulgarian national by operation of law notwithstanding 
the fact that she is currently not being issued with a Bulgarian birth certificate. 
The failure to issue such a birth certificate, however, will certainly impede the 
exercise of her rights as a Bulgarian national or EU citizen in practice simply 
because no identity document can be issued to her. 
34 Finally, the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of 
Sofia) has requested that the reference for a preliminary ruling be dealt with under 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-490/20 
 
12  
the expedited procedure provided for by Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure of 
the Court of Justice. 
35 According to the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the 
City of Sofia), the nature of the case requires that it be examined quickly, since 
the person concerned is 10-month-old minor, S.D.K.A., of Bulgarian nationality, 
born in the Kingdom of Spain and whose parents, according to the birth certificate 
issued by the Spanish authorities, are a Bulgarian national and a United Kingdom 
national. The case pending before the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad 
(Administrative Court of the City of Sofia) concerns the refusal of the Bulgarian 
municipal authorities to issue the child with a birth certificate in the Republic of 
Bulgaria on the grounds mentioned in the reference for a preliminary ruling. That 
refusal impedes the issue of a valid Bulgarian identity document. Since the child is 
living in a Member State of which she is not a national, the contested refusal will 
thus make it considerably more difficult for the child to reside and move freely 
within the European Union (and elsewhere) and to exercise effectively her rights 
as an EU citizen. The Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the 
City of Sofia) points out that, in a similar case the Court of Justice previously 
decided to apply the expedited procedure (see order of the President of the Court 
of 3 July 2015, Gogova, C-215/15, not published, EU:C:2015:466). 
36 There is also a second reason for examining the case under the expedited 
procedure. The other parent of the child to whom the birth certificate issued by the 
Spanish authorities relates is a national of the United Kingdom. In view of the 
legal consequences of Brexit, even if the child had in the meantime obtained a 
birth certificate issued by the United Kingdom authorities and, where appropriate, 
British nationality, the child would not be guaranteed the full and effective 
exercise of her rights as an EU citizen. Therefore, the clarification of the child’s 
legal status cannot be delayed given the consequences of Brexit.