Judgment;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2025:214
Date: 2025-03-27
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Bulgaria

Translation C-67/24 – 1 
Case C-67/24 [Amozov] i 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged:  
29 January 2024 
Referring court: 
Sofiyski rayonen sad (Bulgaria) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
16 January 2024 
Applicant: 
R. K. 
Defendants: 
K. Ch. 
D. K. 
E. K. 
  
ORDER 
No 20113271 
Sofia, 16 January 2024 
THE SOFIYSKI RAYONEN SAD (DISTRICT COURT, SOFIA), […] 
[…] 
following consideration of civil case No 22941/2020 and having regard to the 
following: 
1 The procedure is governed by the first paragraph of Article 2[67] TFEU. 
 
i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 16. 1. 2024 – CASE C-67/24 
 
2  
2 The case concerns the interpretation of recital 15 of Council Regulation (EC) 
No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and 
enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance 
obligations (OJ 2009 L 7, p. 1), in conjunction with Article 3(a) and (d) and 
Article 5 thereof. 
PARTIES TO THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS: 
3 1. Applicant: 
4 The applicant is [R. K.], […] Sofia […] 
5 […] [representation] 
6 2. Defendants: 
7 The defendants are: 
8 [K. Ch.], […] Canada 
9 [D. K.], […] Canada 
10 [E. K.], […] Canada 
11 […] [representation] 
FORMS OF ORDER SOUGHT BY THE PARTIES: 
12 The subject matter of the main proceedings is an application by [R. K.] against 
[K. Ch.], [D. K.] and [E. K.] seeking modification of court-ordered maintenance 
payments. 
13 By decision of the Superior Court of Québec, Family Practice Division, 
[Terrebonne] District, the applicant was ordered to pay twice per month child 
maintenance to [D. K.] and [E. K.] in the amount of 613.75 Canadian dollars 
(CAD) and spousal maintenance to [K. Ch.] in the amount of CAD 2 727.50. 
14 He is seeking modification of the maintenance payments awarded by reducing the 
maintenance for [D. K.] from CAD 613.75 to 180 leva (BGN) and discontinuing 
the [maintenance payments] for [E. K.] and [K. Ch.]. 
NATIONAL LAW: 
15 1. Grazhdanski protsesualen kodeks (Code of Civil Procedure) […] (‘the 
GPK’): 
16 ‘Appeals 
AMOZOV 
 
3 
Article 274. (1) Appeals against orders of the court shall be permissible, 
1. where the order precludes further proceedings in the matter, and 
2. in the cases expressly provided for by law. 
17 Examination of and decision on the appeal 
Article 278 […] 
(2) If the court sets aside the order under appeal, it shall rule itself on the case. 
Evidence may be taken if the court considers it necessary. 
(3) The decision on the appeal shall be binding on the lower court. […]’ 
18 2. Zakon za litsata i semeystvoto (Law on persons and the family) […] 
19 ‘[…] 
20 2. On attaining the age of 18, a person shall come of age and thus have the 
unrestricted capacity to enjoy rights and be subject to obligations. 
21 3. Persons under the age of 14 are minors.’ 
22 3. Semeen kodeks (Family Code) […]: 
Chapter 10 
MAINTENANCE 
23 ‘Entitlement to maintenance 
Article 139. A person shall be entitled to maintenance if that person is incapable 
of work and unable to support himself or herself from his or her own means. 
24 Ranking of more than one maintenance debtor 
Article 140. (1) Maintenance creditors may assert their claims in the following 
order against: 
1. children and spouses; 
2. parents; 
3. former spouses; 
4. grandchildren and great-grandchildren; 
5. siblings; 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 16. 1. 2024 – CASE C-67/24 
 
4  
6. grandparents and relatives in the ascending line. 
[…] 
25 Ranking of more than one maintenance creditor 
Article 141. If there is more than one maintenance creditor, the maintenance 
debtor shall be obliged to pay maintenance in the following order to: 
1. children and spouses; 
2. parents; 
3. former spouses; 
4. grandchildren and great-grandchildren; 
5. siblings; 
6. grandparents and relatives in the ascending line. 
26 Amount of maintenance 
Article 142. (1) The amount of maintenance shall be determined according to the 
needs of the maintenance creditor and the means of the debtor. 
(2) The minimum maintenance for a child shall be one quarter of the statutory 
minimum wage. 
27 Child maintenance for minors 
Article 143. (1) Every parent is obliged to ensure, in accordance with his or her 
means and financial situation, the living conditions necessary for the child’s 
development. 
(2) Parents are obliged to provide maintenance for their minor children, 
irrespective of whether they are capable of work and whether they can support 
themselves from their own means. 
(3) Parents are also obliged to provide maintenance if the child is 
accommodated outside the family. 
(4) […] [Supplement to maintenance for special needs of the child] 
28 Child maintenance for adults in education 
Article 144. Parents are obliged to pay maintenance to their adult children who 
attend, on a full-time basis, a secondary school up to the age of 20 and a further 
education establishment up to the age of 25 within the standard education period 
and who are unable to support themselves through their own gainful employment 
AMOZOV 
 
5 
or from their own means, and it is possible for the parents to provide maintenance 
without particular difficulty. 
29 Maintenance of a former spouse 
Article 145. (1) A spouse who is not at fault for the divorce shall be entitled to 
maintenance. 
(2) Maintenance shall be paid for a maximum of three years after the divorce, 
unless the parties have agreed on a longer period. The court may extend the 
maintenance period if the maintenance creditor is in a particularly difficult 
situation and the debtor can pay the maintenance without particular difficulty. 
(3) The former spouse’s entitlement to maintenance shall be extinguished if he 
or she remarries. 
30 Maintenance by payment of an annuity 
Article 146 (1) The annuity shall be payable monthly. In the event of late 
payment, statutory default interest shall be payable. 
[…] 
31 Waiver of the claim to maintenance 
Article 147. A waiver of maintenance for the future shall be null and void. 
32 Prohibition on offsetting 
Article 148. Offsetting against a claim for maintenance shall not be permitted. 
33 Maintenance for the past 
Article 149. The creditor may claim maintenance for the past for a maximum of 
one year before the action is brought. 
34 Modification and cancellation of the maintenance obligation 
Article 150. In the event of a change of circumstances, the maintenance awarded 
or the supplements may be modified or cancelled. 
35 […] [Article 151, Extinguishment of the claim to maintenance] 
[…] 
36 4. Kodeks na mezhdunarodnoto chastno pravo (Code on private 
international law; ‘the KMChP’) […] 
37 ‘General jurisdiction 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 16. 1. 2024 – CASE C-67/24 
 
6  
Article 4. (1) Bulgarian courts and other bodies shall have international 
jurisdiction where: 
1. the defendant has his, her or its habitual residence, registered office or place 
of effective management in the Republic of Bulgaria; 
2. the applicant is a Bulgarian national or a legal person governed by Bulgarian 
law. 
38 Jurisdiction in matters relating to maintenance 
Article 11. The Bulgarian courts shall have jurisdiction for matters relating to 
maintenance except in the cases referred to in Article 4(1) and where the person 
making a maintenance claim is habitually resident in Bulgaria. 
39 Exclusive jurisdiction 
Article 22. The international jurisdiction of the Bulgarian courts and other bodies 
shall be exclusive only where expressly provided for. 
40 Implicit establishment of the jurisdiction of Bulgarian courts 
41 Article 24. […] If the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian courts may be subject to 
agreement pursuant to Article 23(1), it may also be established without such 
agreement by the defendant expressly or implicitly recognising such jurisdiction 
by taking action in the main proceedings within the period for lodging a defence. 
42 Jurisdiction in the event of a change of circumstances 
Article 27. (1) If international jurisdiction is established at the commencement of 
the proceedings, it shall continue to exist even if the requirement relating thereto 
subsequently ceases to be fulfilled in the course of the proceedings. 
(2) If international jurisdiction does not exist at the commencement of the 
proceedings, it shall be established if the requirement relating thereto is fulfilled in 
the course of the proceedings.’ 
43 5. National case-law 
44 5.1. Judgment No 131 of the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of 
Cassation, Bulgaria; ‘the VKS’) of 1 June 2015 […], by which it ruled on the 
application for a reduction of the maintenance awarded by the Supreme Court of 
the State of K. [or C.], United States of America, on which the decision under 
appeal before the VKS was based. 
45 In the decision under appeal, the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court) had held 
that it had jurisdiction to hear the application (given that the application had been 
lodged before the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 and 
pursuant to Article 4(1)(2) of the KMChP), found that Bulgarian law was 
AMOZOV 
 
7 
applicable (Article 87(2) of the KMChP), and dismissed the application as 
unfounded. It stated that the applicant is the father of the defendant born on 
28 January 1996, had lived with his family in the United States, where his 
daughter had stayed with her mother after the divorce and continued her 
education. In 2007, the applicant had given up his job and returned to Bulgaria. 
By decision […] of the [Sofia City Court] […] the maintenance decision of the 
Supreme Court of the State of K. … … was recognised and declared enforceable 
in so far as A. E. K. was obliged therein to pay his minor child M. A. K., resident 
in […] the USA, monthly maintenance in the amount of USD 1 309 from 
1 September 2007. The court refused to modify the amount of maintenance 
awarded as it had been fixed on the basis of the means necessary to support the 
child, taking into account the circumstances in the State where the child had lived 
with his or her parents and had remained after the divorce, and the maintenance 
was to be assessed according to those circumstances. The fact that the applicant 
has another minor child (born on 3 September 2012) need not be considered 
further as he does not currently owe any maintenance to the child M., who is now 
an adult. On the other hand, the applicant had voluntarily given up his well-paid 
job in the USA and been able to pay the maintenance owed after his return to 
Bulgaria, changed jobs several times and earned well by the standards of the 
country, received high severance payments for the termination of employment 
contracts and salaries and sold a property which he owned in 2010. It was also 
pointed out that, under Article 143(2) of the GPK, parents are fully liable to pay 
maintenance to their minor children, regardless of whether the parents themselves 
are capable of work or able to support themselves from their own means, and a 
modification of the amount of maintenance cannot be justified by the fact that the 
income of a parent liable to pay maintenance has fallen or that he has taken up 
employment which does not correspond to his or her qualifications if that is 
intended to frustrate the fulfilment of the child’s claim to maintenance. 
46 The decision is available on the internet under the following link: 
https://www.vks.bg/pregled-akt.jsp?type=ot-
delo&id= 50B246F1E99D0F28C2257E53004AF610 
47 5.2. By judgment No 301 of the VKS of 7 October 2013 […] it was held that the 
decision under appeal was inadmissible since, according to the assertions in the 
application, the marriage between the applicant A. B. A. and R. D. G. had been 
dissolved at first instance by a decision of a court of the Kingdom of Spain of 
3 March 2006 […], by which the appellant had been ordered to pay a monthly 
maintenance amount of EUR 250 to his minor daughter (the respondent A. B. D.). 
At the time of the court’s decision, both the appellant and the respondent were 
habitually resident in Spain, a Member State within the meaning of Regulation 
(EC) No 4/2009. By order No 35 of 9 December 2008 […] of the Okrazhen sad 
Targovishte (Regional Court, Targovishte, Bulgaria), the decision of the Spanish 
court was declared enforceable in the Republic of Bulgaria. At that time, the 
appellant had moved his habitual residence to Bulgaria, had his earning capacity 
reduced many times and was unable to pay maintenance in the amount ordered by 
the Spanish court. The Bulgarian court was therefore requested to reduce the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 16. 1. 2024 – CASE C-67/24 
 
8  
amount of maintenance which the applicant had to pay to his minor daughter from 
EUR 250 to BGN 80. 
48 As grounds, the VKS stated that it was clear from the submissions and forms of 
order set out in the application that the Bulgarian court did not have jurisdiction to 
rule on the application under Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 4/2009. If a court 
of another Member State has awarded a certain amount of maintenance and the 
maintenance creditor has not changed his or her habitual residence, the 
maintenance debtor cannot request a variation of that decision by a court of 
another Member State. That is only permissible in the exceptional cases referred 
to Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 4/2009, which do not include a change of 
habitual residence of the maintenance debtor (in this case the appellant). The 
respondent’s legal representative had already complained in the reply to the 
application that the Bulgarian court lacked jurisdiction because the respondent 
was habitually resident in the Kingdom of Spain. That fact was clear from the files 
and was common ground between the parties. It was neither argued nor 
established that there were circumstances supporting the application of one of the 
exceptions provided for in Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 and 
therefore the Bulgarian court should have established and declared of its own 
motion that it lacked jurisdiction. By failing to do so and instead ruling on the 
matter, it had adopted an impermissible decision, which constitutes a ground for 
appeal on a point of law within the meaning of Article 281(2) of the GPK. The 
decision had therefore to be set aside and the enforcement based thereon 
discontinued, with the respondent having her costs paid. 
49 The decision is available on the website of the Varhoven kasatsionen sad: 
https://www.vks.bg/pregled-akt.jsp?type=ot- 
delo&id=B9C4C9AEE38E5D30C2257BFD0028FA2C 
50 5.3. Judgment No 313 of the VKS of 10 September 2012 […] 
According to judgment No 280 of the VKS of 28 September 2011 […] the needs 
of the maintenance creditor are determined according to his or her usual living 
conditions, taking into account his or her age, education and other circumstances 
relevant to the individual case, whilst the ability of the maintenance debtor to pay 
is determined according to his or her income, assets and qualifications. 
Maintenance for minor children is paid by both parents according to their 
respective ability to pay and taking into account the care of the child by the parent 
by whom he or she is raised. 
That decision is available on the website of the Varhoven kasatsionen sad: 
https://www.vks.bg/pregled-akt.jsp?type=ot-
delo&id= 133E725004D449DDC2257919004148A5 
51 FACTS OF THE CASE: 
52 The principal subject matter of the main proceedings before the referring court is 
the action brought by [R. K.] against the defendants: his divorced wife [K. Ch.], 
AMOZOV 
 
9 
his daughter [D. K.] and his son [E. K.] for a modification of the court-ordered 
maintenance payments. 
53 The applicant is a Bulgarian national and was ordered by decision […] of the 
Superior Court of the Québec, Family Practice Division, [Terrebonne] District, to 
pay monthly maintenance in the amount of CAD 613.75 each to his two children, 
then minors, of Canadian and Bulgarian nationality, and spousal maintenance in 
the amount of CAD 2 727.50 to his divorced wife, a Canadian national. The 
decision is final. 
54 The applicant claims that that maintenance was granted by the decision by which 
[R. K.] and [K. Ch.] dissolved their marriage through divorce and settled the issue 
of custody of and maintenance for the children. At the time the application was 
lodged, he was domiciled in the Republic of Bulgaria, in Sofia. 
55 He argues that his son [E. K.] is of age, but that he must continue to pay him 
maintenance on account of that decision. 
56 He has been unemployed since the end of 2018 and owns neither movable nor 
immovable property. He had filed for insolvency in Canada and was declared 
insolvent on 21 June 2018 by a certificate of residual debt discharge issued 
by […], an authorised insolvency administrator. He left Canada in 2019 and 
moved to Sofia. 
57 The adjudicating chamber attempted to serve court documents on the defendants 
in Canada at the address stated in the application by way of letter rogatory, but 
they were not to be found there. It therefore summoned the defendants by affixing 
a notice at their registered address in Bulgaria and appointed a guardian ad litem 
for them. 
58 The guardian ad litem’s reply to the application criticises the lack of jurisdiction 
of the Bulgarian court to rule on the applications. The criticism is based on the 
fact that the defendants are not habitually resident in the Republic of Bulgaria. 
59 By order No 20082014/6.3.2023, the adjudicating chamber discontinued the 
proceedings on the ground that Bulgarian court lacked jurisdiction. In the grounds 
for the order, reference is made to recital 15 of Council Regulation No 4/2009: ‘In 
order to preserve the interests of maintenance creditors and to promote the proper 
administration of justice within the European Union, the rules on jurisdiction as 
they result from Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 should be adapted. The 
circumstance that the defendant is habitually resident in a third State should no 
longer entail the non-application of Community rules on jurisdiction, and there 
should no longer be any referral to national law. This Regulation should therefore 
determine the cases in which a court in a Member State may exercise subsidiary 
jurisdiction.’ The order states that the regulation is of general application and 
applies to third States such as Canada. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 16. 1. 2024 – CASE C-67/24 
 
10  
60 The applicant appealed against that order to discontinue proceedings before the 
Sofia City Court and requested that it be set aside. In their response to the appeal, 
the defendants take the view that the order under appeal is lawful and concur with 
the reasoning of the court. 
61 By order No 9114 of 1 August 2023 […] the order of the Sofia District Court was 
set aside and the case was referred back. The Sofia City Court held that the 
defendants, namely the children of the applicant and appellant, were Bulgarian 
nationals with permanent domicile in Canada. 
62 Sofia City Court reasoned that, since Canada is not a Member State of the 
European Union, the rules on the delimitation of jurisdiction under Article 3 et 
seq. of Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 (mistakenly referred to in the order as 
Article 4 of the regulation) do not apply. Furthermore, recital 15 of that regulation 
concerns the possibility for ‘maintenance creditors’ to assert their maintenance 
claims even if the ‘defendant’ is habitually resident in a third State and therefore 
that recital is not concerned with the rights of maintenance debtors but with the 
rights of maintenance creditors. Therefore, regard must be had to the definition of 
the term ‘creditor’ in Article 2(10) of the regulation, according to which a creditor 
is any ‘individual to whom maintenance is owed or is alleged to be owed’ 
(reasoning also from the judgment in Case C-501/20, M P A). Recital 15 of the 
regulation is directly linked to Article 6 thereof, which concerns the subsidiary 
jurisdiction of a Member State, and not to Article 3, which is not applicable in its 
entirety since it delimits the jurisdictions of the Member States in relation to each 
other. 
63 That court found that EU law is not applicable to the applicant’s divorced wife, 
who is a Canadian national, for the reasons set out above. 
64 According to the appeal court, no rules arising from international treaties are 
applicable to the legal relations between the parties to the proceedings since it is 
not apparent that the two States have concluded a treaty on maintenance 
obligations. 
65 Consequently, the appeal court found that jurisdiction to hear the case must be 
determined in accordance with the provisions of the KMChP. Under Article 11 of 
the KMChP, in conjunction with Article 4(1)(2) thereof, the Bulgarian court has 
jurisdiction to rule on the application of a Bulgarian national, as is the case here. 
66 The referring court does not share the view taken in the order of the Sofia City 
Court. It has concerns that a resolution of the case based on the binding findings 
of the appeal court would infringe provisions of EU law, in particular Regulation 
No 4/2009 on international jurisdiction. 
67 According to the table on the application of the 2007 Hague Convention on 
Maintenance Obligations 
(https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/status-table/?cid= 131), that 
convention does not apply to the Canadian province of Québec. The convention 
AMOZOV 
 
11 
will apply from 1 February 2024 to the province of Ontario, where the defendants 
have their address (although it is not clear whether they are habitually resident 
there). 
68 CONNECTION WITH EU LAW, NEED FOR INTERPRETATION: 
69 It should be noted that the present case concerns civil proceedings featuring 
international elements, the defendants being Canadian nationals and the 
applicant’s children also being Bulgarian nationals. 
70 The adjudicating chamber is faced with several questions concerning its 
jurisdiction in those cases, namely, first, whether the appeal court was right to take 
recital 15 of the regulation as a ground for excluding the application of the 
regulation in relations between persons located in an EU Member State and 
persons not located there. It should be borne in mind that the regulation is likely to 
be of general application, which does not depend on whether third-country 
nationals are concerned and therefore it should be regarded as applicable. It 
should therefore be examined whether the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian court can 
be established under Article 6 of Regulation No 4/2009 where one of the parties 
holds the nationality of a country which is not a Member State of the European 
Union and the maintenance creditor is a third-country national. 
71 In view of the appeal court’s statements, it is also necessary to clarify whether the 
term ‘applications for maintenance payment’, which is decisive in determining the 
scope ratione materiae of the regulation, should be understood as encompassing 
applications for modification of maintenance payments by reducing them. Doubts 
arise from the aim of the regulation, set out in recitals 9 to 11, to protect 
maintenance creditors and not maintenance debtors. The regulation must 
therefore – as follows from paragraphs 25 to 27 of the judgment of 18 December 
2014 in joined cases C-400/13 and C-408/13, Sanders – be interpreted in that 
manner. The question therefore arises as to whether rules of jurisdiction laid down 
the regulation, other than Article 8, are applicable to proceedings in which a 
reduction in the awarded maintenance is requested, given also that not only the 
interests of maintenance debtors but also those of maintenance creditors are 
concerned. If the provisions of that regulation were not applicable, national rules 
of jurisdiction could be applied which would give the maintenance debtor a much 
greater choice as to the place where he or she initiates the proceedings, thereby 
making it more difficult to defend the maintenance creditors in need of protection. 
72 As regards the application of Article 8(1) of the regulation, which prohibits the 
initiation of proceedings for the modification of maintenance payments in States 
other than that where the maintenance creditor is habitually resident, the 
adjudicating chamber considers that it cannot apply those provisions at present as 
Canada is not party to the 2007 Hague Convention until 1 February 2024. In any 
event, after that date the convention does not apply to the Province of Québec and, 
in the present case, the Court is having considerable difficulty (as it does not know 
the defendants’ current address in Canada) in establishing whether the 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 16. 1. 2024 – CASE C-67/24 
 
12  
maintenance creditor’s habitual residence is located in the Province of Québec or 
the Province of Ontario, to which the convention will apply. The accession of 
some of Canada’s provinces to the 2007 Hague Convention is in any case 
irrelevant to the questions referred because the referring court is currently bound 
by the findings of the Sofia City Court when resolving the case and, in its view, 
the regulation is not applicable at all to cases to which Canadian nationals are 
party. 
73 If the regulation were to apply to applications for a reduction in maintenance 
payments, it would also be necessary to clarify whether the subsidiary jurisdiction 
under Article 6 also applies where two of the defendants also hold a nationality 
other than the common nationality. Article 6 appears to seek to establish 
jurisdiction on the basis of the common nationality of the parties concerned as the 
only possible point of reference in the event that there is no other court of the EU 
or associated States able to rule on the application, which again seeks to give 
maintenance creditors the opportunity to assert their claims before a court which 
can effectively rule on them. However, in cases where the maintenance creditor 
lives outside the European Union and the application is aimed not at the granting 
of maintenance payments but their modification through reduction, the common 
nationality does not prove to be an advantage but rather a disadvantage, and 
although the maintenance creditor does not have any close link to the State of his 
or her or second nationality, that person would have to defend him or herself 
against it in court in that State. In that context, the considerations in paragraphs 30 
and 45 of the judgment of 5 September 2019 in Case C-468/18, R v P, do not 
appear to protect the maintenance creditor in need of protection and therefore it is 
necessary to examine whether ‘common nationality’ within the meaning of 
Article 6 of the regulation is to be understood as meaning the completely identical 
nationalities of the maintenance creditor and the maintenance debtor or whether 
that provision can also apply in the case of several nationalities which differ 
depending on the party. 
74 Lastly, it is necessary to examine whether an application for a reduction in 
maintenance payments can be made under the provisions on forum necessitatis 
laid down in Article 7 of the regulation. According to recital 16 of Regulation 
(EC) No 4/2009, that provision applies when the court which would have 
jurisdiction under the other rules of jurisdiction cannot be seised or to which the 
applicant cannot be reasonably expected to apply, which requires the existence of 
‘exceptional’ cases. The question therefore arises as to whether the aim is to 
relieve the burden only on the maintenance creditors, but not the maintenance 
debtors, for whom there can probably be no exceptional circumstances which 
require them to receive maintenance payments as a means of subsistence. It 
should be noted that no such jurisdiction is contained in any of the other 
regulations governing international jurisdiction in civil or commercial matters. 
75 POSITION OF THE REFERRING COURT 
AMOZOV 
 
13 
76 In the view of the referring court, the Bulgarian court does not have jurisdiction to 
hear the case for the following reasons: 
77 The applicant, who is a Bulgarian national, has submitted an application for the 
reduction or discontinuation of the maintenance payments which he was ordered 
to pay, as a maintenance debtor, by a decision of the Supreme Court of Québec, 
Canada. Two of the defendants, his children, hold Bulgarian and Canadian 
nationality, but are habitually resident in Canada. It is in the interests of the 
maintenance creditors that the case be heard where they are habitually resident, 
but it is currently unclear whether Article 8 of the regulation, which provides for 
exceptions thereto, is applicable and the appeal court has made binding findings to 
the contrary. In that context, the maintenance creditor is a person to whom 
maintenance is owed and is therefore the weaker party in the proceedings. One of 
the parties involved in the proceedings was a minor at the time the application was 
submitted. In the child’s interest, the proceedings must be conducted in the State 
in which he or she is habitually resident. 
78 In the view of the referring chamber, the jurisdiction of the Bulgarian courts in 
relation to the divorced wife, who is a Canadian national, cannot be established in 
accordance with the criteria laid down in Regulation (EC) No 4/2009. 
79 The fact that the applicant is a maintenance debtor cannot exclude jurisdiction 
under the regulation in favour of national law and in particular the provisions of 
the KMChP, as the Sofia City Court stated in its order instructing the referring 
court to hear the case because it has jurisdiction in respect of all three defendants. 
The regulation completely replaces the rules on jurisdiction in maintenance 
matters contained in the KMChP and, in the referring court’s view, this 
harmonisation is necessary and important for the protection of the maintenance 
creditors. 
On those grounds, the District Court, Sofia, has 
MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: 
The Court of Justice of the European Union is requested to give a preliminary 
ruling pursuant to Article 267 TFEU on the following questions: 
1. Must recital 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 
on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and 
cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, be interpreted as 
allowing national case-law according to which the international jurisdiction of 
courts examining applications for maintenance payments for persons who are 
habitually resident in a third State (in this case Canada) is determined pursuant to 
national law and not the regulation? 
2. Must Articles 3 and 8 of Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 be interpreted as 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 16. 1. 2024 – CASE C-67/24 
 
14  
allowing national case-law according to which the concept ‘application for 
maintenance payments’ does not cover an application for a reduction in 
maintenance payments and Articles 3 to 6 of the regulation apply only to 
applications for the granting of maintenance payments? 
3. Must Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 be interpreted as meaning that 
the concept ‘common nationality’ also covers cases where one or more parties 
have dual nationality, or does it only cover cases of completely identical 
nationalities? 
4. Must Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 be interpreted as 
allowing, where the maintenance debtor makes an application for a reduction in 
the maintenance payments, that application to be regarded as an ‘exceptional’ case 
where the maintenance creditor is habitually resident in a third State and has no 
other connection with the European Union other than his or her nationality? 
[…] 
[…] [procedure]