Case C-395/23, Anikovi: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 March 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen sad – Bulgaria) – E. M. A., E. M. A., M. I. A. (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 – Scope – Article 1(1)(b) and (2)(e) – Measure relating to the disposal of the property of a child – Article 7 – Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility – Article 10 – Choice of court – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Scope – Article 1(2)(a) – Exclusion concerning the status or legal capacity of natural persons – Rules on jurisdiction laid down in a bilateral agreement between the Republic of Bulgaria and the Russian Federation concluded before the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union – Difference between those rules and the rules laid down in Regulation 2019/1111 – Article 351 TFEU – Concept of incompatibility)
Date: 2025-03-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Bulgaria, Russia, accession to the European Union, bilateral agreement, child, judicial cooperation in civil matters in the EU, jurisdiction, parental responsibility, real property, transfer of property








C_202502342EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2342


28.4.2025






Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 March 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sofiyski Rayonen sad – Bulgaria) – E. M. A., E. M. A., M. I. A.


(Case C-395/23,
                (1)
Anikovi)
                (2)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 - Scope - Article 1(1)(b) and (2)(e) - Measure relating to the disposal of the property of a child - Article 7 - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Article 10 - Choice of court - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Scope - Article 1(2)(a) - Exclusion concerning the status or legal capacity of natural persons - Rules on jurisdiction laid down in a bilateral agreement between the Republic of Bulgaria and the Russian Federation concluded before the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union - Difference between those rules and the rules laid down in Regulation 2019/1111 - Article 351 TFEU - Concept of ‘incompatibility’)
(C/2025/2342)
Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Sofiyski Rayonen sad

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicants in non-contentious proceedings: E. M. A., E. M. A., M. I. A.

Operative part of the judgment







1.


Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction
must be interpreted as meaning that judicial authorisation, sought on behalf of a minor habitually resident in a Member State, to sell the shares owned by that minor in immovable property situated in another Member State comes within the scope of parental responsibility, within the meaning of Article 1(1)(b) of that regulation, in that that authorisation concerns protection measures, as referred to in Article 1(2)(e) of that regulation, with the result that, pursuant to Article 7(1) of that regulation, it is the courts of a Member State in which the minor is habitually resident at the time the court is seised which, in principle, have jurisdiction to grant that authorisation.










2.


Article 351 TFEU must be interpreted as governing the relations between a treaty concluded between a Member State and one or more third States before the date of that Member State’s accession to the European Union and Regulation 2019/1111 where that treaty, although not referred to in Chapter VIII of that regulation, confers rights which a third State party to that treaty may require the Member State concerned to respect. In the event that that treaty is incompatible with Regulation 2019/1111, and that incompatibility cannot be avoided by a court of that Member State in proceedings pending before it in a matter that is governed by both that treaty and that regulation, that court may apply the rules of that treaty to the detriment of those laid down by that regulation, as long as the measures necessary to eliminate that incompatibility have not taken effect, it being specified that that Member State must take all appropriate steps to adopt and implement those measures.






(1)  OJ C C/2024/529.

(2)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2342/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)