Yesterday (6 March 2025), the Court of Justice – asked by District Court of Sofia, Bulgaria (Sofiyski Rayonen sad) to interpret Art 1(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 and Art 351 TFEU – delivered its judgment on the case No C-395/23, Anikovi.
In essence, the referring court – before which non-contentious proceedings had been initiated on behalf of two minors of Russian nationality residing habitually in Germany in order to obtain authorization to sell shares in three immovable properties in Bulgaria inherited from their deceased father – raised two key questions: (i) whether the judicial authorization sought falls under the scope of the Brussels II-ter Regulation or the Brussels I-bis Regulation; and (ii) considering that the Brussels II-ter Regulation does not provide a general rule concerning treaties concluded by Member States with third countries before their accession to the EU (even though Chapter VIII of the Regulation addresses the relationship between Brussels II-ter and some conventions), whether Art 351 TFEU must be interpreted as governing the relationship between a bilateral treaty concluded between a Member State and a third country prior to the Member State’s EU accession and the Brussels II-ter Regulation.
In the judgment, the Court of Justice stated that Regulation No 2019/1111 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 Art 1(1)(b) of that regulation, in that that authorisation concerns protection measures, as referred to in Art 1(2)(e) of that regulation, with the result that, pursuant to Art 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”. Moreover, Art 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”.
On the topics addressed in the judgment, the readers of RDIPP may refer to:
Olivia Lopes Pegna, 2023, No 4, p. 832 ff.;
Laura Carpaneto, 2018, No 4, 944 ff.;
Costanza Honorati, 2017, No 2, 247 ff.
Moreover, see, in our Book Series:
Alberto Malatesta, Stefania Bariatti, Fausto Pocar (eds), Book No 71;
Stefania Bariatti, Ilaria Viarengo, Francesca C. Villata (eds.), Book No 81;
Lenka Válková, Book No 87.