CJEU Case C-395/23 (Anikovi): Cross-Border Jurisdiction and the Interaction Between EU Law and International Agreements

Attorney-at-law Liliya Tsoncheva participated as legal counsel in Case C-395/23 (Anikovi) before the Court of Justice of the European Union. The judgment provides important guidance on cross-border legal relations involving parental responsibility, the protection of minors’ assets and the interaction between EU private international law and pre-accession international agreements.

The case addresses a fundamental question in cross-border proceedings: which court has international jurisdiction to authorise the disposal of immovable property owned by minor children where the children are habitually resident in one EU Member State, while the property is located in another.

The judgment clarifies the relationship between Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 (the “Brussels IIb Regulation”) and a bilateral agreement concluded between a Member State and a third country before that Member State’s accession to the European Union, examined in light of Article 351 TFEU.

1. Background of the Case

The proceedings before the Sofia District Court concerned an application for judicial authorisation for the sale of ideal shares in immovable property owned by minor children.

The property was located in Bulgaria, while the children, Russian nationals, had their habitual residence in Germany. The cross-border nature of the case raised complex questions concerning international jurisdiction, the protection of children’s property interests and the applicable legal framework.

The main issue referred to the Court of Justice was whether jurisdiction should be determined:

• based on the location of the immovable property; or
• according to the rules applicable to matters of parental responsibility, namely the habitual residence of the child.

The Sofia District Court also referred questions concerning:

• the scope of application of Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 (Brussels IIb Regulation);
• jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility;
• the possibility of accepting jurisdiction in specific circumstances; and
• the interaction between EU law and a bilateral agreement concluded between Bulgaria and the Russian Federation before Bulgaria’s accession to the EU.

The practical importance of the case extends beyond the specific dispute. In situations where a child resides in one Member State, owns assets in another Member State and is connected to a third country, the determination of jurisdiction cannot be based solely on the location of the property.

The essential question is whether the proceedings concern ordinary property rights or whether they constitute a child protection measure falling within the scope of parental responsibility.

The Brussels IIb Regulation expressly covers measures relating to the administration, preservation or disposal of a child’s property. Therefore, the Court held that such proceedings must not be considered exclusively as property-law matters, but rather as measures aimed at protecting the child’s financial interests.

2. Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union

In Case C-395/23 (Anikovi), the Court examined two key issues.

First, it considered whether an application for judicial authorisation for the sale of property belonging to a minor child falls within the scope of the Brussels IIb Regulation.

Second, it analysed the relationship between that Regulation and a bilateral agreement between Bulgaria and a third country concluded before Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union, where the two legal regimes provide different jurisdictional rules.

2.1 Disposal of a Child’s Property as a Matter of Parental Responsibility

The Court held that an application for judicial authorisation concerning the sale of immovable property owned by a minor child constitutes a matter relating to parental responsibility within the meaning of the Brussels IIb Regulation.

Although the proceedings concern immovable property, their purpose is not to resolve a dispute regarding ownership or other rights in rem. Instead, the proceedings concern judicial supervision over an act affecting the child’s assets and therefore constitute a child protection measure.

This distinction is particularly important for determining international jurisdiction.

Where proceedings concern immovable property, jurisdiction may appear to belong to the courts of the State where the property is located. However, where the property belongs to a child and judicial approval is required before disposal, the primary consideration is not the connection between the property and the State, but the need to protect the child’s interests.

Accordingly, the Court held that, under Article 7(1) of the Brussels IIb Regulation, jurisdiction generally lies with the courts of the Member State where the child is habitually resident at the time the court is seised (paragraph 28, Case C-395/23).

This approach reflects the underlying principle of the Brussels IIb Regulation: matters concerning parental responsibility should generally be decided by the court closest to the child’s personal and family environment and therefore best placed to assess the child’s interests.

The location of the property alone is therefore insufficient to establish international jurisdiction. The decisive element is the child’s connection with the State whose courts are called upon to decide and their ability to provide effective protection of the child’s interests.

2.2 Interaction Between the Brussels IIb Regulation and a Pre-Accession Bilateral Agreement

A significant aspect of Case C-395/23 (Anikovi) concerns the interaction between EU law and a bilateral agreement concluded before Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union.

The issue arose because the bilateral agreement between Bulgaria and the Russian Federation provided jurisdictional rules that differed from those under the Brussels IIb Regulation.

The Court examined whether such an agreement could limit the application of EU jurisdictional rules by virtue of Article 351 TFEU.

The Brussels IIb Regulation recognises that Member States may have international obligations arising from agreements concluded before accession to the European Union. Recital 91 of the Regulation confirms that Article 351 TFEU remains relevant in relation to such agreements.

Article 351 TFEU establishes a mechanism for addressing potential conflicts between EU law and international obligations undertaken by Member States before joining the European Union.

However, the mere existence of a bilateral agreement concluded before accession does not automatically exclude the application of EU law.

A national court must examine whether:

• the agreement grants specific rights to the third country concerned;
• those rights are protected under Article 351 TFEU; and
• there is an actual incompatibility between the international obligation and EU law.

The Court therefore confirmed that the relationship between EU law and pre-existing international agreements must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

3. The Significance of Article 351 TFEU

A central issue examined by the Court was whether the bilateral agreement between Bulgaria and the Russian Federation created rights for the third country that could be protected under Article 351 TFEU.

The Court emphasised that Article 351 TFEU does not establish a general exception from the application of European Union law. Its purpose is to reconcile two principles:

• the obligation of Member States to respect certain international commitments undertaken before accession to the European Union; and
• the requirement to ensure the primacy, uniform application and effectiveness of EU law.

Therefore, a Member State cannot rely on the mere existence of a pre-accession international agreement to automatically disregard EU rules.

Where a potential conflict exists, the national court must first determine whether the international agreement actually grants rights to the third country concerned and whether those rights are incompatible with EU law.

If such incompatibility is established and cannot be resolved through an interpretation consistent with EU law, Article 351 TFEU may temporarily preserve the effects of the international obligation to the extent necessary to protect the rights of the third country.

However, this does not release the Member State from its obligation to take appropriate measures to eliminate the incompatibility with EU law.

The judgment therefore confirms that Article 351 TFEU operates as a balancing mechanism. It allows respect for certain pre-existing international obligations while preserving the effectiveness and uniform application of European Union law.

4. Possibility for the Bulgarian Court to Accept Jurisdiction under the Brussels IIb Regulation

The Court also examined whether the Bulgarian court could nevertheless accept jurisdiction under the Brussels IIb Regulation itself.

The general rule under Article 7(1) of the Regulation is that jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility lies with the courts of the Member State where the child is habitually resident at the time the proceedings are initiated.

This rule applies because proceedings concerning the judicial authorisation of the disposal of a child’s assets fall within the scope of parental responsibility and concern measures affecting the child’s financial interests.

However, this rule is not absolute.

The Court recalled that Article 7(1) applies subject to the special jurisdictional rules provided in Articles 8 to 10 of the Brussels IIb Regulation. In certain circumstances, jurisdiction may therefore be exercised by courts of another Member State.

Of particular relevance is Article 10 of the Regulation, which allows a court of a Member State to assume jurisdiction where:

• the child has a substantial connection with that Member State;
• the holders of parental responsibility have accepted the jurisdiction or agreed to it under the conditions provided by the Regulation; and
• exercising jurisdiction is in the best interests of the child.

In the circumstances of Case C-395/23 (Anikovi), the Court held that the Bulgarian court was not automatically prevented from accepting jurisdiction.

The existence of immovable property located in Bulgaria could constitute a relevant connection between the child and Bulgaria. However, the location of the property alone is not sufficient.

The national court must assess all relevant circumstances, including the nature of the proceedings, the child’s connection with Bulgaria and whether the exercise of jurisdiction would ensure effective protection of the child’s interests.

This approach demonstrates the flexibility of the Brussels IIb Regulation, which combines predictable jurisdictional rules with mechanisms allowing courts to act where there is a genuine and substantial connection with the dispute.

Significance of the Judgment for Legal Practice

The judgment in Case C-395/23 (Anikovi) provides important guidance for cross-border proceedings involving children’s assets, international jurisdiction and the interaction between EU law and international agreements.

First, the judgment confirms that proceedings concerning the disposal of a minor child’s property cannot be analysed solely as property-law matters.

Although immovable property is involved, the central issue is not merely the location of the asset. The proceedings concern judicial control over an act affecting the child’s financial interests and therefore fall within the framework of parental responsibility.

This distinction has significant practical consequences. Where court approval is required for the sale, exchange or other disposal of property belonging to a minor, the competent court must be determined primarily through the rules governing child protection rather than through rules applicable solely to rights in rem over immovable property.

Second, the judgment provides guidance for cases involving multiple connecting factors, including situations where:

• the child is habitually resident in one Member State;
• the child owns property in another Member State;
• the child is a national of a third country;
• a bilateral agreement exists between a Member State and that third country; and
• judicial authorisation is required for disposal of the child’s assets.

In such cases, determining jurisdiction requires a comprehensive assessment of all relevant legal connections. The location of the property is only one element and cannot, by itself, determine the competent court.

Third, the judgment is particularly significant because of its interpretation of Article 351 TFEU.

The Court confirmed that bilateral agreements concluded by Member States with third countries before accession to the European Union remain relevant where their application raises questions of compatibility with EU law.

At the same time, such agreements cannot automatically override EU legislation.

National courts must carefully assess whether the agreement grants rights to the third country, whether an actual conflict with EU law exists and whether the conflict can be resolved through an interpretation compatible with European Union law.

The judgment therefore establishes an important balance between:

• respecting international obligations undertaken by Member States before accession;
• ensuring the primacy and effectiveness of EU law; and
• maintaining legal certainty in cross-border relations.

Conclusion

The judgment in Case C-395/23 (Anikovi) represents an important contribution to the development of EU case law concerning international jurisdiction, the protection of minors’ assets and the interaction between European Union law and international agreements.

The Court confirmed that proceedings concerning the disposal of property belonging to a minor child fall within the scope of parental responsibility where the purpose of the proceedings is to protect the child’s financial interests.

The judgment also clarifies that pre-accession international agreements concluded with third countries must be assessed individually under Article 351 TFEU. Their existence alone does not exclude the application of EU law; the relevant question is whether they create specific rights for the third country concerned and whether an actual incompatibility with EU law exists.

Case C-395/23 (Anikovi) provides valuable guidance for national courts dealing with complex cross-border situations involving different jurisdictions, assets located in different States and overlapping legal regimes.

It demonstrates the importance of a careful assessment of all applicable sources of law, ensuring both respect for international commitments and the effective, uniform application of European Union law.