Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2025/2831

(Case C-67/24,

(1)

Amozov)

(2)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Maintenance allowances set by a decision of a court of a third State - Maintenance creditors residing in that third State and holding either the nationality of that third State alone or the nationality of that third State and of a Member State - Maintenance debtor, a national of that Member State and habitually resident in that Member State - Application to modify that decision made by that maintenance debtor to a court of that Member State - Determination of the court with jurisdiction)

(C/2025/2831)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: R. K.

Defendants: K. Ch., D. K., E. K.

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(1) 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, read in the light of recital 15 of that regulation,

must be interpreted as meaning that an application to modify a decision on maintenance obligations given by a court of a third State other than a State which is a contracting party to the Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, concluded in The Hague on 23 November 2007, falls within the scope of that regulation where it seeks, on the one hand, a reduction of the amount of a maintenance allowance and, on the other, termination of the obligations in question and is brought before a court of a Member State by the maintenance debtor, a national of that Member State and habitually residing in the territory of that Member State, against the maintenance creditors, who habitually reside in the territory of that third State, of whom one is a national only of that third State and the others are nationals of that State and of the Member State in question.

Article 6 of Regulation No 4/2009

must be interpreted as meaning that the rule whereby the courts of the Member State of the common nationality of the parties has subsidiary jurisdiction applies where, in addition to the nationality of the Member State of the court seised, the defendants hold the nationality of a third State.

Article 7 of Regulation No 4/2009

must be interpreted as meaning that a situation in which an application to modify a decision on maintenance obligations given by a court of a third State other than a State which is a contracting party to the Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, concluded in The Hague on 23 November 2007, seeking termination of the obligations concerned, is brought before a court of a Member State by the maintenance debtor, a national of that Member State and habitually resident in the territory of that Member State, against the maintenance creditor, a national of that third State and habitually resident in the territory of that third State, falls within the concept of ‘an exceptional basis’ for the purposes of that article, with the effect that a court of a Member State can hear a dispute pursuant to the rule on the jurisdiction of the

forum necessitatis

laid down in that article, provided that no such application could reasonably be brought, or the related procedure be conducted, or would be impossible before the courts of the third State concerned.

—

(1) OJ C C/2024/2732.

(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/2025/2831/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—