- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-67/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rayonen sad Varna — Bulgaria) — Todor Iliev v Blagovesta Ilieva (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 1(2)(a) — Scope — Matters excluded — Rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship — Dissolution of the marriage — Liquidation of property acquired during the marriage)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CB0067
62017CB0067
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
31.7.2017
Official Journal of the European Union
C 249/15
(Case C-67/17) (*)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 1(2)(a) - Scope - Matters excluded - Rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship - Dissolution of the marriage - Liquidation of property acquired during the marriage))
(2017/C 249/22)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Todor Iliev
Defendant: Blagovesta Ilieva
Operative part of the order
Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute such as that in the main proceedings, relating to the liquidation of property — acquired during marriage by spouses who are nationals of a Member State but domiciled in another Member State — after a divorce has taken place, does not come within the scope of that regulation but comes rather within the scope of matrimonial property regimes and, consequently, within the scope of the exclusions listed in Article 1(2)(a) of that regulation.
(*) Language of the case: Bulgarian.