The Court of Justice of the European Union clarified the scope of the European rules governing matrimonial property regimes (CJEU, judgment of 24 September 2026 – C-300/25). Accordingly, an application made after divorce for the termination and partition of co-ownership in fractional shares of real property concerns the matrimonial property regime where the property was acquired exclusively by the former spouses during their marriage under the contractually agreed regime of separation of property.
Dispute Over Jointly Acquired Property
Separation of Property and Co-ownership in Fractional Shares
When marrying, the parties SQ and YR agreed on separation of property in a marriage contract. During the marriage, they jointly acquired a property located in Paris. Each held an undivided half share in a property complex forming part of a residential building.
Following the divorce, YR applied to the Czech courts for the co-ownership in fractional shares to be terminated and partitioned. The former spouses were the sole co-owners; no other persons held any shares.
Diverging Assessments by the Czech Courts
By order of 26 October 2022, the District Court for Prague 5 held that it lacked international jurisdiction. Due to the agreed separation of property, no community of property had existed between the spouses at any time. In the court’s view, the application therefore fell within the scope of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, known as the Brussels I Recast Regulation.
Under Article 24(1) of that Regulation, the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated generally have exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings concerning rights in rem in immovable property. On that basis, the French courts would have had jurisdiction to rule on the matter.
On 22 January 2024, the Prague Municipal Court set aside that decision. It classified the dispute as falling within Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 on matrimonial property regimes. The agreed regime of separation of property concerned the proprietary relationships arising from the marriage. On that basis, the court considered the Czech courts to have jurisdiction under Article 6(b) of the Regulation.
Distinguishing Matrimonial Property Law From Immovable Property Matters
Question Referred by the Czech Supreme Court
The Nejvyšší soud, the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, was required to rule on an appeal on a point of law against the decision of the Prague Municipal Court. International jurisdiction depended on which area of EU law governed the application:
-
If the dispute fell within the concept of a matrimonial property regime under Article 1(1) and Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1103, the jurisdictional rules laid down in that Regulation could apply.
-
If, by contrast, the proceedings concerned a right in rem in immovable property without a sufficient connection to the marriage, exclusive jurisdiction under Article 24(1) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation could apply.
The Supreme Court pointed out that, under Czech law, the termination of co-ownership in fractional shares is not necessarily linked to a marriage. Such co-ownership may also exist between unmarried persons or involve third parties. It may also be partitioned both during a marriage and long after the marriage has ended.
The court therefore stayed the appeal proceedings and requested that the CJEU clarify whether the termination and partition of the co-ownership in fractional shares at issue was to be classified as a matter concerning the matrimonial property regime.
Relevant Provisions of EU Law
Article 1(1) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 provides that the Regulation applies to matrimonial property regimes. Under Article 3(1)(a), the term encompasses all rules concerning the proprietary relationships between spouses and in their relationships with third parties as a result of the marriage or its dissolution.
Article 1(2)(g) of the Regulation excludes from its scope the nature of rights in rem relating to property. In particular, this exception is intended to ensure that a Member State is not required to recognise a right in rem that is unknown to its own legal system.
By contrast, the Brussels I Recast Regulation generally applies to civil and commercial matters. Under Article 1(2)(a), matrimonial property regimes are expressly excluded from its scope.
CJEU Interprets the Concept of a Matrimonial Property Regime Broadly
Autonomous Concept of EU Law
The CJEU first clarified that the concept of a matrimonial property regime cannot be determined by reference to the national law of a Member State. It is an autonomous concept of EU law that must be interpreted uniformly throughout the European Union.
The wording of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 encompasses all rules concerning proprietary relationships that apply between spouses as a result of the marriage or its dissolution. In the Court’s view, this comprehensive wording supports a broad interpretation of the concept.
The Regulation is intended to cover both the ongoing administration of property during the marriage and the subsequent division of matrimonial property. It includes mandatory statutory provisions, matrimonial property regimes that spouses may choose, and default provisions of the applicable law.
Separation of Property Is a Matrimonial Property Regime
The CJEU also included a contractually agreed separation of property within the concept of a matrimonial property regime. Spouses may regulate their proprietary relationships through various matrimonial property regimes, ranging from a comprehensive community of property to the strict separation of their assets.
In the specific case, the Court found that—subject to the referring court’s final assessment—the separation of property determined the proprietary arrangements of the marriage. When the property was acquired, it directly governed the spouses’ relationship as co-owners in fractional shares.
The fact that, under Czech law, co-ownership in fractional shares is substantively no different from co-ownership between other co-owners did not alter that conclusion. Classifications under national law cannot determine the scope of a concept of EU law that must be interpreted autonomously.
Direct Connection Between the Marriage and Co-ownership
For the CJEU, the decisive factor was that the co-ownership arose during a marriage in which the spouses had agreed on separation of property. There was therefore a direct connection between the proprietary relationship and the marriage.
That connection was not severed by the fact that the application was made only after the divorce. For the application of Regulation (EU) 2016/1103, it is not decisive whether termination and partition of the co-ownership in fractional shares is sought before or after the marriage has ended.
In doing so, the Court followed its existing case law on proprietary relationships between spouses and former spouses. The concept is not limited to matrimonial property regimes expressly and exclusively provided for by national legal systems in relation to marriage. It also includes other proprietary relationships, provided that they arise directly from the marriage or its dissolution.
Exception for the Nature of Rights in Rem Does Not Apply
No General Exclusion of Property-related Proceedings
The potential transfer of a right in rem as a result of the partition did not cause the proceedings to fall outside the scope of Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 under Article 1(2)(g).
According to the CJEU’s interpretation, this exception does not encompass every action connected with a right in rem in property. Rather, it concerns the nature of rights in rem and is intended to protect the numerus clausus of such rights applicable in the Member States.
An application for the termination and partition of co-ownership in fractional shares may result in the transfer of ownership rights. However, it does not determine which types of rights in rem are recognised by the relevant legal system. The exception was therefore not applicable in the case at issue.
Uniform Treatment of Proprietary Relationships
In the Court’s view, the broad interpretation is consistent with the objectives of the Regulation. It is intended to provide married couples with legal certainty regarding their property and to facilitate a predictable determination of the applicable law.
At the same time, related proprietary issues should generally be capable of being dealt with by one court having jurisdiction under uniform rules. This is particularly significant where spouses or former spouses have jointly acquired several properties in different Member States. Consolidating proceedings can prevent them from being distributed among several states solely because the properties are situated in different locations.
Decision Applies to the Specific Composition of the Parties
The CJEU held that the application made after the divorce for the termination and partition of the co-ownership in fractional shares concerned the matrimonial property regime within the meaning of Article 1(1) and Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1103. The decisive factor was that the property had been acquired exclusively by the spouses during their marriage, which was governed by the regime of separation of property.
The Court expressly left open whether this interpretation applies equally where one or more third parties are co-owners alongside the spouses or former spouses. The ruling is therefore limited to the circumstances examined.
Significance for Cross-border Proprietary Relationships
The decision demonstrates that separation of property does not automatically result in the application of the general jurisdictional rules governing immovable property. Co-ownership in fractional shares governed by general provisions of national law may also fall within a matrimonial property regime if it was directly shaped by the acquisition made during the marriage under the chosen property regime.
In international marriages, the classification under matrimonial property law, the location of real property and the parties’ habitual residence may involve different Member States. Determining international jurisdiction and the applicable legal framework therefore depends on the specific origin and structure of the proprietary relationship. MTR Legal provides assistance with corresponding cross-border issues as part of its family law advisory services.
