applicable law in matrimonial property regime disputes

N. POGORELČNIK VOGRINC, Applicable Law in Matrimonial Property Regime...Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci, vol. 40, br. 3, 1075-1100 (2019) 1075

APPLICABLE LAW IN MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY REGIME DISPUTES

Doc. dr. Neža Pogorelčnik Vogrinc* UDK: 347.626 https://doi.org/10.30925/zpfsr.40.3.5 Ur.: 02. listopada 2019. Pr.: 16. prosinca 2019. Prethodnopriopćenje

Summary

The paper presents the regulation of the applicable law as determined in Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes. It concludes that the new EU arrangement has made it easier for spouses to determine the applicable law and evaluates the suitability of the connecting factors provided by Regulation 2016/1103. The paper also challenges the examination of these connecting factors as of the time of the conclusion of the marriage and assumes that their exclusion under exceptional circumstances is difficult to achieve. It compares the connecting factors with those provided by Slovenian and Croatian private international law in theory, and provides practical examples of the differences resulting from the new European arrangement. The paper further examines the hypothesis that the possibility of agreement on the choice of law will cause many problems in practice, and provides possible solutions. Throughout the paper, the system established by Regulation 2016/1103 is compared with other European regulations and the relevant case law of the CJEU, but the author primarily focuses on the changes in Slovenian and Croatian case law caused by the application of Regulation 2016/1103.

Keywords: matrimonial property regime; applicable law; Regulation 2016/1103; international private law; choice-of-law agreement.

* NežaPogorelčnikVogrinc,Ph.D.,AssistantProfessor,FacultyofLaw,UniversityofLjubljana; [email protected].

Thispaperhasbeenco-fundedbytheEuropeanUnion’sJusticeProgramme(2014–2020)ProjectPSEFS – PersonalizedSolution inEuropeanFamily andSuccessionLawn. 800821-JUST-AG-2017/JUST-JCOO-AG-2017.The content of this document represents the views of theauthoronlyandishis/hersoleresponsibility.TheEuropeanCommissiondoesnotacceptanyresponsibilityforusethatmaybemadeoftheinformationitcontains.

N. POGORELČNIK VOGRINC, Applicable Law in Matrimonial Property Regime...Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci, vol. 40, br. 3, 1075-1100 (2019)1076

1. INTRODUCTION

Family relations and the regulation thereof is a sensitivematter.While theyareprimarily important to individuals, thestate’srelationshiptofamilyrelations isdelicateaswell.Theprogressivenessofsuchregulationdependsinparticularonhowdevelopedasocietyisandontheclimateineachrespectivestate.EuropeanUnion(EU)MemberStates1rangeacrossabroadspectrumasregardsbothprogressivenessandsocialclimate,whichbecameevident(yetagain)intheprocedureforformulatingandadoptinga singleEuropean legal framework for thepropertyconsequencesofmarriageandregisteredpartnerships.

Due to uncertainty about matrimonial property regimes, which had posedproblemsforcross-borderspousesexercisingtheirrights,theneedtoadoptEuropeanlegislation2 in this fieldwasmade a priority for the first time in the 1998ViennaActionPlan.3Variousactivities4followed,whichinMarch2011ultimatelyresultedintheadoptionoftheProposalforaCouncilRegulationonjurisdiction,applicablelaw and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonialpropertyregimes(COM(2011)126final)andtheProposalforaCouncilRegulationon jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisionsregarding the property consequences of registered partnerships (COM(2011) 127final). Since they fallwithin the domain of family law, the proposalswould havehadtobeconfirmedbytheCouncilbyaunanimousvoteafterconsultationwiththeParliament(Article81/IIIoftheTreatyontheFunctioningoftheEuropeanUnion5),but after almost two years of debate and fierce opposition from some MemberStates (PolandandHungary inparticular), theCouncildecided inDecember2015that consensuswas not achievable. Immediately thereafter, severalMemberStatesexpressed willingness to establish enhanced cooperation on this matter. In June2016theCouncilapproved6thatandthenimmediatelyadoptedCouncilRegulation

1 For an overview of the legal arrangements in some non-EU countries, see Scherpe, J.M.(ed.),MaritalAgreements andPrivateAutonomy inComparativePerspective,Oxford,HartPublishing,2012.

2 Beforethat,theConventionRelatingtoConflictsofLawswithregardtotheEffectsofMarriageon theRights andDutiesof theSpouses in theirPersonalRelationshipwith regard to theirEstatesof17July1905andtheConventionontheLawApplicabletoMatrimonialPropertyRegimesof14March1978hadbeenadoptedintheframeworkoftheHagueConferenceonPrivateInternationalLaw.

3 Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition andenforcementofdecisions inmattersofmatrimonialpropertyregimesCOM(2011)126final,2011/0059(CNS),p.2.

4 There were several prior steps on this path, including the Programme of measures forimplementationof theprincipleofmutual recognitionof decisions in civil and commercialmatters (OJL 12 of 15 January 2001), theHagueProgramme (OJL 53 of 3March 2005)adoptedinNovember2004,theStockholmProgrammeadoptedinDecember2009,andtheEUCitizenshipReportof2010(COM(2010)603).Formore,seeProposalforaCouncilRegulationonjurisdiction,applicablelawandtherecognitionandenforcementofdecisionsinmattersofmatrimonialpropertyregimesCOM(2011)126final,2011/0059(CNS),p.2.

5 OJEUC326.6 CouncilDecision(EU)2016/954,OJL159/16of16June2016.


(EU) 2016/1104 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the areaof jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisionsin matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships7 (Regulation2016/1104)andCouncilRegulation(EU)2016/1103of24June2016implementingenhancedcooperationintheareaofjurisdiction,applicablelawandtherecognitionandenforcementofdecisionsinmattersofmatrimonialpropertyregimes8(Regulation2016/1103).Theenhancedcooperationfeatures18countries:Belgium,Bulgaria,theCzechRepublic,Germany,Greece,Spain,France,Croatia,Italy,Luxembourg,Malta,theNetherlands,Austria,Portugal,Slovenia,Finland,Sweden,andCyprus.Forthem,bothRegulationsarebinding,directlyapplicable,andcompletelyreplacetherelevantnationalrulesonprivateinternationallaw.TheremainingEUMemberStatescontinuetoapplynationalprivateinternationallawtomatrimonialpropertyregimes.Theymayjoin theenhancedcooperationatany time in thefuture,but inorder todoso theymustacceptboth regulations.9OnlyEstoniahas so farannouncedawillingness tojoin,whereascooperationfromanyoftheothercountriesisnotexpected–atleastfornow.10Themost frequentlycitedconcernof thenon-participatingstates is thatunderRegulations2016/1104and2016/1103astatethatdoesnotrecognisesame-sexmarriageand/orregisteredpartnershipsbetweensame-sex(orheterosexual)coupleswouldhavetorecognisesuchunionsconcludedinotherMemberStates.11 There are safeguards against that in Recital 64 of Regulation 2016/1103 (and Recital 64 ofRegulation2016/1104;seealsoRecital21ofbothRegulations),whichstipulatesthatthe recognitionandenforcementofadecisionon thematrimonialproperty regimethereunder should not in any way imply recognition of the marriage underlyingthematrimonial property regime that gave rise to the decision. Consequently, theparticipating countries arenot requiredbyRegulation2016/1103 to transpose intonational law forms ofmatrimony that they do not recognise in their national law,nor to recognise a personal status thereunder. Alas, encountering marital formsunrecognisedindomestic legislationis inevitable.Onesourceofconfusion12 is the

7 OJEUL183of8July2016.8 OJEUL183of8July2016.9 Recital7ofCouncilDecision(EU)2016/954of9June2016.SeealsoValentová,L.,Property

regimesofspousesandpartnersinnewEURegulations–jurisdiction,prorogationandchoiceof law,DeGruyter, ICLR,Vol. 16, 2/2016,p. 226, andRudolf,C.,Premoženjska razmerjamed zakonci v mednarodnem zasebnem pravu (Matrimonial property regimes in privateinternationallaw),Podjetjeindelo,Vol.XLIV,6-7/2018,p.954.

10 InquestionnairesregardingRegulations2016/1103and2016/1104whoseanswersarecollectedinFamilyPropertyandSuccessioninEUMemberStatesNationalReportsontheCollectedData, the rapporteurs from Hungary, Poland, Romania, Lithuania, and Latvia said theircountrieswouldnot join theenhancedcooperation,whereas the rapporteurs fromDenmark,Ireland,Slovakia,andtheUnitedKingdomdidnotanswerthisquestion.

11 Seetheindividualcountryreports inFamilyPropertyandSuccessioninEUMemberStatesNationalReportsontheCollectedData.

12 SeeKunda,I.,NovimeđunarodnoprivatnopravniokvirimovinebračnihiregistriranihpartnerauEuropskojuniji:poljeprimjeneinadležnost,Zagreb,Hrvatskapravnarevija,Vol.19,3/2019,p. 29.


absenceofadefinitionofmarriageinRegulation2016/1103(Recital17),13whichiswhyeachMemberStateusesitsowndefinitionthereof.RecognitionofamarriageorregisteredpartnershipconcludedabroadthataMemberStatedoesnotrecognisethereforeremainsanopenissue.Theproblemisnotjustrecognitionofunionsbetweensame-sex partners, which is the biggest (and very explicit) concern of states thathavenotjoinedtheenhancedcooperation.Italso(forexampleinSlovenia)concernsrecognisingapartnershipregisteredbyaheterosexualcoupleabroad.Slovenianlawdoesnotprovideforsuchapartnership,whichraises thequestionofwhethersuchshouldbetreatedasamarriageorregisteredpartnership,orwhetheracourtshouldresorttotheexception–alternativejurisdiction(Article9ofRegulations2016/1104and2016/1103)–anddeclinejurisdictionifitdecidesthatsuchapartnershipcannotbe recognised in a specific case for the purposes ofmatrimonial property regimeproceedings.14This issuewillhave tobeaddressedbycase law;absenta responsefromtheCourtofJusticeoftheEuropeanUnion(CJEU),thecaselawoftheMemberStateswillprobablyproduceconflictingsolutions.

Asof29January2019,Regulation2016/1103isthusapplicabletomatrimonialpropertyregimes–includingwithregardtotheapplicablelaw–intheMemberStatesparticipatingintheenhancedcooperation.TheRegulation,forexample,gives(future)spousestheoptiontochoosetheapplicablelaw,anditprovidesrulestodeterminewhichlawshallapplyintheeventthespousesdonotagreeonthechoiceoflaw.ThispaperexploreswhetherthenewEUarrangementhasmadeiteasierforspousestodeterminethe applicable lawand evaluates the suitability of the connecting factors providedby Regulation 2016/1103. It also challenges the examination of these connectingfactorsasofthetimeoftheconclusionofthemarriage;theymaybeexcludedunderexceptionalcircumstances,but thepaperassumes that theconditions forexclusionaredifficult toachieve. It compares theconnecting factorswith thoseprovidedbySlovenian andCroatian private international law in theory, and provides practicalexamples of differences resulting from the newEuropean arrangement.The paperfurtherexaminesthehypothesisthatthepossibilityofagreementonthechoiceoflawwillcausemanyproblemsinpractice,andprovidespossiblesolutions.Throughoutthepaper, thesystemestablishedbyRegulation2016/1103 iscomparedwithotherEuropean regulationsand the relevantcase lawof theCJEU.Severalauthors (e.g.Oprea,PartyautonomyandthelawapplicabletothematrimonialpropertyregimesinEurope–seethelistofliteratureformore;Damascelli,Applicablelaw,jurisdiction,andrecognitionofdecisionsinmattersrelatingtopropertyregimesofspousesandpartnersinEuropeanandItalianprivateinternationallaw;Dolžan,Uredbi(EU)gledepremoženjskopravnih razmerij za mednarodne pare – kolizijska pravila; Kunda,Novi međunarodnoprivatnopravni okvir imovine bračnih i registriranih partnerauEuropskoj uniji: polje primjene i nadležnost; Poretti,Odlučivanje o imovinskimodnosima bračnih drugova u ostavinskim postupcima sukladnoUredbi 2016/110313 Regulation2016/1104,ontheotherhand,definesthetermregisteredpartnership.14 Denialofjurisdictionisnotpossiblewhenthepartieshaveobtainedadivorce,legalseparation,

ormarriageannulmentthatiscapableofbeingrecognisedintheMemberState(participatingintheenhancedcooperation)ofthecourtatwhichtheprocedureisongoing(Article9/IIIofRegulation2016/1103).


obračnoimovinskom režimu) have previously dealtwith the applicable lawunderRegulation2016/1103,but therearenoworks specificallydealingwith the impactof Regulation 2016/1103 on the application of private international law on thematrimonialpropertyregimesofCroatiaandSlovenia.

2. NATIONAL PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

Regulation2016/1103doesnotdetermineinwhichcross-borderdisputesitisapplicable.15 In countries participating in the enhanced cooperation it replaces therelevantprovisionsofprivateinternationallawregardlessofthecountryoforiginoftheinternationalelementthatdefinesthisasacross-borderdispute.Theregulationisthusnotapplicableonlyindisputeswithanelementfromanothercountryparticipatingintheenhancedcooperation; it isalsoapplicableindisputeswithanelementfromotherEUMemberStates and in disputeswith an element from third countries. InSlovenia,forexample,itcompletelyreplaces16therelevantprovisionsofthePrivateInternationalLawandProcedureAct17 (Zakonomednarodnemzasebnempravu inpostopku–ZMZPP).InCroatia,theActConcerningtheResolutionofConflictsofLawswiththeProvisionsofOtherCountriesinCertainMatters18(Zakonorješavanjusukobazakonaspropisimadrugihzemaljauođređenimodnosima–ZRSZPDZ)wasinforceuntil29January2019,whenitwasreplacedbythePrivateInternationalLawAct19(Zakonomeđunarodnomprivatnompravu–ZMPP).WhereastheformerwasalmostidenticaltotheSlovenianZMZPP,intheZMPPtheCroatianlegislaturetookadifferentrouteregardingtheregulationdealtwithinthisarticle.SinceRegulation2016/1103appliestomatrimonialpropertyregimesinallcross-borderdisputes,thereisnoneedforanationalregulationonthismatter.TheCroatianZMPPthusreferstoRegulation2016/1103concerningtheapplicablelawandjurisdictioninsuchdisputes(just as it defers to Regulation 2016/1104 for disputes concerning the propertyconsequences of registered partnerships) and does not have its “own” provisionsconcerningthesematters.

3. THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK OF CONFLICT-OF-LAW RULES

When a judge determines that he or she has (international) jurisdiction in adispute with an international element, he or she then determines which country’ssubstantivelawtoapplyintheruling.Withregardtothelawgoverning(personaland)matrimonialproperty,theZMZPP(Article38)determinednationalityastheprimary

15 Cf.,forexample,Article3ofRegulation(EC)No.1896/2006oftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof12December2006creatingaEuropeanorderforpaymentprocedure,OJEUL399of30December2006.

16 Anexceptionexistsfortheprovisionsregardingtheapplicablelaw.Thesewillcontinuetobeusedforawhile.Seethesection“The ratione temporisofRegulation2016/1103”.

17 OGRS56/99asamended.18 OGCroatia53/91and88/01.19 OGCroatia101/17.


connecting factor.The primary applicable law is therefore the law of the state ofwhich(both)spousesarenationals(lex patriae,lex nationalis).Thisisachangeableyetfairlystableconnectingfactorthatisfarmoredifficulttochangethan(temporaryorpermanent)residence.Ifthespousesarenationalsofdifferentstates,thelawofthestateinwhichtheyhavepermanentresidenceapplies(lex domicilii).Ifthespouseshaveneitherthesamenationalitynorpermanentresidenceinthesamestate,thelawofthestateinwhichtheybothhadtheirlastpermanentresidenceapplies;absentthat,thelawthatismostcloselyconnectedtotherelationshipapplies(closestconnection).Forthelatter,itisnecessarytoconsiderallofthecircumstancesofthecaseinquestion,e.g.thenationalityandresidenceoftheparties,theirlanguage,etc.Thecompetentcourtdecideswhichlawismostcloselyconnectedtotherelationship.Thelegalframeworkestablished by theCroatianZRSZPDZwas the same, only that instead of the lastconnectingfactor–theclosestconnection–itreferredtotheapplicationofCroatianlaw(Article36).Thealmost identicalprovisionsofboth lawsarean indicationoftheircommonroots.InbothcountriestheYugoslavActConcerningtheResolutionofConflictsofLawswiththeProvisionsofOtherCountriesinCertainMatters(Zakonoureditvikolizijezakonovspredpisidrugihdržavvdoločenihrazmerjih–ZUKZ)20 hadpreviouslybeeninforce,andbothcountriessubsequentlymodelledtheirlawsontheresolutionofconflictsoflawson(inter alia)thematrimonialpropertyregimesontheYugoslavprecursor.

Article38oftheZMZPPdoesnotdetermineatwhichpointintimetheexistenceof connecting factors is examined for the purposes of determining conflict-of-lawrules, but these are considered21 changeable connecting factors that refer to themomentofexamination,i.e.theinitiationofcourtproceedings.Ifduringthecourseofthemarriageacircumstancechanges(e.g.thespousesacquireorlosenationalityormove),thisresultsinachangeinthelawthatwouldapplyifadisputeconcerningmatrimonialpropertyweretobeexaminedbyacourt(achangeablefactor).22

Regulation 2016/110323 (Article 26/I) determines connecting factors to be20 OGSFRJ43-525/82asamended.21 Ilešič, M., Polajnar-Pavčnik,A.,Wedam-Lukić, D., Mednarodno zasebno pravo, komentar

zakona,Ljubljana,ČasopisnizavodUradnilistRepublikeSlovenije,1992,p.71.22 GečKorošec,M.,Mednarodnozasebnopravo,Drugaknjiga–posebnidel,Ljubljana,Uradni

listRepublikeSlovenije,2002,p.57.Fordetails,seeMednarodnozasebnopravo,komentarzakona,Ilešič,M.,Polajnar-Pavčnik,A.,Wedam-Lukić,D.,op. cit.,p.71.ThesameappliedtothepreviouslyvalidCroatianZRSZPDZ.

23 ThelawdesignatedbyRegulation2016/1103asapplicableappliesevenifitisthelawofastatethatdoesnotparticipateintheenhancedcooperation(Article20)–theprincipleofuniversalapplication.SuchanarrangementhasbeenusedincertainotherEUregulations–cf.Article20ofRegulation(EU)No650/2012oftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof4July2012onjurisdiction,applicablelaw,recognitionandenforcementofdecisionsandacceptanceandenforcementofauthenticinstrumentsinmattersofsuccessionandonthecreationofaEuropeanCertificateofSuccession(OJL201of27July2012;Regulation650/2012onsuccession),Article4ofCouncilRegulation(EU)No.1259/2010of20December2010implementingenhancedcooperationintheareaofthelawapplicabletodivorceandlegalseparation(RegulationRomeIII),OJL343/10of29December2010,andArticle2ofRegulation(EC)No.593/2008oftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof17June2008onthelawapplicabletocontractualobligations(RegulationRomeI),OJL177of4July2008.


consideredinthechoiceofconflict-of-lawrulesthataresignificantlydifferentthanthose provided by the ZMZPP.TheCouncil hasmoved away from nationality asthe typicalconnectingfactor incontinental law24anddeterminedcommonhabitualresidenceafter theconclusionof themarriageas thefirst relevant factor.This isafixed,unchangeableconnectingfactorthatsubsequentchanges(e.g.therelocationofthecommonhabitualresidenceofthespouses)willnotaffect,nordosuchchangesthereforeaffectthechoiceofapplicablelaw.Thecountryofcommonresidenceshouldbeidentified,whichmakesitpossibletousethisconnectingfactortodeterminetheapplicablelawevenifthespouseshavedifferenthabitualresidenceswithinasinglestate.25This raises thequestionofhowlongafter theconclusionof themarriageacommonhabitualresidencemustbeestablishedinorderforittoconstitutethefirstconnecting factor. Is this a connecting factor if themarried spouses settled in thesameMemberStateamonthorayearaftermarriage?Regulation2016/1103doesnotaddressthis,leavingituptocaselaw;inordertoaidcaselaw,Recital49onlydetermines that the first common habitual residence shortly aftermarriage shouldconstitute thefirst criterion. In theory there have been proposals that there shouldbe a period of several months after the conclusion of themarriage during whichthis conditionmust be fulfilled,26 but some are also of the opinion that the periodthatshouldcountas thefirst residenceafter theconclusionof themarriageshouldnotberestricted.27Inmyopinion,itisimpossibletospecifyatimeperiodaftertheconclusionofthemarriageduringwhichthefirstcommonhabitualresidencemaybeestablished.Ineachspecificcasethedecisionhingesonthecircumstancesanditisinthehandsofthecourt,buttheauthordisagreeswiththenotionthatsuchaconditionmaybefulfilledatanytimeaftertheconclusionofthemarriage(e.g.thatspouseswhogotmarriedintheiryouthdonotcreatethefirstcommonhabitualresidenceuntilafterretirement,therebyachievingthefirstconnectingfactorforthepurposesofthechoiceoflaw).Sinceitisassumedthatinmostcasesspouseswillstartlivingtogetheraftermarriage(oratleastinthesamecountry),otherconnectingfactorswillbeusedonlyrarelyindeterminingtheapplicablelaw.

If,aftermarrying,thespousesdonothaveacommonhabitualresidenceinthesamecountryordonotlivelongorintenselyenoughinanyothercountrytoestablishhabitualresidencethere,theirmatrimonialpropertyregimeissubjecttothelawofthestatewhosecommonnationalitythespouseshadatthetimeoftheconclusionofthemarriage.Thisisamorestableconnectingfactorthanthefirstone,anditiseasiertoidentify.National lawandinternationalconventionsareusedto identifyaperson’snationality(Recital50).Ifthespousesdonothaveacommonnationalityatthetimeoftheconclusionofthemarriage,thisconnectingfactorcannotbeconsidered.Theresult

24 Schulz,R.,Choiceof lawinrelationtomatrimonialpropertyinthe21stCentury,JournalofPrivateInternationalLaw,Vol.15,1/2019,pp.10-11.

25 Dolžan,J.,Uredbi(EU)gledepremoženjskopravnihrazmerijzamednarodnepare–kolizijskapravila,Ljubljana,Odvetnik,Vol.90,2/2019,p.111.

26 Ibid,p.112.SeealsoRudolf,C.,op. cit.,p.960.27 Damascelli,D.,Applicablelaw,jurisdiction,andrecognitionofdecisionsinmattersrelating

topropertyregimesofspousesandpartnersinEuropeanandItalianprivateinternationallaw,Trusts&Trustees,Vol.0,0/2018,p.4.


isthesameifatthetimeoftheconclusionofthemarriagethespouseshavemultiplecommonnationalities(subject mixtae),whichisinlinewiththeCJEU’spositionontheequalityofnationalities.28ThisisadifferentapproachthanthatprovidedbytheZMZPP.ForaSloveniannationalwithmultiplenationalities,theZMZPP,forexample,stipulatesthatforthepurposesoftheapplicationoftheZMZPPtheyareconsideredashavingonlySloveniannationality,whichisunderpinnedbythenotionthatdomesticlawprovidesthebestlegalcertaintyfornationalsofthatstate.29IfapersonwhoisnotaSloveniannationalhasmultiplenationalities,forthepurposesoftheZMZPPheorsheisregardedasbeinganationalofthestateheorsheisanationalofandwhereheorshehaspermanentresidence;30ifsuchapersondoesnothavepermanentresidenceinanystatewhosenationalityheorshehas,heorsheisregardedasbeinganationalofthestatewhosenationalityheorshehasandwithwhichheorshehastheclosestlinks(Article10).Thesamearrangement,onlyforthebenefitofCroatiannationality,is provided by theCroatian ZMPP (Article 3) and its predecessor, the ZRSZPDZ(Article11).

Ifspousesdonothaveacommonnationalityatthetimeoftheconclusionofthemarriageorhavemorethanonecommonnationality,theirmatrimonialpropertyregime is subject to the lawof the statewithwhich,all circumstancesconsidered,both spouses have the closest connection as of the time of the conclusion of themarriage.31Regulation2016/1103doesnotprovideguidanceonwhenclosest linksaredeemedtohavebeenestablished.32Ineachspecificcasealloftheactualandlegalcircumstances of the spouses as of the conclusionof themarriage are considered:nationality,religion,language,locationofassets,etc.,whicharedeterminedbythecompetent court.Themoment of the conclusionof themarriage is considered therelevantpointfortheexaminationoftheclosestconnection.Thisisanunchangeablefactor that determineswhich circumstances at a specificmoment in the pastmustbeconsidered.33Subsequentchanges (nationality, residence,etc.)donotaffect thisconnecting factor, and theapplicable lawmaychangeonlybywayof the spousesconcludinganagreementonthechoiceoflaw.

28 Marino,S.,StrengtheningtheEuropeancivil judicialcooperation: thepatrimonialeffectsoffamilyrelationships,Madrid,CuadernosdeDerechoTransnacional,Vol.9,1/2017,p.280.

29 GečKorošec,M.,Mednarodnozasebnopravo,Prvaknjiga–splošnidel,Ljubljana,UradnilistRepublikeSlovenije,2001,p.88.

30 Loc. cit.Itisassumedthataforeignerwithmultiplenationalitieshastheclosestconnectiontothestateinwhichheorshehaspermanentresidence.

31 In the event of multiple common nationalities, Regulation 2016/1103 invokes the closestconnectionaswellasthefirsthabitualcommonresidenceasconnectingfactors(Article26/II),butconsideringthecascadingrelationshipbetweenthem(assumingthatidentificationofthenationalityofthespouseswascarriedout),thelatterobviouslydidnotexist.

32 Poretti,P.,Odlučivanjeo imovinskimodnosimabračnihdrugovauostavinskimpostupcimasukladnoUredbi2016/1103obračnoimovinskomrežimu,Rijeka,ZbornikPravnogfakultetaSveučilištauRijeci,Vol.38,1/2017,p.463,believesthatthecauseoftheopennessisthatthisconnectingfactormaybeusedforthebulkofcasesinwhichneitherthefirstnorthesecondconnectingfactorcanbeused.

33 GečKorošec,M.,Mednarodno…,Prva knjiga…, cit., p. 115, sees this as being intendedprimarilyfortheprotectionoflegalcertainty,whichshouldbeoutwardlyevident.


Oncedeterminedinsuchmanner,thelawappliestothespouses’entireproperty,regardlessofwhetheritislocatedinmultiplecountries,whetherornotthesecountriesparticipate in the enhanced cooperation andwhether or not they are EUMemberStates. It also applies notwithstanding the type of property, which provides legalcertaintyforthepartiesandpreventsthefragmentationofthematrimonialpropertyregime(Recital43).

However, reference (regarding all connecting factors) to the moment of theconclusion of the marriage (the second and third connecting factors) or the timeafter the conclusion of themarriage (the first connecting factor) has an importantshortcoming. Even in the event of subsequent significant life changes, during thecourse of court proceedings the spousesmay no longer have a connection to thestatewhose lawwillapply.Forexample,aftergettingmarriedaGermanmanandSlovenianwomanmovetoRomeforayearduetothewife’straining.TheythenmovetoAustria,wheretheyliveforthenext20yearsuntiltheydivorce.Inamatrimonialproperty regimeprocedure, the court of jurisdictionwill be inAustria (Article6/aofRegulation2016/1103),whichwill have to apply Italian law (Article26/I(a)ofRegulation2016/1103),eventhoughthespousesdonot(anylonger)haveaconnectiontoItaly.

Toaddress such situations,Regulation2016/1103provides an escape clause.Thecourtcanavoidapplyingthelawofthestateoffirsthabitualcommonresidenceaftertheconclusionofthemarriageundercertainconditions(Article26/III).34Suchasolutionispossibleonlywhenproposedtothecourtbyoneofthespouses.Heorshemustdemonstratethatthelasthabitualresidencelastedlongerthanthefirst,wherebythecourtwillexaminewhetheritwasindeedsignificantlylonger.Heorshemustalsodemonstratetheexistenceofpastspousalconductsuchthatitprovidesevidenceofhisorherreferencetothelawofthatstate,whichisdifficultiftheotherspouseopposestheapplicationofthislaw.Iftheotherspouseagreeswiththeapplicationofthislaw,heorshemayactivelydemonstratehisorherpastconductinthisdirection,buthisorher(explicit)consenttotheuseofthisexceptionisnotrequired.Thisexceptionfromtheprincipleofpermanencecanthusbeappliedtoavoidtheimpracticalapplicationofalawnotconnectedtothedispute;however,it ispossibleonlyinspecificcourtprocedureswhenpermittedbythecourt.Intheabove-mentionedcase,Austrianlawwillthereforebeappliedprovidedoneofthespousesproposesitsapplicationandtheconditionsaresatisfied(anditispossibletodeterminewithcertaintytheexistenceofasignificantlylongerresidenceinAustria).35

3.1. Examples

A) German nationals move to Slovenia in 2015 and get married. In October 2019 they divorce. The (ex) husband then moves to Germany and the (ex) wife

34 Porettiseestheapplicationofthisprovisionascreatingthepossibilityofusingthelawofthesame state for both succession andmatrimonial property regimedisputes between (former)spouses.Fordetails,seePoretti,P.,op. cit.,p.464.

35 Thiscreatesproblemswithex tuncapplicationofthethuslychosenlawandtheimpactonthird-partyrights,butthatisbeyondthescopeofthispaper.


stays in Slovenia. The husband wishes to initiate proceedings for the division of the matrimonial property. Which law will be applied?

Thispaperdoesnotdealwithissuesconcerninginternationaljurisdiction.Butsinceitisimpossibletodeterminetheapplicablelawwithoutdetermininginternationaljurisdiction,thesubsequentexamplesalsoprovidesolutionsforthat.Inthisspecificcase,thecourtof(international)jurisdictionisinSloveniaunderRegulation2016/1103(becausethecourtprocedurewasinitiated(onor)after29January2019–seethenextsection)(Article6/b).

IftheZMZPPisapplied,theapplicablelawisdeterminedpursuanttoArticle38/I:thelawofthestateofwhichthespousesarenationalsisapplied,whichmeansthatGermanlaw36willbeapplied.

IfRegulation2016/1103isapplied,underArticle26/I(a)theapplicablelawisthelawofthestateinwhichthespouseshadtheirfirstcommonhabitualresidence,inthiscaseSlovenianlaw.

B) A Slovenian national and a German national settle in Slovenia, where they marry. They divorce in October 2019. The German (ex) wife then moves to Germany and the Slovenian (ex) husband remains in Slovenia. The husband wants to initiate proceedings for the division of the matrimonial property. Which law will be applied?

Pursuant to Regulation 2016/1103 (because court proceedingswere initiated(on or) after 29 January 2019 – see the next section), the court in Slovenia has(international)jurisdiction(Article6/b).

IftheZMZPPisapplied,theapplicablelawisdeterminedpursuanttoArticle38/IIIbecausethe(former)spousesarenationalsofdifferentstatesanddonothaveresidenceinthesamestate.Thedisputemustberesolvedaccordingtothelawofthestatewheretheyhadtheirlastcommonresidence–i.e.Slovenianlaw.

If Regulation 2016/1103 is applied, the law applicable to the matrimonialpropertywill be the lawof the state inwhich the spouses had their first commonhabitualresidenceaftertheconclusionofthemarriage–i.e.Slovenianlaw.

C) Two Slovenian nationals move to Austria, where they marry. In October 2019 they divorce, whereupon the (ex) husband moves back to Slovenia and the (ex) wife to Germany. The wife wants to initiate proceedings for the division of the matrimonial property. Which law will apply?

Pursuant to Regulation 2016/1103 (because court proceedingswere initiated(on or) after 29 January 2019 – see the next section), the court in Slovenia has(international)jurisdiction(Article6/c).

IftheZMZPPisapplied,sincetheyhaveacommonnationality,thedisputeisresolvedusingthelawofthestateofwhichthespousesarenationals(Article38/I)–i.e.Slovenianlaw.

If Regulation 2016/1103 is applied, the law applicable to the matrimonialpropertywill be the lawof the state inwhich the spouses had their first commonhabitualresidenceaftertheconclusionofthemarriage–i.e.Slovenianlaw.

D) Two nationals of the United States move to Slovenia, where they marry.

36 Thesolutionwouldhavebeen thesameunder theoldCroatianZRSZPDZifSloveniawerereplacedwithCroatia.Thesameappliestoallsubsequentexamples.


In October 2019 they divorce but both stay in Slovenia. The wife wants to initiate proceedings for the division of the matrimonial property. Which law will apply?

Pursuant to Regulation 2016/1103 (because court proceedingswere initiated(on or) after 29 January 2019 – see the next section), the court in Slovenia has(international)jurisdiction(Article6/a).

IftheZMZPPisapplied,sincethespouseshavecommonnationality,thedisputeisresolvedusingthelawofthestateofwhichthespousesarenationals(Article38/I)–i.e.UnitedStateslaw.

IfRegulation2016/1103isapplied,theapplicablelawwillbethelawofthestateinwhichthespouseshadtheirfirstcommonhabitualresidenceaftertheconclusionofthemarriage–i.e.Slovenianlaw.

E) A Slovenian national and a German national settle in Slovenia, where they marry. After a year they move to Austria, where they live another year and a half. In October 2019 they divorce, whereupon the (ex) wife moves to Germany and the (ex) husband to Slovenia. The wife wants to initiate proceedings for the division of the matrimonial property. Which law will apply?

Pursuant to Regulation 2016/1103 (because court proceedingswere initiated(on or) after 29 January 2019 – see the next section), the court in Slovenia has(international)jurisdiction(Article6/c).

IftheZMZPPisapplied,duetothenon-existenceofconnectingfactorsunderArticle38/I,II,thelawofthestateofthelastcommonresidenceapplies(Article38/III)–i.e.Austrianlaw.

IfRegulation2016/1103isapplied,theapplicablelawwillbethelawofthestateinwhichthespouseshadtheirfirstcommonhabitualresidenceaftertheconclusionofthemarriage–i.e.Slovenianlaw.IfoneofthespousesproposesandbothspousesinvokeAustrianlaw,thecourtmayapplyAustrianlawifitdecidedthatresidenceinAustrialastingayearandahalfissignificantlylongerthanaone-yearresidenceinSlovenia.

Comment:In all of the above cases, the essential element in choosing the right answer

astowhichlawappliesisthatSloveniancourtshaveinternationaljurisdiction.Thisoccurswhenthe(former)spouseshavehabitualresidenceinSloveniaatthetimethecourtisseised,whentheylasthadcommonresidenceinSloveniaandoneofthemstillresidesthere,whenthedefendanthashabitualresidenceinSloveniaatthetimethecourtisseised,orwhenthespousesareSloveniannationalsatthetimethecourtis seised.Connecting factors are used in cascading order (Article 6 ofRegulation2016/1103), but notwithstanding how the international jurisdiction of Sloveniancourtsisdetermined,theanswerwithregardtowhichlawappliesisthesame.

Regulation 2016/1103 applies (providedmarriagewas concluded on or after29 January 2019 – see the next section) regardless of which state the “foreign”elementinthedisputecomesfrom.Indisputesthatcontinuetoapplynationalprivateinternationallaw,bilateralormultilateralconventionsbetweencountriesparticipatingin theenhancedcooperationandothers(Article62ofRegulation2016/1103)mustbeconsideredinthechoiceofapplicablelaw.InSlovenia,internationalconventions


will thus be used instead of theZMZPP in disputeswith elements fromHungary,Mongolia,Romania,Poland,orSlovakia.37

3.2. The ratione temporis of Regulation 2016/1103

Intheexampleslistedabove,solutionsregardingtheapplicationoflawdependonwhethertheZMZZPP(orthepreviouslyvalidCroatianZRSZPDZ)orregulation2016/1103isapplied.Whentoapplyoneortheotherdependsontheratione temporis ofRegulation2016/1103,whichisdeterminedinthetransitionalprovisions(Article69).

The regulation applies only to court proceedings38 initiated on or after 29 January 2019. If court proceedings were initiated before that date, jurisdiction issubjecttonationalprivateinternationallaw.However,decisionsinsuchprocedures(initiatedbefore29January2019)adoptedafterthisdatearerecognisedandenforcedin accordance with Regulation 2016/1103 as long as the rules of jurisdictionthathavebeenapplied complywith those set out inRegulation2016/1103. In theexamplesdescribedabove,Regulation2016/1103appliesforjurisdictionbecausetheproceedingswere initiated in (orafter)October2019 (whichmeansonorafter29January2019).

TheRegulation2016/1103rulesontheapplicablelawareappliedifthemarriagewasconcludedonorafter29January2019.Evenwhenthemarriagewasconcludedbeforethen,Regulation2016/1103appliesifthespousesagreedonachoiceoflawapplicabletotheirmatrimonialpropertyregimeafter thisdate.Thisisnot thecaseif the spouses (merely) agreed on the international jurisdiction or the applicablematrimonialpropertyregime.ThisprovisionwasdifferentwhenRegulation2016/1103wasadoptedinthattheconflict-of-lawchapterappliedtomarriagesorchoice-of-lawagreements concludedafter 29 January 2019; however, this created a discrepancywiththeprovisionontheapplicationoftheremainingchaptersoftheRegulation.LessthanamonthafterRegulation2016/1103wasadopted,theCorrigendumtoCouncilRegulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperationin the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement ofdecisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes39 was therefore adopted toeliminatethediscrepancy.Intheabove-mentionedcases,theapplicablelawisthusdeterminedinaccordancewithRegulation2016/1103ifthemarriagewasconcludedonorafter29January2019.Ifitwasconcludedbeforethen,theZMZPPapplies.

Considering the substance of the transitional provisions, it is clear that thenationalrulesonprivateinternationallawoftheMemberStatesparticipatingintheenhanced cooperation will continue to apply in court disputes for a considerableamountoftime(aslongastherearemarriagesconcludedbefore29January2019).

37 This is because Slovenia has concluded international agreements in this field with thesecountries,noneofwhichparticipateintheenhancedcooperation.SeeRudolf,C.,op. cit.,p.956.

38 Thesameappliestoauthenticinstrumentsandcourtsettlementsformallydrawnuporregistered,approved,orconcludedonorafter29January2019.

39 OJEUL183of8July2016.


Example:AnAustriannationalandaSloveniannationalmarriedin2010andlivedinAustriaforthreeyearsafterthat.In2013theymovedtoSlovenia,wheretheycontinuedlivinguntiltheydivorcedin2019.Theex-wifemovedbacktoAustriaandtheex-husbandremainedinSlovenia.In2020sheinitiatedcourtproceedingsforthedivisionofthematrimonialproperty.Whichlegalsourceisappliedtodeterminetheinternationaljurisdictionandtheapplicablelaw?

Regulation 2016/1103 is applied to determine the jurisdiction in courtproceedingsinitiatedonorafter29January2019.PursuanttoArticle6/b,jurisdictionwillliewiththecourtsinSloveniasincethatiswheretheirlasthabitualresidencewasandwherethehusbandcontinuestoreside.

Regulation 2016/1103 is applied for the applicable law if the marriage wasconcludedonorafter29January2019.Giventhatthisconditionisnotsatisfiedinthisspecificcase,theapplicablelawwillbedeterminedundertheSlovenianZMZPPusingtheconnectingfactorunderArticle38/III,whichstipulatesthatthelawofthestateinwhichtheybothhadtheirlastpermanentresidenceshallapply–i.e.Slovenianlaw.

The solutionwould be different if the applicable lawwas determined underRegulation 2016/1103, where the connecting factors depend on the time of theconclusionofthemarriage.Inthiscase,Article26/I(a)ofRegulation2016/1103andAustrianlawwouldapplysincethespouseshadtheirfirstcommonhabitualresidenceinAustria.

ThiscaseillustrateshowinpracticetherewillbesituationswherethejurisdictionisdeterminedunderRegulation2016/1103andtheapplicablelawunderthenationalrulesonprivateinternationallaw.SuchadiscrepancywillcreateconfusionandwillnottakeadvantageofRegulation2016/1103,whichstrivestoconnectbothelements(see,e.g.,Article7/I).

4. MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY RELATIONSHIPS

Theapplicablelawconsiderationsdescribedabovedonotapplyifthespouseschosethelawapplicabletotheirmatrimonialpropertyregimebeforethemarriage,at the timeof theconclusionof themarriage,orduringthecourseof themarriage(Recital45).Thelawtheychoseappliestoalllegalissuesconcerningtheirmatrimonialproperty(fordetails,seeArticle27ofRegulation2016/1103).Whenchoosingthelaw,thespousesmayalsoagreeonaspecificpropertyregimeinthechosennationallaw;iftheydonot,thedefaultmatrimonialregimeprovidedbythenationallawapplies.40 Greaterautonomyofthepartiesgivesthespousesmoreflexibilityandimproveslegalcertainty;however,thefreewillofspousesasregardsthechoiceoflawisfairlylimitedcomparedtotheautonomyofpartiesininternationalcontractlaw.41Thechoiceoflawbydefaultappliestoallassetsfallingunderthematrimonialpropertyregime(Article21ofRegulation2016/1103)andthespousesmayonlychoosethelawofastatein

40 Oprea,E.A.,PartyautonomyandthelawapplicabletothematrimonialpropertyregimesinEurope,Madrid,CuadernosdeDerechoTransnacional,Vol.10,2/2018,p.590.

41 SeeRegulationRomeI.


whichoneorbothhavehabitualresidenceatthetimeoftheagreementonthechoiceoflaw(comparewithArticle26/I(a))orthelawofastateofwhichoneofthespousesisanationalatthattime(comparewithArticle26/I(b)).

Connectingafactortothetimeoftheconclusionoftheagreementmakestheconnectingfactorstablenotwithstandingpotentialfuturechange.Ifthespouseswishtoavoidthechosenlawinthefuture,theymaychangetheiragreement,whichmostcommonlyhappenswhentheyhavechosenthelawofthestateoftheirhabitualresidencebutlatermoved.Itissignificantlyfasterandeasiertochangehabitualresidencethanitistochangenationality,whichrepresentsamorepermanentconnectionandhencelongersatisfactionwiththechosenlaw.However,asregardstheconnectingfactorofnationality,thereisthequestionofwhethertheymaychoosethelawofanystateofwhichtheyarenationalsifoneorbothofthemarenationalsofmultiplestates.Recital50 of Regulation 2016/1103 explicitly determines that consideration of a personhavingmultiplenationalitiesfallsoutsidethescopeoftheregulationandshouldbelefttonationallaworinternationalconventions,infullobservanceoftheprinciplesof the EU.42 For persons withmultiple nationalities, themajority of national lawarrangementspreferonenationality–typicallythenationalityofthegivenstate(seeabovefortheregulationthereofintheZMZPP).Theconclusion,then,wouldbethatifoneorbothspouseshavemultiplenationalities,theymayonlychoosethelawofthestateofoneoftheirnationalitiesasdeterminedbythenationallawwheretheagreementismade;thus,nationalityandhencethelawofthestateinwhichtheagreementwasconcludedhaveindirectprecedence.However,suchreasoningcontravenesthecaselawoftheCJEU,whichemphasisestheequalityofnationalities.43Sucharulewouldalsorequirethespousestoascertain–atthetimeofconcludingtheagreementonthechoiceoflaw–whichlawtheymaychoosebasedonthenationalprovisionsofthestate inwhich theagreement ismade.Thismakes itmoredifficult toconcludeanagreementonthechoiceoflawand,duetothelackofclarity,affectslegalcertainty.Ontheotherhand,inquiriesaboutapreferenceforacertainnationalityoveranotherwould allow the spouses to conclude the agreement in a statewhose national lawwouldpreferthelawofthatspecificnationalitythatthespousesmaywanttochoose.Byselectingthelawofthestateunderwhichtoconcludetheagreement,thespouseswouldthereforeindirectlyselecttheapplicablelaw.Thereareviewsintheory44 that in applyingRecital50 it isnecessary to invoke theprovision thereofwhich refersto“observanceofthegeneralprinciplesoftheUnion”andconsiderCJEUcaselawto therefore allow spouseswithmultiple nationalities to choose the lawof any ofthestates theyarenationalsof.Anotherargumentspeaking infavourof this is thegrammaticalexplanationofRecital50:itinvokestheapplicationofnationallawwhen

42 ThesolutionisdifferentinRegulation650/2012,whichexplicitlydeterminestheopposite.Asthelawtogovernhisorhersuccessionasawhole,apersonwithmultiplenationalitiesmaychoosethelawofaStatewhosenationalityheorshepossessesatthetimeofmakingthechoiceoratthetimeofdeath(Article22).

43 In cases C-369/90, Micheletti, C-148/02, Garcia Avello, and C-168/08, Laszlo Hadadi v.Mesko,theCJEUmoreorlessdirectlyemphasisedtheequalityofallthenationalitiesapersonhas.

44 SimilarinOprea,E.A.,op. cit.,p.585.


Regulation2016/1103determinesnationalityasaconnectingfactor,whichis,strictlyspeaking,notthecasewhenitcomestothechoiceoflaw.ThatisbecausenationalityisnotanobjectiveconnectingfactorthatRegulation2016/1103invokesperse;itisratheraconnectingfactorthatmaybechosenbythespouses.45Theconclusion,then,isthatRecital50doesnotprovideforthesituationsunderArticle22/I(b)ofRegulation2016/1103.Furthermore,anotherargumentinfavourofsuchreasoning,inauthor’sopinion,isthefinalpartofRecital50,whichstatesthatthisconsiderationshouldhavenoeffectonthevalidityofachoice-of-lawagreementmadeinaccordancewiththisRegulation.ThisleadstotheconclusionthatthereferencetonationalrulesfromthefirstpartofRecital50doesnotrefertoaspousalagreementonthechoiceoflaw.Ifaspousehasmultiplenationalities,itisthereforepossibletochoosethelawofanystatewhosenationalityheorshehas.46

(Future) spousesmayselect the lawofa state inwhichoneofbothof themhavehabitualresidenceatthetimeoftheconclusionoftheagreement,orthelawofastateofwhichoneofthe(future)spousesisanationalatthetimeoftheconclusionoftheagreement,buttheycannotagreetousethelawofthestatewithwhichtheyhavetheclosestconnectionasoftheconclusionofthemarriage(seeArticle26/I(c)).Thismakessense:atthetimeoftheconclusionoftheagreement,avagueconnectingfactorwouldcreateuncertaintyforthespousesindeterminingwhichstatetheyhavetheclosestconnectionwith.

TheZMZPPalsolimitsparties’freewillinchoosingtheapplicablelaw,butinadifferentwayandmorenarrowlythanRegulation2016/1103.Freedomisallowedonlytotheextentprovidedbythelawthatwouldapplytotheirmatrimonialpropertyregime (Article 39).TheZMZPP determines that the law applicable to choice-of-lawagreementsisdeterminedasofthetimetheconnectingfactorsaredetermined.Notwithstandingpossiblesubsequentchanges,theconnectingfactorsaredeterminedwith regard to the circumstances at the conclusion of the agreement,47 whichconstitutes a sensible connection with the choice-of-law agreement for which theapplicablelawisdetermined.Restrictionoftheparties’autonomyundertheZMZPPthusrequiresasubstantiverulingonthelawthatwouldapplytothespecificchoice-of-law agreement, whereas Regulation 2016/1103 itself specifically determineswhichlawthepartiesmaychoose.Forspouseswhowouldliketoconcludesuchanagreement,theprovisionsofRegulation2016/1103aresignificantlysimplerandmorecomprehensible.However,thepartiesstillcannotavoidexaminingnationallawruleswhen concluding an agreement, since theymust consider theRegulation’s formalrequirementswithregardtosuchanagreement.ThenowinvalidZRSZPDZ(Article37)requiredexactlythesame.

Forthepurposesoflegalcertainty,Regulation2016/1103primarilydeterminesthatthechoiceoflawappliesfromthetimeoftheadoptionthereof(ex nunc),which

45 SeeOprea,E.A.,op. cit.,p.585.SimilarinRegulation1259/2010,Recital22andArticle5.46 SimilarinDolžan,J.,op. cit.,p.109.47 This is different formatrimonial property regimes inwhich (due to the lack of the parties’

agreement)theapplicablelawisdeterminedbyassessingtheconnectingfactors(althoughtheconnectingfactorsarethesameinbothsituations–Article39)atthemomentoftheinitiationofcourtproceedings.SeeSection3.


maybeproblematicinpracticeintheeventtheagreementisconcludedduring48 the marriage. That is because, for the same property, a matrimonial property regimeprovidedbythesubstantivelawofonestate(determinedinaccordancewithArticle26)isuseduntiltheagreementisconcluded,whereuponthelawofthestatechosenbythepartiesapplies(andconsequentlythematrimonialpropertyregimedeterminedtherein).Toavoid that,Regulation2016/1103makes itpossible for the spouses toconcludeanagreementwithretroactiveeffect,butthismaynotadverselyaffecttherights of third parties.49

4.1. Formal requirements

Asidefromthesubstantiverestrictionsastowhichlawthepartiesmaychoose,Regulation 2016/1103 also determines the formal requirements that an agreementmustsatisfy tobevalid.Thisensures that theyareawareof theseriousnessof theagreementanditscontent(Recital47).Theagreementmustthereforebeexpressedin writing, dated, and signed by both parties; any communication by electronicmeansthatprovidesadurablerecordoftheagreementisdeemedequivalent(Article2016/1103).50Anagreementconcludedusingcustomaryelectronicmessages isnotvalid;ifitismadeinelectronicform,itmustbesignedbybothpartieswithsecureelectronicsignatures.Thesearethesamerequirementsthatalsoapplytochoice-of-courtjurisdiction,whichissensiblesinceitislikelythatthespouseswillagreetotheinternationaljurisdictionaswellastheconflict-of-lawrulesinasingledocumentintheeventofamatrimonialpropertydispute.Regulation2016/1103providesthesamefor a (potential) spousal agreement on thematrimonial property regime, wherebyit additionally requires fulfilment of the formal requirements provided by the lawapplicabletothematrimonialpropertyregime(Article25).51

InadditiontotherequirementsunderRegulation2016/1103withregardtothevalidityof theagreementon thechoiceof law, it isalsonecessary toconsider thepotentially stricternational rulesofaMemberState (participating in theenhancedcooperation) inwhichbothspouseshavehabitualresidencewhentheagreementisconcluded.Iftheirhabitualresidenceisindifferentstatesbothofwhichparticipateintheenhancedcooperation,andthenationallawofoneofthemhasdifferentformalrequirements,thespousalagreementmustsatisfytherequirementsofthelawofoneof thesestates.But ifonlyoneof thespouseshashabitual residence inaMemberStateparticipatingintheenhancedcooperation,theagreementmustsatisfytheformalrequirementsof thatMemberState. Importantly, the timeof the conclusionof the

48 This is not an issue if the spouses select the applicable lawbeforeorwhenconcluding themarriage,becauseitisnotuntilthatpointthattheirmatrimonialpropertyrelationshipbegins.

49 This issue isbeyond thescopeof thispaper.Fordetails, seeRademacher,L.,Changing thepast:retroactivechoiceoflawandtheprotectionofthirdpartiesintheEuropeanregulationsonpatrimonialconsequencesofmarriagesandregisteredpartnerships,Madrid,CuadernosdeDerechoTransnacional,Vol.10,1/2018,pp.14-16.

50 MoreinDolžan,J.,op. cit.,p.110.51 Duetothegreaterpossibilityoftheinvalidityofanagreementonmatrimonialproperty,sucha

rolehasbeencriticisedbyRudolf,C.,op. cit.,p.961.


agreementisessentialindecidingonsatisfactionoftherequirements,whichensurespredictabilityandlegalcertaintyforthespouses.Regulation2016/1103doesnotlaydownspecialrulesifbothpartiesareresidentsofcountriesthatdonotparticipateintheenhancedcooperation.Absentprovisionstothecontrary,insuchcasesonlytheformalrequirementsdeterminedbytheRegulationitselfapply.52Accordingly,spouseswithresidenceinathirdcountrywillhavetosatisfyonlytheformalrequirementsofRegulation2016/1103,whereasifatleastoneofthespouseshashabitualresidenceinastateparticipatingintheenhancedcooperation,additionalrequirementsmayhavetobesatisfied(providedthatconditionsstricterthanbeinginwrittenformandsignaturebythepartiesarerequiredforthevalidityofsuchanagreement).Iftherequirementsarenot satisfied, the agreement is invalid and conflict-of-law rules aredeterminedin accordancewithArticle26ofRegulation2016/1103.Theexplicit natureof theformalrequirementsthereinshowsthatasilentagreementonthechoiceoflawisnotpossible.53

Spouseswhowishtoconcludeachoice-of-lawagreementmustfirstestablishwhich state’s formal requirements for thevalidity thereof theymust satisfy.Theserequirementsmaywellbegovernedbyadifferent lawthanthatapplicableto theiragreement(e.g.iftheychoosethelawofastateofwhichoneofthemisanational).DespitetheprovisionthatthescopeoftheRegulationexcludesthelegalcapacityofspouses (Article1/II(a)), consent to and thematerialvalidityof theagreement aredeterminedunder the lawchosen in the choice-of-lawagreement.An exception isprovidedforasituationinwhichoneofthespousesclaimsheorshedidnotconsenttothechoiceoflaw.Insuchacase,hisorherconsentandthematerialvalidityaredeterminedunderthelawofthestateinwhichthisspousehashabitualresidenceatthetimethecourtisseised(Article24/II).54Butconsideringthatbeinginwrittenformandsignaturebybothspousesisrequiredforsuchanagreementtobevalid,suchcaseswillprobablynotbecommon.55

Thefirstsolution(Article24/IofRegulation2016/1103)hasbeencriticisedintheorybecause thechoice-of-lawagreementcannotbeexaminedunder thechosenlawifitisnotproventhatthechoicewasvalid,56butthisruleisalsoeasilyappliedby

52 Oprea,E.A.,op. cit.,pp.591and592,whoalsohascertainqualmsaboutsuchanarrangement.53 Foranoppositeview(albeitonRegulation2016/1104,whichhasthesameformalrequirements

as to the validity of choice-of-law agreements), see Rudolf, C., Kolizijske norme UredbeSveta (EU)2016/1104zapremoženjskopravneposledice registriranihpartnerskihskupnosti,Ljubljana,LiberAmicorumAdaPolajnarPavčnik,Razsežnostizasebnegaprava,p.276.

54 ThesameinArticle10ofRegulationRomeI.55 Oprea,E.A.,op. cit.,p.590,listsasapossibleexampleasituationinwhichtheagreementis

writteninalanguagethatoneofthespousesdoesnotspeakandtheprovisionsonconsentandthematerialvalidityoftheagreementaredifferentinthechosenlawandinthelawofthestateinwhichthespousehashabitualresidence.

56 Grieco,C.,Theroleofpartyautonomyundertheregulationsonmatrimonialpropertyregimesand property consequences of registered partnerships. Some remarks on the coordinationbetween the legal regimeestablishedby thenew regulationsandother relevant instrumentsofEuropeanprivateinternationallaw.Madrid,CuadernosdeDerechoTransnacional,Vol.10,2/2018,p.475.


theparties,57anditisprovidedincertainotherEUregulationsaswell.58 The second solution(Article24/IofRegulation2016/1103)hasbeenthesubjectofsomecriticismintheoryaswell.Aspousewhowishestomalevolentlydisputehisorherconsenttothechoice-of-lawagreementmayintentionallychangehisorherresidencesothatatthetimethecourtisseiseditwillapplythenationallawwhoseprovisionsregardingthevalidityofconsentsuitsthisspouse.Therehavethereforebeensuggestionsthatitmaybemoreappropriatetoinsteadexaminethevalidityofconsentatthetimeitwasprovided.59However,thecourtneverthelessdeterminesineachspecificcasewhichcircumstancesmustexisttoconcludethattheeffectsofsuchspousalactionshouldbeexaminedaccordingtotheselectedlaw.

4.2. Change of a choice-of-law agreement

Spouses may subsequently dissolve or change a choice-of-law agreementduetoachangeinlifecircumstances.EventhoughRegulation2016/1103doesnotexplicitly provide that, dissolution triggers a new choice-of-law procedure underArticle26thereof.TheRegulationalsodoesnotdeterminewhenorforwhatreasontheagreementmaybedissolved.Theconclusion,then,isthatthespousesmaydecidetochangetheapplicablelawbeforeorwhenconcludingthemarriage,orduringthemarriage.Theymaydecidethat–notwithstandingtheiroriginalchoiceof lawandchoiceofconnectingfactor–whatisimportantisthatinmakinganewchoiceoflawthey use the connecting factors and consider the formal requirements as providedbyRegulation2016/1103;inauthor’sopinion,indoingsotheyarenotrestrictedbyanyspecificconditionsorrequirementsthatnationallawmayprovidewithregardtochangesinthechoice-of-lawagreement.Thenewlychosenlawappliesasofthetimethechoice-of-lawagreementisconcluded;duringthevalidityoftheoriginalagreementthematrimonialpropertyissubjectthereto,andbeforethatitmayfallunderthelawdeterminedbyArticle26ofRegulation2016/1103.Inpractice,suchcaseswillcauseproblemswhendifferentlawsapplytomatrimonialpropertyindifferenttimeperiods.Thiscanbeavoidedwithanagreementastotheex tuncvalidityofthenewchoice-of-lawagreement(applicationbyanalogyofArticle22/II).60Suchanagreementmay,however,causeproblemsinthatitmightaffectrightsacquiredunderonematrimonialpropertyregimethataspousewouldnolongerhaveunderthematrimonialpropertyregimeinthenewlyagreeduponapplicablelaw.It isalsonecessarytobemindfulofthirdparties,whichenjoyprotectionundertheabove-mentionedArticles22/Iand28/I.

57 Oprea,E.A.,op. cit.,p.590.58 Cf.Article3/VinconjunctionwithArticle10/IofRegulationRomeI,Article6/IofRegulation

RomeIII,Article22/IIIofRegulation650/2012onsuccession.59 Oprea,E.A.,op. cit.,p.590.60 Forconcernsaboutthis,seeOprea,E.A.,op. cit.,p.594.


5. EXCLUSION OF RENVOI

Ininvokingforeignlaw,differencesinconflict-of-lawrulesmaycreateproblemswhenconflict-of-lawrulesreferbackorforward,whereupononeofthesubsequentlawsreferstoalawthathadalreadybeenconsidered.Thequestion,then,iswhetherintheeventofreferencetotheapplicationofaforeignlawsuchforeignlawisusedinitsentirety–itsconflict-of-lawrulesincluded–orwhetheronlysubstantivelawapplies.TheSlovenianZMZPPandthenowinvalidCroatianZRSZPDZbothincluderenvoi provisions.61TheybothstipulateintheirrespectiveArticle6thattheconflict-of-lawrulesofthereferencednationallawmustbeapplied.Butifthereferencedlawrefersback,thesubstantiveprovisionsofthereferencedlawaredirectlyapplicable.62 The CroatianZMPP,ontheotherhand,excludesrenvoi,63justlikeRegulation2016/1103.WhenRegulation2016/1103referstotheapplicationofanationallaw(evenofastatenotparticipatingintheenhancedcooperationornotamemberoftheEU–Article20),thisentailsthatthesubstantivelawofsuchstatemustbeapplied,excludingtherulesofprivate international lawof thatstate(Article32).64Theonlyexceptionsare theincompatibilityofthelawofthestatewiththepublicpolicyofthecountryinwhichtheprocedureisongoing(Article31)andexplicitpermissiontoapplytheoverridingmandatoryprovisions65ofthelawoftheforum(Article30).

6. IN PLACE OF A CONCLUSION

IfthematrimonialpropertyregimeultimatelyfallsunderthepurviewofSloveniansubstantivelaw,itisnecessarytokeepinmindanewlegalarrangement.Asof15April2019,matrimonialpropertyissubjecttotheFamilyCode.66Thelegalarrangement67 thereinremainsthesamecomparedtothepreviousMarriageandFamilyRelationsAct(Zakonozakonskizveziindružinskihrazmerjih),68withoneessentialdifference:(future)spouses(aswellascohabitingpartnersandregisteredorunregisteredpartners)

61 SimilarlyinRegulation650/2012–cf.Article31.62 Fordetails,seeGečKorošec,M.,Mednarodno…,Prva…,cit.,pp.109et seq.63 Itprovidescertainexemptions,butmatrimonialpropertyregimesarenotoneofthem(Article

9oftheZMPP).64 ThesameinRegulationRomeIII–cf.Article11.65 Recital53ofRegulation2016/1103determinesthatmandatoryprovisionsmustbeinterpreted

strictly so they remain compatible with the overriding goal of the Regulation. One suchexampleistheprotectionofthefamilyhome,whichenjoysspecialprotectionbythemandatoryprovisionsofthestateinwhichtheprocedureisongoing(Recital53).InSlovenianlaw,suchamandatoryprovisionontheprotectionofthefamilyhomeisprovidedbyArticle59oftheFamilyCode.FromDougan,F.,Novaevropskapravilaopristojnosti,pravu,kiseuporablja,terpriznavanjuinizvrševanjuodločbnapodročjupremoženjskihrazmerijmednarodnihparov,Ljubljana,LiberAmicorumAPP,2019,p.243,andNovak,B,Družinskizakonikzuvodnimipojasnili,Ljubljana,Uradnilist,2017,p.72.

66 OGRS15/17asamended.67 Theavailablelegalarrangementsarethecommunitypropertyregimeforcommonpropertyand

theseparatepropertyregimeforthepersonalpropertyofeachspouse(Article66oftheFamilyCode).

68 OGSRS15/76asamended.


mayconcludeanagreementonmatrimonialproperty69(thesimpleryetnotentirelycorrectterms“nuptialagreement”70and“prenuptialagreement”arecommonlyusedinpractice).Indoingso,theymaychoosethelaw(includingforeignlaw)applicabletotheirmatrimonialpropertyandsettleallmatrimonialpropertyissuesforthedurationoftheirunionandintheeventofdivorce.71Thespousesmaythuspartiallyorentirelycircumventthevalidityofthestatutorymatrimonialpropertyregimeandcompletelyindependently devise amatrimonial property regime applicable to them, wherebytheFamilyCodedoesnotdescribeor listpossiblematrimonial regimes.72Suchanagreementmustbeenteredintoaregister.Thelegalarrangement,73andinparticularthe public nature of the information contained in such agreements, has, however,become a subject of public criticism and there are already discussions underwayindicatingthatitmaybechanged.74

BIBLIOGRAPHYBooks:

1. GečKorošec,Miroslava,Mednarodnozasebnopravo,Prvaknjiga–splošnidel,Ljubljana,UradnilistRepublikeSlovenije,2001.

2. Geč Korošec, Miroslava, Mednarodno zasebno pravo, Druga knjiga – posebni del,Ljubljana,UradnilistRepublikeSlovenije,2002.

3. Ilešič, Marko, Polajnar Pavčnik, Ada, Wedam Lukić, Dragica, Mednarodno zasebnopravo,komentarzakona,Ljubljana,UradnilistRepublikeSlovenije,1992.

4. Novak,Barbara,Družinskizakonikzuvodnimipojasnili,Ljubljana,UradnilistRepublikeSlovenije,2017.

5. Novak,Barbara(ed.),KomentarDružinskegazakonika,Ljubljana,UradnilistRepublikeSlovenije,2019.

6. Scherpe, J. M. (ed.), Marital Agreements and Private Autonomy in ComparativePerspective,Oxford,HartPublishing,2012.

Articles:1. Damascelli, Domenico, Applicable law, jurisdiction, and recognition of decisions in

matters relating to property regimes of spouses and partners in European and Italianprivateinternationallaw,Trusts&Trustees,vol.0,0/2018,pp.1-11.

69 On why the term is inappropriate, see Žnidaršič Skubic, V., Pogodba o ureditvipremoženjskopravnih razmerij med zakoncema, Ljubljana, Podjetje in delo, Vol. XLIV,6-7(2018),pp.920and921.

70 ŽnidaršičSkubic,V. andErjavec,N., inNovak,B. (ed.),KomentarDružinskega zakonika,Ljubljana,UradnilistRepublikeSlovenije,2019,p.261.

71 Fordetailsonthecontentofsuchanagreement,seeŽnidaršičSkubic,V.andErjavec,N.,inNovak,B.(ed.),Komentar…,cit.,pp.263-265and273.

72 This isasubjectofcriticismin theoryof law.SeeŽnidaršičSkubic,V., inNovak,B. (ed.),Komentar…,cit.,p.187andŽnidaršičSkubic,V.,Pogodbaoureditvipremoženjskopravnihrazmerijmedzakoncema,Ljubljana,Podjetjeindelo,Vol.XLIV,6-7(2018),pp.925-926.

73 CommentbyŽnidaršičSkubic,V.andErjavec,N.,inNovak,B.(ed.),Komentar…,cit.,p.267andPodgoršek,B.,inNovak,B.(ed.),Komentar…,cit.,pp.284-287and299.

74 E.g. https://www.vecer.com/razgalili-pare-ki-so-sklenili-predporocno-pogodbo-10041102(accessed 13 August 2019), https://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/zakaj-so-podatki-o-tem-kdo-je-podpisal-zenitno-pogodbo-javni/495241(accessed14August2019).


2. Dolžan,Judita,Uredbi(EU)gledepremoženjskopravnihrazmerijzamednarodnepare–kolizijskapravila,Ljubljana,Odvetnik,vol.90,2/2019,pp.106-113.

3. Dougan,Filip,Novaevropskapravilaopristojnosti,pravu,kiseuporablja,terpriznavanjuin izvrševanju odločb na področju premoženjskih razmerij mednarodnih parov, LiberAmicorumDragicaWedamLukić,Ljubljana,2019,pp.233-247.

4. Grieco, Cristina, The role of party autonomy under the regulations on matrimonialproperty regimesandpropertyconsequencesof registeredpartnerships.Some remarkson the coordination between the legal regime established by the new regulations andotherrelevantinstrumentsofEuropeanprivateinternationallaw,Madrid,CuadernosdeDerechoTransnacional,vol.10,2/2018,pp.457-476.

5. Kunda, Ivana, Novimeđunarodnoprivatnopravni okvir imovine bračnih i registriranihpartnerauEuropskojuniji:poljeprimjeneinadležnost,Zagreb,Hrvatskapravnarevija,vol.19,3/2019,pp.27-36.

6. Poretti, Paula, Odlučivanje o imovinskim odnosima bračnih drugova u ostavinskimpostupcima sukladnoUredbi 2016/1103o bračnoimovinskom režimu,Rijeka,ZbornikPravnogfakultetaSveučilištauRijeci,vol.38,1/2017,pp.449-474.

7. Rademacher,Lukas,Changingthepast:retroactivechoiceoflawandtheprotectionofthirdpartiesintheEuropeanregulationsonpatrimonialconsequencesofmarriagesandregisteredpartnerships,Madrid,CuadernosdeDerechoTransnacional,vol.10,1/2018,pp.7-18.

8. Rudolf,Claudia,KolizijskenormeUredbeSveta(EU)2016/1104zapremoženjskopravneposledice registriranih partnerskih skupnosti, LiberAmicorumAda Polajnar Pavčnik,Razsežnostizasebnegaprava,Ljubljana,pp.265-279.

9. Rudolf,Claudia,Premoženjskarazmerjamedzakoncivmednarodnemzasebnempravu,Ljubljana,Podjetjeindelo,vol.XLIV,6-7/2018,pp.952-963.

10. Marino, Silvia, Strengthening the European civil judicial cooperation: the patrimonialeffects of family relationships,Madrid, Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional, vol. 9,1/2017,pp.265-284.

11. Oprea,ElenaAlina,PartyautonomyandthelawapplicabletothematrimonialpropertyregimesinEurope,Madrid,CuadernosdeDerechoTransnacional,vol.10,2/2018,pp.579-596.

12. Schulz,Rhona,Choiceof law in relation tomatrimonialproperty in the21stCentury,JournalofPrivateInternationalLaw,vol.15,1/2019,pp.1-49.

13. Valentová,Lucia, Property regimes of spouses andpartners in newEURegulations –jurisdiction,prorogationandchoiceoflaw,DeGruyter,ICLR,vol.16,2/2016,pp.221-240.

14. Žnidaršič Skubic, Viktorija, Pogodba o ureditvi premoženjskopravnih razmerij medzakoncema,Ljubljana,Podjetjeindelo,vol.XLIV,6-7/2018,pp.917-928.

Internet sources:1. Ruggeri,Lucia,Kunda,Ivana,Winkler,Sandra(eds.),Family Property and Succession in

EU Member States National Reports on the Collected Data,<https://www.euro-family.eu/documenti/news/psefs_e_book_compressed.pdf>(1August2019)

National legal acts:Croatia

1. Act Concerning the Resolution of Conflicts of Laws with the Provisions of OtherCountries in CertainMatters (Zakon o rješavanju sukoba zakona s propisima drugihzemaljauođređenimodnosima),OGCroatia53/91and88/01.

2. PrivateInternationalLawAct(Zakonomeđunarodnomprivatnompravu),OGCroatia101/17.


Slovenia1. ActConcerningtheResolutionofConflictsofLawswiththeProvisionsofOtherCountries

inCertainMatters(Zakonoureditvikolizijezakonovspredpisidrugihdržavvdoločenihrazmerjih),OGSFRJ43-525/82asamended.

2. FamilyCode(Družinskizakonik),OGRS15/17asamended.3. MarriageandFamilyRelationsAct(Zakonozakonskizveziindružinskihrazmerjih),OG

SRS15/76asamended.4. PrivateInternationalLawandProcedureAct(Zakonomednarodnemzasebnempravuin

postopku),OGRS56/99asamended.

International legal acts:1. Corrigendum to Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing

enhancedcooperationintheareaofjurisdiction,applicablelawandtherecognitionandenforcementofdecisionsinmattersofmatrimonialpropertyregimesOJEUL183of8July2016.

2. CouncilDecision(EU)2016/954,OJL159/16of16June2016.3. CouncilRegulation(EU)2016/1104of24June2016implementingenhancedcooperation

intheareaofjurisdiction,applicablelawandtherecognitionandenforcementofdecisionsinmattersofthepropertyconsequencesofregisteredpartnerships,OJEUL183of8July2016.

4. CouncilRegulation(EU)2016/1103of24June2016implementingenhancedcooperationintheareaofjurisdiction,applicablelawandtherecognitionandenforcementofdecisionsinmattersofmatrimonialpropertyregimes,OJEUL183of8July2016.

5. CouncilRegulation(EU)No.1259/2010of20December2010implementingenhancedcooperationintheareaofthelawapplicabletodivorceandlegalseparation(RegulationRomeIII),OJL343/10of29December2010.

6. Regulation(EC)No.593/2008oftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof17June2008onthelawapplicabletocontractualobligations(RegulationRomeI),OJL177of4July2008.

7. Regulation(EU)No650/2012oftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncilof4July2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions andacceptanceandenforcementofauthenticinstrumentsinmattersofsuccessionandonthecreationofaEuropeanCertificateofSuccession,OJL201zdne27.julija2012.

8. Regulation (EC)No.1896/2006of theEuropeanParliament andof theCouncilof12December2006creatingaEuropeanorderforpaymentprocedure,OJEUL399of30December2006.

Case law:1. C-168/08of16July2009,LaszloHadadi(Hadady)v.CsillaMartaMesko,épouseHadadi

(Hadady).2. C-369/90of7July1992,MarioVicenteMichelettiandothersv.DelegacióndelGobierno

enCantabria.3. C-148/02of2October2003,CarlosGarciaAvellov.BelgianState.


Neža Pogorelčnik Vogrinc*75

Sažetak

MJERODAVNO PRAVO U BRAČNOIMOVINSKIM SPOROVIMA

Ovaj članak predstavlja mjerodavno pravo utvrđeno u Uredbi Vijeća (EU)2016/1103od24.lipnja2016.oprovedbipojačanesuradnjeupodručjunadležnosti,mjerodavnogprava te priznavanja i izvršenjaodlukau stvarimabračnoimovinskihrežima. Dolazi se do zaključka da je nova europska Uredba olakšala bračnimdrugovima određenjemjerodavnog prava te se vrednuje primjerenost povezujućihčimbenika predviđenih u Uredbi. Rad dovodi u pitanje te povezujuće čimbenikeu trenutkuzaključenjabraka i pretpostavljada ih je teško isključiti u izvanrednimokolnostima.Tisečimbeniciuspoređujusonima iz teorijeslovenskog ihrvatskogmeđunarodnogprivatnogprava,auradusenudepraktičniprimjerizarazlikeproizašleiznovogeuropskoguređenja.Uradusenadaljeistražujehipotezadaćemogućnostsporazumaoizborumjerodavnogpravaupraksiprouzročitiproblemetesezatonudemogućarješenja.UcijelomseraduuspoređujesustavuvedenUredbomVijeća(EU)2016/1103 s drugim europskim uredbama i relevantnom sudskom praksom SudaEuropskeunije,aliseautoricaponajvišeusredotočujenapromjenekojejenavedenaUredbadonijelauslovenskoihrvatskopravo.

Ključne riječi: bračnoimovinski režim; mjerodavno pravo; Uredba (EU) 2016/1103; međunarodno privatno pravo; sporazum o izboru mjerodavnog prava.

Zusammenfassung

ANZUWENDENDES RECHT BEI STREITIGKEITEN ÜBER DEN EHELICHEN GUTERSTAND

Dieser Beitrag stellt das in derVerordnung (EU) 2016/1103 des Rates vom24.Juni2016zurDurchführungeinerVerstärktenZusammenarbeit imBereichderZuständigkeit,desanzuwendendenRechtsundderAnerkennungundVollstreckungvonEntscheidungeninFragendesehelichenGüterstandsfestgelegteanzuwendendeRechtdar.MankommtzuderSchlussfolgerung,dassdieneueEU-RegelungesdenEhepartnernerleichterthat,dasanzuwendendeRechtzubestimmen,undbewertetdie

* Dr. sc. Neža PogorelčnikVogrinc, docentica, Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Ljubljani; [email protected].


EignungderinderVerordnung(EU)2016/1103vorgesehenenAnknüpfungspunkte.Der Beitrag stellt dieseAnknüpfungspunkte zum Zeitpunkt desAbschlusses derEheinFrageundgehtdavonaus,dassderenAusschließenunteraußergewöhnlichenUmständenschwerzuerreichenist.DerBeitragvergleichtdieseAnknüpfungspunktemitdenen,dieinderTheoriedesslowenischenunddeskroatischeninternationalenPrivatrechtsangebotenwerden,undliefertpraktischeBeispielefürdieUnterschiede,diesichausderneueneuropäischenRegelungergeben.DerBeitraguntersuchtfernerdie Hypothese, dass die Möglichkeit der Rechtswahlvereinbarung in der PraxisvieleProblemebereitenwird,undstelltdafürmöglicheLösungendar.ImgesamtenBeitragwirddasmitderVerordnung(EU)2016/1103eingeführteSystemmitandereneuropäischen Verordnungen und der einschlägigen Rechtsprechung des EuGHverglichen.DieAutorinkonzentriertsichjedochhauptsächlichaufdieÄnderungender slowenischen und kroatischen Rechtsprechung, die durch dieAnwendung derVerordnung(EU)2016/1103verursachtwurden.

Schlüsselwörter: ehelicher Güterstand; anzuwendendes Recht; Verordnung (EU) 2016/1103; internationales Privatrecht; Rechtswahlvereinbarung.

Riassunto

LA LEGGE APPLICABILE NELLE DISPUTE RIGUARDANTI IL REGIME PATRIMONIALE TRA

CONIUGI

Nel lavoro si presenta la disciplina concernente la legge applicabile comedettatadalRegolamento(UE)2016/1103delConsiglio,del24giugno2016,cheattualacooperazionerafforzatanelsettoredellacompetenza,dellaleggeapplicabile,delriconoscimento e dell’esecuzione delle decisioni inmateria di regimi patrimonialitraconiugi.Senericavachelenuovesoluzionieuropeehannoresopericoniugipiùsemplicedeterminarelaleggeapplicabile.Nellavorosivalutaaltresìlasostenibilitàdei criteri di collegamento offerti dal Regolamento 2016/1103. Inoltre mediantel’indagine condotta si tenta la disamina di criteri di collegamento, quali il tempodiconclusionedelmatrimonioesiconcludecomelaloroesclusioneincircostanzeeccezionalisiadifficiledarealizzare.Nelcontributosiparagonanoaltresìicriteridicollegamentoconquelliprevistidaldirittointernazionaleprivatoslovenoedaquellocroatonellateoria;inoltre,sioffronoesempipraticidelledifferenzerisultantidallenuovesoluzioniprospettatesulpianoeuropeo.Nelprosieguosidisaminal’ipotesichelapossibilitàdiaccordocircalasceltadellaleggeapplicabilepotrebbecausaremoltequestioninellaprassiesioffronopossibilisoluzioni.Nelcorsodell’indaginecondottailsistemafissatodalRegolamento2016/1103vienecomparatoconaltriregolamenti,comeancheconlagiurisprudenzadellaCortediGiustiziadell’UE;benchél’autorein


primoluogosiconcentrasuicambiamentinellagiurisprudenzaslovenaedinquellacroataoccorsiconl’entratainvigoredelRegolamento2016/1103.

Parole chiave: regime patrimoniale tra coniugi; legge applicabile; Regolamento 2016/1103; diritto internazionale privato; accordo sulla legge applicabile.

applicable law in matrimonial property regime disputes

Documents