Judgment of the Court of Justice Third Chamber, 20 March 2025, Lindenbaumer, C-61/24

• Date: 20 March 2025
• Year: 2025

11

jurisdiction, but the referring court must, nevertheless, not have recourse to the possibility of

recognising that it has jurisdiction under the rules of that regulation with the aim of finding that the

Russo-Bulgarian Treaty is compatible wit h that regulation. If they are found to be incompatible, the

referring court will, in the third place, have to examine whether t hat incompatibility can be avoided by

adopting an interpretation of the Russo-Bulgarian Treaty that is consistent with the Brussels IIb

Regulation. If that is not possible, the referring court will, in the fourth place, be able to apply the rules

of that treaty while disregarding the rules of the Brussels IIb Regulation, with Bulgaria then being

required to take the measures necessary to eliminate that incompatibility, as required by the second

paragraph of Article 351 TFEU.

2. REGULATION NO 1259/2010 ON THE LAW APPLIC ABLE TO DIVOR CE

Judgment of the Court of Justi ce (Third Chamber), 20 March 2025, Lindenba umer, C-61/24

Link to the full text of the judgment

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – J udi c ial coope ra tion in ci v il

matters – Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation –

Regula tion (EU) No 1259/2010 – Article 8(a) and (b) – Conc ep t o f ‘h ab it ua l res i d enc e ’ of th e spou ses –

Status of dipl omatic agent o f on e of th e spo uses – Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations

Hearing a request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice,

Germany), the Court of Just ice clarifies the concept of ‘habitual residence’ of the spouses within the

meaning of Regulation No 1259/2010, 17 where one of the spouses has the status of diplomatic agent

and is assigned to a post in a receiving State.

DL and PQ, who are German nationals, married in 1989. After having lived together for more than

10 years in rented accommodation in Berlin (Germany) (‘the family home’), and then for

approximately 2 years in Stockholm (Sweden), they moved in September 2019 to Moscow (Russia) to

accommodation located in the compound of the German Embassy, within which PQ performs the

duties of an Embassy Counsellor.

With a view to returning to Germany, the spouses kept, however, their family home, in which, since

September 2019, one of their adu lt c hildren has resided; some part s of that accommodation were

sublet until June 2020.

In January 2020, DL returned to Berlin to undergo surgery and remained in the family home until

February 2021. She then returned to Moscow in the accommodation attached to the German

Embassy, which she left permanently in May 2021 in order to return to Berlin. She now lives in the

family ho me in Berlin, while PQ co ntinues to live in Moscow.

On 8 July 2021, PQ filed a divorce petition with the Amtsgericht (Local Court, Germany), claiming that

he had lived separately from DL since January 2020 and that the separation had become final in

March 2021. DL opposed that petition on the ground that the couple had not been separated until

May 2021 at the earliest when she returned to Berlin. The pet ition was dismissed in so far as the

period of one year of separation, required by German law, had not expired and that there were no

sufficiently serious reasons for pronou ncing th e divorce imm ediately.

Hearing an appeal brought by PQ, the Kammergericht (Higher Regional Cou rt, Germany ) by c ontras t

pronounced the divorce under Russian law, which it held to be applicable in view of the spouses’ last

habitual residence, in accordance with Article 8(b) o f Regula tion No 1259/2010.

17 Coun cil Regulation (EU) No1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce

and legal separation (OJ 2010 L 343, p. 10).