Article 7 - Respect for private and family life
Article 9 - Right to marry and right to found a family
Article 24 - The rights of the child
Key facts of the case:
On 4 July 2017, a Bulgarian national and a foreign national, both male, married in New Zealand. The couple adopted two children also born in New Zealand – the first one was born on 8 October 2018 and the second one on 13 December 2018. Authorities in New Zealand issued birth certificates for the two children listing both fathers as their parents. In March 2022, the Bulgarian national filed an application to the Director of the Metropolitan Home for Joyful Rites of Sofia Municipality asking that his registered family status be changed from “single” to “married” and that Bulgarian birth certificates be issued for the two children. Both applications were dismissed. The one concerning the family status change was not accepted on the grounds that Bulgarian legislation permitted the conclusion and registration of civil marriages only between persons of different sexes. The one for issuing birth certificates for the children was rejected because, with two fathers listed in the original certificate, it was not clear who their biological father was and besides the Bulgarian birth certificate template had separate mandatory fields for the child’s father and mother. The family appealed the decision of the Director of the Metropolitan Home for Joyful Rites before the local administrative court.
Key legal question raised by the Court:
The key legal question raised by the court is the validity and legal implications of same sex marriages involving Bulgarian nationals. Bulgarian legislation does not recognise same sex marriages and therefore such marriages cannot be concluded on the territory of Bulgaria. However, there are no explicit legal rules governing the consequences of such a marriage when it is concluded abroad, including the legal status of the children of such parents. The decision in such cases is taken by the administrative body authorised to issue the respective civil status certificate (birth certificate, marriage certificate, etc.). The decisions of these administrative bodies can be challenged before the court.
Outcome of the case:
The court upheld the decision of the Director of the Metropolitan Home for Joyful Rites of Sofia Municipality in its part concerning the change of family status of the Bulgarian national and repealed it in its part concerning the issuing of birth certificates for the children. Concerning the change of family status, the court noted that same- sex marriages were contrary to Article 46(1) of the Bulgarian Constitution and Article 4(1) of the Family Code, both envisaging that marriage is a voluntary union between a man and a woman. In order for a marriage concluded abroad to be recognised in Bulgaria, it must meet all the conditions for concluding a marriage provided for in Bulgarian law. The opposite sex of the persons constitutes one of these conditions and therefore a marriage between two persons from the same sex could not produce legal effects in Bulgaria, including a change of their family status. According to the court, this part of the decision does not violate the provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as the right to marry is guaranteed in accordance with national laws governing the exercise of this right, which means that it is for the Member States to regulate the marital relationship. Concerning the rejected issuance of birth certificates, the court noted that although the Bulgarian legislation does not provide for an option in which the origin of a child is determined by two mothers or two fathers (including in cases of adoption), in this case the children's birth certificates must be issued in order to enable those children to obtain Bulgarian identity documents allowing them to freely exercise their rights under Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC. Furthermore, according to the court, depriving a child of the relationship with one of their parents in the exercise of their right to freedom of movement, or to make the exercise of that right impossible or excessively difficult because their parents are of the same sex is contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 7 and Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
“There is also no violation of the provisions of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, as the right to marry is guaranteed in accordance with national laws governing the exercise of this right. That is to say, it is for the Member States to regulate the marital relationship. Article 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union /2010/C 83/02/ states that: “The right to marry and the right to found a family are guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights”. Therefore, according to the EU, human dignity is not violated by regulating marriage and the right to found a family "in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights" and that national legislation regulating marriage cannot be seen as a form of discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation.”
“Article 24(2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter, CFREU) states that “in all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child's best interests must be a primary consideration”.”
“The relationship of the minor children Y. G.-H. and Y. G.-H. with N. J. G. and J-L. H., with whom they lead a family life and who are listed as their parents on the birth certificates drawn up in New Zealand, is protected by Article 7 of the Charter.”
“Indeed, Article 9 of the Charter provides that the right to marry and the right to found a family are guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights. In this respect, under current Union law, the rules on civil status, which include the rules on marriage and descent, fall within the competence of the Member States and Union law does not affect that competence. In this sense, Member States are free to provide or not to provide in their national law for same-sex marriage and for the status of parents. Under Article 4(2) TFEU, the Union respects the national identities of the Member States inherent in their basic political and constitutional structures. The concept of “public order” as a ground for an exception to the fundamental freedoms must be interpreted strictly so that its scope cannot be determined unilaterally by the Member States without control by the Union institutions. Therefore, a reference to public order may only be made in the event of a real and sufficiently serious threat affecting a fundamental public interest (Judgment of 5 June 2018, Coman and Others, C-673/16, EU:C:2018:385, paragraph 44). However, in the present case, with regard to the issue of birth certificates to children on which two fathers are registered and, accordingly, the recognition of the relationship of descent between the children and each of those two persons in the exercise by each of the children of their rights under Article 21 TFEU and related secondary legislation, does not in any way infringe national identity or threaten public order.”
“In the present case, the entry of the names of two fathers on the birth certificates of the children must be carried out in order to enable those children to be issued identity documents enabling them to freely exercise their rights under Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC. Pursuant to Article 46(2) of the Bulgarian Identity Documents Act, the production of a birth certificate is required, which is precisely the birth certificate that in the present case should have been drawn up in accordance with Article 72(3)1 of the Civil Registration Act. However, that in no way means that the relationship of descent between the children and their two parents will be recognised for purposes other than the rights which the children derive from EU law. However, to deprive a child of his relationship with one of their parents in the exercise of their right to freedom of movement or to make the exercise of that right impossible or excessively difficult because their parents are of the same sex is, however, contrary to the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter.”
„Не е налице и нарушение на разпоредбите от Хартата на основните права на ЕС, тъй като правото на встъпване в брак е гарантирано в съответствие с националните закони, които регулират упражняването на това право. Тоест на държавите-членки е предоставено да регламентират семейното правоотношение. В чл. 9 от Хартата на основните права на Европейския съюз /2010/C 83/02/ е посочено, че: „Правото на встъпване в брак и правото на създаване на семейство са гарантирани в съответствие с националните закони, които уреждат упражняването на тези права“. Поради това според ЕС човешкото достойнство не се накърнява, чрез регламентирането на брака и на правото на създаване на семейство „в съответствие с националните закони, които уреждат упражняването на тези права“ и че националното законодателство уреждащо брака, не може да се разглежда като форма на дискриминация, основана на пол или сексуална ориентация.“
„Чл. 24, § 2 от Хартата на основните права на Европейския съюз /Хартата, ХОПЕС/ регламентира, че „при всички действия, които се предприемат от публичните власти или частни институции по отношение на децата, висшият интерес на детето трябва да бъде от първостепенно значение“.“
„Връзката на малолетните деца Я. Г.-Х. и Я. Г.-Х. с Н. Ж. Г. и Ю-Л. Х., с които те водят семеен живот и които са вписани като техни родители в актовете за раждане, съставени в Нова Зеландия, е защитена от чл. 7 от Хартата.“
„Действително чл. 9 от Хартата предвижда, че правото на встъпване в брак и правото на създаване на семейство са гарантирани в съответствие с националните закони, които уреждат упражняването на тези права. В това отношение съгласно действащото право на Съюза правилата за гражданското състояние, към които спадат правилата за брака и произхода, са от компетентността на държавите членки, а правото на Съюза не засяга тази тяхна компетентност. В този смисъл държавите членки са свободни да предвидят или не в своето национално право брака между лица от един и същ пол и качеството им на родители. Съгласно чл. 4, § 2 от ДФЕС Съюзът зачита националната идентичност на държавите членки, присъща на техните основни политически и конституционни структури. Понятието „обществен ред“ като основание за допускане на изключение от основните свободи трябва да се тълкува стриктно, така че обхватът му не може да бъде определян едностранно от държавите членки без контрол от страна на институциите на Съюза. От това следва, че позоваване на обществения ред може да се прави само в случай на реална и достатъчно сериозна заплаха, засягаща основен обществен интерес (решение от 5 юни 2018 г., Coman и др., C-673/16, EU:C:2018:385, т. 44). В конкретния случай обаче по отношение на издаването на актове за раждане на деца, в които са вписани двама бащи и съответно признаването на връзката на произход между децата и всяко от тези две лица при упражняването от всяко от децата на правата му по чл. 21 от ДФЕС и свързаните с него актове на вторичното право, по никакъв начин не нарушава националната идентичност, нито застрашава обществения ред.“
„В конкретния случай вписването на имената на двама бащи в актовете за раждане на децата следва да се осъществи с цел възможността на тези деца да се издадат документи за самоличност, които да им предоставят възможност свободно да упражняват правата си по чл. 4, § 3 от Директива 2004/38/ЕО. Съгласно чл. 46, т. 2 от Закона за българските лични документи, се изисква представянето на удостоверителен акт за раждане, какъвто е именно актът за раждане, който в конкретния случай следва да е съставен по реда на чл. 72, ал. 3, т. 1 от ЗГР. Това обаче по никакъв начин не означава, че връзката на произход между децата и двамата им родители ще бъде призната за цели, различни от правата, които децата черпят от правото на Съюза. Да се лиши обаче детето от връзката с единия от родителите си при упражняване на правото си на свободно движение или да се направи упражняването на това негово право невъзможно или прекалено трудно, поради това че неговите родители са от един и същ пол, обаче е в разрез с основните права, гарантирани с членове 7 и 24 от Хартата.“
