Proceedings concerning immovable property co-owned by former spouses who chose a separation-of-property regime may fall within the EU Matrimonial Property Regulation. The decisive factor is the direct link between the co-ownership, the marriage and the chosen property regime.
On 24 September 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment in Case C-300/25 Duftošek. The Court adopted the interpretation advanced by the claimant, represented by AK Pacovský in the Czech proceedings and before the Court of Justice.
The Court held that an action, brought after the dissolution of the marriage, for the dissolution and division of co-ownership of immovable property acquired exclusively by spouses who had chosen a separation-of-property regime upon marriage falls within “matrimonial property regimes” under Regulation (EU) 2016/1103.
An autonomous and broad EU-law concept
The Court stressed that “matrimonial property regimes” is an autonomous concept of EU law. Its scope cannot depend on classifications under national law. The concept must be interpreted broadly and encompasses mandatory rules, arrangements chosen by the spouses and default rules of the applicable law (paragraphs 32–40).
That reading is supported by the Regulation’s objective of bringing the rules applicable to matrimonial property regimes together in a single instrument. A separation-of-property regime is itself one of the property arrangements falling within that concept (paragraphs 46–48).
A direct link with the marriage
The co-ownership arose during the marriage, while the separation-of-property regime was in force. Subject to verification by the referring court, that regime characterised the spouses’ property relationship and led directly, upon the acquisition of the property, to their legal relationship as co-owners. The required direct link with the marriage was therefore present (paragraphs 55–57).
It was irrelevant that Czech law treats such co-ownership in essentially the same way as ordinary co-ownership. Nor did it matter that the action was brought only after the divorce (paragraphs 58–59).
Practical significance and limits
The judgment promotes a uniform approach to cross-border matrimonial property relations. A separation-of-property regime does not automatically place jointly acquired property outside the EU matrimonial-property framework.
The ruling is nevertheless carefully delimited. It concerns property acquired exclusively by the spouses, with no third party among the co-owners. The Court expressly left open cases involving one or more third-party co-owners (paragraph 60). It also did not decide how the Paris property should be divided. The Czech Supreme Court will now apply the interpretation when deciding the appeal.
AK Pacovský represents the claimant in the Czech proceedings. Jan Pacovský, LL.M., personally represented the claimant in both the written and oral stages before the Court of Justice. The client remains anonymous, consistently with the Court’s anonymisation.
Judgment: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62025CJ0300