?
|
Naslov in reference |
Title and reference |
|
Sodba Sodišča (veliki senat) z dne 14. decembra 2021. Sodba Sodišča (veliki senat) z dne 14. decembra 2021. Oznaka ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2021:1008 |
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2021. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 14 December 2021. ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:C:2021:1008 |
|
Datumi |
Dates |
|
|
|
Drugi podatki |
Miscellaneous information |
|
|
|
Postopek |
Procedure |
|
|
|
Pravna doktrina |
Doctrine |
|
|
|
Klasifikacije |
Classifications |
|
|
|
Besedilo |
Text |
| SODBA SODIŠČA (veliki senat) | JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) |
| z dne 14. decembra 2021 ( *1 ) | 14 December 2021 ( *1 ) |
| „Predhodno odločanje – Državljanstvo Unije – Člena 20 in 21 PDEU – Pravica do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic – Otrok, rojen v državi članici gostiteljici svojih staršev – Rojstni list, izdan v tej državi članici, v katerem sta za tega otroka navedeni dve materi – Zavrnitev izvorne države članice ene od teh mater, da izda rojstni list za navedenega otroka, ne da bi imela informacije o tem, kdo je njegova biološka mati – Taka listina kot pogoj za izdajo osebne izkaznice ali potnega lista – Nacionalna ureditev te izvorne države članice, v kateri se osebama istega spola starševstvo ne priznava“ | (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Articles 20 and 21 TFEU – Right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – Child born in the host Member State of her parents – Birth certificate issued by that Member State mentioning two mothers in respect of that child – Refusal by the Member State of origin of one of those two mothers to issue a birth certificate for the child in the absence of information as to the identity of the child’s biological mother – Possession of such a certificate being a prerequisite for the issue of an identity card or a passport – Persons of the same sex not recognised as parents under the national legislation of that Member State of origin) |
| V zadevi C‑490/20, | In Case C‑490/20, |
| katere predmet je predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe na podlagi člena 267 PDEU, ki ga je vložilo Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (upravno sodišče v Sofiji, Bolgarija) z odločbo z dne 2. oktobra 2020, ki je na Sodišče prispela istega dne, v postopku | REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia, Bulgaria), made by decision of 2 October 2020, received at the Court on the same day, in the proceedings |
| V. М. А. | V.М.А. |
| proti | v |
| Stolichna obshtina, rayon „Pancharevo“, | Stolichna obshtina, rayon ‘Pancharevo’, |
| SODIŠČE (veliki senat), | THE COURT (Grand Chamber), |
| v sestavi K. Lenaerts, predsednik, L. Bay Larsen, podpredsednik, A. Arabadjiev, predsednik senata, K. Jürimäe, predsednica senata, C. Lycourgos, E. Regan, N. Jääskinen, predsedniki senatov, I. Ziemele, predsednica senata, in J. Passer, predsednik senata, M. Ilešič (poročevalec), J.-C. Bonichot, T. von Danwitz in N. Wahl, sodniki, | composed of K. Lenaerts, President, L. Bay Larsen, Vice-President, A. Arabadjiev, K. Jürimäe, C. Lycourgos, E. Regan, N. Jääskinen, I. Ziemele and J. Passer, Presidents of Chambers, M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), J.‑C. Bonichot, T. von Danwitz and N. Wahl, Judges, |
| generalna pravobranilka: J. Kokott, | Advocate General: J. Kokott, |
| sodni tajnik: M. Aleksejev, vodja oddelka, | Registrar: M. Aleksejev, Head of Unit, |
| na podlagi pisnega postopka in obravnave z dne 9. februarja 2021, | having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 9 February 2021, |
| ob upoštevanju stališč, ki so jih predložili: | after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: |
| – | za V. М. А. D. I. Lyubenova, advokat, | – | V.М.А., by D.I. Lyubenova, advokat, |
| – | za bolgarsko vlado T. Mitova in L. Zaharieva, agentki, | – | the Bulgarian Government, by T. Mitova and L. Zaharieva, acting as Agents, |
| – | za nemško vlado sprva J. Möller in S. Heimerl, nato J. Möller, agenta, | – | the German Government, initially by J. Möller and S. Heimerl, and subsequently by J. Möller, acting as Agents, |
| – | za špansko vlado sprva S. Centeno Huerta in M. J. Ruiz Sánchez, nato M. J. Ruiz Sánchez, agentki, | – | the Spanish Government, initially by S. Centeno Huerta and M.J. Ruiz Sánchez, and subsequently by M.J. Ruiz Sánchez, acting as Agents, |
| – | za italijansko vlado G. Palmieri, agentka, skupaj z W. Ferrante, avvocato dello Stato, | – | the Italian Government, by G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and by W. Ferrante, avvocato dello Stato, |
| – | za madžarsko vlado M. Z. Fehér in Z. Biró-Tóth, agenta, | – | the Hungarian Government, by M.Z. Fehér and Z. Biró-Tóth, acting as Agents, |
| – | za nizozemsko vlado C. S. Schillemans, agentka, | – | the Netherlands Government, by C.S. Schillemans, acting as Agent, |
| – | za poljsko vlado E. Borawska-Kędzierska, A. Siwek-Ślusarek in B. Majczyna, agenti, | – | the Polish Government, by E. Borawska-Kędzierska, A. Siwek-Ślusarek and B. Majczyna, acting as Agents, |
| – | za slovaško vlado B. Ricziová, agentka, | – | the Slovak Government, by B. Ricziová, acting as Agent, |
| – | za Evropsko komisijo sprva E. Montaguti, I. Zaloguin in M. Wilderspin, nato E. Montaguti in I. Zaloguin agenti, | – | the European Commission, initially by E. Montaguti, I. Zaloguin and M. Wilderspin, and subsequently by E. Montaguti and I. Zaloguin, acting as Agents, |
| po predstavitvi sklepnih predlogov generalne pravobranilke na obravnavi 15. aprila 2021 | after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 April 2021, |
| izreka naslednjo | gives the following |
| Sodbo | Judgment |
| 1 | Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe se nanaša na razlago člena 4(2) PEU, členov 20 in 21 PDEU ter členov 7, 9, 24 in 45 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah (v nadaljevanju: Listina). | 1 | This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 4(2) TEU, Articles 20 and 21 TFEU and Articles 7, 9, 24 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’). |
| 2 | Ta predlog je bil vložen v okviru spora med V. M. A. in Stolichna obshtina, rayon „Pancharevo“ (občina Sofija, okraj Pančarevo, Bolgarija) (v nadaljevanju: občina Sofija), ker je zadnjenavedena zavrnila izdajo rojstnega lista za hčer V. M. A. in njene žene. | 2 | The request has been made in proceedings between V.M.A. and Stolichna obshtina, rayon ‘Pancharevo’ (Sofia municipality, Pancharevo district, Bulgaria) (‘the Sofia municipality’), concerning the latter’s refusal to issue a birth certificate in respect of the daughter of V.M.A. and of her wife. |
| Pravni okvir | Legal context |
| Mednarodno pravo | International law |
| 3 | Člen 2 Konvencije o otrokovih pravicah, ki jo je sprejela Generalna skupščina Združenih narodov 20. novembra 1989 (Recueil des traités des Nations unies, zvezek 1577, str. 3), določa: | „1. Države podpisnice spoštujejo in vsakemu otroku, ki sodi pod njihovo pravno pristojnost, jamčijo s to Konvencijo priznane pravice brez kakršnegakoli razlikovanja, ne glede na raso, barvo, spol, jezik, veroizpoved, politično ali drugo prepričanje, narodno, etnično ali družbeno poreklo, premoženje, onesposobljenost, rojstvo ali kakršenkoli drug položaj otroka, njegovih staršev ali zakonitega skrbnika. | 2. Države podpisnice s sprejetjem vseh ustreznih ukrepov zagotovijo varstvo otroka pred vsemi oblikami razlikovanja ali kaznovanja zaradi položaja, delovanja, izraženih mnenj ali prepričanj njegovih staršev, zakonitih skrbnikov ali družinskih članov.“ | 3 | Article 2 of the Convention on the rights of the child, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20 November 1989 (United Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 1577, p. 3), provides: | ‘1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child’s or his or her parent’s or legal guardian’s race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status. | 2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.’ |
| 4 | Člen 7 te konvencije določa: | „ 1. Otrok bo takoj po rojstvu vpisan v rojstno matično knjigo in ima od rojstva pravico do imena, pravico pridobiti državljanstvo in po možnosti pravico, da pozna svoje starše in da le-ti skrbijo zanj. | 2. Države podpisnice zagotovijo uresničevanje teh pravic v skladu s svojo notranjo zakonodajo in obveznostmi, ki jim jih nalagajo ustrezni mednarodni akti s tega področja, še posebej tam, kjer bi bil otrok sicer brez državljanstva.“ | 4 | Article 7 of that convention provides: | ‘1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents. | 2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.’ |
| Pravo Unije | European Union law |
| Pogodba EU | The EU Treaty |
| 5 | Člen 4(2) PEU določa: | „Unija spoštuje enakost držav članic pred Pogodbama kot tudi njihovo nacionalno identiteto, ki je neločljivo povezana z njihovimi temeljnimi političnimi in ustavnimi strukturami, vključno z regionalno in lokalno samoupravo. Spoštuje njihove temeljne državne funkcije, zlasti zagotavljanje ozemeljske celovitosti, vzdrževanje javnega reda in varovanje nacionalne varnosti. Zlasti nacionalna varnost ostaja v izključni pristojnosti vsake države članice.“ | 5 | Article 4(2) TEU provides: | ‘The Union shall respect the equality of Member States before the Treaties as well as their national identities, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional, inclusive of regional and local self-government. It shall respect their essential State functions, including ensuring the territorial integrity of the State, maintaining law and order and safeguarding national security. In particular, national security remains the sole responsibility of each Member State.’ |
| Pogodba DEU | The FEU Treaty |
| 6 | Člen 20 PDEU določa: | „1. S Pogodbama se uvede državljanstvo Unije. Državljani Unije so vse osebe z državljanstvom ene od držav članic. Državljanstvo Unije se doda nacionalnemu državljanstvu in ga ne nadomesti. | 2. Državljani Unije imajo pravice in dolžnosti, določene v Pogodbah. Med drugim imajo: | (a) | pravico do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic; | […] | Te pravice se uresničujejo v skladu s pogoji in omejitvami, opredeljenimi s Pogodbama in ukrepi, sprejetimi za njuno izvajanje.“ | 6 | Article 20 TFEU provides: | ‘1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to and not replace national citizenship. | 2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights and be subject to the duties provided for in the Treaties. They shall have, inter alia: | (a) | the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States; | … | These rights shall be exercised in accordance with the conditions and limits defined by the Treaties and by the measures adopted thereunder.’ |
| 7 | Člen 21(1) PDEU določa: | „Vsak državljan Unije ima pravico prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic ob upoštevanju omejitev in pogojev, določenih s Pogodbama in ukrepi, ki so bili sprejeti za njuno uveljavitev.“ | 7 | Article 21(1) TFEU states: | ‘Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaties and by the measures adopted to give them effect.’ |
| Listina | The Charter |
| 8 | Člen 7 Listine, naslovljen „Spoštovanje zasebnega in družinskega življenja“, določa: | „Vsakdo ima pravico do spoštovanja svojega zasebnega in družinskega življenja, stanovanja ter komunikacij.“ | 8 | Article 7 of the Charter, entitled ‘Respect for private and family life’, provides: | ‘Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.’ |
| 9 | Člen 9 Listine, naslovljen „Pravica sklepanja zakonske zveze in pravica ustvarjanja družine“, določa: | „Pravica sklepanja zakonske zveze in pravica ustvarjanja družine sta zagotovljeni v skladu z nacionalnimi zakoni, ki urejajo uresničevanje teh pravic.“ | 9 | Article 9 of the Charter, entitled ‘Right to marry and right to found a family’, provides: | ‘The right to marry and the right to found a family shall be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights.’ |
| 10 | Člen 24 Listine, naslovljen „Pravice otroka“, določa: | „1. Otroci imajo pravico do potrebnega varstva in skrbi za zagotovitev njihove dobrobiti. Svoje mnenje lahko svobodno izražajo. Njihovo mnenje se upošteva v stvareh, ki jih zadevajo, v skladu z njihovo starostjo in zrelostjo. | 2. Pri vseh ukrepih javnih organov ali zasebnih ustanov, ki se nanašajo na otroke, se morajo upoštevati predvsem koristi otroka. | 3. Vsak otrok ima pravico do rednih osebnih odnosov in neposrednih stikov z obema staršema, če to ni v nasprotju z njegovimi koristmi.“ | 10 | Article 24 of the Charter, entitled ‘The rights of the child’, is worded as follows: | ‘1. Children shall have the right to such protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. They may express their views freely. Such views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity. | 2. In all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions, the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration. | 3. Every child shall have the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents, unless that is contrary to his or her interests.’ |
| 11 | Člen 45 Listine, naslovljen „Svoboda gibanja in prebivanja“, določa: | „1. Vsak državljan Unije ima pravico do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic. | 2. Svoboda gibanja in prebivanja se lahko v skladu s Pogodbama prizna državljanom tretjih držav, ki zakonito prebivajo na ozemlju ene od držav članic.“ | 11 | Article 45 of the Charter, entitled ‘Freedom of movement and of residence’, states: | ‘1. Every citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. | 2. Freedom of movement and residence may be granted, in accordance with the Treaties, to nationals of third countries legally resident in the territory of a Member State.’ |
| Direktiva 2004/38/ES | Directive 2004/38/EC |
| 12 | Direktiva Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/38/ES z dne 29. aprila 2004 o pravici državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic, ki spreminja Uredbo (EGS) št. 1612/68 in razveljavlja Direktive 64/221/EGS, 68/360/EGS, 72/194/EGS, 73/148/EGS, 75/34/EGS, 75/35/EGS, 90/364/EGS, 90/365/EGS in 93/96/EEC (UL, posebna izdaja v slovenščini, poglavje 5, zvezek 5, str. 46) v členu 2, naslovljenem „Opredelitve pojmov“, določa: | „Za namene te direktive: | 1. | ,Državljan Unije‘ pomeni vsako osebo, ki ima državljanstvo države članice; | 2. | ,Družinski član‘ pomeni: | (a) | zakonca; | (b) | partnerja, s katerim je državljan Unije sklenil registrirano partnerstvo na podlagi zakonodaje države članice, če zakonodaja države članice gostiteljice obravnava registrirana partnerstva kot enakovredna zakonski zvezi in v skladu s pogoji, določenimi v ustrezni zakonodaji države članice gostiteljice; | (c) | potomce v ravni črti, ki so mlajši od 21 let ali so vzdrževane osebe, in tiste zakonca ali partnerja, opredeljenega v točki (b); | (d) | vzdrževane prednike v ravni črti in vzdrževane prednike v ravni črti zakonca ali partnerja, opredeljenega v točki (b); | 3. | ,Država članica gostiteljica‘ pomeni državo članico, v katero se državljan Unije preseli z namenom uresničevanja svoje pravice do prostega gibanja in prebivanja.“ | 12 | Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35) provides in Article 2, entitled ‘Definitions’: | ‘For the purposes of this Directive: | 1. | “Union citizen” means any person having the nationality of a Member State; | 2. | “family member” means: | (a) | the spouse; | (b) | the partner with whom the Union citizen has contracted a registered partnership, on the basis of the legislation of a Member State, if the legislation of the host Member State treats registered partnerships as equivalent to marriage and in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant legislation of the host Member State; | (c) | the direct descendants who are under the age of 21 or are dependants and those of the spouse or partner as defined in point (b); | (d) | the dependent direct relatives in the ascending line and those of the spouse or partner as defined in point (b); | 3. | “host Member State” means the Member State to which a Union citizen moves in order to exercise his/her right of free movement and residence.’ |
| 13 | Člen 4 te direktive, naslovljen „Pravica do izstopa“, določa: | „1. Brez vpliva na določbe o potnih listinah, ki se uporabljajo pri nadzorih državne meje, imajo vsi državljani Unije z veljavno osebno izkaznico ali potnim listom in njihovi družinski člani, ki niso državljani države članice in ki imajo veljavni potni list, pravico, da zapustijo ozemlje države članice zaradi potovanja v drugo državo članico. | […] | 3. Države članice v skladu s svojim pravom svojim državljanom izdajo in obnovijo osebno izkaznico ali potni list, v katerih je navedeno njihovo državljanstvo. | 4. Potni list velja najmanj za vse države članice in za države, skozi katere mora imetnik iti, ko potuje med državami članicami. Kadar zakonodaja države članice ne predvideva izdajanja osebnih izkaznic, se potni list izda ali obnovi z veljavnostjo najmanj pet let.“ | 13 | Article 4 of that directive, entitled ‘Right of exit’, provides: | ‘1. Without prejudice to the provisions on travel documents applicable to national border controls, all Union citizens with a valid identity card or passport and their family members who are not nationals of a Member State and who hold a valid passport shall have the right to leave the territory of a Member State to travel to another Member State. | … | 3. Member States shall, acting in accordance with their laws, issue to their own nationals, and renew, an identity card or passport stating their nationality. | 4. The passport shall be valid at least for all Member States and for countries through which the holder must pass when travelling between Member States. Where the law of a Member State does not provide for identity cards to be issued, the period of validity of any passport on being issued or renewed shall be not less than five years.’ |
| 14 | Člen 5 navedene direktive, naslovljen „Pravica do vstopa“, določa: | „1. Brez vpliva na določbe o potnih listinah, ki se uporabljajo pri nadzorih državne meje, države članice dovolijo državljanom Unije vstop na njihovo ozemlje z veljavno osebno izkaznico ali potnim listom ter dovolijo družinskim članom, ki niso državljani države članice, vstop na njihovo ozemlje z veljavnim potnim listom. | […] | 4. Kadar državljan Unije ali družinski član, ki ni državljan države članice, nimata potrebnih potnih listin ali potrebnih vizumov, če so ti zahtevani, zadevna država članica tem osebam, preden jih zavrne, zagotovi vse razumne možnosti, da si v razumnem času pridobijo potrebne listine ali da se jim te preskrbijo ali da lahko potrdijo ali dokažejo na druge načine, da zanje velja pravica do prostega gibanja in prebivanja. | […]“ | 14 | Article 5 of that directive, entitled ‘Right of entry’, states: | ‘1. Without prejudice to the provisions on travel documents applicable to national border controls, Member States shall grant Union citizens leave to enter their territory with a valid identity card or passport and shall grant family members who are not nationals of a Member State leave to enter their territory with a valid passport. | … | 4. Where a Union citizen, or a family member who is not a national of a Member State, does not have the necessary travel documents or, if required, the necessary visas, the Member State concerned shall, before turning them back, give such persons every reasonable opportunity to obtain the necessary documents or have them brought to them within a reasonable period of time or to corroborate or prove by other means that they are covered by the right of free movement and residence. | …’ |
| Bolgarsko pravo | Bulgarian law |
| 15 | Člen 25(1) Konstitutsia na Republika Bulgaria (ustava Republike Bolgarije) (v nadaljevanju: bolgarska ustava) določa: | „Bolgarsko državljanstvo ima vsaka oseba, katere vsaj eden od staršev je bolgarski državljan ali ki je rojena na bolgarskem ozemlju, če ne pridobi drugega državljanstva po rodu. Bolgarsko državljanstvo se lahko pridobi tudi z naturalizacijo.“ | 15 | Under Article 25(1) of the Konstitutsia na Republika Bulgaria (Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria) (‘the Bulgarian Constitution’): | ‘A person is a Bulgarian national if at least one of the parents is a Bulgarian national or if the person was born in the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria and provided that he or she does not acquire any other nationality by parentage. Bulgarian nationality may also be acquired by naturalisation.’ |
| 16 | Člen 8 Zakon za balgarskoto grazhdanstvo (zakon o bolgarskem državljanstvu) z dne 5. novembra 1998 (DV št. 136 z dne 18. novembra 1998, str. 1) določa, da ima „[b]olgarsko državljanstvo po rodu […] vsaka oseba, katere vsaj eden od staršev je bolgarski državljan“. | 16 | Under Article 8 of the Zakon za balgarskoto grazhdanstvo (Law on Bulgarian nationality) of 5 November 1998 (DV No 136 of 18 November 1998, p. 1), ‘a person is a Bulgarian national by parentage if at least one of the parents is a Bulgarian national’. |
| 17 | Semeen kodeks (družinski zakonik) z dne 12. junija 2009 (DV št. 47 z dne 23. junija 2009, str. 19) v členu 60, naslovljenem „Materinstvo“, določa: | „(1) Materinstvo se ugotavlja na podlagi rojstva. | (2) Mati otroka je ženska, ki ga je rodila, in sicer tudi v primeru umetne oploditve. | […]“ | 17 | The Semeen kodeks (Family Code) of 12 June 2009 (DV No 47 of 23 June 2009, p. 19) provides in Article 60, entitled ‘Parentage with respect to the mother’: | ‘(1) Parentage with respect to the mother is determined by birth. | (2) The mother of the child is the woman who gave birth to that child, including in the case of assisted reproduction. | …’ |
| Spor o glavni stvari in vprašanja za predhodno odločanje | The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling |
| 18 | V. M. A. je bolgarska državljanka, K. D. K. pa je državljanka Združenega kraljestva. Zadnjenavedena je bila rojena v Gibraltarju, kjer sta ti ženski leta 2018 sklenili zakonsko zvezo. Od leta 2015 prebivata v Španiji. | 18 | V.M.A. is a Bulgarian national and K.D.K. is a United Kingdom national. K.D.K. was born in Gibraltar, where the two women were married in 2018. Since 2015, they have resided in Spain. |
| 19 | Decembra 2019 se je V. M. A. in K. D. K v Španiji rodila hči S. D. K. A., ki skupaj z obema staršema tam tudi prebiva. V rojstnem listu te hčere, ki so ga izdali španski organi, je V. M. A. navedena kot „mati A“, K. D. K. pa kot „mati“ otroka. | 19 | In December 2019, V.M.A. and K.D.K. had a daughter, S.D.K.A., who was born and resides with both parents in Spain. The daughter’s birth certificate, issued by the Spanish authorities, refers to V.M.A. as ‘Mother A’ and to K.D.K. as ‘Mother’ of the child. |
| 20 | V. М. А. je 29. januarja 2020 pri občini Sofija zaprosila za izdajo rojstnega lista za S. D. K. A., ki je bil potreben zlasti za izdajo bolgarskega osebnega dokumenta. V. М. А. je vlogi priložila legaliziran in uradno overjen prevod izpiska iz matičnega registra v Barceloni (Španija) v zvezi z rojstvom S. D. K. A v bolgarski jezik. | 20 | On 29 January 2020, V.М.А. applied to the Sofia municipality for a birth certificate for S.D.K.A. to be issued to her, the certificate being necessary, inter alia, for the issue of a Bulgarian identity document. In support of her application, V.М.А. submitted a legalised and certified translation into Bulgarian of the extract from the civil register of Barcelona (Spain) relating to the birth certificate of S.D.K.A. |
| 21 | Občina Sofija je z dopisom z dne 7. februarja 2020 V. М. А. pozvala, naj v roku sedmih dni predloži dokazila o materinstvu v zvezi s S. D. K. A., in sicer glede identitete njene biološke matere. V zvezi s tem je navedla, da obrazec rojstnega lista, ki je eden izmed na nacionalni ravni veljavnih obrazcev listin o osebnem stanju, določa eno samo polje za „mater“ in drugo polje za „očeta“, pri čemer je v vsako od teh polj mogoče vpisati samo eno ime. | 21 | By letter of 7 February 2020, the Sofia municipality instructed V.M.A. to provide, within seven days, evidence of the parentage of S.D.K.A. with respect to the identity of her biological mother. The municipality stated in that regard that the model birth certificate which is among the model civil status documents applicable at a national level has only one box for the ‘mother’ and another for the ‘father’, and that only one name may appear in each box. |
| 22 | V. М. А. je 18. februarja 2020 občini Sofija odgovorila, da v skladu z veljavno bolgarsko zakonodajo zahtevane informacije ni dolžna predložiti. | 22 | On 18 February 2020, V.М.А. replied to the Sofia municipality that, under the Bulgarian legislation in force, she was not required to provide the information requested. |
| 23 | Občina Sofija je zato z odločbo z dne 5. marca 2020 vlogo V. M. A. za izdajo rojstnega lista za S. D. K. A. zavrnila. To zavrnitev je obrazložila z neobstojem informacij o identiteti biološke matere zadevnega otroka in s tem, da je vpis dveh staršev ženskega spola v rojstni list v nasprotju z javnim redom Republike Bolgarije, ki ne dovoljuje zakonskih zvez med osebama istega spola. | 23 | By decision of 5 March 2020, the Sofia municipality therefore refused V.M.A.’s application for a birth certificate to be issued for S.D.K.A. The reasons given for that refusal decision were the lack of information concerning the identity of the child’s biological mother and the fact that a reference to two female parents on a birth certificate was contrary to the public policy of the Republic of Bulgaria, which does not permit marriage between two persons of the same sex. |
| 24 | V. M. A. je zoper to zavrnilno odločbo vložila tožbo pri Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (upravno sodišče v Sofiji, Bolgarija), ki je predložitveno sodišče. | 24 | V.M.A. brought an action against that refusal decision before the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia, Bulgaria), the referring court. |
| 25 | To sodišče navaja, da ima S. D. K. A. na podlagi člena 25(1) bolgarske ustave in člena 8 zakona o bolgarskem državljanstvu bolgarsko državljanstvo, čeprav zadevna oseba doslej še nima rojstnega lista, ki bi ga izdali bolgarski organi. To, da so ti organi zavrnili izdajo take listine zanjo, naj namreč ne bi pomenilo, da ji je bolgarsko državljanstvo zavrnjeno. | 25 | That court states that, under Article 25(1) of the Bulgarian Constitution and Article 8 of the Law on Bulgarian nationality, S.D.K.A. has Bulgarian nationality notwithstanding the fact that, to date, she does not have a birth certificate issued by the Bulgarian authorities. The authorities’ refusal to issue such a certificate to her does not mean that she has been denied Bulgarian nationality. |
| 26 | Navedeno sodišče pa je v dvomih, ali se s tem, da so bolgarski organi zavrnili evidentiranje rojstva bolgarskega državljana, ki se je zgodilo v drugi državi članici in ki je bilo potrjeno z rojstnim listom, v katerem sta navedeni dve materi, ki so ga izdali pristojni organi zadnjenavedene države članice, posega v pravice, ki so takemu državljanu podeljene s členoma 20 in 21 PDEU ter členi 7, 24 in 45 Listine. Zavrnitev bolgarskih organov, da izdajo rojstni list, bi namreč – čeprav naj ne bi imela pravnih učinkov na bolgarsko državljanstvo zadevnega otroka in posledično na njegovo državljanstvo Unije – lahko otežila izdajo bolgarskega osebnega dokumenta ter zato tega otroka ovirala pri uresničevanju pravice do prostega gibanja in torej pri polnem uživanju pravic, ki jih ima kot državljan Unije. | 26 | The referring court has doubts, however, as to whether the refusal by the Bulgarian authorities to register the birth of a Bulgarian national which occurred in another Member State and has been attested by a birth certificate that mentions two mothers and was issued by the competent authorities of the latter Member State infringes the rights conferred on such a national in Articles 20 and 21 TFEU and Articles 7, 24 and 45 of the Charter. The Bulgarian authorities’ refusal to issue a birth certificate – albeit that it would have no legal effect on the Bulgarian nationality of the child concerned and consequently on that child’s Union citizenship – is liable to make it more difficult for a Bulgarian identity document to be issued and, therefore, to hinder that child’s exercise of the right of free movement and thus full enjoyment of her rights as a Union citizen. |
| 27 | To sodišče se v delu, v katerem je druga mati S. D. K. A., in sicer K. D. K., državljanka Združenega kraljestva, tudi sprašuje, ali so pravne posledice, ki izhajajo iz Sporazuma o izstopu Združenega kraljestva Velika Britanija in Severna Irska iz Evropske unije in Evropske skupnosti za atomsko energijo (UL 2020, L 29, str. 7, v nadaljevanju: Sporazum o izstopu), in zlasti to, da ta otrok ne bi mogel več uživati statusa državljana Unije prek državljanstva K. D. K., upoštevne za presojo tega vprašanja. | 27 | Moreover, since the other mother of S.D.K.A., K.D.K., is a United Kingdom national, the referring court is uncertain whether the legal consequences arising from the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 2020 L 29, p. 7, ‘the Withdrawal Agreement’), and in particular the fact that that child can no longer enjoy the status of Union citizen by virtue of K.D.K.’s nationality, are relevant to the assessment of that question. |
| 28 | Poleg tega se Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (upravno sodišče v Sofiji) sprašuje, ali bi morebitna naložitev obveznosti bolgarskim organom, naj pri sestavi rojstnega lista v tej listini kot starša zadevnega otroka navedejo dve materi, lahko pomenila poseg v javni red in nacionalno identiteto Republike Bolgarije, saj ta država članica ni predvidela možnosti, da se v rojstni list za tega otroka vpišeta dva starša istega spola. To sodišče v zvezi s tem navaja, da so določbe, ki urejajo razmerje med navedenim otrokom in njegovimi starši, v bolgarski ustavni tradiciji ter bolgarski doktrini s področja družinskega in dednega prava ob upoštevanju sedanjega stanja razvoja družbe v Bolgariji tako s čisto pravnega vidika kot tudi z vidika vrednot temeljnega pomena. | 28 | Furthermore, the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia) queries whether the obligation to which the Bulgarian authorities may be subject, when drawing up a birth certificate, to refer in that document to two mothers as being the parents of the child concerned, is liable to have an adverse effect on public policy and the national identity of the Republic of Bulgaria, since that Member State has not provided for the possibility of mentioning on a birth certificate two parents of the same sex for that child. The referring court notes, in that regard, that the legal provisions governing that child’s parentage are of fundamental importance in the Bulgarian constitutional tradition and in the Bulgarian legal literature on family and inheritance law, both from a purely legal perspective and from the point of view of values, given the current stage of development of society in Bulgaria. |
| 29 | Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (upravno sodišče v Sofiji) tako meni, da je treba najti ravnovesje med ustavno in nacionalno identiteto Republike Bolgarije na eni strani ter interesi otroka, zlasti njegovo pravico do zasebnega življenja in prostega gibanja, na drugi strani. | 29 | Therefore, the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia) considers that it is necessary to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the constitutional and national identity of the Republic of Bulgaria and, on the other hand, the interests of the child, and in particular the child’s right to a private life and to free movement. |
| 30 | Navedeno sodišče se sprašuje, ali bi bilo mogoče v obravnavani zadevi tako ravnovesje doseči z uporabo načela sorazmernosti, in zlasti, ali bi bilo mogoče sprejemljivo ravnovesje med temi različnimi legitimnimi interesi doseči tako, da bi bila v polje „mati“ vpisana ena od obeh mater, navedenih v rojstnem listu, ki so ga sestavili španski organi, ki je bodisi otrokova biološka mati bodisi mati, ki je to postala po drugi poti, na primer s posvojitvijo, medtem ko bi bilo polje „oče“ puščeno prazno. Opozarja, da bi sicer taka rešitev lahko povzročila tudi nekatere težave zaradi morebitnih razlik med rojstnim listom, ki bi ga sestavili bolgarski organi, in rojstnim listom, ki so ga sestavili španski organi, vendar bi ta rešitev tako omogočila, da bolgarski organi izdajo rojstni list, s čimer bi se odpravile ali vsaj omilile morebitne ovire za prosto gibanje zadevnega otroka. Vendar se navedeno sodišče sprašuje, ali bi bila navedena rešitev združljiva s pravico do zasebnega in družinskega življenja tega otroka, določeno v členu 7 Listine. | 30 | The referring court is uncertain whether, in the present case, such a balance could be achieved by applying the principle of proportionality and, in particular, whether mentioning under the heading ‘Mother’ the name of one of the two mothers included on the birth certificate drawn up by the Spanish authorities – who may be either the biological mother of the child or the person who became the child’s mother by way of another procedure, such as adoption, for example – without completing the ‘Father’ section would constitute an appropriate balance between those different legitimate interests. It points out that while such a solution could also create certain difficulties due to possible differences between the birth certificate drawn up by the Bulgarian authorities and that drawn up by the Spanish authorities, it would allow a birth certificate to be issued by the Bulgarian authorities, thus avoiding, or at least reducing, any obstacles to the free movement of the child concerned. The referring court queries, however, whether that solution would be compatible with the child’s right to a private and family life affirmed in Article 7 of the Charter. |
| 31 | Nazadnje se predložitveno sodišče za primer, da bi Sodišče ugotovilo, da pravo Unije zahteva, naj se v rojstni list, ki ga sestavijo bolgarski organi, vpišeta obe materi zadevnega otroka, sprašuje, kako naj se ta zahteva izpolni, saj to sodišče obrazca rojstnega lista, ki je eden izmed na nacionalni ravni veljavnih obrazcev listin o osebnem stanju, ne more zamenjati. | 31 | Finally, should the Court of Justice find that EU law requires both mothers of the child concerned to be mentioned on the birth certificate drawn up by the Bulgarian authorities, the referring court asks about the arrangements for implementing that requirement, since the referring court cannot replace the model birth certificate, which is one of the model civil status documents applicable at a national level. |
| 32 | V teh okoliščinah je Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (upravno sodišče v Sofiji) prekinilo odločanje in Sodišču v predhodno odločanje predložilo ta vprašanja: | „1. | Ali je treba člena 20 in 21 PDEU ter člene 7, 24 in 45 Listine razlagati tako, da bolgarskim upravnim organom, pri katerih je bila vložena zahteva za izdajo rojstnega lista za potrditev rojstva otroka z bolgarskim državljanstvom, rojenega v drugi državi članici [Unije], ki je bilo potrjeno s španskim rojstnim listom, v katerem sta kot materi navedeni dve osebi ženskega spola, brez natančnejših podatkov, ali je ena od njiju, in če da, katera, biološka mati otroka, ne dopuščajo zavrnitve izdaje bolgarskega rojstnega lista z utemeljitvijo, da tožeča stranka ne želi navesti, katera je biološka mati otroka? | 2. | Ali je treba člen 4(2) PEU [in] člen 9 Listine razlagati tako, da varstvo nacionalne identitete in ustavne identitete držav članic [Unije] pomeni, da imajo zadnje glede določb o ugotavljanju razmerij med starši in otroki široko polje proste presoje? Konkretno: | Ali je treba člen 4(2) PEU razlagati tako, da je državam članicam dopuščeno zahtevati informacije o biološkem razmerju med starši in otrokom? | Ali je treba člen 4(2) PEU v povezavi s členom 7 in členom 24(2) Listine razlagati tako, da je nujno, da se pretehtajo nacionalna identiteta in ustavna identiteta države članice na eni strani in korist otroka na drugi strani, da bi se vzpostavilo ravnovesje interesov, pri čemer je treba upoštevati, da trenutno glede možnosti, da se kot starša v rojstni list vpišeta osebi istega spola, brez podrobnejših podatkov, ali je ena od njiju, in če da, katera, otrokov biološki starš, niti z vidika vrednot niti s pravnega vidika ni konsenza? Če je odgovor na to vprašanje pritrdilen, kako bi bilo konkretno mogoče doseči tako ravnovesje interesov? | 3. | Ali so pravne posledice [Sporazuma o izstopu] upoštevne za odgovor na prvo vprašanje, če je ena od mater, ki je navedena v rojstnem listu, ki ga je izdala druga država članica, državljanka Združenega kraljestva, druga mati pa državljanka članice [Unije], zlasti če se upošteva, da zavrnitev izdaje otrokovega bolgarskega rojstnega lista pomeni oviro za izdajo otrokovega osebnega dokumenta v državi članici [Unije] in s tem morebiti otežuje neomejeno uveljavljanje njegovih pravic kot državljana Unije? | 4. | Če je odgovor na prvo vprašanje pritrdilen: Ali pravo Unije, zlasti načelo učinkovitosti, zavezuje pristojne nacionalne organe, da odstopijo od obrazca za sestavo rojstnega lista, ki je [eden izmed na nacionalni ravni veljavnih obrazcev listin o osebnem stanju]?“ | 32 | In those circumstances, the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Administrative Court of the City of Sofia) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: | ‘(1) | Must Article 20 TFEU and Article 21 TFEU and Articles 7, 24 and 45 of the [Charter] be interpreted as meaning that the Bulgarian administrative authorities to which an application for a document certifying the birth of a child of Bulgarian nationality in another Member State of the [European Union] was submitted, which had been certified by way of a Spanish birth certificate in which two persons of the female sex are registered as mothers without specifying whether one of them, and if so, which of them, is the child’s biological mother, are not permitted to refuse to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate on the grounds that the applicant refuses to state which of them is the child’s biological mother? | (2) | Must Article 4(2) TEU and Article 9 of the [Charter] be interpreted as meaning that respect for the national identity and constitutional identity of the Member States of the European Union means that those Member States have a broad discretion as regards the rules for establishing parentage? Specifically: | Must Article 4(2) TEU be interpreted as allowing Member States to request information on the biological parentage of the child? | Must Article 4(2) TEU in conjunction with Article 7 and Article 24(2) of the Charter be interpreted as meaning that it is essential to strike a balance of interests between, on the one hand, the national identity and constitutional identity of a Member State and, on the other hand, the best interests of the child, having regard to the fact that, at the present time, there is neither a consensus as regards values nor, in legal terms, a consensus about the possibility of registering as parents on a birth certificate persons of the same sex without providing further details of whether one of them, and if so, which of them, is the child’s biological parent? If this question is answered in the affirmative, how could that balance of interests be achieved in concrete terms? | (3) | Is the answer to Question 1 affected by the legal consequences of [the Withdrawal Agreement] in that one of the mothers listed on the birth certificate issued in another Member State is a United Kingdom national whereas the other mother is a national of an EU Member State, having regard in particular to the fact that the refusal to issue a Bulgarian birth certificate for the child constitutes an obstacle to the issue of an identity document for the child by an EU Member State and, as a result, may impede the unlimited exercise of her rights as [a Union] citizen? | (4) | If the first question is answered in the affirmative: does EU law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, oblige the competent national authorities to derogate from the model birth certificate [which is one of the model civil status certificates] applicable [at a national level]?’ |
| Postopek pred Sodiščem | Procedure before the Court |
| 33 | Predložitveno sodišče je v predlogu za sprejetje predhodne odločbe predlagalo obravnavo zadeve po hitrem postopku na podlagi člena 105 Poslovnika Sodišča. Navedeno sodišče zlasti trdi, da bi zavrnitev izdaje rojstnega lista za S. D. K. A., ki naj bi bila bolgarska državljanka, s strani bolgarskih organov temu otroku povzročila resne težave pri pridobitvi bolgarskega osebnega dokumenta ter s tem pri uresničevanju njegove pravice do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic, ki je zagotovljena s členom 21 PDEU. | 33 | In its request for a preliminary ruling, the referring court requests that the case be dealt with under the expedited procedure provided for in Article 105 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. The referring court states in particular that the Bulgarian authorities’ refusal to issue a birth certificate to S.D.K.A., who is a Bulgarian national, makes it very difficult for that child to obtain a Bulgarian identity document and, therefore, to exercise her right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, which is guaranteed in Article 21 TFEU. |
| 34 | Člen 105(1) Poslovnika določa, da lahko predsednik Sodišča na predlog predložitvenega sodišča ali izjemoma po uradni dolžnosti po opredelitvi sodnika poročevalca in generalnega pravobranilca odloči, da se predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe obravnava po hitrem postopku, če je treba zadevo zaradi njene narave obravnavati v kar najkrajšem času. | 34 | Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure provides that, at the request of the referring court or, exceptionally, of his own motion, the President of the Court may decide, after hearing the Judge-Rapporteur and the Advocate General, that a reference for a preliminary ruling is to be determined pursuant to an expedited procedure where the nature of the case requires that it be dealt with within a short time. |
| 35 | V obravnavani zadevi je predsednik Sodišča 19. oktobra 2020 po opredelitvi sodnika poročevalca in generalne pravobranilke odločil, da ugodi predlogu za obravnavanje po hitrem postopku iz točke 31 te sodbe. Ta odločitev je bila obrazložena z dejstvom, da S. D. K. A., majhen otrok, trenutno nima potnega lista, pri čemer prebiva v državi članici, katere državljanstva nima. Ker je namen postavljenih vprašanj ugotoviti, ali morajo bolgarski organi za tega otroka izdati rojstni list, in ker je iz predloga za sprejetje predhodne odločbe razvidno, da je v skladu z nacionalnim pravom taka listina potrebna za pridobitev bolgarskega potnega lista, lahko hiter odgovor Sodišča prispeva k temu, da bo navedeni otrok hitreje pridobil potni list (glej v tem smislu sklep predsednika Sodišča z dne 3. julija 2015, Gogova, C‑215/15, neobjavljen, EU:C:2015:466, točke od 12 do 14). | 35 | In the present case, on 19 October 2020, the President of the Court decided, after hearing the Judge-Rapporteur and the Advocate General, to grant the request for an expedited procedure mentioned in paragraph 33 of the present judgment. The reason for that decision was that S.D.K.A., a young child, is currently without a passport but resides in a Member State of which she is not a national. In so far as the questions referred are intended to determine whether the Bulgarian authorities are required to issue a birth certificate for that child and it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that such a document is necessary, according to national law, in order to obtain a Bulgarian passport, an answer from the Court within a short period of time could help to ensure that that child is able to obtain a passport more quickly (see, to that effect, order of the President of the Court of 3 July 2015, Gogova, C‑215/15, not published, EU:C:2015:466, paragraphs 12 to 14). |
| Vprašanja za predhodno odločanje | Consideration of the questions referred |
| 36 | Predložitveno sodišče z vprašanji, ki jih je treba obravnavati skupaj, v bistvu sprašuje, ali pravo Unije državo članico zavezuje, da – za otroka, ki je državljan te države članice ter čigar rojstvo v drugi državi članici je potrjeno z rojstnim listom, ki so ga sestavili organi te druge države članice v skladu z njenim nacionalnim pravom ter v katerem sta kot materi tega otroka navedeni državljanka prve od teh držav članic in njena žena, ne da bi bilo določeno, katera od obeh žensk je navedenega otroka rodila – izda rojstni list zaradi pridobitve osebnega dokumenta po njenih predpisih. Če je odgovor pritrdilen, navedeno sodišče sprašuje, ali pravo Unije zahteva, da tak rojstni list tako kot tisti, ki so ga izdali organi države članice, v kateri je otrok rojen, vsebuje navedbo imen teh dveh žensk kot mater. | 36 | By its questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether EU law obliges a Member State to issue a birth certificate, in order for an identity document to be obtained according to the legislation of that State, for a child, a national of that Member State, whose birth in another Member State is attested by a birth certificate that has been drawn up by the authorities of that other Member State in accordance with the national law of that other State, and which designates, as the mothers of that child, a national of the first of those Member States and her wife, without specifying which of the two women gave birth to that child. If the answer is in the affirmative, the referring court asks whether EU law requires such a certificate to state, in the same way as the certificate drawn up by the authorities of the Member State in which the child was born, the names of those two women in their capacity as mothers. |
| 37 | Navedeno sodišče želi tudi izvedeti, ali dejstvo, da je druga od mater zadevnega otroka državljanka Združenega kraljestva, ki zdaj ni več država članica, kakor koli vpliva na odgovor na to vprašanje. | 37 | The referring court also wishes to know whether the fact that the other mother of the child concerned is a national of the United Kingdom, which is now no longer a Member State, has any bearing on the answer to be given to that question. |
| 38 | V uvodu je treba opozoriti, prvič, da v skladu z mednarodnim pravom opredelitev pogojev za pridobitev in izgubo državljanstva spada v pristojnost posamezne države članice ter, drugič, da morajo zadevna nacionalna pravila v položajih, za katere velja pravo Unije, to pravo upoštevati (sodbi z dne 2. marca 2010, Rottmann, C‑135/08, EU:C:2010:104, točki 39 in 41, ter z dne 12. marca 2019, Tjebbes in drugi, C‑221/17, EU:C:2019:189, točka 30). | 38 | As a preliminary point, it must be noted that it is for each Member State, having due regard to international law, to lay down the conditions for acquisition and loss of nationality, and that in situations covered by EU law, the national rules concerned must have due regard to the latter (judgments of 2 March 2010, Rottmann, C‑135/08, EU:C:2010:104, paragraphs 39 and 41, and of 12 March 2019, Tjebbes and Others, C‑221/17, EU:C:2019:189, paragraph 30). |
| 39 | V skladu z ugotovitvami predložitvenega sodišča, ki je v zvezi s tem edino pristojno, ima S. D. K. A. že po rodu bolgarsko državljanstvo, in sicer na podlagi člena 25(1) bolgarske ustave. | 39 | According to the findings of the referring court, which alone has jurisdiction in that regard, S.D.K.A. has Bulgarian nationality by birth, in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Bulgarian Constitution. |
| 40 | V skladu s členom 20(1) PDEU so državljani Unije vse osebe z državljanstvom ene od držav članic. To pomeni, da ima S. D. K. A. na podlagi te določbe kot bolgarska državljanka status državljana Unije. | 40 | Under Article 20(1) TFEU, every person holding the nationality of a Member State is to be a citizen of the Union. It follows that, as a Bulgarian national, S.D.K.A. enjoys the status of Union citizen under that provision. |
| 41 | V zvezi s tem je Sodišče večkrat poudarilo, da je status državljana Unije zasnovan kot temeljni status državljanov držav članic (sodbi z dne 20. septembra 2001, Grzelczyk, C‑184/99, EU:C:2001:458, točka 31, in z dne 15. julija 2021, A (Javna zdravstvena oskrba), C‑535/19, EU:C:2021:595, točka 41). | 41 | In that regard, the Court has held on numerous occasions that Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States (judgments of 20 September 2001, Grzelczyk, C‑184/99, EU:C:2001:458, paragraph 31, and of 15 July 2021, A (Public health care), C‑535/19, EU:C:2021:595, paragraph 41). |
| 42 | Kot izhaja iz sodne prakse Sodišča, se državljan države članice, ki je na podlagi svojega statusa državljana Unije uresničeval svojo pravico do prostega gibanja in prebivanja v državi članici, ki ni njegova izvorna država članica, lahko sklicuje na pravice, ki jih ima zaradi tega statusa, zlasti na pravice iz člena 21(1) PDEU, in to po potrebi tudi proti svoji izvorni državi članici (sodba z dne 5. junija 2018, Coman in drugi, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, točka 31 in navedena sodna praksa). Na to določbo in na določbe, sprejete za njeno izvajanje, se lahko sklicujejo tudi državljani Unije, ki so rojeni v državi članici gostiteljici svojih staršev in niso nikoli uresničevali pravice do prostega gibanja (sodba z dne 2. oktobra 2019, Bajratari, C‑93/18, EU:C:2019:809, točka 26 in navedena sodna praksa). | 42 | As is apparent from the Court’s case-law, a national of a Member State who has exercised, in his or her capacity as a Union citizen, his or her freedom to move and reside within a Member State other than his or her Member State of origin, may rely on the rights pertaining to Union citizenship, in particular the rights provided for in Article 21(1) TFEU, including, where appropriate, against his or her Member State of origin (judgment of 5 June 2018, Coman and Others, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, paragraph 31 and the case-law cited). Union citizens who were born in the host Member State of their parents and who have never made use of their right to freedom of movement can also rely on that provision and the measures adopted to give it effect (judgment of 2 October 2019, Bajratari, C‑93/18, EU:C:2019:809, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited). |
| 43 | Na podlagi člena 21(1) PDEU ima vsak državljan Unije pravico do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic ob upoštevanju omejitev in pogojev, določenih s Pogodbama in ukrepi, ki so bili sprejeti za njuno uveljavitev. Da bi bilo državljanom držav članic omogočeno uresničevanje te pravice, člen 4(3) Direktive 2004/38 državam članicam nalaga, naj svojim državljanom v skladu s svojo zakonodajo izdajo osebno izkaznico ali potni list, v katerih je navedeno njihovo državljanstvo. | 43 | Under Article 21(1) TFEU, every citizen of the Union is to have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaties and by the measures adopted to give them effect. In order to enable their nationals to exercise that right, Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/38 requires Member States, acting in accordance with their laws, to issue to their own nationals an identity card or passport stating their nationality. |
| 44 | Ker je torej S. D. K. A. bolgarska državljanka, ji bolgarski organi morajo izdati osebno izkaznico ali potni list z navedbo njenega državljanstva in priimka, kot izhaja iz rojstnega lista, ki so ga sestavili španski organi, pri čemer je Sodišče že imelo priložnost ugotoviti, da člen 21 PDEU nasprotuje temu, da organi države članice z uporabo svojega nacionalnega prava zavrnejo priznanje priimka otroka, kot je bil določen in registriran v drugi državi članici, v kateri je bil ta otrok rojen in v kateri odtlej prebiva (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 14. oktobra 2008, Grunkin in Paul, C‑353/06, EU:C:2008:559, točka 39). | 44 | Accordingly, since S.D.K.A. is a Bulgarian national, the Bulgarian authorities are required to issue to her an identity card or a passport stating her nationality and her surname as it appears on the birth certificate drawn up by the Spanish authorities, the Court having previously had occasion to rule that Article 21 TFEU precludes the authorities of a Member State, in applying their national law, from refusing to recognise a child’s surname as determined and registered in a second Member State in which the child was born and has been resident since birth (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 October 2008, Grunkin and Paul, C‑353/06, EU:C:2008:559, paragraph 39). |
| 45 | Pojasniti je treba še, da člen 4(3) Direktive 2004/38 bolgarskim organom nalaga, naj S. D. K. A. izdajo osebno izkaznico ali potni list neodvisno od tega, ali bo za tega otroka sestavljen nov rojstni list. V delu, v katerem bolgarsko pravo zahteva sestavo bolgarskega rojstnega lista pred izdajo bolgarske osebne izkaznice ali potnega lista, se tako ta država članica ne more sklicevati na svoje nacionalno pravo, da bi zavrnila izdajo take osebne izkaznice ali potnega lista za S. D. K. A. | 45 | It must also be made clear that Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/38 requires the Bulgarian authorities to issue an identity card or a passport to S.D.K.A. regardless of whether a new birth certificate is drawn up for that child. Thus, in so far as Bulgarian law requires a Bulgarian birth certificate to be drawn up before a Bulgarian identity card or passport is issued, that Member State cannot rely on its national law as justification for refusing to draw up such an identity card or passport for S.D.K.A. |
| 46 | Tak dokument sam ali v povezavi z drugimi dokumenti, in sicer glede na okoliščine primera z dokumentom, ki ga je izdala država članica gostiteljica zadevnega otroka, mora otroku v položaju, v kakršnem je S. D. K. A., omogočiti, da uresničuje svojo pravico do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic, ki je zagotovljena s členom 21(1) PDEU, z vsako od obeh mater, katerih status staršev tega otroka je določila njuna država članica gostiteljica med prebivanjem v skladu z Direktivo 2004/38. | 46 | Such a document, whether alone or accompanied by others, where appropriate by a document issued by the host Member State of the child concerned, must enable a child in S.D.K.A.’s situation to exercise the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, guaranteed in Article 21(1) TFEU, with each of the child’s two mothers, whose status as parent of that child has been established by their host Member State during a stay in accordance with Directive 2004/38. |
| 47 | Opozoriti je treba, da pravice, ki jih imajo državljani držav članic na podlagi člena 21(1) PDEU, vključujejo pravico do običajnega družinskega življenja v državi članici gostiteljici in po vrnitvi v državo članico, katere državljani so, tudi v tej državi, tako da imajo ti državljani pravico, da so tam ob njih prisotni člani njihove družine (sodba z dne 5. junija 2018, Coman in drugi, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, točka 32 in navedena sodna praksa). | 47 | It should be borne in mind that the rights which nationals of Member States enjoy under Article 21(1) TFEU include the right to lead a normal family life, together with their family members, both in their host Member State and in the Member State of which they are nationals when they return to the territory of that Member State (judgment of 5 June 2018, Coman and Others, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited). |
| 48 | Ni sporno, da so v zadevi v glavni stvari španski organi zakonito ugotovili starševsko vez, biološko oziroma pravno, med S. D. K. A. in njenima staršema, in sicer V. M. A. in K. D. K., ter to vez potrdili v rojstnem listu, ki so ga izdali za otroka zadnjenavedenih. V. M. A. in K. D. K. mora biti torej na podlagi člena 21 PDEU in Direktive 2004/38 kot staršema mladoletnega državljana Unije, katerega varstvo in vzgojo dejansko zagotavljata, v vseh državah članicah priznana pravica, da ga spremljata pri uresničevanju njegove pravice do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic (glej po analogiji sodbo z dne 13. septembra 2016, Rendón Marín, C‑165/14, EU:C:2016:675, točke od 50 do 52 in navedena sodna praksa). | 48 | It is common ground that, in the case in the main proceedings, the Spanish authorities lawfully established that there was a parent-child relationship, biological or legal, between S.D.K.A. and her two parents, V.M.A. and K.D.K., and attested this in the birth certificate issued in respect of the child of those two parents. V.M.A. and K.D.K. must, therefore, pursuant to Article 21 TFEU and Directive 2004/38, as parents of a Union citizen who is a minor and of whom they are the primary carers, be recognised by all Member States as having the right to accompany that child when her right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States is being exercised (see, by analogy, judgment of 13 September 2016, Rendón Marín, C‑165/14, EU:C:2016:675, paragraphs 50 to 52 and the case-law cited). |
| 49 | Zato so bolgarski organi tako kot organi vsake druge države članice dolžni to starševsko vez priznati, zato da se S. D. K. A. omogoči, da – ker je v skladu z navedbami predložitvenega sodišča pridobila bolgarsko državljanstvo – neovirano skupaj z vsakim od staršev uresničuje svojo pravico do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic, ki je zagotovljena s členom 21(1) PDEU. | 49 | Accordingly, the Bulgarian authorities are required, as are the authorities of any other Member State, to recognise that parent-child relationship for the purposes of permitting S.D.K.A. – since she has, according to the referring court, acquired Bulgarian nationality – to exercise without impediment, with each of her two parents, her right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States as guaranteed in Article 21(1) TFEU. |
| 50 | Poleg tega je za to, da se S. D. K. A. dejansko omogoči uresničevanje njene pravice do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic z vsakim od staršev, potrebno, da imata lahko V. M. A. in K. D. K. dokument, v katerem sta navedeni kot osebi, ki sta pooblaščeni, da potujeta s tem otrokom. V obravnavani zadevi so organi države članice gostiteljice najprimernejši za sestavo takega dokumenta, ki je lahko rojstni list. Druge države članice morajo ta dokument priznati. | 50 | In addition, in order to enable S.D.K.A. to exercise her right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States with each of her two parents, V.M.A. and K.D.K. must have a document which mentions them as being persons entitled to travel with that child. In the present case, the authorities of the host Member State are best placed to draw up such a document, which may consist in a birth certificate. The other Member States are obliged to recognise that document. |
| 51 | Res je, kot je navedlo predložitveno sodišče, da člen 9 Listine določa, da sta pravica sklepanja zakonske zveze in pravica ustvarjanja družine zagotovljeni v skladu z nacionalnimi zakoni, ki urejajo uresničevanje teh pravic. | 51 | It is true, as the referring court has noted, that Article 9 of the Charter provides that the right to marry and the right to found a family are to be guaranteed in accordance with the national laws governing the exercise of these rights. |
| 52 | V zvezi s tem je v obstoječem stanju prava Unije osebno stanje, v katero spadajo pravila o zakonski zvezi ter o razmerjih med starši in otroki, področje, ki spada v pristojnost držav članic, pravo Unije pa v to pristojnost ne posega. Države članice se tako prosto odločijo, ali bodo v nacionalnem pravu za osebe istega spola predvidele zakonsko zvezo in starševstvo ali ne. Vendar mora vsaka država članica pri izvajanju te pristojnosti spoštovati pravo Unije, zlasti določbe Pogodbe DEU o svoboščini prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic, priznani vsakemu državljanu Unije, tako da v ta namen prizna osebno stanje, ki je bilo ugotovljeno v drugi državi članici v skladu z njenim pravom (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 5. junija 2018, Coman in drugi, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, točke od 36 do 38 in navedena sodna praksa). | 52 | In that regard, as EU law currently stands, a person’s status, which is relevant to the rules on marriage and parentage, is a matter that falls within the competence of the Member States and EU law does not detract from that competence. The Member States are thus free to decide whether or not to allow marriage and parenthood for persons of the same sex under their national law. Nevertheless, in exercising that competence, each Member State must comply with EU law, in particular the provisions of the FEU Treaty on the freedom conferred on all Union citizens to move and reside within the territory of the Member States, by recognising, for that purpose, the civil status of persons that has been established in another Member State in accordance with the law of that other Member State (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 June 2018, Coman and Others, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, paragraphs 36 to 38 and the case-law cited). |
| 53 | V tem okviru predložitveno sodišče Sodišče sprašuje, ali bi lahko bil člen 4(2) PEU podlaga za zavrnitev bolgarskih organov, da izdajo rojstni list za S. D. K. A in s tem osebno izkaznico ali potni list za tega otroka. Navedeno sodišče zlasti opozarja, da bi lahko morebitna obveznost teh organov, da sestavijo rojstni list, v katerem sta kot starša navedenega otroka navedeni dve osebi ženskega spola, posegala v javni red in nacionalno identiteto Republike Bolgarije, ker naj v bolgarski ustavi in bolgarskem družinskem pravu starševstvo dveh oseb istega spola ne bi bilo predvideno. | 53 | In that context, the referring court asks the Court of Justice whether Article 4(2) TEU could serve as justification for the Bulgarian authorities’ refusal to issue a birth certificate in respect of S.D.K.A, and thus an identity card or a passport for that child. The referring court explains, in particular, that any obligation on the part of those authorities to draw up a birth certificate mentioning two female individuals as the child’s parents could have an adverse effect on public policy and on the national identity of the Republic of Bulgaria, since the Bulgarian Constitution and Bulgarian family law do not provide for the parenthood of two persons of the same sex. |
| 54 | V zvezi s tem je treba spomniti, da v skladu s členom 4(2) PEU Unija spoštuje nacionalno identiteto držav članic, ki je neločljivo povezana z njihovimi temeljnimi političnimi in ustavnimi strukturami. | 54 | In that regard it must be recalled that, under Article 4(2) TEU, the European Union is to respect the national identities of its Member States, inherent in their fundamental structures, political and constitutional. |
| 55 | Poleg tega je Sodišče večkrat razsodilo, da je treba pojem „javni red“ kot utemeljitev izjeme od temeljne svoboščine razlagati ozko, tako da njegovega obsega ne more enostransko določiti vsaka država članica brez nadzora institucij Unije. Iz tega izhaja, da se je na javni red mogoče sklicevati le ob resnični in dovolj resni grožnji temeljnemu interesu družbe (sodba z dne 5. junija 2018, Coman in drugi, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, točka 44 in navedena sodna praksa). | 55 | Moreover, the Court has repeatedly held that the concept of public policy as justification for a derogation from a fundamental freedom must be interpreted strictly, with the result that its scope cannot be determined unilaterally by each Member State without any control by the EU institutions. It follows that public policy may be relied on only if there is a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society (judgment of 5 June 2018, Coman and Others, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited). |
| 56 | Kot pa je generalna pravobranilka v bistvu navedla v točkah 150 in 151 sklepnih predlogov, obveznost države članice, da na eni strani otroku, ki je državljan te države članice in je rojen v drugi državi članici ter čigar rojstni list, ki so ga izdali organi te druge države članice, kot njegova starša določa osebi istega spola, izda osebno izkaznico ali potni list ter da na drugi strani prizna starševsko vez med tem otrokom in vsako od teh dveh oseb v okviru, v katerem ta otrok uresničuje svoje pravice na podlagi člena 21 PDEU in aktov sekundarne zakonodaje v zvezi s tem členom, ne posega v nacionalno identiteto niti ne ogroža javnega reda te države članice. | 56 | As the Advocate General noted in essence in points 150 and 151 of her Opinion, the obligation for a Member State to issue an identity card or a passport to a child who is a national of that Member State, who was born in another Member State and whose birth certificate issued by the authorities of that other Member State designates as the child’s parents two persons of the same sex, and, moreover, to recognise the parent-child relationship between that child and each of those two persons in the context of the child’s exercise of her rights under Article 21 TFEU and secondary legislation relating thereto, does not undermine the national identity or pose a threat to the public policy of that Member State. |
| 57 | Taka obveznost namreč ne pomeni, da mora država članica, katere državljan je zadevni otrok, v svojem nacionalnem pravu predvideti starševstvo oseb istega spola ali starševsko vez med tem otrokom in osebama, ki sta v rojstnem listu, ki so ga sestavili organi države članice gostiteljice, navedeni kot njegova starša, priznati za druge namene od uresničevanja pravic, ki jih ima navedeni otrok na podlagi prava Unije (glej po analogiji sodbo z dne 5. junija 2018, Coman in drugi, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, točki 45 in 46). | 57 | Such an obligation does not require the Member State of which the child concerned is a national to provide, in its national law, for the parenthood of persons of the same sex, or to recognise, for purposes other than the exercise of the rights which that child derives from EU law, the parent-child relationship between that child and the persons mentioned on the birth certificate drawn up by the authorities of the host Member State as being the child’s parents (see, by analogy, judgment of 5 June 2018, Coman and Others, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, paragraphs 45 and 46). |
| 58 | Dodati je treba, da je nacionalni ukrep, ki lahko ovira uresničevanje prostega pretoka oseb, lahko utemeljen le, če je v skladu s temeljnimi pravicami iz Listine, katere spoštovanje zagotavlja Sodišče (sodba z dne 5. junija 2018, Coman in drugi, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, točka 47). | 58 | It should be added that a national measure that is liable to obstruct the exercise of freedom of movement for persons may be justified only where such a measure is consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Charter, it being the task of the Court to ensure that those rights are respected (judgment of 5 June 2018, Coman and Others, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, paragraph 47). |
| 59 | V položaju, ki je predmet spora o glavni stvari, so tako pravica do spoštovanja zasebnega in družinskega življenja, zagotovljena s členom 7 Listine, kot tudi pravice otroka, zagotovljene s členom 24 Listine, in sicer zlasti pravica, da se pri vseh ukrepih, ki se nanašajo na otroke, upoštevajo predvsem koristi otroka, ter pravica do rednih osebnih odnosov in neposrednih stikov z obema staršema temeljne. | 59 | In the situation with which the main proceedings are concerned, the right to respect for private and family life guaranteed in Article 7 of the Charter and the rights of the child guaranteed in Article 24 of the Charter, in particular the right to have the child’s best interests taken into account as a primary consideration in all actions relating to children, and the right to maintain on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with both his or her parents, are fundamental. |
| 60 | Kot je v zvezi s tem razvidno iz Pojasnil k Listini o temeljnih pravicah (UL 2007, C 303, str. 17), imajo v skladu s členom 52(3) Listine pravice, zagotovljene z njenim členom 7, enak pomen in področje uporabe kot pravice, zagotovljene s členom 8 Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin, podpisane 4. novembra 1950 v Rimu. | 60 | In that regard, as is apparent from the Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights (OJ 2007 C 303, p. 17), in accordance with Article 52(3) of the Charter, the rights guaranteed in Article 7 thereof have the same meaning and the same scope as those guaranteed in Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950. |
| 61 | Iz sodne prakse Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice pa izhaja, da je obstoj „družinskega življenja“ dejansko vprašanje, ki je odvisno od resničnosti tesnih osebnih vezi v praksi, ter da je možnost, da eden od staršev in njegov otrok živita skupaj, temeljni element družinskega življenja (ESČP, 12. julij 2001, K. in T. proti Finski, CE:ECHR:2001:0712JUD002570294, točki 150 in 151). Poleg tega, kot je Sodišče že ugotovilo, iz te sodne prakse izhaja, da spada odnos med partnerjema istega spola pod pojma „zasebno življenje“ in „družinsko življenje“ ravno tako kot odnos med osebama različnega spola, ki sta v enakem položaju (sodba z dne 5. junija 2018, Coman in drugi, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, točka 50 in navedena sodna praksa). | 61 | It is apparent from the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights that the existence of ‘family life’ is a question of fact depending upon the real existence in practice of close personal ties, and that the mutual enjoyment by parent and child of each other’s company constitutes a fundamental element of family life (ECtHR, 12 July 2001, K. and T. v. Finland, CE:ECHR:2001:0712JUD002570294, §§ 150 and 151). In addition, as the Court of Justice has had occasion to find, it follows from that case-law that the relationship of a homosexual couple may fall within the notion of ‘private life’ and that of ‘family life’ in the same way as the relationship of a heterosexual couple in the same situation (judgment of 5 June 2018, Coman and Others, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, paragraph 50 and the case-law cited). |
| 62 | Zato je, kot je generalna pravobranilka navedla v točki 153 sklepnih predlogov, razmerje zadevnega otroka z vsako od obeh oseb, s katerima ima dejansko družinsko življenje v državi članici gostiteljici in ki sta v rojstnem listu, ki so ga sestavili organi te države članice, navedeni kot njegova starša, varovano s členom 7 Listine. | 62 | Accordingly, as the Advocate General noted in point 153 of her Opinion, the relationship between the child concerned and each of the two persons with whom she leads a genuine family life in the host Member State and who are mentioned as being her parents on the birth certificate drawn up by that Member State’s authorities is protected under Article 7 of the Charter. |
| 63 | Poleg tega, kot je bilo opozorjeno v točki 59 te sodbe, je treba pravico do spoštovanja družinskega življenja, kot je določena v členu 7 Listine, razlagati v povezavi z obveznostjo, da se upošteva korist otroka, ki je priznana v členu 24(2) Listine. Ker pa člen 24 Listine, kot je opozorjeno v Pojasnilih k Listini o temeljnih pravicah, pomeni vključitev – v pravo Unije – glavnih pravic otroka, ki so določene v Konvenciji o otrokovih pravicah, ki so jo ratificirale vse države članice, je treba pri razlagi tega člena ustrezno upoštevati določbe te konvencije (glej v tem smislu sodbi z dne 14. februarja 2008, Dynamic Medien, C‑244/06, EU:C:2008:85, točka 39, in z dne 11. marca 2021, État belge (Vrnitev enega od mladoletnikovih staršev), C‑112/20, EU:C:2021:197, točka 37). | 63 | In addition, as has been recalled in paragraph 59 of the present judgment, the right to respect for family life, as stated in Article 7 of the Charter, must be read in conjunction with the obligation to take into consideration the child’s best interests, recognised in Article 24(2) of the Charter. Since Article 24 of the Charter, as the Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights note, represents the integration into EU law of the principal rights of the child referred to in the Convention on the rights of the child, which has been ratified by all the Member States, it is necessary, when interpreting that article, to take due account of the provisions of that convention (see, to that effect, judgments of 14 February 2008, Dynamic Medien, C‑244/06, EU:C:2008:85, paragraph 39, and of 11 March 2021, État belge (Return of the parent of a minor), C‑112/20, EU:C:2021:197, paragraph 37). |
| 64 | Natančneje, člen 2 navedene konvencije v zvezi z otrokom določa načelo prepovedi diskriminacije, ki zahteva, da se pravice iz te konvencije, med katerimi je v njenem členu 7 pravica do vpisa v rojstno matično knjigo, do imena in do pridobitve državljanstva, temu otroku zagotovijo, ne da bi bil ta v zvezi s tem diskriminiran, vključno z diskriminacijo na podlagi spolne usmerjenosti njegovih staršev. | 64 | In particular, Article 2 of that convention establishes, for the child, the principle of non-discrimination, which requires that that child is to be guaranteed the rights set forth in that convention, which include in Article 7 the right to be registered immediately after birth, the right to a name and the right to acquire a nationality, without discrimination against the child in that regard, including discrimination on the basis of the sexual orientation of the child’s parents. |
| 65 | V teh okoliščinah bi bilo to, da bi bil ta otrok prikrajšan za razmerje z enim od svojih staršev v okviru uresničevanja svoje pravice do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic ali da bi mu bilo uresničevanje te pravice dejansko onemogočeno ali čezmerno oteženo, ker so njegovi starši istega spola, v nasprotju s temeljnimi pravicami, ki jih člena 7 in 24 Listine zagotavljata temu otroku. | 65 | In those circumstances, it would be contrary to the fundamental rights which are guaranteed to the child under Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter for her to be deprived of the relationship with one of her parents when exercising her right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States or for her exercise of that right to be made impossible or excessively difficult in practice on the ground that her parents are of the same sex. |
| 66 | Nazadnje, okoliščina, da je eden od staršev zadevnega otroka državljanka Združenega kraljestva, ki zdaj ni več država članica, v zvezi s tem ni pomembna. | 66 | Last, the fact that one of the parents of the child concerned is a national of the United Kingdom, which is now no longer a Member State, is irrelevant in that respect. |
| 67 | Poleg tega je treba za primer, da bi se po preverjanju izkazalo, da S. D. K. A. nima bolgarskega državljanstva, opozoriti, da morajo vse države članice za K. D. K. in S. D. K. A. šteti, da sta ne glede na svoje državljanstvo in ne glede na to, ali imata status državljanov Unije, zakonska partnerka in potomka v ravni črti v smislu člena 2(2)(a) in (c) Direktive 2004/38 in torej družinski članici V. M. A. (glej v tem smislu sodbo z dne 5. junija 2018, Coman in drugi, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, točki 36 in 51). | 67 | Furthermore, if checks should reveal that S.D.K.A. did not have Bulgarian nationality, it must be noted that, irrespective of their nationality and whether or not they themselves are Union citizens, K.D.K. and S.D.K.A. must be regarded by all Member States as being, respectively, the spouse and the direct descendant within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) and (c) of Directive 2004/38, and, therefore, as being V.M.A.’s family members (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 June 2018, Coman and Others, C‑673/16, EU:C:2018:385, paragraphs 36 and 51). |
| 68 | Mladoletnega otroka, čigar status državljana Unije ni dokazan in čigar rojstni list, ki so ga izdali pristojni organi države članice, kot njegova starša določa osebi istega spola, od katerih je ena državljanka Unije, morajo namreč vse države članice za potrebe uresničevanja pravic, podeljenih s členom 21(1) PDEU in z njim povezanih aktov sekundarne zakonodaje, šteti za potomca v ravni črti te državljanke Unije v smislu Direktive 2004/38. | 68 | A child, being a minor, whose status as a Union citizen is not established and whose birth certificate, issued by the competent authorities of a Member State, designates as her parents two persons of the same sex, one of whom is a Union citizen, must be considered, by all Member States, a direct descendant of that Union citizen within the meaning of Directive 2004/38 for the purposes of the exercise of the rights conferred in Article 21(1) TFEU and the secondary legislation relating thereto. |
| 69 | Glede na vse zgornje preudarke je treba na postavljena vprašanja odgovoriti, da je treba člen 4(2) PEU, člena 20 in 21 PDEU ter člene 7, 24 in 45 Listine v povezavi s členom 4(3) Direktive 2004/38 razlagati tako, da je v primeru, v katerem gre za mladoletnega otroka, ki je državljan Unije in na čigar rojstnem listu, ki so ga izdali pristojni organi države članice gostiteljice, sta kot starša navedeni dve osebi istega spola, država članica, katere državljan je ta otrok, dolžna, prvič, temu otroku izdati osebno izkaznico ali potni list, ne da bi zahtevala, naj njeni nacionalni organi predhodno izdajo rojstni list, in drugič, tako kot vse druge države članice priznati dokument, izdan v državi članici gostiteljici, ki navedenemu otroku omogoča, da z vsako od navedenih dveh oseb uresničuje svojo pravico do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic. | 69 | Having regard to all of the above considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 4(2) TEU, Articles 20 and 21 TFEU and Articles 7, 24 and 45 of the Charter, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/38, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a child, being a minor, who is a Union citizen and whose birth certificate, issued by the competent authorities of the host Member State, designates as that child’s parents two persons of the same sex, the Member State of which that child is a national is obliged (i) to issue to that child an identity card or a passport without requiring a birth certificate to be drawn up beforehand by its national authorities, and (ii) to recognise, as is any other Member State, the document from the host Member State that permits that child to exercise, with each of those two persons, the child’s right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. |
| Stroški | Costs |
| 70 | Ker je ta postopek za stranki v postopku v glavni stvari ena od stopenj v postopku pred predložitvenim sodiščem, to odloči o stroških. Stroški za predložitev stališč Sodišču, ki niso stroški omenjenih strank, se ne povrnejo. | 70 | Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. |
| | Iz teh razlogov je Sodišče (veliki senat) razsodilo: | | On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules: |
| | Člen 4(2) PEU, člena 20 in 21 PDEU ter člene 7, 24 in 45 Listine Evropske unije o temeljnih pravicah v povezavi s členom 4(3) Direktive Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta 2004/38/ES z dne 29. aprila 2004 o pravici državljanov Unije in njihovih družinskih članov do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic, ki spreminja Uredbo (EGS) št. 1612/68 in razveljavlja Direktive 64/221/EGS, 68/360/EGS, 72/194/EGS, 73/148/EGS, 75/34/EGS, 75/35/EGS, 90/364/EGS, 90/365/EGS in 93/96/EEC, je treba razlagati tako, da je v primeru, v katerem gre za mladoletnega otroka, ki je državljan Unije in na čigar rojstnem listu, ki so ga izdali pristojni organi države članice gostiteljice, sta kot starša navedeni dve osebi istega spola, država članica, katere državljan je ta otrok, dolžna, prvič, temu otroku izdati osebno izkaznico ali potni list, ne da bi zahtevala, naj njeni nacionalni organi predhodno izdajo rojstni list, in drugič, tako kot vse druge države članice priznati dokument, izdan v državi članici gostiteljici, ki navedenemu otroku omogoča, da z vsako od navedenih dveh oseb uresničuje svojo pravico do prostega gibanja in prebivanja na ozemlju držav članic. | | Article 4(2) TEU, Articles 20 and 21 TFEU and Articles 7, 24 and 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, read in conjunction with Article 4(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a child, being a minor, who is a Union citizen and whose birth certificate, issued by the competent authorities of the host Member State, designates as that child’s parents two persons of the same sex, the Member State of which that child is a national is obliged (i) to issue to that child an identity card or a passport without requiring a birth certificate to be drawn up beforehand by its national authorities, and (ii) to recognise, as is any other Member State, the document from the host Member State that permits that child to exercise, with each of those two persons, the child’s right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. |
| | Podpisi | | [Signatures] |
| ( *1 ) Jezik postopka: bolgarščina. | ( *1 ) Language of the case: Bulgarian. |