MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY REGIMES IN GERMANY AND BULGARIA — A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS UNDER REGULATION (EU) 2016/1103

Abstract

Cross-border marriages linking Germany and Bulgaria confront two structurally opposed models of matrimonial property: the German community of accrued gains (Zugewinngemeinschaft), a separation-of-property regime with a deferred monetary equalization, and the Bulgarian community of acquisitions (съпружеска имуществена общност), a genuine proprietary community arising during marriage. Since 29 January 2019, Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 has unified the conflict-of-law and procedural rules on jurisdiction, applicable law, and recognition and enforcement for the participating Member States, among which both Germany and Bulgaria are counted, while leaving the substantive regimes untouched. This article compares the two national regimes function by function and then asks what the European framework does, and does not, resolve for the German-Bulgarian case. The central argument is that the unification achieved by the Regulation is real but incomplete: because the substantive regimes remain national and because adjacent matters (divorce and succession) are governed by separate instruments with their own characterization rules, friction survives at the seams. The flat-rate quarter of § 1371(1) BGB, which the Court of Justice in Mahnkopf (C-558/16) assigned to the law of succession rather than to the matrimonial property regime, is the paradigmatic residual gap and the point at which functional equivalence between the two systems breaks down under formal characterization.

Keywords: matrimonial property regimes; comparative family law; Zugewinngemeinschaft; community of acquisitions; Regulation (EU) 2016/1103; characterization

1. Introduction

1.1. Problem and Aim

Marriages with ties to two Member States are ordinary in the European Union, and their property consequences on separation, divorce, and death reach into asset allocation, the ownership of family businesses, and the access of creditors. Germany and Bulgaria embody two contrasting answers to the same question of how spouses share what a marriage produces. The German community of accrued gains (Zugewinngemeinschaft) keeps the spouses’ estates separate throughout the marriage and equalizes the gains only when the regime ends; the Bulgarian community of acquisitions (съпружеска имуществена общност) makes assets acquired during the marriage the joint property of both spouses from the outset. Since 29 January 2019, Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 has coordinated jurisdiction, applicable law, and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in international matrimonial property matters, while the substantive regimes remain within the competence of the Member States (European Union, 2016; Damascelli, 2024; Bonomi, 2020).

Two features of that constellation set the agenda of this article. First, both Germany and Bulgaria participate in the enhanced cooperation under which the Regulation was adopted, so its unified conflict rules apply in full to a German-Bulgarian couple; the comparison is not clouded by a non-participating forum. Second, unification at the level of conflict rules is not unification at the level of outcomes. The Regulation designates a single applicable law, but the law it designates is one of two very different national regimes, and it deliberately leaves the neighboring fields of divorce and succession to other instruments. The practical question is therefore not only which regime applies, but whether the European framework delivers the coherence it promises once the designated regime has to operate alongside the rules that govern the dissolution event itself.

1.2. Research Question and Approach

The research question follows from this. It is not merely how the German and Bulgarian regimes differ (a comparison well rehearsed in the literature) but where the unified European framework still fails to produce a coherent result for the German-Bulgarian case, and why. The article argues that the residual friction is concentrated at the boundary between matrimonial property and succession, and that the treatment of the German flat-rate quarter under § 1371(1) BGB, characterized by the Court of Justice as a matter of succession in Mahnkopf (Court of Justice of the European Union, 2018), is the sharpest illustration: a provision that functions as matrimonial equalization is, for conflict-of-law purposes, allocated to succession, so that functional equivalence and formal characterization part company precisely where a surviving spouse’s entitlement is decided.

1.3. Contribution

The article contributes to the comparative and private-international-law literature in three ways. First, it supplies a current, function-by-function comparison of the German community of accrued gains and the Bulgarian community of acquisitions across formation, management, third-party effects, termination, equalization, and party autonomy, a pairing treated far less often than the classic German-French or German-common-law comparisons. Second, it reads that comparison through Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 as the instrument actually operates for a couple connected to two participating States, identifying precisely where the unified conflict framework delivers coherence for the German-Bulgarian case and where it does not. Third, it isolates the characterization of § 1371(1) BGB after Mahnkopf as the structural point at which functional equivalence and formal characterization part company, and derives from it concrete planning guidance, the coordinated choice of matrimonial-property and succession law, for German-Bulgarian couples and their advisers.

2. Method

The comparison follows the functional method of comparative law: legal institutions are compared not by their formal labels but by the social problem they solve, here the fair participation of each spouse in wealth generated during the marriage and the protection of the economically weaker spouse and of third parties (Boele-Woelki et al., 2013). Read functionally, the German deferred equalization and the Bulgarian immediate community are two techniques for one purpose, which is why a purely descriptive juxtaposition would understate their kinship and overstate their difference.

The functional method also marks its own limit, and that limit is the analytical pivot of this article. Functional equivalence holds at the level of substantive purpose but not necessarily at the level of private international law, where a legal system’s rules must first be characterized (assigned to a conflict category such as “matrimonial property” or “succession”) before any applicable law can be found. Characterization is a formal operation that need not track function: a rule that functions as matrimonial equalization may be characterized as succession, as § 1371(1) BGB was in Mahnkopf. The method therefore proceeds in two movements. Sections 3 and 4 compare the two regimes functionally, institution by institution. Section 5 then tests where that functional equivalence survives translation into the unified conflict framework of Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 and its neighboring instruments, and where it does not.

3. Normative Foundations

3.1. German Law: The Community of Accrued Gains and Its Contractual Alternatives

German family law establishes the community of accrued gains (Zugewinngemeinschaft) as the statutory matrimonial property regime (§ 1363(1) BGB). Its defining feature is that no joint estate arises: during the marriage each spouse remains the sole owner of his or her property, and only upon dissolution does a monetary equalization of the gains accumulated during the marriage take place. The equalization of accrued gains gives rise to a personal claim directed at half of the difference between the respective accrued gains of the spouses (§ 1378(1) BGB). The regime thus combines individual patrimonial autonomy during the marriage with an egalitarian redistribution of the marital surplus upon divorce or death (Grüneberg, 2025; MüKo-BGB, 2022).

During the marriage each spouse manages his or her property independently (§ 1364 BGB). This autonomy is qualified by requirements of consent designed to protect the other spouse and the household: dispositions over a spouse’s property as a whole (§ 1365 BGB) and dispositions over household goods (§ 1369 BGB) require the other spouse’s agreement (Schöfer-Liebl, 2011). Privileged acquisitions, in particular gifts and inheritances, are added to the initial property and thereby excluded from the equalization (§ 1374(2) BGB), so that windfalls unrelated to the marital effort do not enter the surplus to be shared.

Alongside the statutory regime, spouses may conclude a notarized matrimonial agreement providing for separation of property or community of property (§§ 1408, 1410 BGB). Under separation of property no equalization takes place, an arrangement frequently chosen in entrepreneurial settings to insulate a business from the equalization claim. Community of property, by contrast, creates a joint estate (Gesamtgut) owned by both spouses collectively and administered jointly or, where the agreement so provides, by one of them (§§ 1415 et seq., 1421 BGB). Both alternatives are comparatively rare in practice, but they mark the breadth of contractual freedom in German matrimonial property law, the outer limit of which is set by the prohibition of immoral agreements (§ 138 BGB) as developed in the case law discussed in Section 4.7 (BGH, 2004; BGH, 2017).

3.2. Bulgarian Law: The Community of Acquisitions and the Regimes Introduced in 2009

The Bulgarian Family Code of 2009 establishes the community of acquisitions (съпружеска имуществена общност) as the statutory default regime (Article 21). All rights over assets acquired through the spouses’ contributions during the marriage become their joint property, irrespective of in whose name the acquisition is made. The law presumes a joint contribution, which may consist not only in the investment of funds and labor but expressly also in the care of children and work in the household (Article 21(2) and (3)). Excluded from the joint property are the spouses’ personal assets: premarital property, assets acquired gratuitously such as gifts and inheritances, and objects for personal or professional use (Articles 22 and 23). Where an asset is acquired exclusively with funds from one spouse’s personal property, a rule of subrogation (transformation) keeps it personal, but only on strict proof of the source of funds, the burden lying on the spouse who invokes it (Article 23). Because the presumption of joint contribution stands unless rebutted, doubt as to the origin of the funds operates in favor of the community (Article 21(3)).

An important refinement, often overlooked in comparative accounts, is that the 2009 reform did not merely add contractual freedom to a single default; it offered spouses a genuine choice among three regimes: the statutory community of acquisitions, a statutory regime of separation of property, and a contractual regime (Article 18), the community applying only in the absence of any choice. The statutory separation regime allows spouses to opt out of the community into separation without negotiating the full content of a marriage contract, a middle path that has no exact German equivalent, since German spouses reach separation of property only through a notarized agreement.

Management of the joint property is vested in both spouses. Management of the joint property may be carried out by either spouse alone, but dispositions over joint property are in principle effected jointly by both. A disposition over jointly owned immovable property made by one spouse alone is voidable at the suit of the other spouse within six months of learning of it and no later than three years after its conclusion; an onerous disposition of movable joint property by one spouse binds the other unless the third party knew or could reasonably have known that consent was lacking, while gratuitous dispositions of movables require the other spouse’s consent (Article 24). The 2009 reform also introduced matrimonial agreements (Articles 37–40). These must be in writing, concluded personally by both spouses, and notarized as to content and signatures; they may regulate property matters only (including, however, maintenance between the spouses during the marriage and on divorce, and maintenance for the children of the marriage) and they must be entered in the matrimonial property register to be opposable to third parties, so that publicity rather than mere consent secures legal certainty in dealings with outsiders (Articles 19, 20 and 38).

3.3. European Law: Regulation (EU) 2016/1103

Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 has been directly applicable in the participating Member States since 29 January 2019. Adopted under the mechanism of enhanced cooperation by eighteen Member States (including both Germany and Bulgaria), it unifies international jurisdiction, applicable law, and the recognition and enforcement of decisions, but it does not unify the substantive regimes: it governs conflict-of-law and procedural questions only, expressly leaving the competence over matrimonial property regimes to the Member States (European Union, 2016; Damascelli, 2024).

The Regulation confers broad party autonomy. Under Article 22 the spouses may choose the law of the State of nationality or of habitual residence of either spouse. Failing a choice, Article 26 supplies a hierarchy of objective connecting factors: the spouses’ first common habitual residence after the marriage, then their common nationality at the time of marriage, unless the spouses share more than one common nationality (Article 26(2)), and finally the State with which they are jointly most closely connected, subject to a narrow escape clause. The Regulation is of universal application, so the law it designates applies even if it is the law of a non-participating State or of a third State, and it governs all the couple’s assets wherever situated (Rudolf, 2019). Chapters on jurisdiction (Articles 4 et seq.) and on recognition and enforcement (Articles 36 et seq.) complete the instrument, reducing the risk of divergent decisions and curtailing forum shopping (Bonomi, 2020).

Two boundaries of the Regulation matter for what follows. As to time, its rules on applicable law apply only to spouses who married, or who chose the applicable law, on or after 29 January 2019; for couples married earlier, the pre-existing national conflict rules continue to govern the applicable law, so the Regulation’s unifying effect is prospective rather than immediate. As to subject matter, the Regulation excludes maintenance obligations, which fall under Regulation (EC) No 4/2009, and succession, which falls under Regulation (EU) No 650/2012; the applicable law for divorce as such is determined, for the participating States including Germany and Bulgaria, by Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 (Rome III). These exclusions are not marginal housekeeping. They mean that the dissolution of a marriage is never governed by the matrimonial property Regulation alone, and it is at the interface with the succession instrument that the friction analyzed in Section 5 arises.

4. Comparative Analysis

4.1. Dogmatic Foundations and System Functions

The dogmatic foundation of German matrimonial property law is the separation of the spouses’ estates. The Zugewinngemeinschaft guarantees each spouse’s patrimonial autonomy during the marriage and creates only a personal claim to equalization on dissolution, distributing equally the increase in wealth accumulated during the marriage without altering ownership while the marriage lasts. It is, systematically, a separation principle with a deferred equalization mechanism, resting on the idea of equal participation in jointly generated wealth (Grüneberg, 2025; MüKo-BGB, 2022; BGH, 2017).

Bulgarian law proceeds from the opposite starting point. The community of acquisitions is a genuine proprietary community: assets acquired for consideration during the marriage become joint property, and the statutory presumption of joint contribution, which expressly credits non-monetary services such as childcare and household management, underlines the collective character of the system (Articles 21–24).

Read functionally, the two systems pursue the same objective (an equitable division of what the marriage produced) but differ in the timing and technique of participation: German law equalizes ex post in money, Bulgarian law creates co-ownership ex ante. From a comparative perspective, the German model is often treated as a special case, whereas the Bulgarian community corresponds more closely to the community model widespread on the Continent (Boele-Woelki et al., 2013). The functional kinship is genuine, and it is precisely this kinship that Section 5 shows to be vulnerable at the conflict-of-law interface.

4.2. Formation and Scope of Matrimonial Property

Under German law no joint estate is formed during the marriage. Each spouse remains owner of his or her assets, whether acquired before or during the marriage, and equalization attaches to the increase in value between the start and the end of the regime (§§ 1373 et seq. BGB). The initial property at the date of marriage, augmented by privileged acquisitions such as gifts and inheritances (§ 1374(2) BGB), is compared with the final property at the decisive date, and half of the resulting surplus is owed (Grüneberg, 2025; MüKo-BGB, 2022).

Bulgarian law takes the diametrically opposed route: upon marriage a community of acquisitions arises, comprising all assets acquired through the spouses’ joint contributions, with the statutory presumption extending to non-monetary contributions (Article 21(2) and (3)). Personal assets (premarital property, gratuitous acquisitions, and objects for personal or professional use) remain excluded (Articles 22 and 23), and the subrogation rule keeps personal-funded acquisitions personal only on strict proof, with doubt resolved in favor of the community (Articles 22 and 23).

The contrast is fundamental: German law produces only a calculative figure for later equalization, while Bulgarian law establishes an actual proprietary community from the moment of marriage, with corresponding differences in the burden of proof, in the allocation of specific assets, and in the protection of the weaker spouse.

4.3. Management and Disposition During Marriage

The management rules follow directly from these foundations. Under German law each spouse manages his or her property independently (§ 1364 BGB), subject to the consent requirements for dispositions over the property as a whole (§ 1365 BGB) and over household goods (§ 1369 BGB). In addition, the agency for family necessities (Schlüsselgewalt) allows either spouse to conclude transactions meeting the family’s daily needs with binding effect for both (§ 1357 BGB), a device that facilitates everyday life while expressing the spouses’ shared economic responsibility (Grüneberg, 2025; MüKo-BGB, 2022; Schöfer-Liebl, 2011).

Under Bulgarian law, management of the joint estate may be undertaken by either spouse, but dispositions over the joint property must in principle be made by both spouses together; unilateral dispositions over immovables are voidable within statutory time limits, and good-faith acquirers are protected in onerous transactions concerning movables (Article 24). German law thus protects individual self-management and intervenes only selectively, whereas Bulgarian law requires joint participation in dispositions, strengthening collective responsibility at the cost of individual power of disposition.

4.4. Liability and Effects vis-à-vis Third Parties

Under German law each spouse is in principle liable only for his or her own debts; marriage as such creates no joint liability, and creditors may pursue only the debtor spouse’s assets. The agency for family necessities forms the exception, binding both spouses for transactions meeting the family’s daily needs (§ 1357 BGB). For enforcement, § 1362 BGB presumes, in favor of creditors, that movables in the spouses’ possession belong to the debtor spouse, shifting to the other spouse the burden of proving ownership, a rule designed to ease creditor access and to prevent intra-marital manipulation (Grüneberg, 2025; MüKo-BGB, 2022).

Bulgarian law provides for broader joint liability: for obligations incurred to meet family needs, the spouses are jointly and severally liable (Article 32), so creditors may reach both the personal assets and the joint property. Because the community is a non-share community while the marriage lasts, a creditor cannot attach an abstract share of the debtor spouse; but enforcement directed, for a personal debt, against a specific asset belonging to the community terminates the community over that asset and opens the debtor’s resulting half to the creditor, exposing the common patrimonial base asset by asset where one spouse is heavily indebted (Article 27(4); Takov, 1994). German law accordingly offers third parties greater certainty through clear separation and protective presumptions, whereas Bulgarian law confronts them with the prospect of joint liability, tempered by the publicity of the matrimonial property register, which discloses the chosen regime.

4.5. Termination and Relevant Reference Dates

Under German law the regime ends on divorce, on the death of a spouse, or by notarial agreement adopting a different regime (§§ 1408, 1410 BGB). For the calculation of the equalization on divorce, the decisive date is not the finality of the decree but the service of the divorce petition (§ 1384 BGB), a rule that forecloses strategic asset transfers after proceedings have begun. On death, the equalization is not calculated arithmetically; instead the surviving spouse’s statutory share of the estate on intestacy is increased by a flat quarter (§ 1371(1) BGB), a solution that integrates the matrimonial adjustment into succession law and avoids the burdensome determination of initial and final property (Grüneberg, 2025; MüKo-BGB, 2022). Where the surviving spouse neither inherits nor takes a legacy, § 1371(2) BGB allows the concrete equalization to be claimed instead, together with the small compulsory share. This dual structure of § 1371 is the hinge on which Section 5 turns.

Under Bulgarian law the joint estate is divided on termination. On divorce or death the community is transformed into co-ownership in undivided shares, as a rule equal (Articles 27 and 28), but Article 29 permits a larger share where one spouse’s contribution to the acquisitions significantly exceeds that of the other, or where the care of minor children entrusted to one spouse creates particular difficulties for that spouse; Article 27(2) even permits the community to be terminated by the court during the marriage where important reasons so require. Article 30 adds a claim of a divorcing spouse to part of the value of the other spouse’s personal assets used for a profession or trade, and of the other spouse’s claims, acquired during the marriage and of significant value, where the claimant contributed to their acquisition; this claim may be brought even before the divorce where the conduct of the acquiring spouse endangers the interests of the other spouse or of the children (Articles 27–30). German law thus creates certainty through fixed reference dates and a standardized death solution, whereas Bulgarian law favors a concrete, adaptable division geared to actual circumstances.

4.6. Mechanisms of Asset Equalization

The equalization mechanisms crystallize the divergence. In German law the equalization is purely monetary: a personal claim to half of the surplus between the spouses’ accrued gains (§ 1378(1) BGB), with disloyal diminutions of assets added back to the final property (§ 1375(2) BGB) and privileged acquisitions added to the initial property and thus excluded (§ 1374(2) BGB). Specific assets change hands only by agreement, since no statutory basis compels their assignment; the regime thereby protects patrimonial autonomy and the marketability of assets (Grüneberg, 2025; MüKo-BGB, 2022).

Bulgarian law adopts a partition-oriented approach: the joint property is in principle divided equally on dissolution (Articles 27 and 28), with a larger share available under Article 29 for contribution or for the interests of minor children, and division primarily through the allocation of specific assets, balancing payments correcting differences in value (Articles 28 and 29). German law thus establishes an abstract, value-based claim, while Bulgarian law mandates a concrete division of the assets actually present, supported by differentiated corrective mechanisms.

4.7. Matrimonial Agreements and the Limits of Party Autonomy

Under German law spouses may regulate their property relations by matrimonial agreement, choosing separation of property, community of property, or modifications within the community of accrued gains (§ 1408 BGB), the agreement requiring notarial certification (§ 1410 BGB). The Federal Court of Justice has confined this broad freedom where an agreement produces a manifestly one-sided and grossly inequitable disadvantage. Its 2004 decision established a two-stage review: a substantive control of the agreement under § 138 BGB at the time of conclusion (Wirksamkeitskontrolle), followed by a control of its invocation at the moment of enforcement (Ausübungskontrolle). Agreements that exclude core consequences of divorce (such as maintenance or the equalization of pension rights) while imposing a one-sided burden may be void for immorality; matrimonial property arrangements are in principle modifiable, but may fall with the rest where combined with such exclusions (BGH, 2004; BGH, 2017; Grüneberg, 2025; MüKo-BGB, 2022).

Bulgarian law permits matrimonial agreements since 2009 (Articles 37–40), confined to property matters and requiring written form, personal conclusion, and notarial certification of content and signatures. Within the property sphere the permissible content is broad and expressly extends to the spouses’ maintenance during the marriage and on divorce and to the maintenance of children of the marriage (Article 38(1)); excluded are non-property arrangements, dispositions in the event of death (Article 38(3)), and clauses converting premarital property of one spouse into community property (Article 38(2)). Registration in the matrimonial property register ensures third-party publicity (Articles 19 and 20; CNUE, 2026). The systems thus diverge in their control technique: German law grants extensive freedom policed ex post by judicial control of substance and exercise, whereas Bulgarian law confines agreements ex ante to property matters (albeit including maintenance) and secures them through register-based publicity.

5. The Conflict-of-Law Interface in German-Bulgarian Cases

5.1. Determining the Applicable Law

For a couple with German and Bulgarian ties, Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 designates a single applicable law. If the spouses have made a choice under Article 22, German or Bulgarian law governs their entire regime by their election. Failing a choice, Article 26 leads first to the law of their first common habitual residence after the marriage, then to their common nationality, then to the closest connection. Because both States participate in the enhanced cooperation, the same rule binds courts in both, and the designated regime (German deferred equalization or Bulgarian immediate community) applies uniformly wherever the couple’s assets lie (Damascelli, 2024; Rudolf, 2019; Bonomi, 2020). Two qualifications from Section 3.3 apply: for couples married before 29 January 2019 the Regulation’s applicable-law rules do not yet govern, and the law designated addresses the matrimonial property regime only, not the dissolution event.

5.2. The Characterization Problem: § 1371(1) BGB Between Matrimonial Property and Succession

The single most consequential friction arises on death, and it is a problem of characterization rather than of substantive divergence. Where German law governs the matrimonial property regime, the death of a spouse triggers not a calculated equalization but the flat quarter of § 1371(1) BGB. Functionally this quarter is matrimonial equalization; it substitutes, in a lump sum, for the concrete accounting of accrued gains, yet in Mahnkopf the Court of Justice held that, for the purposes of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 and the European Certificate of Succession, § 1371(1) BGB is to be characterized as a matter of succession, not of matrimonial property (Court of Justice of the European Union, 2018). The Court reasoned that the provision’s main purpose is not the allocation or liquidation of the matrimonial estate but the determination of the surviving spouse’s share of the estate as against the other heirs, so that it “principally concerns succession”; a decisive practical consideration was that the Certificate of Succession must give a true and comprehensive picture of the surviving spouse’s entitlement regardless of the domestic technique used to produce it.

This ruling reversed the previously prevailing German position, which had characterized the quarter as matrimonial property for private international law purposes (BGH, 2015; Dörner, 2018). Its significance for the German-Bulgarian case is direct. The connecting factors of the two Regulations do not coincide: matrimonial property is governed, absent choice, by the law of the first common habitual residence after marriage (Article 26 of Regulation 2016/1103), whereas succession is governed by the law of the deceased’s habitual residence at the time of death (Article 21 of Regulation 650/2012). A German-Bulgarian couple can therefore find their matrimonial regime governed by one law and their succession by another, and the Mahnkopf characterization removes the § 1371(1) quarter from the first category and places it in the second. The surviving spouse’s flat-rate entitlement then stands or falls with the succession law (Bulgarian, say, where the deceased was habitually resident in Bulgaria) even though the entitlement is, in substance, the German technique for equalizing marital gains.

Two caveats keep the analysis honest. First, Mahnkopf was decided on the inclusion of the spouse’s share in the European Certificate of Succession, and it is debated whether its succession-characterization extends with equal force to the determination of the applicable law through the connecting factors, or whether a future case focused on applicable law might reason differently; the point is not finally settled (Dörner, 2018; Mankowski, 2018; Bonomi, 2020). Second, both the Advocate General and the referring court recognized that a purely succession-based characterization can leave a surviving spouse either over- or under-endowed where the succession law and the matrimonial regime do not mesh, so that the technique of adaptation may be required to restore a coherent result. The residual friction is thus not a drafting oversight but a structural consequence of splitting one lump-sum entitlement across two conflict categories with divergent connecting factors.

5.3. Interaction with the Adjacent Instruments and Enforcement

The § 1371(1) problem is the clearest instance of a more general feature: the dissolution of a German-Bulgarian marriage is never governed by the matrimonial property Regulation alone. On divorce, Rome III determines the law applicable to the divorce itself, Regulation 2016/1103 the matrimonial property consequences, and Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 any maintenance; on death, Regulation 650/2012 governs the succession and, after Mahnkopf, the flat-rate quarter as well. Each instrument carries its own connecting factors and its own scope, and coherence among them is not guaranteed by any single one. This is where the functional equivalence established in Section 4 breaks down: two regimes that solve the same substantive problem are routed through characterization categories that do not track that shared function, and the mismatch surfaces precisely at the dissolution event the couple actually experiences.

Against this, the Regulation’s procedural chapters deliver what they promise. A German decision on the equalization of accrued gains is recognized and enforced in Bulgaria, and a Bulgarian decision on the partition of the community is enforced in Germany, without a review of the merits and subject only to narrow grounds of refusal (Articles 36 et seq.; Bonomi, 2020). Recognition and enforcement are, in this sense, the unqualified success of the framework; the unresolved layer is characterization and the coordination of applicable laws across the matrimonial-property/succession boundary.

5.4. Practical Implications for German-Bulgarian Couples

For practice, three consequences follow. First, the single most effective instrument available to a German-Bulgarian couple is a choice of law under Article 22, ideally coordinated with a choice of succession law under Article 22 of Regulation 650/2012 (bearing in mind that the succession Regulation permits only the choice of a law of the deceased’s nationality, so that full parallelism is available only where the matrimonial-property choice falls on a law that is also a national law of the spouse concerned) so that the same legal order governs both the regime and the death scenario and the Mahnkopf split is neutralized at source. Second, where no choice has been made, advisers must anticipate that the matrimonial regime and the succession may be governed by different laws, and that the § 1371(1) quarter will travel with the succession rather than with the regime; planning that assumes the quarter follows German matrimonial law is unsafe after Mahnkopf. Third, for couples married before 29 January 2019, the Regulation’s applicable-law rules do not yet apply, and the residual national conflict rules must be consulted before the analysis above is transposed. In each case the practical lesson is the same: the European framework has made the forum and the enforcement predictable, but the coordination of applicable laws at the dissolution event remains a task for the parties’ own planning.

6. Limitations

Four limitations bound the analysis. First, the comparison covers two jurisdictions; conclusions about the Regulation's residual frictions generalize to other participating-state pairings only to the extent that their substantive regimes diverge along the same functional lines. Second, the method is doctrinal: the article works from statutes, case law, and commentary, not from an empirical analysis of case files, notarial practice, or the frequency with which the identified frictions materialize in litigation. Third, the reach of the Mahnkopf characterization beyond the European Certificate of Succession, in particular to the determination of the applicable law, is not finally settled, and the analysis of Section 5 holds under the reading the judgment most naturally supports; a future ruling could narrow or extend it. Fourth, the law is stated as of mid-2026; both national regimes and the surrounding European instruments are subject to amendment, and the Bulgarian provisions are discussed on the basis of the consolidated Family Code rather than a full survey of Bulgarian case law.

7. Conclusion

German and Bulgarian law answer the question of marital sharing in structurally opposite ways. German law, through the community of accrued gains, keeps the estates separate and equalizes the gains ex post in money; Bulgarian law, through the community of acquisitions, creates a joint estate from the moment of marriage and divides it on dissolution. Across formation, management, liability, termination, equalization, and party autonomy, the German system prioritizes individual autonomy tempered by targeted safeguards, while the Bulgarian system prioritizes collective ownership tempered by judicial correction. Read functionally, the two are nonetheless variations on one theme: the equitable participation of each spouse in wealth generated during the marriage.

Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 supplies a genuine and valuable unification of the conflict-of-law and procedural framework, and because both Germany and Bulgaria participate, it applies in full to the German-Bulgarian case, making the competent forum predictable and the mutual enforcement of decisions secure. But the unification is incomplete, and the incompleteness is structural rather than accidental. The substantive regimes remain national, and the dissolution of a marriage is always governed by more than one instrument, each with its own characterization and its own connecting factors. The clearest residual gap is the flat-rate quarter of § 1371(1) BGB: functionally a matrimonial equalization, it was characterized in Mahnkopf as a matter of succession, so that a surviving spouse’s entitlement may be determined by a succession law different from the law governing the regime, and functional equivalence yields to formal characterization exactly where it matters most. The practical response (coordinated choices of matrimonial-property and succession law under Article 22 of each Regulation) lies within the parties’ reach, but the need for it shows that cross-border legal certainty in this field is, for now, something couples must partly construct for themselves rather than something the framework fully guarantees. Whether the succession-characterization of Mahnkopf extends to the determination of applicable law, and how the resulting mismatches are best resolved by adaptation, are the questions on which the next stage of the debate will turn.

References

Boele-Woelki, K., Ferrand, F., González Beilfuss, C., Jänterä-Jareborg, M., Lowe, N., Martiny, D. & Pintens, W. (2013): Principles of European Family Law Regarding Property Relations Between Spouses. Cambridge–Antwerp: Intersentia.

Bonomi, A. (2020): 'The Regulation on Matrimonial Property and Its Operation in Succession Cases: Its Interaction with the Succession Regulation and Its Impact on Non-participating Member States', Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego (Problems of Private International Law), 26, pp. 71–89.

Bulgarian Family Code (2009): Family Code, State Gazette No. 47/2009, as amended.

Council of the Notariats of the European Union (CNUE) (2026): Couples in Europe – Bulgaria. Available at: https://www.notariesofeurope.eu/en/faq5/couples-in-europe/couples-in-bulgaria/ (Accessed: 5 July 2026).

Court of Justice of the European Union (2018): Case C-558/16, Doris Margret Lisette Mahnkopf, ECLI:EU:C:2018:138, judgment of 1 March 2018.

Damascelli, D. (2024): 'Determining the Applicable Law in Matrimonial Property Regimes: On the Interpretation of Article 26 Regulation (EU) No 2016/1103 in the Absence of Choice-of-Law and Common Habitual Residence', Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht (RabelsZ), 88(2), pp. 307–324.

Dörner, H. (2018): 'Erbrechtliche Qualifikation des § 1371 Abs. 1 BGB durch den EuGH: Konsequenzen und neue Folgen', Zeitschrift für Erbrecht und Vermögensnachfolge (ZEV), 2018, p. 305 et seq.

European Union (2010): Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation. Official Journal of the European Union, L 343, pp. 10–16.

European Union (2012): Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession. Official Journal of the European Union, L 201, pp. 107–134.

European Union (2016): Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law, and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes. Official Journal of the European Union, L 183, pp. 1–29.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) (2004): Judgment of 11 February 2004, XII ZR 265/02, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht (FamRZ), 2004, p. 601 et seq.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) (2015): Decision of 13 May 2015, IV ZB 30/14, Zeitschrift für Erbrecht und Vermögensnachfolge (ZEV), 2015, p. 409 et seq.

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) (2017): Decision of 15 March 2017, XII ZB 109/16, Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht (FamRZ), 2017, p. 884 et seq.

Grüneberg, C. (ed.) (2025): Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch. Kommentar, 84th edition. Munich: C. H. Beck.

Mankowski, P. (2018): 'Europäische Reversion: Das erbrechtliche Viertel ist im europäischen IPR Erbrecht!', Zeitschrift für die gesamte erbrechtliche Praxis (ErbR), 2018, p. 295 et seq.

Münchener Kommentar zum BGB (MüKo-BGB) (2022): Volume 9: Familienrecht I (§§ 1297–1588), 9th edition. Munich: C. H. Beck.

Rudolf, C. (2019): 'European Property Regimes Regulations – Choice of Law and the Applicable Law in the Absence of Choice by the Parties', Lexonomica, 11(2), pp. 127–150.

Schöfer-Liebl, N. (2011): 'Premature Termination of the Community of Accrued Gains and the Protective Purpose of § 1365(1) BGB', Zeitschrift für das gesamte Familienrecht (FamRZ), 2011, p. 1628 et seq.

Takov, K. (1994): 'Някои актуални въпроси във връзка с противоречията между института на съпружеската имуществена общност и духа на законодателството след 1989 година' [Some Topical Questions concerning the Contradictions between the Institution of the Community of Acquisitions and the Spirit of the Legislation after 1989], Sаvremenno pravo (Contemporary Law), No. 5–6/1994.