Below you can find all the decisions of the Court of Justice on Jurisdiction in divorce and prorogation of jurisdiction.
No. |
ECLI identifier |
Name |
Arts. |
Key terms |
Operative part of the judgment |
7. |
29/11/2007 |
Sundelind Lopez,
C-68/07 |
Arts. 3 |
Jurisdiction in divorce proceedings
Respondent not a national or a resident of a Member State National rules providing for exorbitant jurisdiction |
1. Article 6, which provides that a respondent having his habitual residence in a Member State or being a national of a Member State can, in view of the exclusive nature of the jurisdiction set out in Articles 3 to 5 does not prohibit a respondent who has neither his habitual residence in a Member State nor the nationality of a Member State from being sued before a court of a Member State pursuant to the rules of jurisdiction provided for by the national law of that State. In accordance with Article 7(1), that may be the case where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction pursuant to Articles 3 to 5 thereof. 2. The answer to the question referred must, therefore, be that Articles 6 and 7 are to be interpreted as meaning that where, in divorce proceedings, a respondent is not habitually resident in a Member State and is not a national of a Member State, the courts of a Member State cannot base their jurisdiction to hear the petition on their national law, if the courts of another Member State have jurisdiction under Article 3 of that Regulation. |
8. |
EU:C:2009:474
16/7/2009 |
Hadadi,
C-168/08 |
Arts.
3 (1) (b) |
Application to a judgment given in a Member States which acceded to the European Union in 2004
Jurisdiction in matters relating to divorce Habitual residence Nationality |
1. By its first question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003, must be interpreted as meaning that, where spouses hold both the nationality of the Member State of the court seised and that of the same other Member State, the court of the State in which proceedings are brought must give precedence to the nationality of the Member State to which it belongs. 2. By its second and third questions, which it is appropriate to examine together, the referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 3(1)(b) must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine the court which has jurisdiction in respect of the divorce of persons having the same dual nationality, only the nationality of the Member State with which those persons have the closest links – the ‘most effective’ nationality – is to be taken into account, so that the courts of that State alone have jurisdiction on the basis of nationality (second question), or whether, on the contrary, both nationalities are to be taken into account, so that the courts of those two Member States can have jurisdiction on that basis, allowing the persons concerned to choose the Member State in which to bring proceedings.3. Where the court of the Member State addressed must verify, pursuant to Article 64(4) whether the court of the Member State of origin of a judgment would have had jurisdiction under Article 3(1)(b) of that Regulation, the latter provision precludes the court of the Member State addressed from regarding spouses who each hold the nationality both of that State and of the Member State of origin as nationals only of the Member State addressed. That court must, on the contrary, take into account the fact that the spouses also hold the nationality of the Member State of origin and that, therefore, the courts of the latter could have had jurisdiction to hear the case. |
16. |
EU c, :C:2014:2246
1/10/2014 |
E c. B
C-436/13 |
Arts.
8 12 (3) |
Proceedings relating to the custody of a child habitually resident in the Member State of residence of his mother
Prorogation of jurisdiction in favour of a court of the Member State of residence of the father |
1. The competence of a court pursuant to Articles 8 (1) and 12 (3) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be established ‘at the time the court is seised’. In that regard, Article 16 of that Regulation states that a court is deemed to be seised of a dispute, in principle, ‘at the time when the document instituting the proceedings … is lodged with the court’.
2. For the purposes of a prorogation of jurisdiction, Article 12(3)(b) requires in particular that, at the time the court is seised, the jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State other than that of habitual residence has been accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by all the parties to the proceedings.With respect to the objectives pursued by Regulation No 2201/2003, it should be noted that recital 12 in the preamble thereto provides that the grounds of jurisdiction established in that Regulation in matters of parental responsibility are shaped in the light of the best interests of the child, in particular on the criterion of proximity, and that one of the conditions set out in Article 12(3)(b) of that Regulation requires that any prorogation of jurisdiction in accordance with that provision be carried out in the light of those interests. |
17. |
EU:C:2014:2364
12/11/2014 |
L c. M
C-656/13 |
Art.
12 (3) |
Prorogation of jurisdiction
Child whose parents are unmarried Challenge to the jurisdiction of a court by the party who has made an application to that court |
1. Article 12 (3) of Regulation No 2201/2003, must be interpreted as allowing, for the purposes of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility, the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State which is not that of the child’s habitual residence to be established even where no other proceedings are pending before the court chosen.
2. Nonetheless Article 12 (3) (b) must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be considered that the jurisdiction of the court seised by one party of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility has been ‘accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by all the parties to the proceedings’ where the defendant in those first proceedings subsequently brings a second set of proceedings before the same court and pleads the lack of jurisdiction of that court in the first proceedings. |
18. |
EU:C:2015:710
21/10/2015 |
Gogova,
C‑215/15 PPU |
Arts.
1 (1) (b) |
Attribution, exercise, delegation, restriction or termination of parental responsibility
Prorogation of jurisdiction Jurisdiction not contested by the defendant’s legal representative appointed by the courts seised of their own motion |
1. Article 12 (3) (b) must be interpreted as meaning that the jurisdiction of the courts seised of an application in matters of parental responsibility may not be regarded as having been ‘accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by all the parties to the proceedings’ within the meaning of that provision solely because the legal representative of the defendant, appointed by those courts of their own motion in view of the impossibility of serving the document instituting proceedings on the defendant, has not pleaded the lack of jurisdiction of those courts. |