Here you can find a collection of all decisions given by the CJEU on Brussels IIa (2005-2017) grouped under the relevant subject matter*                                  

LEGENDA OF CONTENTS:

  1. Scope of application and definitions (Articles 1, 2)
  2. Jurisdiction in divorce and separation cases; Residual jurisdiction (Articles 3, 6, 7)
  3. Habitual residence of the child (Article 8)
  4. Child abduction (Articles 10, 11, 13)
  5. Prorogation of jurisdiction; Transfer of proceedings (Articles 12, 13, 15)
  6. Seising of a Court; Lis pendens and Provisional measures (Articles 16, 19, 20)
  7. Recognition and Enforcement (Articles 21-47)

 

1) Scope of application and definitions

No ECLI identifier Name Arts. Key terms Operative part of the judgment
1.                    EU:C:2007:714   27/11/2007 C,     C-435/06 Art.   1 (1) Definition of  civil matters   Decision concerning the taking into care and placement of children outside the family home   Public law measures for child protection 1.    Article 1(1) is to be interpreted to the effect that a single decision ordering a child to be taken into care and placed outside his original home in a foster family is covered by the term ‘civil matters’ for the purposes of that provision, where that decision was adopted in the context of public law rules relating to child protection.   That Regulation as amended by Regulation No 2116/2004, is to be interpreted as meaning that harmonised national legislation on the recognition and enforcement of administrative decisions on the taking into care and placement of persons, adopted in the context of Nordic Cooperation, may not be applied to a decision to take a child into care that falls within the scope of that Regulation. Subject to the factual assessment which is a matter for the national court alone, Regulation No 2201/2003, as amended by Regulation No 2116/2004, is to be interpreted as applying ratione temporis in a case such as that in the main proceedings.
2.                    EU:C:2009:225   2/4/2009 A,     C-523/07     Arts.   1 (1) 8 (1) 20 Definition of  civil matters   Decision relating to the taking into care and placement of children outside the family home   Child’s habitual residence 1.    The term ‘civil matters’ must be interpreted as capable of extending to measures which, from the point of view of the law of a Member State, fall under public law.   2.    Article 1(1) must be interpreted as meaning that a decision ordering that a child be immediately taken into care and placed outside his original home is covered by the term ‘civil matters’, for the purposes of that provision, where that decision was adopted in the context of public law rules relating to child protection.
3.                    EU:C:2010:582   5/10/2010  MCB,     C-400/10   PPU Art.   2 (11) Children whose parents are not married   Rights of custody   Article 7 EUCHR 1.    It is for the court of the Member State where the child is habitually resident to decide who is the holder of rights of custody and under what conditions.  This legislation is compatible with Article 7 EU Charter and Article 8 ECHR   2.    Pursuant to Article 2(11), rights of custody means the right to decide on the habitual residence of the child   3.    In the light of Article 7 ECHR does not preclude a Member State from providing by its law that the acquisition of rights of custody by a child’s father, where he is not married to the child’s mother, is dependent on the father’s obtaining a judgment from a national court with jurisdiction awarding such rights to him, on the basis of which the removal of the child by its mother or the retention of that child may be considered wrongful, within the meaning of Article 2 (11) of that Regulation.
4.                    EU:C:2014:2268   9/10/2014 C v. M     C-376/14   PPU Arts.   2 (11)   8 11 Provisional authorization to transfer the residence of a child Wrongful retention   Habitual residence of the child   Court’s assessment of habitual residence 1.    Articles 2 (11) and 11 must be interpreted as meaning that where the removal of a child has taken place in accordance with a judgment which was provisionally enforceable and which was thereafter overturned by a judgment which fixed the residence of the child at the home of the parent living in the Member State of origin, the court of the Member State to which the child was removed, seised of an application for the return of the child, must determine the residence of the child and thus whether the transfer was lawful or unlawful
5.                    EU:C:2015:653     6/10/2015 Marie Matoušková,   C-404/14       Arts.   1 (1) (b) 1 (3) (f) Inheritance settlement agreement between the surviving spouse and minor children represented by a guardian ad litem   Classification   Requirement for approval of such an agreement by the court 1.    Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that the approval of an agreement for the sharing-out of an estate concluded by a guardian ad litem on behalf of minor children constitutes a measure relating to the exercise of parental responsibility, within the meaning of Article 1(1)(b) of that Regulation and thus falls within the scope of the latter, and not a measure relating to succession, within the meaning of Article 1(3)(f) thereof, excluded from the scope thereof.
6.                    EU:C:2015:710   21/10/2015 Gogova,     C‑215/15   PPU Arts.   1 (1) (b) 2 12 (3) (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.     In order to determine whether an action falls within the scope of Regulation No 2201/2003 the focus must be on the object of such action. Insofar an action in which one parent asks the court to take a decision in order to remedy the lack of agreement of the other parent to their child travelling outside his Member State of residence in order to require issuance of a passport in the child’s name falls within the material scope of the Regulation. In fact the object of such an action is the exercise of ‘parental responsibility’ for that child within the meaning of Article 1(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 2(7) of Regulation No 2201/2003. This is not altered by the fact that the authorities of the Member State of which the child is a national will take into account such decision in the administrative procedure for the issue of that passport.
7.                    EU:C:2016:772   13/10/2016 Mikołajczyk,   C- 294/15 Arts.   1 (1) a 3 (1) Material scope   Action for annulment of marriage brought by a third party after the death of one of the spouses 1.    Article 1(1)(a) must be interpreted as meaning that an action for annulment of marriage brought by a third party following the death of one of the spouses falls within the scope of Regulation No 2201/2003, as it cannot be excluded that a person may have an interest in having a marriage annulled, even after the death of one of the spouses.  

 

2) Jurisdiction in divorce and separation cases; Residual jurisdiction

No ECLI identifier Name Arts. Key terms Operative part of the judgment
8.                    EU:C:2007:740   29/11/2007 Sundelind Lopez,   C-68/07     Arts.   3 6 7 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.
9.                    EU:C:2009:474   16/7/2009 Hadadi,     C-168/08     Arts.   3(1)(b) 64 (4) 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.      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.   2.      Where spouses each hold the nationality of the same two Member States, Article 3(1)(b) precludes the jurisdiction of the courts of one of those Member States from being rejected on the ground that the applicant does not put forward other links with that State. On the contrary, the courts of those Member States of which the spouses hold the nationality have jurisdiction under that provision and the spouses may seise the court of the Member State of their choice.
10.                EU:C:2016:772   13/10/2016 Mikołajczyk,     C- 294/15 Arts.   1 (1) a 3 (1) Action for annulment of marriage brought by a third party after the death of one of the spouses   Jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of residence of the ‘applicant’ 1.      A person, other than one of the spouses, who brings an action for annulment of marriage may not rely on the forum actoris provided in Article 3(1)(a) fifth and sixth indent (the court of the State where the applicant is habitually residen). As such forum is provided to protect the interest of the spouses, a third party may not rely on such grounds of jurisdiction. Such interpretation does not deprive that third party of access to the courts, since such party may rely on other grounds of jurisdiction provided for in Article 3

 

3) Habitual residence of the child

No ECLI identifier Name Arts. Key terms Operative part of the judgment
11.                EU:C:2009:225   2/4/2009 A,     C-523/07     Arts.   8 (1) 1 (1) 20 Definition of  civil matters   Decision relating to the taking into care and placement of children outside the family home   Child’s habitual residence 1.    The notion of habitual residence under Article 8(1) must be interpreted as meaning that it corresponds to the place which reflects some degree of integration by the child in a social and family environment. To that end, in particular the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons for the stay on the territory of a Member State and the family’s move to that State, the child’s nationality, the place and conditions of attendance at school, linguistic knowledge and the family and social relationships of the child in that State must be taken into consideration. It is for the national court to establish the habitual residence of the child, taking account of all the circumstances specific to each individual case.  By contrast, the fact that the children are staying in a Member State where, for a short period, they carry on a peripatetic life, is liable to constitute an indicator that they do not habitually reside in that State.
12.                EU:C:2010:829   22/12/2010 Mercredi,     C-497/10   PPU Arts.   8 10 13 Child whose parents are unmarried   Habitual residence of an infant   Rights of custody 1.    The concept of habitual residence, for the purposes of Articles 8 and 10 must be interpreted as meaning that such residence corresponds to the place which reflects some degree of integration by the child in a social and family environment.   To that end, where the situation concerned is that of an infant who has been staying with her mother only a few days in a Member State to which she has been removed, the factors which must be taken into consideration include. First, the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons for the stay of that Member State and for the mother’s move to that State. Second, with particular reference to the child’s age, the mother’s geographic and family origins and the family and social connections which the mother and child have with that Member State. It is for the national court to establish the habitual residence of the child, taking account of all the circumstances of fact specific to each individual case.   2.    If the application of the abovementioned tests were, in the case in the main proceedings, to lead to the conclusion that the child’s habitual residence cannot be established, which court has jurisdiction would have to be determined on the basis of the criterion of the child’s presence, under Article 13 of the Regulation.
13.                EU:C:2014:2268   9/10/2014 C v. M     C-376/14   PPU Arts.   2 (11) 8 11 Provisional authorization to transfer the residence of a child Wrongful retention   Habitual residence of the child   Court’s assessment of habitual residence 1.    The court of the Member State to which the child was removed, seised of an application for the return of the child under Article 11, shall determine the residence of the child undertaking an assessment of all the circumstances of fact , such as whether the child was still habitually resident in the Member State of origin immediately before the alleged wrongful retention. As part of that assessment, account be taken of the fact that the judgment authorising the removal could be provisionally enforced and that an appeal had been brought against it.
14.                EU:C:2017:118   15/02/2017 W e V c. X     C‑499/15 Arts.   8 12 13-14 Jurisdiction on an application for variation of provisions on access and maintenance, that was granted in divorce proceedings   Child habitually resident in a different State, from the one seized with the application for variation 1.      The determination of a child’s habitual residence by Article 8 in a given Member State requires (at least) that the child has been physically present in that Member State   2.      Article 8 of Regulation No 2201/2003 (and Article 3 of Regulation No 4/2009) must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State which – within a divorce proccedings filed in the State of residence of one of the spouses – took a decision (that become final) concerning parental responsibility and maintenance obligations with regard to a child (who was never resident there) have no longer jurisdiction to decide on an application for variation of the provisions ordered in that decision, inasmuch as the habitual residence of the child is in another Member State. It is for the courts of the Member State of habitual residence of the chidl to decide on that application. 3.      In a case such as that in the main proceedings, the courts which made a decision in the divorce proceedings do not enjoy any prorogation of jurisdiction. Even if the jurisdiction of those courts has been accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by the mother (pursuing Article 12(1)(b)), that jurisdiction would have in any event come to an end, since the decision granting the application for divorce and deciding on parental responsibility has become final, in accordance with Article 12(2)(a) and (b)
15.                PENDING Reference from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon (Greece)   7/03/2017 C-111/17 Art.   8 Habitual residence of an infant Referral question: How should the term “habitual residence” be interpreted in accordance with Article 11 (1) in the case of a infant who, for reasons of fortuitous or force majeure, has been born in a place other than that of his parents, As they exercise jointly on it the parental authority, have provided for him as a place of habitual residence and has since been illegally detained by one of his parents in the State of his birth or was transferred to a third State. More specifically, if physical presence is, in any case, a necessary and obvious condition for establishing the habitual residence of a person and, in particular, of a newborn.

 

4) Child abduction

No ECLI identifier Name Arts. Key terms Operative part of the judgment
16.                EU:C:2010:829   22/12/2010 Mercredi,     C-497/10   PPU Arts.   8 10 13 Child whose parents are unmarried   Habitual residence of an infant   rights of custody 1.    Judgments of a court of a Member State which refuse to order the prompt return of a child under the 1980 Hague Convention have no effect on judgments which have to be delivered in that other Member State in proceedings relating to parental responsibility which were brought earlier and are still pending in that other Member State.
17.                EU:C:2010:400   1/7/2010 Povse,     C-211/10   PPU Arts.   10 (b) (iv) 11 (8) 47 (2) Unlawful removal of a child   Provisional measures relating to the right to take parental decisions   Rights of custody   Judgment ordering the return of the child   Enforcement of the return of the child 1.    Article 10 (b) (iv) of Regulation No 2201/2003,  must be interpreted as meaning that a provisional measure allowing provisional transfer of a child to a different MS where the mother has relocated pending custody proceedings in the State of habitual residence, does not constitute a ‘judgment on custody that does not entail the return of the child’ within the meaning of that provision, and cannot be the basis of a transfer of jurisdiction to the courts of the Member State to which the child has been unlawfully removed.   2.    Article 11 (8) must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment of the court with jurisdiction ordering the return of the child falls within the scope of that provision, even if it is not preceded by a final judgment of that court relating to rights of custody of the child.
18.                EU:C:2015:3   9/1/2015 Bradbrooke,   C-498/14   PPU Arts.   11 (7) 11 (8)   Child abduction   Return of the child 1.    Article 11(7) provides that, where a court order on non-return has been adopted, unless the courts in the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention have already been seised, the court or central authority which receives the information relating to that court order must notify it to the parties and invite them to make submissions to the court, so that that court can examine the question of custody of the child. However, neither that provision of the Regulation nor Article 11(6) thereof identifies the national court which has jurisdiction to examine the question of custody of the child after an order on non-return has been issued. The same is true of Article 11(8) of the Regulation.   2.    Article 11(7) and (8) must be interpreted as not precluding, as a general rule, a Member State from allocating to a specialised court the jurisdiction to examine questions of return or custody with respect to a child in the context of the procedure set out in those provisions, even where proceedings on the substance of parental responsibility with respect to the child have already, separately, been brought before a court or tribunal. 3.
19.                EU:C:2014:2268   9/10/2014 C v. M     C-376/14   PPU Arts.   2 (11) 8 11 Provisional authorization to transfer the residence of a child Wrongful retention   Habitual residence of the child   Court’s assessment of habitual residence 1.    The court of the Member State to which the child was removed, seised of an application for the return of the child under Article 11, shall determine the residence of the child undertaking an assessment of all the circumstances of fact , such as whether the child was still habitually resident in the Member State of origin immediately before the alleged wrongful retention. As part of that assessment, account be taken of the fact that the judgment authorising the removal could be provisionally enforced and that an appeal had been brought against it.   2.    The failure to return the child to the Member State of origin following the latter judgment is wrongful and Article 11 is applicable if it is held that the child was still habitually resident in that Member State immediately before the retention. If it is held, conversely, that the child was at that time no longer habitually resident in the Member State of origin, a decision dismissing the application for return based on that provision is without prejudice to the application of the rules established in Chapter III of the Regulation relating to the recognition and enforcement of judgments given in a Member State.

 

5) Prorogation of jurisdiction; Transfer of proceedings

No ECLI identifier Name Arts. Key terms Operative part of the judgment
20.                EU:C:2014:2246   1/10/2014 E c. B     C-436/13 Arts.   8 12 (3) 15 16 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.    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.
21.                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.
22.                EU:C:2015:710   21/10/2015 Gogova,     C‑215/15   PPU Arts.   1 (1) (b) 2 12 (3) (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.
23.                EU:C:2016:819     27/10/2016 Child and Family Agency   C‑428/15 Art   15 Transfer of a case to a court of another Member State   Conditions under which transfer is applicable   Court better placed and assessment of requisite of “best interests of the child” 1.      Article 15 is applicable where a child protection application brought under public law by the competent authority of a Member State concerns the adoption of measures relating to parental responsibility, also where in order for this other court to assume jurisdiction it is neceesary that in an authority of the receiving Member State commence proceedings that are separate from those brought in the first Member State, pursuant to its own domestic law and possibly relating to different factual circumstances. 2.      Article 15(1) must be interpreted as meaning that in order to determine that a court of another Member State with which the child has a particular connection is better placed, the court having jurisdiction in a Member State must be satisfied that the transfer of the case to that other court is such as to provide genuine and specific added value to the examination of that case, taking into account, inter alia, the rules of procedure applicable in that other Member State. In order to determine if the a transfer is in the best interests of the child, the court having jurisdiction in a Member State must be satisfied that it’is not liable to be detrimental to the situation of the child. Insofar, the effect of a possible transfer of that case to a court of another Member State on the right of freedom of movement of persons other than the child in question, or the reason why the mother of that child exercised that right prior to that court being seised, are not to be taken into account unless those considerations may have adverse repercussions on the situation of that child.
24.                PENDING Request for a preliminary ruling from the Irinodikio Lerou (Greece)   6/01/2017 Saponaro e Xylina   C-565/16 Art.   12 (3)(b) Prorogation of jurisdiction   Best interests of the child Referral question: In the event that a petition for leave to renounce an inheritance is brought before a Greek court by the parents of a minor child who is habitually resident in Italy, is it the case that, if there is to be a valid prorogation of jurisdiction under Article 12(3)(b): (a) the unequivocal agreement to the prorogation by the parents is demonstrated by merely the lodging of the application before the Greek court, (b) the prosecutor before the first instance courts is one of the parties who must agree to the prorogation at the time of the lodging of the application, given that under Greek law he is legally a party to the relevant proceedings, (c) the prorogation of jurisdiction is in the best interests of the child, given that the child and the applicants, who are the child’s parents, are habitually resident in Italy, while the place of residence of the person from whom property is inherited at the time of his death was Greece and the property inherited is in Greece.

 

6) Seising of a Court, Lis pendens and Provisional measures

No ECLI identifier Name Arts. Key terms Operative part of the judgment
25.                EU:C:2015:654   6/10/2015 A v. B     C-489/14 Arts.   16 19 (1) 19 (3) Lis pendens between judicial separation proceedings and divorce proceedings in a second Member State   Notion of established jurisdiction   Effects on the procedure for seising the courts 1.    In the case of judicial separation and divorce proceedings brought between the same parties before the courts of two Member States, Article 19 (1) and (3) must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation when the proceedings before the court first seised in the first Member State expired after the second court in the second Member State was seised, the criteria for lis pendens are no longer fulfilled and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the court first seised must be regarded as not being established.
26.                EU:C:2009:810   23/12/2009 Detiček,     C-403/09   PPU Art.   20 Provisional measures concerning custody   Wrongful removal of the child Custody of the child granted to the other parent 1.    Article 20 must be interpreted as not allowing, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, a court of a Member State to take a provisional measure in matters of parental responsibility granting custody of a child who is in the territory of that Member State to one parent, where a court of another Member State, which has jurisdiction under that Regulation as to the substance of the dispute relating to custody of the child, has already delivered a judgment provisionally giving custody of the child to the other parent, and that judgment has been declared enforceable in the territory of the former Member State.
27.                EU:C:2016:542   22/06/2016 M. H.     C‑173/16 Art.   16(1)(a) Determination of the time when a court is seised Concept of ‘the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court’ 1.      Pursuant to Article 16(1)(a) the lodging of the document of itself renders the court seised, provided that the applicant has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have service effected on the respondent. As the aim of the provision is to ensure protection against abuse of process, for the purposes of checking compliance delays caused by the judicial system shall not be taken account of, but only of any failure of the applicant to act diligently. 2.      Article 16(1)(a) must be interpreted to the effect that the ‘time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court’, is the time when that document is lodged with the court concerned, even if under national law lodging that document does not of itself immediately initiate proceedings.
28.                EU:C:2014:2246   1/10/2014 E c. B     C-436/13 Arts.   8 12 (3) 15 16 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 2.    The competence of a court pursuant to Articles 8 (1) and 12 (3) must be established ‘at the time the court is seised’. In that regard, Article 16 of the 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’.
29.                EU:C:2010:437   15/7/2010 Purrucker (I)    C-256/09     Arts.   20 21 et seq Provisional, including protective, measures   Recognition and enforcement 1.    The provisions on recognition of judgment laid down in Article 21 et seq. do not apply to provisional measures relating to rights of custody falling within the scope of Article 20 of that Regulation.
30.                EU:C:2010:665   9/11/2010 Purrucker (II)   C-296/10     Art.   19 (2) 20 Lis pendens   Substantive proceedings relating to rights of custody in respect of a child and application for provisional measures relating to rights of custody in respect of the same child 1.    The provisions on lis pendens (Article 19) are not applicable where a court of a Member State first seised for the purpose of obtaining measures in matters of parental responsibility is seised only for the purpose of its granting provisional measures within the meaning of Article 20 and where a court of another Member State which has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter is seised second of an action directed at obtaining the same measures, whether on a provisional basis or as final measures.   2.    The fact that a court of a Member State is seised in the context of proceedings to obtain interim relief (or that a judgment is handed down in the context of such proceedings) and there is nothing in the action brought (or in the judgment handed down) which indicates that the court seised for the interim measures has jurisdiction within the meaning of the Regulation, does not necessarily preclude the possibility that there may be an action as to the substance of the matter.   3.    Where, notwithstanding efforts made by the court second seised to obtain information by enquiry of the party claiming lis pendens (or by the court first seised, or by the central authority), the court second seised lacks any evidence which enables it to determine the cause of action of proceedings brought before another court and which serves, in particular, to demonstrate the jurisdiction of that court and where the interest of the child requires the handing down of a judgment which may be recognised in Member States other than that of the court second seised, it is the duty of that court, after the expiry of a reasonable period in which answers are awaited, to proceed with consideration of the action brought before it. The duration of that reasonable period must take into account the best interests of the child in the specific circumstances of the proceedings concerned.

 

7) Recognition and Enforcement 

No ECLI identifier Name Arts. Key terms Operative part of the judgment
31.                EU:C:2008:406   11/7/2008 Rinau,     C-195/08   PPU Arts.   11 (8) 31 (1) 40 42 Application for non‑recognition of a decision requiring the return of a child wrongfully retained in another Member State 1.    Once a non‑return decision has been taken and brought to the attention of the court of origin, it is irrelevant, for the purposes of issuing the certificate provided for in Article 42 that that decision has been suspended, overturned, set aside or, in any event, has not become res judicata or has been replaced by a decision ordering return, in so far as the return of the child has not actually taken place.   2.    Since no doubt has been expressed as regards the authenticity of that certificate and since it was drawn up in accordance with the standard form set out in Annex IV to the Regulation, opposition to the recognition of the decision ordering return is not permitted and it is for the requested court only to declare the enforceability of the certified decision and to allow the immediate return of the child.   3.    Except where the procedure concerns a decision certified pursuant to Articles 11 (8) and 40 to 42 of the Regulation, any interested party can apply for non‑recognition of a judicial decision, even if no application for recognition of the decision has been submitted beforehand.   4.    Article 31(1) in so far as it provides that neither the person against whom enforcement is sought, nor the child is, at this stage of the proceedings, entitled to make any submissions on the application, is not applicable to proceedings initiated for non‑recognition of a judicial decision if no application for recognition has been lodged beforehand in respect of that decision. In such a situation, the defendant, who is seeking recognition, is entitled to make such submissions.
32.                EU:C:2010:400   1/7/2010 Povse,     C-211/10   PPU Arts.   10 (b) (iv)   11 (8)   47 (2) Unlawful removal of a child   Provisional measures relating to the right to take parental decisions   Rights of custody   Judgment ordering the return of the child pursuant to Art. 11(8)   Enforcement of the return of the child 1.    The second subparagraph of Article 47(2)  of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment delivered subsequently by a court in the Member State of enforcement which awards provisional rights of custody and is deemed to be enforceable under the law of that State cannot preclude enforcement of a certified judgment delivered previously by the court which has jurisdiction in the Member State of origin and ordering the return of the child.   2.    Enforcement of a certified judgment cannot be refused in the Member State of enforcement because, as a result of a subsequent change of circumstances, it might be seriously detrimental to the best interests of the child. Such a change must be pleaded before the court which has jurisdiction in the Member State of origin, which should also hear any application to suspend enforcement of its judgment.
33.                EU:C:2010:437   15/7/2010 Purrucker (I)    C-256/09   Arts.   20 21 et seq Provisional, including protective, measures   Recognition and enforcement 2.    The provisions on recognition of judgment laid down in Article 21 et seq. do not apply to provisional measures relating to rights of custody falling within the scope of Article 20 of that Regulation.
34.                EU:C:2014:2268   9/10/2014 C v. M     C-376/14   PPU Arts.   2 (11) 8 11 Provisional authorization to transfer the residence of a child Wrongful retention   Habitual residence of the child   Court’s assessment of habitual residence 1.    The failure to return the child to the Member State of origin following the latter judgment is wrongful and Article 11 is applicable if it is held that the child was still habitually resident in that Member State immediately before the retention. If it is held, conversely, that the child was at that time no longer habitually resident in the Member State of origin, a decision dismissing the application for return based on that provision is without prejudice to the application of the rules established in Chapter III of the Regulation relating to the recognition and enforcement of judgments given in a Member State.
35.                EU:C:2010:828   22/12/2010 Aguirre Zarraga,   C-491/10   Art.   42 Rights of custody   Child abduction   Enforcement of a certified judgment ordering the return of a child handed down by a (Spanish) court with jurisdiction   Power of the requested (German) court to refuse enforcement of that judgment in a case of serious infringement of the child’s rights 1.    In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the court with jurisdiction in the Member State of enforcement cannot oppose the enforcement of a certified judgment, ordering the return of a child who has been wrongfully removed, on the ground that the court of the Member State of origin which handed down that judgment may have infringed Article 42 interpreted in accordance with Article 24 of EU Charter, since the assessment of whether there is such an infringement falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of origin.
36.                EU:C:2015:563   9/9/2015 Bohez,    C-4/14   Art.     41 47 (1) Judgment concerning rights of access which imposes a periodic penalty payment   Penalty payment is ancillary to the principal obligation   Enforcement of that penalty payment 1.    Recovery of a penalty payment, imposed by the court of the Member State who rendered a judgment on access rights in order to ensure the effectiveness of those rights, is part of the same scheme of enforcement as the judgment concerning the rights of access and must therefore be declared enforceable in accordance with the rules laid down Article 41 and 47.   Indeed  a penalty payment  cannot be considered in isolation as a self-standing obligation but is ancillary to the principal obligation which it safeguards; hence enforcement of such penalty payment is directly linked to the existence of both the principal obligation and a breach thereof. Furthermore it does not fall within the scope of application of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001.   2.    In the context of Regulation No 2201/2003, a foreign judgment which orders a periodic penalty payment is enforceable in the Member State in which enforcement is sought only if the amount of the payment has been finally determined by the courts of the Member State of origin.

* The official text has been slightly modified when needed to make facts and legal issue more understandable.