Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62013CN0442

Case C-442/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 6 August 2013 — Sarah Nagy v Marcel Nagy

OJ C 325, 9.11.2013, p. 14–14 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 325, 9.11.2013, p. 13–13 (HR)

9.11.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 325/14

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 6 August 2013 — Sarah Nagy v Marcel Nagy

(Case C-442/13)

2013/C 325/23

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sarah Nagy

Defendant: Marcel Nagy

Questions referred

1.

Are two proceedings brought ‘between the same parties’, within the meaning of Article 12 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, (1) where in one set of proceedings the child makes a claim against the father for past and current maintenance, and the father, in divorce proceedings, seeks a determination of his maintenance obligation relating to that child and of payments to be made to the mother after the divorce?

2.

If the answer to that question is in the affirmative: Where, in one set of proceedings, the maintenance creditor makes a claim for current maintenance and, in another set of proceedings, the maintenance debtor seeks to have his obligation to pay current maintenance postponed to a later date, will the proceedings then involve ‘the same cause of action’, within the meaning of Article 12 of the regulation, from the later date?

(1)  OJ 2008 L 7, p. 1.

Top