EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62020CA0501
Case C-501/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona- Spain) — MPA v LCDNMT (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Articles 3, 6 to 8 and 14 — Definition of ‘habitual residence’ — Jurisdiction, recognition, enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Articles 3 and 7 — Nationals of two different Member States residing in a third State as members of the contract staff working in the EU Delegation to that third State — Determination of jurisdiction — Forum necessitatis)
Case C-501/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona- Spain) — MPA v LCDNMT (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Articles 3, 6 to 8 and 14 — Definition of ‘habitual residence’ — Jurisdiction, recognition, enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Articles 3 and 7 — Nationals of two different Member States residing in a third State as members of the contract staff working in the EU Delegation to that third State — Determination of jurisdiction — Forum necessitatis)
Case C-501/20: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona- Spain) — MPA v LCDNMT (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Articles 3, 6 to 8 and 14 — Definition of ‘habitual residence’ — Jurisdiction, recognition, enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Articles 3 and 7 — Nationals of two different Member States residing in a third State as members of the contract staff working in the EU Delegation to that third State — Determination of jurisdiction — Forum necessitatis)
OJ C 408, 24.10.2022, p. 8–9
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
24.10.2022 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 408/8 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 1 August 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona- Spain) — MPA v LCDNMT
(Case C-501/20) (1)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Articles 3, 6 to 8 and 14 - Definition of ‘habitual residence’ - Jurisdiction, recognition, enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Articles 3 and 7 - Nationals of two different Member States residing in a third State as members of the contract staff working in the EU Delegation to that third State - Determination of jurisdiction - Forum necessitatis)
(2022/C 408/09)
Language of the case: Spanish
Referring court
Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: MPA
Defendant: LCDNMT
Operative part of the judgment
1. |
Article 3(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, and Article 3(a) and (b) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that the status of the spouses concerned as members of the contract staff of the European Union, working in the latter’s delegation to a third country and in respect of whom it is claimed that they enjoy diplomatic status in that third State, is not capable of constituting a decisive factor for the purposes of determining habitual residence, within the meaning of those provisions; |
2. |
Article 8(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of determining a child’s habitual residence, the connecting factor of the mother’s nationality and her residence, prior to the marriage, in the Member State of the court seised of an application relating to parental responsibility is irrelevant, whereas the fact that the minor children were born in that Member State and hold the nationality of that Member State is insufficient; |
3. |
Where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction to rule on an application for the dissolution of matrimonial ties pursuant to Articles 3 to 5 of Regulation No 2201/2003, Article 7 of that regulation, read in conjunction with Article 6 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the respondent in the main proceedings is a national of a Member State other than that of the court seised prevents the application of the clause relating to residual jurisdiction laid down in Article 7 to establish the jurisdiction of that court without, however, preventing the courts of the Member State of which the respondent is a national from having jurisdiction to hear such an application pursuant to the latter Member State’s national rules on jurisdiction; Where no court of a Member State has jurisdiction to rule on an application relating to parental responsibility pursuant to Articles 8 to 13 of Regulation No 2201/2003, Article 14 of that regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the respondent in the main proceedings is a national of a Member State other than that of the court seised does not preclude the application of the clause relating to residual jurisdiction laid down in Article 14 of that regulation; |
4. |
Article 7 of Regulation No 4/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that:
|