JURE summary

JURE summary

This case regards a question of international jurisdiction in a child maintenance dispute held before the Qorti Ċivili (Sezzjoni tal-Familja) (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’).

The mother of a child (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) is an Egyptian citizen. The father of a child (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) has British and Egyptian citizenship. The child was born in the United Kingdom when the defendant and plaintiff were married. There were cases of domestic violence in the relationship even before the child was born. When the plaintiff was in Egypt with the child, the relatives of the defendant took the passports off her and the child, so they could not return to the United Kingdom. From that moment on, the plaintiff lived alone in Egypt. Four years later she got remarried and after the revolution in Egypt started, she relocated to Malta. The defendant was never interested in the child and, with the small exception of court-ordered maintenance provided in the first four years, he never contributed to child’s needs.

The plaintiff in its request demanded maintenance from the defendant. The defendant objected, alleging the lack of international jurisdiction of the Maltese courts as the previous decision about care and custody of the child was issued in Alexandria, Egypt. It took away parental responsibility from the plaintiff and transferred it to her mother, which is a rule of Egyptian civil law when the mother of a child remarries. The plaintiff moved to Malta with the child and lived here for four years without any objections from the defendant.

The Court of First Instance cited Article 3(b) of the Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 (¹) according to which ‘in matters relating to maintenance obligations in the Member States, the jurisdiction shall lie with the court for the place where the creditor is habitually resident’. The fact of the habitual residence of the child in Malta is undisputed. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff came to Malta with the child without his consent, however, the court did not find any justification as to why no legal steps had been taken in all the years before the start of these proceedings. The Court of First Instance, therefore, applied Article 5(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (²) suggesting the jurisdiction on the domicile of the maintenance creditor and Article 8(1) of the new Brussels II Regulation (³) suggesting the jurisdiction on the habitual residence of the child, because this is a matter of parental responsibility.

Because the child has its habitual residence in Malta, the Court of First Instance found that the Maltese courts have international jurisdiction. The court, therefore, dismissed the preliminary objection of a lack of jurisdiction and ordered the continuation of the case.

(¹) 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.

(²) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

(³) 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.