Joined Cases C‑400/13 and C‑408/13

Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders

v

David Verhaegen

and

Barbara Huber

v

Manfred Huber

(Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf and the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Cooperation in civil matters — Regulation No 4/2009 — Article 3 — Jurisdiction to rule on an action relating to a maintenance obligation in respect of a person resident in another Member State — National legislation establishing a centralisation of jurisdiction’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 18 December 2014

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Regulation No 4/2009 — Jurisdiction in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Court for the creditor’s place of habitual residence — National legislation establishing a centralisation of judicial jurisdiction in matters relating to cross-border maintenance obligations — Whether permissible — Conditions — Achievement of the objectives of the proper administration of justice, the protection of the interests of maintenance creditors and the facilitation of the recovery of claims — Assessment by the national court

(Council Regulation No 4/2009, Art. 3(b))

Article 3(b) of Regulation No 4/2009 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which establishes a centralisation of judicial jurisdiction in matters relating to cross-border maintenance obligations in favour of a first instance court which has jurisdiction for the seat of the appeal court, except where that rule helps to achieve the objective of a proper administration of justice and protects the interests of maintenance creditors while promoting the effective recovery of such claims, which is, however, a matter for the referring courts to verify.

Although the implementation of the objectives of Article 3(b) of Regulation No 4/2009 does not imply that the Member States have to establish competent courts in each place, it is by contrast important that, amongst the courts designated to deal with disputes in matters relating to maintenance obligations, the court which has jurisdiction is the one which ensures a particularly close connection with the place where the maintenance creditor is habitually resident. National legislation that designates as the court for the place where the creditor is habitually resident, as referred to in Article 3(b) of the regulation, a court whose area of jurisdiction may not be the same as that of the court which has jurisdiction in respect of domestic disputes with the same subject-matter, does not necessarily help to achieve the objective of proximity pursued by that provision.

Furthermore, such a national rule may serve to ensure the effective recovery of maintenance claims in cross-border situations, to preserve the interests of maintenance creditors and to promote the proper administration of justice. However, although a centralisation of jurisdiction promotes the development of specific expertise of such a kind as to improve the effectiveness of recovery of maintenance claims, while ensuring the proper administration of justice and serving the interests of the parties to the dispute, it is not inconceivable that such a rule may restrict the effective recovery of maintenance claims in cross-border situations. This requires a specific examination, by the referring courts, of the situation in the Member State concerned.

(see paras 35, 36, 39, 44-47, operative part)

Joined Cases C‑400/13 and C‑408/13

Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders

v

David Verhaegen

and

Barbara Huber

v

Manfred Huber

(Requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf and the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Cooperation in civil matters — Regulation No 4/2009 — Article 3 — Jurisdiction to rule on an action relating to a maintenance obligation in respect of a person resident in another Member State — National legislation establishing a centralisation of jurisdiction’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 18 December 2014

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Regulation No 4/2009 — Jurisdiction in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Court for the creditor’s place of habitual residence — National legislation establishing a centralisation of judicial jurisdiction in matters relating to cross-border maintenance obligations — Whether permissible — Conditions — Achievement of the objectives of the proper administration of justice, the protection of the interests of maintenance creditors and the facilitation of the recovery of claims — Assessment by the national court

(Council Regulation No 4/2009, Art. 3(b))

Article 3(b) of Regulation No 4/2009 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which establishes a centralisation of judicial jurisdiction in matters relating to cross-border maintenance obligations in favour of a first instance court which has jurisdiction for the seat of the appeal court, except where that rule helps to achieve the objective of a proper administration of justice and protects the interests of maintenance creditors while promoting the effective recovery of such claims, which is, however, a matter for the referring courts to verify.

Although the implementation of the objectives of Article 3(b) of Regulation No 4/2009 does not imply that the Member States have to establish competent courts in each place, it is by contrast important that, amongst the courts designated to deal with disputes in matters relating to maintenance obligations, the court which has jurisdiction is the one which ensures a particularly close connection with the place where the maintenance creditor is habitually resident. National legislation that designates as the court for the place where the creditor is habitually resident, as referred to in Article 3(b) of the regulation, a court whose area of jurisdiction may not be the same as that of the court which has jurisdiction in respect of domestic disputes with the same subject-matter, does not necessarily help to achieve the objective of proximity pursued by that provision.

Furthermore, such a national rule may serve to ensure the effective recovery of maintenance claims in cross-border situations, to preserve the interests of maintenance creditors and to promote the proper administration of justice. However, although a centralisation of jurisdiction promotes the development of specific expertise of such a kind as to improve the effectiveness of recovery of maintenance claims, while ensuring the proper administration of justice and serving the interests of the parties to the dispute, it is not inconceivable that such a rule may restrict the effective recovery of maintenance claims in cross-border situations. This requires a specific examination, by the referring courts, of the situation in the Member State concerned.

(see paras 35, 36, 39, 44-47, operative part)