Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62018CN0530

Case C-530/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Ilfov (Romania) lodged on 13 August 2018 — EP v FO

OJ C 399, 5.11.2018, p. 23–24 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

5.11.2018   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/23


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Ilfov (Romania) lodged on 13 August 2018 — EP v FO

(Case C-530/18)

(2018/C 399/32)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Ilfov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance: EP

Respondent at first instance: FO

Questions referred

1.

Must Article 15 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 (1) be interpreted as establishing an exception to the rule that the national courts of the place where the child is actually resident are to have jurisdiction?

2.

Must Article 15 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 be interpreted as meaning that the facts set out by a party to proceedings (namely: the child was born in France, her father is a French citizen, her blood relations in France include two sisters and a brother, a niece (her sister’s daughter), her paternal grandfather, her father’s current partner and their minor daughter, whereas she has no family ties on her mother’s side in Romania, she attends French school, her upbringing and mentality have always been French, the language spoken at home between the parents and by the parents to the child has always been French) are factors indicating that the child has a particular connection with France, and must the national court therefore declare that the French courts are better placed to hear the case?

3.

Must Article 15 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 be interpreted as meaning that the procedural differences between the legislation of the two States, such as hearings held in camera by specialised judges, are subject to the best interests of the child for the purposes of that provision [of EU law]?


(1)  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 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).


Top