This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013CA0400
Joined Cases C-400/13 and C-408/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf and the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders represented by Marianne Sanders v David Verhaegen (C-400/13), Barbara Huber v Manfred Huber (C-408/13) (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)
Joined Cases C-400/13 and C-408/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf and the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders represented by Marianne Sanders v David Verhaegen (C-400/13), Barbara Huber v Manfred Huber (C-408/13) (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)
Joined Cases C-400/13 and C-408/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf and the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders represented by Marianne Sanders v David Verhaegen (C-400/13), Barbara Huber v Manfred Huber (C-408/13) (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)
IO C 65, 23.2.2015, p. 8–8
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 18/12/2014
- Date lodged:
- 16/07/2013
- Author:
- An Chúirt Bhreithiúnais
- Form:
- Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
- Authentic language:
- Gearmáinis
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
23.2.2015 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 65/8 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf and the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders represented by Marianne Sanders v David Verhaegen (C-400/13), Barbara Huber v Manfred Huber (C-408/13)
(Joined Cases C-400/13 and C-408/13) (1)
((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))
(2015/C 065/11)
Language of the case: German
Referring courts
Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, Amtsgericht Karlsruhe
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders represented by Marianne Sanders (C-400/13), Barbara Huber (C-408/13)
Defendants: David Verhaegen (C-400/13), Manfred Huber (C-408/13)
Operative part of the judgment
Article 3(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 precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings 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.
