Keywords
Summary

Keywords

1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility – Regulation No 2201/2003 – Temporal scope

(Act of Accession of 2003; Council Regulation No 2201/2003, Art. 64(4))

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility – Regulation No 2201/2003 – Jurisdiction in divorce matters – Spouses resident in the Member State addressed and each having the nationality of the Member State of origin and the Member State addressed – Obligation of the court addressed to take into account the common double nationality of the spouses

(Council Regulation No 2201/2003, Arts 3(1)(b), and 64(4))

3. Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility – Regulation No 2201/2003 – Jurisdiction in divorce matters – Alternative grounds of jurisdiction laid down in Article 3(1)(a) and (b)

(Council Regulation No 2201/2003, Art. 3(1)(a) and (b))

Summary

1. The recognition of a judgment of divorce granted by a court in the Republic of Hungary after the date of entry into force in Hungary of Regulation No 1347/2000 but before the date on which Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, became applicable, must be assessed by applying Article 64(4) of Regulation No 2201/2003, since proceedings were instituted and the judgment delivered within the period set out in that provision. In accordance with that provision, such a divorce judgment is to be recognised pursuant to Regulation No 2201/2003 if jurisdiction was founded on rules which accorded with those provided for either in Chapter II of that regulation, or in Regulation No 1347/2000, or in a convention concluded between the Member State of origin and the Member State addressed which was in force when the proceedings were instituted.

(see paras 27-29)

2. Where the court of the Member State addressed must verify, pursuant to Article 64(4) of Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation No 1347/2000, whether the court of the Member State of origin of a judgment would have had jurisdiction under Article 3(1)(b) of that regulation, the latter provision precludes the court of the Member State addressed from regarding spouses who each hold the nationality both of that State and of the Member State of origin as nationals only of the Member State addressed. That court must, on the contrary, take into account the fact that the spouses also hold the nationality of the Member State of origin and that, therefore, the courts of the latter could have had jurisdiction to hear the case.

Accordingly, if spouses having the same dual nationality were treated as if they had only the nationality of the Member State seised, that would have the effect of precluding them, in the context of the transitional rule of recognition referred to in Article 64(4) of Regulation No 2201/2003, from relying on Article 3(1)(b) of that regulation before a court of the Member State addressed in order to establish the jurisdiction of the courts of another Member State, even though those persons hold the nationality of the latter State.

(see paras 41-43, operative part 1)

3. Where spouses each hold the nationality of the same two Member States, Article 3(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation No 1347/2000, precludes the jurisdiction of the courts of one of those Member States from being rejected on the ground that the applicant does not put forward other links with that State. On the contrary, the courts of those Member States of which the spouses hold the nationality have jurisdiction under that provision and the spouses may seise the court of the Member State of their choice.

In that regard, the system of jurisdiction of the courts provided for under Article 3(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 is based on a number of alternative objective grounds with no hierarchy being established between them. Therefore, the coexistence of several courts having jurisdiction is permitted, without any hierarchy being established between them.

In addition, there is nothing in the wording of Article 3(1)(b) to suggest that only the ‘effective’ nationality could be taken into account in applying that provision. Such a criterion cannot be found in the objectives of that provision or in the context of which it forms part and would restrict individuals’ choice of the court having jurisdiction, particularly in cases where the right to freedom of movement for persons had been exercised. Thus, to the extent that habitual residence would be an essential consideration for the purpose of determining the most effective nationality, the grounds of jurisdiction provided for in Article 3(1)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 2201/2203 would frequently overlap. That would amount to establishing, with regard to persons holding a number of nationalities, a hierarchy between the grounds of jurisdiction laid down in Article 3(1), for which there is no basis in the wording of that paragraph

(see paras 48-54, operative part 2)