Case C‑436/13

E.

v

B.

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil division))

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Articles 8, 12 and 15 — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Proceedings relating to the custody of a child habitually resident in the Member State of residence of his mother — Prorogation of jurisdiction in favour of a court of the Member State of residence of the father — Scope’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 1 October 2014

1. EU law — Interpretation — Methods — Literal, systematic and teleological interpretation

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility — Regulation No 2201/2003 — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Court of a Member State before which proceedings have been brought by mutual agreement by the holders of parental responsibility — Jurisdiction ceasing upon final judgment in those proceedings

   (Council Regulation No 2201/2003, Arts 8(1) and 12(3))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 37)

2.  Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility which has been prorogued, under Article 12(3) 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, in favour of a court of a Member State before which proceedings have been brought by mutual agreement by the holders of parental responsibility ceases following a final judgment in those proceedings.

   It follows from the wording of Articles 8(1) and 12(3) of that regulation that the jurisdiction of a court in matters of parental responsibility must be verified and established in each specific case, where a court is seised of proceedings, which implies that it does not continue after pending proceedings have been brought to a close.

   Moreover, jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility must be determined, above all, in the best interests of the child.

   Accordingly, it must be considered that, where a court is seised of proceedings in accordance with Article 12(3) of Regulation No 2201/2003, the best interests of the child can be safeguarded only by a review, in each specific case, of the question whether the prorogation of jurisdiction which is sought is consistent with those best interests.

   Finally, since Article 12(3) seeks to allow the holders of parental responsibility, by mutual agreement and subject to certain other conditions, to bring proceedings before a court in relation to matters pertaining to parental responsibility for the assessment of which that court does not, in principle, have jurisdiction, it cannot be assumed that that agreement will continue, in all cases, after those proceedings have been brought to a close or in relation to other matters which may come to light subsequently.

   Consequently, a prorogation of jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 12(3) of Regulation No 2201/2003, is valid only in relation to the specific proceedings for which the court whose jurisdiction is prorogued is seised and that jurisdiction comes to an end, in favour of the court benefiting from a general jurisdiction under Article 8(1) of that regulation, following the final conclusion of the proceedings from which the prorogation of jurisdiction derives.

   (see paras 40, 45, 47-50, operative part)

Case C‑436/13

E.

v

B.

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil division))

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Articles 8, 12 and 15 — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Proceedings relating to the custody of a child habitually resident in the Member State of residence of his mother — Prorogation of jurisdiction in favour of a court of the Member State of residence of the father — Scope’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 1 October 2014

1. EU law — Interpretation — Methods — Literal, systematic and teleological interpretation

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility — Regulation No 2201/2003 — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Court of a Member State before which proceedings have been brought by mutual agreement by the holders of parental responsibility — Jurisdiction ceasing upon final judgment in those proceedings

   (Council Regulation No 2201/2003, Arts 8(1) and 12(3))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see para. 37)

2.  Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility which has been prorogued, under Article 12(3) 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, in favour of a court of a Member State before which proceedings have been brought by mutual agreement by the holders of parental responsibility ceases following a final judgment in those proceedings.

   It follows from the wording of Articles 8(1) and 12(3) of that regulation that the jurisdiction of a court in matters of parental responsibility must be verified and established in each specific case, where a court is seised of proceedings, which implies that it does not continue after pending proceedings have been brought to a close.

   Moreover, jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility must be determined, above all, in the best interests of the child.

   Accordingly, it must be considered that, where a court is seised of proceedings in accordance with Article 12(3) of Regulation No 2201/2003, the best interests of the child can be safeguarded only by a review, in each specific case, of the question whether the prorogation of jurisdiction which is sought is consistent with those best interests.

   Finally, since Article 12(3) seeks to allow the holders of parental responsibility, by mutual agreement and subject to certain other conditions, to bring proceedings before a court in relation to matters pertaining to parental responsibility for the assessment of which that court does not, in principle, have jurisdiction, it cannot be assumed that that agreement will continue, in all cases, after those proceedings have been brought to a close or in relation to other matters which may come to light subsequently.

   Consequently, a prorogation of jurisdiction, on the basis of Article 12(3) of Regulation No 2201/2003, is valid only in relation to the specific proceedings for which the court whose jurisdiction is prorogued is seised and that jurisdiction comes to an end, in favour of the court benefiting from a general jurisdiction under Article 8(1) of that regulation, following the final conclusion of the proceedings from which the prorogation of jurisdiction derives.

   (see paras 40, 45, 47-50, operative part)