# C_2014071EN.01001202.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus (Finland) lodged on 6 January 2014 — Christophe Bohez v Ingrid Wiertz

(Case C-4/14)

(2014/C 71/21)

Language of the case: Finnish

Referring court

Korkein oikeus

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Christophe Bohez

Defendant: Ingrid Wiertz

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 1(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that cases concerning the enforcement of a penalty payment (astreinte) imposed to ensure compliance with the principal obligation in a case concerning child custody or rights of access are outside the scope of the regulation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 1(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (1) to be interpreted as meaning that cases concerning the enforcement of a penalty payment (astreinte) imposed to ensure compliance with the principal obligation in a case concerning child custody or rights of access are outside the scope of the regulation?

| 2. | If the cases set out in the preceding paragraph fall within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, is Article 49 of the Brussels I Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that a periodic penalty payment which is enforceable as such in the amount stated in the State in which judgment was given, but whose final amount may be changed on the application or arguments of the party subject to the penalty payment, is enforceable in a Member State only if its amount has been separately determined in the State in which judgment was given? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the cases set out in the preceding paragraph fall within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, is Article 49 of the Brussels I Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that a periodic penalty payment which is enforceable as such in the amount stated in the State in which judgment was given, but whose final amount may be changed on the application or arguments of the party subject to the penalty payment, is enforceable in a Member State only if its amount has been separately determined in the State in which judgment was given?

| 3. | If cases such as those identified above are outside the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, is Article 47(1) of the Brussels IIa Regulation (2) to be interpreted as meaning that sanctions and protective measures concerning child custody and rights of access fall within the enforcement procedure referred to in that provision which is governed by the legislation of the Member State of enforcement, or can they form part of the judgment concerning child custody and rights of access which is enforceable in another Member State under the Brussels IIa Regulation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If cases such as those identified above are outside the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, is Article 47(1) of the Brussels IIa Regulation (2) to be interpreted as meaning that sanctions and protective measures concerning child custody and rights of access fall within the enforcement procedure referred to in that provision which is governed by the legislation of the Member State of enforcement, or can they form part of the judgment concerning child custody and rights of access which is enforceable in another Member State under the Brussels IIa Regulation?

| 4. | When enforcement of a penalty payment is sought in another Member State, is it a requirement that the amount of the penalty payment to be enforced has been finally determined separately in the Member State in which judgment was given, even if the Brussels I Regulation does not apply in the enforcement proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

4.

When enforcement of a penalty payment is sought in another Member State, is it a requirement that the amount of the penalty payment to be enforced has been finally determined separately in the Member State in which judgment was given, even if the Brussels I Regulation does not apply in the enforcement proceedings?

| 5. | If a periodic penalty payment (astreinte) imposed as a means to ensure compliance with rights of access is enforceable in another Member State without the amount of the penalty payment to be enforced having separately been finally determined:






  (a) | does the enforcement of the penalty payment nevertheless require a review of whether the failure to comply with rights of access was based on obstacles which it was essential to take into consideration on account of the rights of children, and |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

If a periodic penalty payment (astreinte) imposed as a means to ensure compliance with rights of access is enforceable in another Member State without the amount of the penalty payment to be enforced having separately been finally determined:

(a)

does the enforcement of the penalty payment nevertheless require a review of whether the failure to comply with rights of access was based on obstacles which it was essential to take into consideration on account of the rights of children, and

| (b) | which court has jurisdiction to examine such factors, more specifically,






  (i) | is the jurisdiction of the court of the State of enforcement always limited solely to an examination of whether the alleged failure to comply with rights of access has occurred for reasons which are expressly set out in the judgment in the main proceedings, or |
| --- | --- | --- |

(b)

which court has jurisdiction to examine such factors, more specifically,

(i)

is the jurisdiction of the court of the State of enforcement always limited solely to an examination of whether the alleged failure to comply with rights of access has occurred for reasons which are expressly set out in the judgment in the main proceedings, or

| (ii) | does it follow from the protection of the rights of children in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that the court of the State of enforcement has a more extensive right or obligation to examine whether the failure to comply with rights of access was based on grounds which it was essential to take into consideration in order to safeguard the rights of children? |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

does it follow from the protection of the rights of children in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union that the court of the State of enforcement has a more extensive right or obligation to examine whether the failure to comply with rights of access was based on grounds which it was essential to take into consideration in order to safeguard the rights of children?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1).

(2)  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).

---