# C_2015016EN.01000802.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky — Czech Republic) — L v M

(Case C-656/13) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 12(3) - Child whose parents are not married - Prorogation of jurisdiction - No other related proceedings pending - Acceptance of jurisdiction - Challenge to the jurisdiction of a court by a party who has made an application to that court)

(2015/C 016/11)

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: L

Defendant: M

Interveners: R, K

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 12(3) 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, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as allowing, for the purposes of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility, the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State which is not that of the child’s habitual residence to be established even where no other proceedings are pending before the court chosen. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 12(3) 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, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as allowing, for the purposes of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility, the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State which is not that of the child’s habitual residence to be established even where no other proceedings are pending before the court chosen.

| 2. | Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be considered that the jurisdiction of the court seised by one party of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility has been ‘accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by all the parties to the proceedings’ within the meaning of that provision where the defendant in those first proceedings subsequently brings a second set of proceedings before the same court and, on taking the first step required of him in the first proceedings, pleads the lack of jurisdiction of that court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be considered that the jurisdiction of the court seised by one party of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility has been ‘accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by all the parties to the proceedings’ within the meaning of that provision where the defendant in those first proceedings subsequently brings a second set of proceedings before the same court and, on taking the first step required of him in the first proceedings, pleads the lack of jurisdiction of that court.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.

---