# C_2017283EN.01001401.xml

| 28.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/14

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 25 April 2017 — Alexander Mölk v Valentina Mölk

(Case C-214/17)

(2017/C 283/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Alexander Mölk

Applicant:

Defendant: Valentina Mölk

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 4(3) read in conjunction with Article 3 of the 2007 Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations to be interpreted as meaning that a maintenance debtor’s application, on the basis of a change in his income, for a reduction in the amount of maintenance awarded by a decision that has become final is governed by the law of the State of the creditor’s habitual residence even if the amount of maintenance previously payable was determined by the court, on application by the creditor pursuant to Article 4(3) of the 2007 Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations, according to the law of the State where the debtor has his habitual residence, which has not changed?
  If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 4(3) read in conjunction with Article 3 of the 2007 Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations to be interpreted as meaning that a maintenance debtor’s application, on the basis of a change in his income, for a reduction in the amount of maintenance awarded by a decision that has become final is governed by the law of the State of the creditor’s habitual residence even if the amount of maintenance previously payable was determined by the court, on application by the creditor pursuant to Article 4(3) of the 2007 Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations, according to the law of the State where the debtor has his habitual residence, which has not changed?

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:

| 2. | Is Article 4(3) of the 2007 Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations to be interpreted as meaning that a creditor also ‘seises’ the competent authority of the State where the debtor has his habitual residence by entering an appearance, within the meaning of Article 5 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, (1) and contesting the substance of the matter in proceedings initiated by the debtor with the competent authority? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is Article 4(3) of the 2007 Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations to be interpreted as meaning that a creditor also ‘seises’ the competent authority of the State where the debtor has his habitual residence by entering an appearance, within the meaning of Article 5 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, (1) and contesting the substance of the matter in proceedings initiated by the debtor with the competent authority?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 7, p. 1.

1

---