# C_2019319EN.01002101.xml

| 23.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/21

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 July 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Ilfov — Romania) — EP v FO

(Case C-530/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 15 - Transfer of a case to a court of another Member State better placed to hear it - Exception to the general rule that the court for the place where the child is habitually resident has jurisdiction - Particular connection with another Member State - Evidence making it possible to determine the better placed court - Existence of different rules of law - Best interests of the child)

(2019/C 319/23)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Tribunalul Ilfov

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance: EP

Respondent at first instance: FO

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Article 15(1) 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 to the effect that it establishes an exception to the general rule of jurisdiction laid down in Article 8 of Regulation No 2201/2003, according to which the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States is determined by the place where the child is habitually resident at the time the courts are seised. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 15(1) 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 to the effect that it establishes an exception to the general rule of jurisdiction laid down in Article 8 of Regulation No 2201/2003, according to which the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States is determined by the place where the child is habitually resident at the time the courts are seised.

| 2. | Article 15 of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted to the effect that, if one or more of the five alternative criteria which it lays down exhaustively in order to assess whether the child has a particular connection to another Member State, other than the State of her habitual residence, are satisfied, the court having jurisdiction by virtue of Article 8(1) of that regulation has the option to transfer the case to a court which it considers to be better placed to deal with the dispute before it, but is not obliged to do so. If the court having jurisdiction reaches the conclusion that the relations which link the child concerned to the Member State of her habitual residence are stronger than those which link her to another Member State, that conclusion is sufficient to rule out the application of Article 15 of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 15 of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted to the effect that, if one or more of the five alternative criteria which it lays down exhaustively in order to assess whether the child has a particular connection to another Member State, other than the State of her habitual residence, are satisfied, the court having jurisdiction by virtue of Article 8(1) of that regulation has the option to transfer the case to a court which it considers to be better placed to deal with the dispute before it, but is not obliged to do so. If the court having jurisdiction reaches the conclusion that the relations which link the child concerned to the Member State of her habitual residence are stronger than those which link her to another Member State, that conclusion is sufficient to rule out the application of Article 15 of that regulation.

| 3. | Article 15 of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted to the effect that the existence of differences between the rules of law, in particular the rules of procedure, of a Member State having jurisdiction as to the substance of a case and those of another Member State with which the child concerned has a particular connection, such as the examination of cases in camera by specialist judges, does not constitute, in a general and abstract way, a relevant criterion, in light of the best interests of the child, when assessing whether the courts of that Member State are better placed to hear that case. The court having jurisdiction may take those differences into consideration only if they are such as to provide genuine and specific added value with respect to the decision to be taken in relation to that child, as compared with the possibility of the case remaining before that court. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Article 15 of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted to the effect that the existence of differences between the rules of law, in particular the rules of procedure, of a Member State having jurisdiction as to the substance of a case and those of another Member State with which the child concerned has a particular connection, such as the examination of cases in camera by specialist judges, does not constitute, in a general and abstract way, a relevant criterion, in light of the best interests of the child, when assessing whether the courts of that Member State are better placed to hear that case. The court having jurisdiction may take those differences into consideration only if they are such as to provide genuine and specific added value with respect to the decision to be taken in relation to that child, as compared with the possibility of the case remaining before that court.

---

(1)  OJ C 399, 5.11.2018.

---