Cour de cassation 1ère Chambre civile; 2022-04-20; 1re Civ., 20 avril 2022, pourvoi n° 21-23.055, 21-23.056
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2022:C100453
Date: 2022-04-20
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: France

82022FR0420(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
In this case, the Cour de Cassation (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) examined whether the cour d’appel de Grenoble (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’) made a correct application of the law when it dismissed an objection of lis pendens and refused to recognise a Polish judgment.
A Polish national (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) and a French national (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) married and had a child in France. On 2 May 2017, the plaintiff took the child to Poland.
On 26 February 2018, the plaintiff filed an application for divorce in Poland. Several judgments were given in this country; on 12 July 2019, a Polish court (hereinafter ‘the court of Kraków’) (1) held that the child was to reside with the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested the recognition of that judgment in France, pursuant to the new Brussels II Regulation (2).
The defendant filed an application for divorce in France on 5 June 2018, and, on 13 June 2018, he requested the juge aux affaires familiales de Grenoble (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) to decide on parental responsibility. On 25 September 2019, he once again requested the Court of First Instance to decide on parental responsibility.
The Court of Appeal gave two judgments.
By the first judgment, it dismissed an objection of lis pendens raised by the plaintiff, on the grounds that it was not proven that the defendant was aware of the plaintiff’s application for divorce when he filed his 5 June 2018 and 13 June 2018 applications.
By the second judgment, the Court of Appeal refused to declare enforceable the judgment of the court of Kraków, on the grounds that this judgment did not state grounds for the jurisdiction of the Polish courts.
The plaintiff lodged against those two judgments two appeals that the Supreme Courts decided to examine together.
In her first appeal, the plaintiff argued that the defendant was aware of her application for divorce since he entered an appearance in the court of Kraków before it gave its 12 July 2019 ruling. The Supreme Court accepted this argument, and noted that one of the applications mentioned by the Court of Appeal ended in a withdrawal and the other was dismissed for lis pendens by the Court of First Instance. The Supreme Court concluded that the defendant knew that the Polish courts were seised when he seised the French courts on 25 September 2019.
In her second appeal, the plaintiff argued that the lack of grounds for the jurisdiction of the Polish courts did not justify a refusal of recognition. Again, the Supreme Court agreed with the plaintiff; it relied on Article 23 of the new Brussels II Regulation, which enumerates the grounds to refuse recognition of judgments in matters of parental responsibility, and Article 24 of the same regulation, which provides that ‘[the] jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin may not be reviewed’.
The Supreme Courts set aside the judgments of the Court of Appeal.
(1) The judgment of the Supreme Court doesn’t state the original name of this court; as a result, it is not clear whether it is a court of first instance or a court of appeal.
(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.