Županijski sud u Rijeci; 2015-03-12; A. P.; S. L.; Gž-4377/2014-2
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:HR:ZSRI:2015:1
Date: 2015-03-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Croatia

82015HR0312(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The Županijski sud u Rijeci (hereinafter: County Court in Rijeka) issued a decision in case number Gž-4377/2014-2 of 12 March 2015, in which it rejected the appeal of the applicant A.P. from O., N.c. 93 as unfounded, and in the same decision confirmed the decision of the Općinski sud u Opatiji (hereinafter: Municipal Court in Opatija) taken in case number R1-21/2014 of 02 October 2014. This case was an extrajudicial procedure against the opposite party S.L. from K., R. of S., filed to award child custody. The first instance court decided to suspend the procedure and invited the parties to submit a claim to the competent court of the Republic of Slovenia within 15 days of the legal validity of the decision, and notify the court of this; otherwise, the Municipal court in Rijeka would take over jurisdiction and continue the procedure. The County Court in Rijeka held that the contested decision of the Municipal Court in Opatija was right. Based on the evidence, the Municipal Court in Opatija determined that the requirements of Article 15 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, which repealed Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (“New Brussels II Regulation”) were met and according to them the procedure was suspended. In the first instance procedure, it was determined that the minor was born and lived in the Republic of Slovenia until the end of the first grade of elementary school, and that based on the final decision of the court of the Republic of Slovenia, the child was in the custody of his/her mother until the divorce of the parties. Therefore, the first instance court’s conclusion that the minor child is particularly related to another state was justified, as well as the court’s suggestion that the competent court of the Republic of Slovenia would be a better option to solve the case in accordance with the provisions of Article 15(3) of the New Brussels II Regulation.