Gerechtshof ’s-Gravenhage, uitspraak van 16/04/2008 900-H-07
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHSGR:2008:BD2015
Date: 2008-04-16
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82008NL0416(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE SUMMARY
JURE SUMMARY
The father of a child was ordered on 25.5.2005 by the trial court in Guéret (FR) to pay child maintenance. He appealed the judgment to the appellate court in Limoges (FR) and requested, inter alia, the judgment be lifted. Meanwhile, the mother of the child petitioned the Rechtbank of 's-Gravenhage (NL) on 15.11.2005 to modify the child maintenance order in her favour. The husband cited the conflicting force of lis pendens of the pending proceedings in Limoge (FR). The Rechtbank declared itself as having jurisdiction, noting that the court in Limoge had dismissed the husband's appeal in the interim, and a conflicting force of lis pendens was no longer an issue. The husband appealed that ruling to the Gerechthof of 's-Gravenhage (NL). He argued the Rechtbank incorrectly judged the question of the conflicting force of lis pendens by the time of its own judgment and not by the time of the pendency. Because the French judge declared his court as having jurisdiction, the Rechtbank should have declared itself lacking in jurisdiction as well pursuant to Article 27 Brussels I Regulation.
The Hof of 's-Gravenhage draws on Recital 15 Brussels I Regulation, according to which concurrent proceedings must be avoided so that irreconcilable judgments will not be given in two Member States. The Hof interprets the words "until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established" in Article 27(1) Brussels I Regulation as meaning the court most recently seised must defer judgment until the court first seised has ruled on the merits. The Rechtbank was therefore correct in deciding that at the time of the pendency there was still a danger of irreconcilable judgments, but no longer at the time of the judgment, as the court in Limoge had meanwhile dismissed the appeal without having ruled on the child maintenance. The Hof dismisses the appeal.