Županijski sud u Puli-Pola; 2015-07-06; M. C. K.; S. C. K.; Gž-218/15-2
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:HR:ZSPU:2015:1
Date: 2015-07-06
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Croatia

82015HR0706(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The Županijski sud u Puli (hereinafter: County Court in Pula) issued a decision in case number Gž-218/15-2 of 06 July 2015, in which it rejected the appeal of the plaintiff M.C.K. from P., the Republic of Croatia, as unfounded, and at the same time confirmed the decision of the Općinski sud in Poreč (hereinafter: the Municipal Court in Porec) issued in case No P-381/14-6 of 28 November 2014.
This case was a civil procedure against the defendant S.C.K. from S.G., Malta, and its subject was a divorce. The first instance court decided to pause the procedure until it is decided which court had the jurisdiction to decide on the divorce of the parties. The County Court in Pula held that the first instance court determined correctly that the defendant instituted the same divorce procedure at the First Hall of the Civil Court in Valletta, Malta (hereinafter: the Civil Court in Valletta) on 04 August 2014, that the same procedure at the Municipal Court in Porec started later, and that in this case, the provisions of Article 19 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the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, which repealed Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (New Brussels II Regulation) are applicable, which states that if a procedure referring to the divorce of the parties is brought before courts of different Member States, the court second seised shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established.
The plaintiff stated in her appeal that the defendant initiated a mediation process at the Family Section of the Civil Court in Valletta on 04 August 2014 in order to obtain an approval for a divorce of the parties, and that the divorce procedure was instituted only on 03 October 2014, which is later than the plaintiff filed this case. However, the first instance court correctly applied the provisions of Article 16 of the New Brussels II Regulation, according to which a court shall be deemed to be seised by the submitting of a proposal for mediation, which was later justified by filing a case.