Cour de cassation 1ère Chambre civile; 2022-11-30; 1re Civ., 30 novembre 2022, pourvoi n° 21-15.988
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:FR:CCASS:2022:C100857
Date: 2022-11-30
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: France

82022FR1130(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This ruling by the Court of Cassation (hereinafter ‘the Supreme Court’) concerned divorce proceedings involving two Belgian nationals who lived in France.
Ms P. (hereinafter the defendant’) and Mr S. (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) were Belgian citizens. They married in 1982. In 2020, the defendant applied for divorce in France, before the family judge (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) (1).
The cour d’appel d’Aix-en-Provence (hereinafter the ‘Court of Appeal’) ruled that the French courts had jurisdiction, on the grounds that the parties had their habitual residence in France.
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court. He cited Article 3(1)(a) of the new Brussels II Regulation (2), which provides that ‘[in] matters relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment, jurisdiction shall lie with the courts of the Member State (a) in whose territory: - the spouses are habitually resident […]’.
The plaintiff argued that the Court of Appeal relied mostly on the social life and hobbies of the spouses. However, the habitual residence is the permanent or habitual centre of the party concerned. He highlighted the financial interests that the parties had in Belgium.
The Supreme Court also quoted Article 3(1)(a) of the new Brussels II Regulation, and interpreted it in light of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereinafter ‘the CJEU’), which held in Case C-289/20 that ‘the concept of “habitual residence” is characterised, in principle, by two factors, namely, first, the intention of the person concerned to establish the habitual centre of his or her interests in a particular place and, secondly, a presence which is sufficiently stable in the Member State concerned’ (3).
The Supreme Court recalled that the spouses were living mainly in France, were paying nearly all their living expenses in France, had maintenance and repair works done in France, and had a relational and friend network in France.
The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal correctly concluded that the parties had intended to establish the habitual centre of their interests in France.
Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no reasonable doubt which could justify referring a question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.
For those reasons, the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal.
(1) In French, the juge aux affaires familiales.
(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.
(3) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 25 November 2021, IB v FA, C-289/20, ECLI:EU:C:2021:955, paragraph 57.