Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2246
Date: 2014-10-01
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: United Kingdom

summary of the facts in the main proceedings that the child lives with the mother and is not denied contact with the father, even if that contact does not always take place in accordance with that agreement. 23 Finally, there is nothing in the file before the Court to suggest that contact between the child and the father, in accordance with the agreement of 21 July 2010, as ordered by the Court of First Instance, Torrox, would harm the interests of the child. 24 Finally, it may be inferred from the account of the facts by the referring court that, currently, no other question which significantly affects the child’s welfare is in dispute between the parties to the main proceedings. In particular, the file before the Court does not contain anything to suggest that an urgent application for a provisional measure has been brought before the courts of the United Kingdom, pursuant to Article 20 of Regulation No 2201/2003 (see, to that effect, Case C‑403/09 PPU Detiček [2009] ECR I‑12193, paragraphs 38 and 42). 25 Accordingly, the legal uncertainty affecting the child is not capable of constituting an exceptional circumstance that could justify the application of an expedited procedure (see, to that effect, the orders of the President of the Court of 8 September 2011 in Joined Cases C‑356/11 and C‑357/11 O and Others, paragraph 14; of 7 February 2012 in Case C‑648/11 MA and Others, paragraph 12; and of 5 October 2012 in Case C‑394/12 Abdullahi, paragraph 14). 26 That finding is borne out by the fact that it is apparent, from the detailed chronology of the facts and proceedings annexed to the order for reference, that the treatment of that case before the United Kingdom courts has, several times, been the subject of adjournments following agreements reached between the mother and father. 27 In addition, it must be borne in mind that neither the risk of economic loss (see, inter alia, order of the President of the Court of 21 September 2009 in Case C‑241/09 Fluxys, paragraph 11 and the case-law cited) nor the economic sensitivity of the case in the main proceedings (see, inter alia, order of the President of the Court of 3 July 2008 in Case C‑201/08 Plantanol, paragraph 9 and the case-law cited) are such as to establish the existence of urgency within the meaning of Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 28 Consequently, the request of the referring court to have an expedited procedure applied to the present case cannot be granted. On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders: The request by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) that the expedited procedure under Article 105(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice be applied to Case C‑436/13 is rejected. [Signatures] * Language of the case: English.