Oberster Gerichtshof; 2016-10-18; 3 Ob 174/16h
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:AT:OGH0002:2016:0030OB00174.16H.1018.000
Date: 2016-10-18
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Austria

82016AT1018(52)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
The father of two children (the "applicant") represented by their mother (the “defendant”) asserted the children’s alimony, agreed upon in the divorce settlement, rested because of the condition the defendant brought about and maintained unlawfully. After the divorce settlement was concluded, the defendant moved to the Netherlands with the children, which rendered the agreed stipulations on custody no longer relevant in the applicant's view.
The Court of First Instance (Bezirksgericht Imst) rejected the request because of lack of international competence.
The Court of Appeal (Landesgericht Innsbruck) did not follow the applicant’s appeal. According to Article 3(b) of the Brussels I Regulation (¹), in decisions over alimony cases, the court of the place is competent where the persons entitled are habitually resident. In this case, this place was the Netherlands.
The applicant’s appeal on points of law is not admissible.
The Oberster Gerichtshof (the "OGH") leads in its decision that the Court of Appeal has recognised correctly that, in the event of an alimony execution by a resident of a foreign country, the international jurisdiction for the alimony debtor’s opposing action alleging that the dependents have changed circumstances is to be determined according to Article 3 of the Brussels I Regulation (²).
The applicant has essentially repeated the arguments from the appeal and therefore lacks a significant legal question.
The OGH rejected the applicant’s appeal on points of law.
(¹) Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, valid until 09.01.2015
(²) See decision 3 Ob 12/10a.