Order;Summary — ECLI:EU:C:2019:583
Date: 2019-07-10
Language of the case: Romanian
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Romania

Summary C-530/18 — 1 
Case C-530/18 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
13 August 2018 
Referring court: 
Tribunalul Ilfov (Romania) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
20 June 2018 
Applicant at first instance: 
EP 
Respondent at first instance: 
FO 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Divorce proceedings and ancillary claims concerning the custody of a minor child, 
the payment of contributions towards the costs of that child’s care and upbringing, 
and the restoration of the applicant’s maiden name 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request for a preliminary ruling 
Request pursuant to Article 267 TFEU for the interpretation of Article 15 of 
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 
Questions referred 
1. Must Article 15 of 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 be interpreted as 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-530/18 
 
2  
establishing an exception to the rule that the national courts of the place where the 
child is actually resident are to have jurisdiction? 
2. Must Article 15 of 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 be interpreted as 
meaning that the facts set out by a party to proceedings (namely: the child was 
born in France, her father is a French citizen, her blood relations in France include 
two sisters and a brother, a niece (her sister’s daughter), her paternal grandfather, 
her father’s current partner and their minor daughter, whereas she has no family 
ties on her mother’s side in Romania, she attends French school, her upbringing 
and mentality have always been French, the language spoken at home between the 
parents and by the parents to the child has always been French) are factors 
indicating that the child has a particular connection with France, and must the 
national court therefore declare that the French courts are better placed to hear the 
case? 
3. Must Article 15 of 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 be interpreted as 
meaning that the procedural differences between the legislation of the two States, 
such as hearings held in camera by specialised judges, are subject to the best 
interests of the child for the purposes of that provision [of EU law]? 
Provisions of EU law relied on 
Article 15 of Regulation No 2201/2003 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Legea nr. 272/2004 din 21 iunie 2004 privind protecția și promovarea drepturilor 
copilului (Law No 272/2004 of 21 June 2004 on the protection and promotion of 
the rights of the child), [re]published in the Monitorul Oficial (Official Journal) 
No 159 of 5 March 2014, establishing the general rule that any legislation or legal 
act adopted in the field of the rights of the child is subject primarily to the 
principle of the best interests of the child 
Articles 264 and 396 to 403 of Legea nr. 287/2009 din 17 iulie 2009 privind 
Codul civil (Law No 287/2009 of 17 July 2009 establishing the Civil Code), 
published in the Monitorul Oficial (Official Journal) No 505 of 15 July 2011, on 
the hearing of children in court proceedings concerning them and, more 
specifically, on the effects of divorce in respect of the relationship between 
parents and their minor children 
EP 
 
3 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 By application entered in the register of the Judecătoria Buftea (Court of First 
Instance, Buftea) on 13 January 2014, the applicant, EP, a Romanian citizen, 
sought a ruling from the court in the judgment to be given in the case between the 
applicant and the respondent, FO, a French citizen, dissolving the marriage 
contracted between them on 7 May 2005, restoring her maiden name, awarding 
her custody of their minor child and establishing that child’s residence with her, 
together with an order for payment by the respondent of contributions towards the 
costs of the child’s care and upbringing. 
2 The respondent submitted a response in which he claimed that, inter alia, the 
Romanian courts did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, arguing that the 
dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the Russian courts. At the same time, the 
respondent submitted a counterclaim for the dissolution of the marriage on 
grounds of the applicant’s exclusive fault, the attribution of sole parental 
responsibility for the child, the establishment of her residence at his home in 
Russia, an order for payment by the applicant of the costs connected with the 
child’s care and maintenance, and the restoration of the applicant’s maiden name. 
3 By order of 10 October 2014, the Judecătoria Buftea rejected the respondent’s 
claim that the Romanian courts did not have international jurisdiction as 
unfounded. Similarly, that court ruled that the law applicable to the dispute is 
Romanian law. 
4 At the public hearing on 8 June 2016, the parties stated that they were seeking the 
dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent and an uncontested divorce. As 
regards the heads of claim ancillary to the divorce, both parties requested sole 
parental responsibility for the child, the establishment of that child’s residence at 
their own home, and an order for payment by the other party of contributions 
towards the costs of the child’s care and upbringing. 
5 By judgment of 4 July 2016, the Judecătoria Buftea declared that the marriage was 
dissolved by mutual consent, the applicant’s maiden name was restored, the 
child’s residence was established at the mother’s home and the parents had joint 
parental responsibility for the child, and ordered that personal ties be maintained 
between the respondent and the child in accordance with a programme established 
by that court and that the respondent pay contributions towards the costs of the 
child’s care and upbringing. 
6 In making that decision, the Judecătoria Buftea considered that, since the actual 
separation of the couple, which took place in late 2013, their minor child has lived 
with the applicant. According to the psychosocial investigative report drawn up 
during the proceedings, the child has integrated satisfactorily into her 
environment, has a normal social life, attends French school and her academic 
performance is very good. The applicant has recently moved with the child to the 
home of her current partner. The child has integrated very well into that new 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING — CASE C-530/18 
 
4  
environment and also has a very good relationship with the daughter of her 
mother’s partner. When she spoke to the court, the child stated that she loved both 
her parents but would prefer to live with her mother. 
7 That court also considered that the respondent is a businessman who, over the 
years, has had his primary residence in France, Romania and Russia. When the 
judgment at first instance was delivered, his primary residence was in Russia, as 
one of his places of employment was a university of that State. The Judecătoria 
Buftea declared that the nature of the father’s activities makes it impossible for 
him to dedicate himself to the child’s care and upbringing. As for the alternating 
residence requested by the father, that court took into consideration the fact that he 
is a French citizen and French legislation provides that parental responsibility may 
be exercised in this way. Nonetheless, having regard to the conditions defined by 
the French courts in that respect, the Judecătoria Buftea held that, in the present 
case, it is in the best interests of the child for her to have a stable home with one of 
her parents, that is, her mother, since a weekly alternating residence could have 
negative consequences for the child’s development. 
8 Each of the parties brought an appeal against that judgment, which was entered in 
the register of the referring court in April 2017. 
The essential arguments of the parties in the main proceedings 
9 By his appeal, FO seeks, in essence, a declaration that the Judecătoria Buftea lacks 
jurisdiction to hear the dispute, and, consequently, the setting aside of the 
judgment under appeal. In the alternative, he requests, first, that the parts of that 
judgment relating to the dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent, the maiden 
name, and the joint exercise of parental responsibility by both the parents be 
maintained and, secondly, that the judgment under appeal be varied in part to the 
effect that the residence of the child is established at his home in France or, 
alternatively, that the residence of the child is established as alternating between 
the father’s new home in Romania and the mother’s home in Romania on a 
weekly basis, or as alternating every two weeks between the homes of each of the 
parents, as indicated. 
10 FO states that, pursuant to the mandatory provisions of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, a Romanian court seised of a dispute with a cross-border element must 
verify international jurisdiction of its own motion and, in the present case, the 
verification of jurisdiction is also obligatory because he has argued that the 
Romanian courts lack jurisdiction. Regarding the substance, FO claims that, even 
though parental responsibility should be exercised jointly, as ordered by the court 
of first instance, he cannot exercise that right since EP forbids him to have any 
contact with his daughter and does not provide him with any information about 
her. 
11 In support of her appeal, EP submits in essence that the court of first instance 
erred in deciding that parental responsibility should be exercised jointly and that 
EP 
 
5 
the programme it established for FO’s visits is unsuitable in the light of the 
parents’ relationship and the best interests of the child. EP submits, in addition, 
that FO has concealed details of his income, has been claiming not to have worked 
for over a year and has not made the maintenance payments for the child that he 
was ordered to make by the court of first instance. 
Succinct presentation of the reasons for the reference 
12 Pursuant to the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure, the decision that will be 
delivered by the Tribunalul Ilfov (Regional Court, Ilfov) cannot form the subject 
of an appeal. 
13 As regards the issue of EU law raised, the Tribunalul Ilfov has not discovered any 
settled case-law on the subject and the correct interpretation of the legal provision 
in question is not beyond reasonable doubt having regard to the circumstances of 
the present case. 
14 The Tribunalul Ilfov is of the view that the Romanian courts are best placed to 
resolve the dispute, having regard to the best interests of the child and to the fact 
that both she and one of the holders of parental responsibility (her mother) are 
habitually resident in that Member State. 
15 Nonetheless, the referring court considers that an interpretation of Article 15 of 
Regulation No 2201/2003, on which the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts 
depends, is necessary in order to resolve the dispute that has been brought before 
it.