Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2003:231
Date: 2003-04-10
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968;Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 - Jurisdiction
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

SUMMARY — CASE C-433/01 
Summary of the Judgment 
Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of judgments — Special jurisdiction — 
jurisdiction in matters relating to maintenance — Action for recovery brought by a public 
body subrogated to the rights of the maintenance creditor — Article 5(2) of the 
Convention does not apply 
(Convention of 27 September 1968, Art. 5(2)) 
Article 5(2) of the Convention of 
27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and 
the enforcement of judgments in civil and 
commercial matters as amended by the 
Convention of 9 October 1978 on the 
accession of the Kingdom of Denmark, 
Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great 
Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Con­
vention of 25 October 1982 on the acces­
sion of the Hellenic Republic, and by the 
Convention of 26 May 1989 on the acces­
sion of the Kingdom of Spain and the 
Portuguese Republic, which provides for a 
special jurisdiction of the courts for the 
place where the maintenance creditor is 
domiciled or habitually resident in matters 
relating to maintenance, must be inter­
preted as meaning that it cannot be relied 
on by a public body which seeks, in an 
action for recovery, reimbursement of sums 
paid under public law by way of an 
education grant to a maintenance creditor, 
to whose rights it is subrogated against the 
maintenance debtor. 
Where the maintenance creditor has bene­
fited from the grant to which he could lay 
claim, there is no need to deny the main­
tenance debtor the protection offered by 
Article 2 of the Convention, particularly as 
the courts of the defendant are better 
placed to determine the latter's resources. 
(see paras 31, 34, operative part) 
I -982