Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2364
Date: 2014-11-12
Language of the case: Czech
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Area of freedom, security and justice;Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Czechia

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 12 November 2014 1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility –Regulation No 2201/2003 — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Prorogation in favour of a court of a Member State which is not that of the child’s habitual residence — Prorogation not conditional on the existence of other proceedings pending before that court (Council Regulation No 2201/2003, Art. 12(3)) 2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility — Regulation No 2201/2003 — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Jurisdiction accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by all parties to the proceedings — Definition (Council Regulation No 2201/2003, Art. 12(3)(b)) 1. Article 12(3) of Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as allowing, for the purposes of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility, the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State which is not that of the child’s habitual residence to be established even where no other proceedings are pending before the court chosen. To restrict the scope of Article 12(3) of Regulation No 2201/2003 to situations in which proceedings in matters of parental responsibility may be related to other proceedings already pending would substantially reduce the possibilities of having recourse to the prorogation of jurisdiction under that provision, bearing in mind that the need to bring proceedings in matters of parental responsibility may arise independently of any other proceedings, and would thus interfere with the effectiveness of that provision and the objective of equal treatment for all children. (see paras 46, 50, 52, operative part 1) 2. Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that it cannot be considered that the jurisdiction of the court seised by one party over proceedings in matters of parental responsibility has been ‘accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by all the parties to the proceedings’ within the meaning of that provision where the defendant in those first proceedings subsequently brings a second set of proceedings before the same court and, on taking the first step required of him in the first proceedings, pleads the lack of jurisdiction of that court. (see para. 59, operative part 2)