Order — ECLI:EU:C:2019:307
Date: 2019-04-11
Language of the case: Czech
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Justice and home affairs;Area of freedom, security and justice
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling - inadmissible
Origin: Czechia

Anonymised version 
Translation C-680/18 - 1 
Case C-680/18 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
5 November 2018 
Referring court:  
Obvodní soud pro Prahu 5 (Czech Republic) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
29 October 2018 
Applicant: 
HJ 
Defendant: 
II 
      
ORDER 
The Obvodní soud pro Prahu 5 (District Court, Prague 5) […] has decided […] in 
the case of 
applicant: HJ, born on 12 September 1960, 
residing at […] Drachten, Netherlands, 
v 
defendant: II, born on 25 June 1969, 
residing at […] Prague […] 
concerning: termination of maintenance for a spouse, 
as follows: 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 29. 10. 2018 – CASE C-680/18 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
The court refers to the Court of Justice of the European [Union] for a 
preliminary ruling the question of which law is applicable for the resolution 
of the present case, that is, Czech or Netherlands law. 
Grounds: 
By his application to the court of 26 March 2012, the applicant seeks to have the 
maintenance for the defendant, last determined by judgment of the Groningen City 
Court (Rechtbank Groningen) of 4 September 2007, number 90424/FA RK 06-
2040, terminated on the ground that conditions have changed and the defendant is 
capable of supporting herself independently since she started employment, while 
the applicant’s income has fallen. 
1) Findings made in the case 
– The parties were married in the Netherlands. 
– The maintenance paid by the applicant to the defendant was last determined 
under Netherlands law […] by judgment of the Groningen City Court 
(Rechtbank Groningen) of 4 September 2007 […] with effect from one year 
after becoming final and binding, ordering him to contribute to the 
defendant’s maintenance including tax relief the sum of EUR 175 a month, the 
court basing its decision on the applicant’s resources as at 28 August 2007; that 
judgment also decided on the dissolution of the marriage of the parties and 
ordered him to contribute to the children of the parties, YS, born on 13 October 
1994, and ZR, born on 22 June 2000, for care and education of the minor 
children, including tax relief the sum of EUR 260 a month to each minor child 
into the hands of the defendant from the date of entering the judgment in the 
record and with effect from one year after becoming final and binding […] 
(see judgment of the Groningen City Court (Rechtbank Groningen) of 4 
September 2007 […], which became final and binding on 11 January 2008 
[…]. [Or. 2] 
– From 2001 the parties lived in the Czech Republic, in 2006 the applicant 
returned to the Netherlands alone, and from then on they did not live together. 
– At the time of delivery of the above judgment the defendant lived in the Czech 
Republic and the applicant in the Netherlands. 
– At the time of making the application for termination of maintenance, both 
parties lived in the Czech Republic, but apart. 
2) The maintenance obligation was decided in accordance with Netherlands 
law (under Netherlands private international law on the basis of the 
reference provisions of the 1973 Hague Convention on the law applicable to 
maintenance obligations (Tractatenblad 1974, 86), in accordance with that 
convention, the Netherlands courts apply Netherlands law inter alia when 
HJ 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
deciding on maintenance between former spouses if the divorce is governed 
by Netherlands law). 
3) Provisions of Czech law 
a) Law on the family No 94/1963 (zákon o rodině č. 94/1963 Sb.), in the 
version of 23 June 2012 (making of an application) 
Maintenance of a divorced spouse 
Paragraph 92 
(1) A divorced spouse who is not capable of supporting himself/herself may 
request the former spouse to contribute to his/her adequate livelihood according to 
that spouse’s capabilities, resources and property circumstances. It they do not 
reach agreement, the court shall decide on maintenance, on application by either 
of them. 
(2) That obligation takes priority over the maintenance obligations of children 
towards parents. 
Paragraph 93 
(1) The court may award a divorced spouse who did not play a dominant part in 
the breakdown of the marriage by breaching marital obligations, and who has 
suffered serious damage as a result of the divorce, maintenance against the former 
spouse to the same extent as the maintenance obligation between spouses under 
Paragraph 91(2). 
(2) Maintenance under subparagraph 1 may be awarded for a period of three 
years at most from the divorce. 
Paragraph 94 
(1) The right to maintenance shall cease if the spouse entitled contracts a new 
marriage or the spouse under the obligation dies. 
(2) The right to maintenance shall also cease by the payment of a one-off sum 
on the basis of a written agreement. 
Paragraph 99 
(1) If the circumstances change, the court may, even without an application, 
amend agreements and court decisions on maintenance for minor children. If that 
maintenance is terminated or reduced for a past period, the maintenance consumed 
is not to be returned. 
(2) If maintenance for minor children is not concerned, an amendment or 
termination may take place only on application. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 29. 10. 2018 – CASE C-680/18 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
b) Law No 89/2012, the Civil Code (zákon č. 89/2012 Sb,. občanský 
zákoník) 
Paragraph 760 
(1) If a divorced spouse is not capable of supporting himself/herself and that 
incapability originates in the marriage or in connection with it, the former spouse 
has a maintenance obligation towards him/her to an adequate extent [Or. 3] if that 
may fairly be required, having regard in particular to the age or state of health of 
the divorced spouse at the time of the divorce or termination of care for a child of 
the marriage of the divorced spouses. 
(2) In deciding on maintenance or its amount, the court shall take into account 
how long the dissolved marriage lasted and for how long it has been dissolved, 
and also whether 
a) the divorced spouse did not find adequate employment although not 
prevented from doing so by any compelling impediment, 
b) the divorced spouse could support himself/herself by proper management of 
his/her own property, 
c) the divorced spouse shared during the marriage in the care of the family 
household, 
d)  the divorced spouse did not commit an act in the nature of a criminal 
offence against the former spouse or person near to him/her, or 
e) there is another similarly compelling reason. 
(3) The general provisions on maintenance apply by analogy to the maintenance 
obligation of divorced spouses. 
Paragraph 761 
(1) The extent of the maintenance obligation and the method of paying 
maintenance shall be governed by the agreement of the spouses or divorced 
spouses; if they agree that the maintenance shall be replaced by a lump sum, the 
right of the divorced spouse to maintenance ceases on the provision of the lump 
sum. 
(2) If no agreement of the divorced spouses on maintenance is reached, a former 
spouse in need may apply for the court to decide on the maintenance obligation of 
the other spouse. 
Paragraph 762 
(1) If the spouses or divorced spouses do not agree on maintenance, the spouse 
who did not primarily cause the breakdown of the marriage or did not consent to 
HJ 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
the divorce, and who has suffered serious damage as a result of the divorce, may 
apply to the court to determine the maintenance obligation of the former spouse 
also to an extent that ensures that the divorced spouses may have in principle the 
same standard of living. The right of the divorced spouse to maintenance may in 
that case be regarded as justified only for a period appropriate to the 
circumstances, but no longer than a period of three years from the divorce. 
(2) If a former spouse has perpetrated conduct which satisfies the definition of 
domestic violence against the other spouse, he/she shall not be entitled to 
maintenance under subparagraph 1, even if the conditions for awarding the right 
to maintenance are otherwise fulfilled. 
Paragraph 763 
The right of a divorced spouse to maintenance shall cease if the creditor divorced 
spouse contracts a new marriage or enters into a registered partnership. 
4) Provisions of Netherlands law 
Netherlands Civil Code, specifically Part 9, Articles 149 to 195. 
5) Reasons why the court has doubts as to which law to apply 
– Under Chapter II, Article 3(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 
of 18 December 2008, in matters relating to maintenance obligations in EU 
Member States, jurisdiction lies with the court for the place where the 
defendant is habitually resident or the court for the place where the creditor is 
habitually resident. 
– The defendant (who is also the creditor) is habitually resident within the 
jurisdiction of the present court. 
– Under Article 15 of the above regulation, the law applicable to maintenance 
obligations is to be determined in accordance with the Hague Protocol of [Or. 
4] 23 November 2007 in the Member States (including the Czech Republic) 
bound by that protocol. In accordance with the Hague Protocol (Article 3(1) in 
conjunction with Article 5), the applicable law is to be applied according to the 
residence of the creditor (in the present case, the defendant) and in the case of 
ex-spouses, according to their last common residence, which was in the 
Czech Republic, according to the submissions of both parties, from 2001 to 
2006. 
– The applicant contends that Netherlands law should be applied. 
– The last common residence of the parties was in the territory of the Czech 
Republic until 2006, that is, before the adoption of the above Hague Protocol 
and the above regulation (Article 75 – This Regulation shall apply only to 
proceedings instituted, to court settlements approved or concluded, and to 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 29. 10. 2018 – CASE C-680/18 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
authentic instruments established as from its date of application, subject to 
paragraphs 2 and 3). 
– In view of the above, the court considers a decision on the question of the 
applicable law as essential for the resolution of the present case, in particular 
with a view to forestalling any appeals by the parties. 
[…] [formal matters]