Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:750
Date: 2025-10-02
Language of the case: German

summary arguments which the applicant for legal aid intends to put forward on the merits and to adopt a position on that matter and, secondly, it enables the court seised to carry out a prima facie analysis of the substance with a view to deciding whether to grant the requested legal aid. Such a close link is further supported by the fact that the service of an application for legal aid has the effect of suspending the limitation period. 49 In those circumstances, it must be held, subject to verification by the referring court of the German law set out in paragraphs 43 to 46 above, that, in the German legal system, an application for legal aid lodged with a court could be classified as an ‘equivalent document’ within the meaning of Article 9(a) of Regulation No 4/2009. 50 However, in order to preserve the close link between the legal aid proceedings and the substantive proceedings, for the purpose of classifying an application for legal aid such as that at issue in the main proceedings as an ‘equivalent document’, it is still necessary, first, that the requested legal aid has been granted, secondly, that the main action be brought within a reasonable time after that aid is granted and, thirdly, that the content of that action corresponds, in essence, to the action resulting from the draft substantive application examined by the court during the legal aid proceedings. 51 At the hearing, the Commission highlighted the fact, which it is for the referring court to verify, that applications for legal aid such as that at issue in the main proceedings are usually communicated by the court seised to the defendant in simple written form, rather than being served on that party. In that regard, it is important to note that, although Article 9(a) in fine of Regulation No 4/2009 envisages only cases in which service of the equivalent document or the document instituting the proceedings must be effected, the obligation imposed on the applicant to take the measures necessary to ensure that service of the document concerned is effected is applicable mutatis mutandis to cases where that document is communicated in simple written form by the court seised. It follows that the fact that an application for legal aid is communicated to the defendant in simple written form does not, in itself, have any bearing on the classification of such an application as an ‘equivalent document’. 52 Nevertheless, as the German Government acknowledged at the hearing, that particular feature of German law may preclude such a classification where it transpires that the communication of the application for legal aid has not been received by the defendant and that the legal aid procedure has been deprived of its adversarial character without the defendant subsequently having any means to remedy the situation. It is for the referring court to verify that aspect where appropriate. 53 Lastly, the classification of an application for legal aid such as that at issue in the main proceedings as an ‘equivalent document’, within the meaning of Article 9(a) of Regulation No 4/2009, also takes account of the importance which that regulation attaches, for the purposes of ensuring effective access to justice, to the legal aid mechanism as an element which is both inseparable from disputes in matters relating to maintenance obligations and is indispensable for maintenance creditors who do not have sufficient resources to assert their rights. That is reflected in both Article 44 and Article 46 of that regulation, read in the light of recital 36 thereof. 54 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the question referred is that Article 9(a) of Regulation No 4/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that an application for legal aid lodged with a court, to which the applicant has attached in draft form the application which he or she intends to submit on the merits in a matter relating to maintenance obligations in the event that the requested legal aid is granted, constitutes an ‘equivalent document’ within the meaning of that provision, where, in the course of the proceedings concerned, the defendant to whom that application for legal aid, including that draft application on the merits, is communicated has the opportunity to state his or her position on whether the main action presents a sufficient prospect of success and does not appear to be frivolous, and that action is brought within a reasonable period after the grant of that aid, in terms corresponding, in essence, to those resulting from that draft. Costs 55 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules: Article 9(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations must be interpreted as meaning that an application for legal aid lodged with a court, to which the applicant has attached in draft form the application which he or she intends to submit on the merits in a matter relating to maintenance obligations in the event that the requested legal aid is granted, constitutes an ‘equivalent document’ within the meaning of that provision, where, in the course of the proceedings concerned, the defendant to whom that application for legal aid, including that draft application on the merits, is communicated has the opportunity to state his or her position on whether the main action presents a sufficient prospect of success and does not appear to be frivolous, and that action is brought within a reasonable period after the grant of that aid, in terms corresponding, in essence, to those resulting from that draft. [Signatures] * Language of the case: German. i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.