22

In those circumstances, the Judecătoria Rădăuţi (Court of First Instance, Rădăuţi) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Should Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 be interpreted as meaning that a failure on the part of the defendant to raise an objection that the Romanian courts lack international jurisdiction to give a ruling on a case concerning a “divorce involving a minor” amounts to his giving tacit consent to the case being decided by the court seised by the applicant, where the parties have their habitual residence in another Member State [of the European Union] (in the present case, Italy) and the divorce proceedings have been brought before a court of the State of which the parties are nationals? (2) Should [Article] 3(1) and [Article] 17 of Regulation No 2201/2003 be interpreted as meaning that a court may or must raise, of its own motion, an objection that the Romanian courts lack international jurisdiction to give a ruling on a case concerning a “divorce involving a minor”, where there has been no agreement between the parties, who are resident in another Member State [of the European Union] (in the present case, Italy), regarding the choice of the court having jurisdiction (resulting in the action being dismissed as not falling within the jurisdiction of the Romanian courts), which has priority over Article 915(2) of the [Code of Civil Procedure], pursuant to which an objection may be raised that the Judecătoria Rădăuţi (Court of First Instance, Rădăuţi) does not have exclusive territorial jurisdiction (resulting in its declining jurisdiction to give a ruling on the case in favour of the Judecătoria Sectorului 5 Bucureşti (Court of First Instance, Sector 5, Bucharest[, Romania]) and the case being decided on the merits), especially given that those provisions are less favourable than the provision of national legislation concerned (Article 915(2) of the [Code of Civil Procedure])? (3) Should the expression contained in Article 12(1)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003, namely “the jurisdiction of the courts has been accepted … otherwise in an unequivocal manner by the spouses and by the holders of parental responsibility, at the time the court is seised”, be interpreted as meaning that, where the parties, who are habitually resident in another Member State [of the European Union] (in the present case, Italy), choose as the court having jurisdiction to give a ruling in divorce proceedings a court of the State of which they are nationals (the Judecătoria Rădăuţi (Court of First Instance, Rădăuţi) in Romania), that court automatically also has jurisdiction to rule on heads of claim concerning “the exercise of parental authority, the child’s place of habitual residence and the determination of parental contributions towards the costs of the child’s care and upbringing”? (4) Should the concept of “parental responsibility” referred to in Article 2(7) and Article 12 of Regulation No 2201/2003 be interpreted as also including the concepts of “parental authority” referred to in Article 483 of the Codul civil (Civil Code), “the child’s place of habitual residence” covered by Article 400 of the [Civil Code], and “parental contributions towards the costs of the child’s care and upbringing” covered by Article 402 of the [Civil Code]?’