Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — P

(Case C‑507/14) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Absence of reasonable doubt — Jurisdiction in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 16(1)(a) — Determination of the time at which a court is seised — Request to stay the proceedings — No effect’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 99) (see paras 28, 29)

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation No 2201/2003 — Date of seising of a court — Date of lodging of the document instituting proceedings or of an equivalent document with that court — Suspension of the proceedings at the initiative of the applicant who brought them, without those proceedings having been notified to the defendant — No effect — Condition (Council Regulation No 2201/2003, Art. 16(1)(a)) (see paras 30-34, 37, 39-41, 43, operative part)

3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Jurisdiction of the national court — Establishing and assessing the facts of the dispute — Application of provisions interpreted by the Court (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 42)

Operative part:

Article 16(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that a court is deemed to be seised at the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with that court, even where the proceedings have in the meantime been stayed at the initiative of the applicant who brought them, without those proceedings having been notified to the defendant or that defendant having had knowledge of them or having intervened in them in any way, provided that the applicant has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have service effected on the respondent.

( 1 ) OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 — P

(Case C‑507/14) ( 1 )

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Absence of reasonable doubt — Jurisdiction in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 16(1)(a) — Determination of the time at which a court is seised — Request to stay the proceedings — No effect’

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Answer admitting of no reasonable doubt — Application of Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure (Art. 267 TFEU; Rules of Procedure of the General Court, Art. 99) (see paras 28, 29)

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation No 2201/2003 — Date of seising of a court — Date of lodging of the document instituting proceedings or of an equivalent document with that court — Suspension of the proceedings at the initiative of the applicant who brought them, without those proceedings having been notified to the defendant — No effect — Condition (Council Regulation No 2201/2003, Art. 16(1)(a)) (see paras 30-34, 37, 39-41, 43, operative part)

3. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction of the Court — Limits — Jurisdiction of the national court — Establishing and assessing the facts of the dispute — Application of provisions interpreted by the Court (Art. 267 TFEU) (see para. 42)

Operative part:

Article 16(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that a court is deemed to be seised at the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with that court, even where the proceedings have in the meantime been stayed at the initiative of the applicant who brought them, without those proceedings having been notified to the defendant or that defendant having had knowledge of them or having intervened in them in any way, provided that the applicant has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have service effected on the respondent.

( 1 ) OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.