Case C‑4/14

Christophe Bohez

v

Ingrid Wiertz

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Articles 1(2) and 49 — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Matters excluded — Family law — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 47(1) — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matters of parental responsibility — Judgment concerning rights of access which imposes a periodic penalty payment — Enforcement of that penalty payment’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 9 September 2015

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation No 2201/2003 — Recognition and enforcement — Judgment imposing a penalty payment in an action to enforce rights of access — Enforcement — Condition — Amount finally determined by the courts of the Member State of origin

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation No 2201/2003 — Recognition and enforcement — Judgment imposing a penalty payment in an action to enforce rights of access — Recovery of a penalty payment falling under the same scheme of enforcement as the judgment on rights of access

Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters — Regulation No 44/2001 — Scope — Matters excluded — Status and legal capacity of natural persons — Judgment imposing a penalty payment in an action to enforce rights of access — Exclusion from scope — Judgment falling within the scope of Regulation No 2201/2003

Article 1 of Regulation No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that that regulation does not apply to the enforcement in a Member State of a penalty payment which is imposed in a judgment, given in another Member State, concerning rights of custody and rights of access in order to ensure that the holder of the rights of custody complies with those rights of access. A penalty payment of that kind is ancillary to the obligation of the holder of the rights of custody to cooperate in giving effect to the rights of access awarded in the same judgment. Article 1(2)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 expressly excludes from the scope of that regulation the status of natural persons, a notion which encompasses the exercise of parental responsibility over the person of a child. Consequently, the penalty payment whose enforcement is sought is an ancillary measure which serves to protect a right which falls not within the scope of Regulation No 44/2001, but rather within that 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. (see paras 35-37, 39, 40, operative part 1)

Recovery of a penalty payment — a penalty which the court of the Member State of origin that gave judgment on the merits with regard to rights of access has imposed in order to ensure the effectiveness of those rights — forms part of the same scheme of enforcement as the judgment concerning the rights of access that the penalty safeguards and the latter must therefore be declared enforceable in accordance with the rules laid down by 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. Such a penalty payment cannot be considered in isolation as a self-standing obligation, but must be considered together with the rights of access which it serves to protect and from which it cannot be dissociated. Recovery of the penalty payment must therefore fall under the same scheme of enforcement as the rights of access which are to be safeguarded, namely the rules laid down in Articles 28(1) and 41(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003. If the scheme of enforcement of penalty payments were separated from the scheme applicable to rights of access so as to bring it within the ambit of the enforcement procedure itself, which, under Article 47(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003, is governed by the law of the Member State of enforcement, that would amount to allowing the court of that State to verify whether there has been a breach of rights of access. Such a review, which would be conducted in accordance with the rules of the State of enforcement and would entail an assessment, by the court of that State, of the circumstances of the case, would run counter to the intention of the EU legislature to establish, in respect of judgments given in that sphere, a uniform and simplified scheme of enforcement, which does not permit any interference in the substance of the case by the court dealing with enforcement and is based on the trust placed in the court of the State of origin as the court designated as having jurisdiction to take the decision relating to rights of access. (cf. points 49-53, operative part 2)