Case C-195/08 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas, Republic of Lithuania) — Proceedings brought by Inga Rinau (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments — Enforcement in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Application for non-recognition of a decision requiring the return of a child wrongfully retained in another Member State — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure)
Date: 2008-07-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, health control, national implementing measure, research body, testing

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/19

— in order to ascertain whether there are connections between the
requested person and the executing Member State which lead to
the conclusion that that person is covered by the term ‘staying’
within the meaning of Article 4(6), it is for the executing judicial
authority to make an overall assessment of various objective factors
characterising the situation of that person, including, in particular,
the length, nature and conditions of his presence and the family
and economic
connections which that person has with the
executing Member State.

(1) OJ C 107, 26.4.2008.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos
Aukščiausiasis Teismas, Republic of Lithuania) — Pro-
ceedings brought by Inga Rinau

(Case C-195/08 PPU) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction and enfor-
cement of judgments — Enforcement in matrimonial matters
and matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC)
No 2201/2003 — Application for non-recognition of a deci-
sion requiring the return of a child wrongfully retained in
ruling
another Member State — Urgent preliminary

procedure)

(2008/C 223/30)

Operative part of the judgment

1. Once a non-return decision has been taken and brought to the
attention of the court of origin, it is irrelevant, for the purposes of
issuing the certificate provided for in Article 42 of Council Regu-
lation (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, that that decision has
been suspended, overturned, set aside or,
in any event, has not
become res judicata or has been replaced by a decision ordering
return, in so far as the return of the child has not actually taken
place. Since no doubt has been expressed as regards the authenticity
of that certificate and since it was drawn up in accordance with the
standard form set out in Annex IV to the Regulation, opposition
to the recognition of the decision ordering return is not permitted
and it is for the requested court only to declare the enforceability of
the certified decision and to allow the immediate return of the
child.

2. Except where the procedure concerns a decision certified pursuant to
Articles 11(8) and 40 to 42 of Regulation No 2201/2003, any
interested party can apply for non-recognition of a judicial decision,
even if no application for recognition of
the decision has been
submitted beforehand.

3. Article 31(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003,

the person against whom enforcement

in so far as it
provides that neither
is
sought, nor the child is, at this stage of the proceedings, entitled to
make any submissions on the application,
is not applicable to
proceedings initiated for non-recognition of a judicial decision if no
application for recognition has been lodged beforehand in respect of
that decision. In such a situation, the defendant, who is seeking
recognition, is entitled to make such submissions.

Language of the case: Lithuanian

(1) OJ C 171, 5.7.2008.

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas, Lithuania

Party to the main proceedings

Inga Rinau

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis
Teismas — Interpretation of Articles 21, 23, 24, 31(1), 40(2)
and 42 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 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Application for non-
recognition in Member State A of a decision delivered by a
court in Member State B ordering the return of a child, who is
regarded as being unlawfully held by her mother in Member
State A, to her father, who is resident in Member State B and
has been awarded custody of the child

Appeal brought on 22 May 2008 by Philippe Guigard
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber) delivered on 11 March 2008 in Case T-301/05
Guigard v Commission

(Case C-214/08 P)

(2008/C 223/31)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Philippe Guigard (represented by: S. Rodrigues and
C. Bernard-Glanz)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European