CELEX: 62014CB0507
Language: en
Date: 2015-07-16 00:00:00
Title: Case C-507/14: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — P v M (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)

28.9.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 320/12
            
         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal de Justiça — Portugal) — P v M
   (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))
   (2015/C 320/16)
   Language of the case: Portuguese
   
      Referring court
   
   Supremo Tribunal de Justiça
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: P
   
      Defendant: M
   
      Operative part of the order
   
   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.