CELEX: 62016CA0565
Language: en
Date: 2018-04-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-565/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eirinodikeio Lerou Leros — Greece) — proceedings brought by Alessandro Saponaro, Kalliopi-Chloi Xylina (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Court of a Member State seised with an application for judicial authorisation to renounce an inheritance on behalf of a minor child — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Article 12(3)(b) — Acceptance of jurisdiction — Conditions)

201805250081897422018/C 200/125652016CJC20020180611EN01ENINFO_JUDICIAL20180419101121Case C-565/16: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eirinodikeio Lerou Leros — Greece) — proceedings brought by Alessandro Saponaro, Kalliopi-Chloi Xylina (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Court of a Member State seised with an application for judicial authorisation to renounce an inheritance on behalf of a minor child — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Article 12(3)(b) — Acceptance of jurisdiction — Conditions)
 ---documentbreak--- C2002018EN1010120180419EN0012101112Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 19 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eirinodikeio Lerou Leros — Greece) — proceedings brought by Alessandro Saponaro, Kalliopi-Chloi Xylina
   (Case C-565/16) (
         1
      )
   ‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Court of a Member State seised with an application for judicial authorisation to renounce an inheritance on behalf of a minor child — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Prorogation of jurisdiction — Article 12(3)(b) — Acceptance of jurisdiction — Conditions)’2018/C 200/12Language of the case: Greek
      Referring court
   
   Eirinodikeio Lerou Leros
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   Alessandro Saponaro, Kalliopi-Chloi Xylina
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   In a situation, such as that in the main proceedings, where the parents of a minor child, who are habitually resident with the latter in a Member State, have lodged, in the name of that child, an application for permission to renounce an inheritance before the courts of another Member State, Article 12(3)(b) of Council Regulation 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:
   
            —
         
         
            the joint lodging of proceedings by the parents of the child before the courts of their choice is an unequivocal acceptance by them of that court;
         
      
            —
         
         
            a prosecutor who, according to the national law, has the capacity of a party to the proceedings commenced by the parents, is a party to the proceedings within the meaning of Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003. Opposition by that party to the choice of jurisdiction made by the parents of the child in question, after the date on which the court was seised, precludes the acceptance of prorogation of jurisdiction by all the parties to the proceedings at that date from being established. In the absence of such opposition, the agreement of that party may be regarded as implicit and the condition of the unequivocal acceptance of prorogation of jurisdiction by all the parties to the proceedings at the date on which that court was seised may be held to be satisfied; and
         
      
            —
         
         
            the fact that the residence of the deceased at the time of his death, his assets, which are the subject matter of the succession, and the liabilities of the succession were situated in the Member State of the chosen courts leads, in the absence of matters that might demonstrate that the prorogation of jurisdiction was liable to have a prejudicial impact on the child’s position, to the conclusion that that prorogation of jurisdiction is in the best interests of the child.
         
      (
         1
      )	OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.