Furthermore , if , in exceptional circumstances , a breach of the rules on lis pendens occurs as a result of ignorance of the applicable regulations and of the Court ’ s case-law or if the breach has resulted in harm to more important procedural rights such as those which , for example , ensure that the views of the parent with whom the child does not live are expressed ( 72 ) and that judgments are delivered within a reasonable time , it seems to me that it would be justifiable to invoke non-recognition on the basis of an infringement of public policy in the Member State in which recognition is sought involving fundamental rights recognised under EU law . 95 .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Finally , it should be recalled that the opportunity to bring infringement proceedings can be examined by the Commission , ( 73 ) in the event of the misapplication of national law or EU law or the failure of the system of legal remedies in each Member State , together with the preliminary ruling procedure provided for in Article 267 TFEU , which must be implemented in order to prevent a breach of public policy occurring . ( 74 ) IV .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


In the light of the foregoing considerations , I propose that the Court answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Corte suprema di cassazione ( Supreme Court of Cassation , Italy ) as follows : Article 35 ( 3 ) of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 44 / 2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and Article 24 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 precluding that a breach of the rules on lis pendens , contained in Article 27 of Regulation No 44 / 2001 and Article 19 of Regulation No 2201 / 2003 , by the court second seised should constitute a ground for withholding recognition of a judgment delivered by that court , on the basis of an infringement of public policy of the Member State in which recognition is sought . 1 Original language : French . 2 OJ 2003 L 338 , p . 1 . 3 C ‑ 455 / 15 PPU , EU : C : 2015 : 763 ( ‘ the judgment in P ’ ) . 4 For the need to refer to this regulation , see points 43 and 44 of this Opinion . 5 OJ 2001 L 12 , p . 1 . 6 GURI No 306 , 3 December 1970 , p . 8046 . 7 Final judgment No 1072 of the Curtea de Apel București ( Bucharest Court of Appeal , Romania ) , 3rd Civil Chamber for Minors and Family , of 12 June 2013 , annexed to the decision to refer and produced by Mr Liberato , states that ‘ the court found that the parties married in Italy in October 2005 and lived , alternately , in Romania and Italy until October 2006 .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS I-ADDRESS O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O B-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O O O B-DATE I-DATE O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-COUNTRY
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-COUNTRY
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-TITLE
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-COUNTRY
O
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-COUNTRY
O
O
O
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O


The parties have been separated since then and the wife and minor child born of the relationship live exclusively in Romania .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-COUNTRY O


Thus , since 2006 , Ms Grigorescu has lived exclusively in Romania , which has been her sole residence ’ .

O O O B-DATE O B-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O B-ADDRESS O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
B-YEAR
O
B-TITLE
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
B-COUNTRY
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


It is clear from the decision to refer that the lawfulness of the removal or non-return of the child is not a matter at stake in the arguments . 8 The referring court has confirmed that the judgment acquired the force of res judicata . 9 For further details of the reasoning given , see point 61 of this Opinion . 10 OJ 2009 L 7 , p . 1 . 11 According to the third subparagraph of Article 76 of Regulation No 4 / 2009 , the regulation applied from 18 June 2011 . 12 My proposed reformulation of the question is similar to that carried out by the Court in the judgment of 15 February 2017 , W and V ( C ‑ 499 / 15 , EU : C : 2017 : 118 , paragraphs 44 to 46 and the case-law cited ) . 13 The principal claim was brought on 22 May 2007 before the Tribunale di Teramo ( District Court , Teramo ) , which deferred examination of the dependent claims by a decision of 19 January 2012 and ruled on them by a non-definitive decision of 8 July 2013 . 14 It should be noted that the requirement to observe the priority of proceedings according to the time at which they are brought also appears in Regulation No 4 / 2009 , in Article 12 thereof .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-CITY
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


This article could be said to be stricter than Article 19 of Regulation No 2201 / 2003 , at least in the French version , in that it requires three elements to be identical ( in French : ‘ le même objet … la même cause … les mêmes parties ’ ) .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


[ Note , however , that the English version of the said Article 12 renders this simply as ‘ the same cause of action and between the same parties ’ . ]

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


The same is true of Article 17 of three other regulations , these being : Regulation ( EU ) No 650 / 2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction , applicable law , recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession ( OJ 2012 L 201 , p . 107 ) ; Council Regulation ( EU ) 2016 / 1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction , applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property ( OJ 2016 L 183 , p . 1 ) ; and Council Regulation ( EU ) 2016 / 1104 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction , applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships ( OJ 2016 L 183 , p . 30 ) .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


The latter two regulations require that , where proceedings are stayed due to lis pendens , ‘ upon request by a court seised of the dispute , any other court seised shall without delay inform the former court of the date when it was seised ’ .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Article 29 of Regulation ( EU ) No 1215 / 2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters ( OJ 2012 L 351 , p . 1 ) , is worded in a similar way .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


It should be noted that the mechanism provided for in Article 33 of that regulation in the event of extra-European lis pendens , which amounts to a major innovation , is not the same . 15 Regulation No 2201 / 2003 repealed Council Regulation ( EC ) No 1347 / 2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses ( OJ 2000 L 160 , p . 19 ) .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Article 11 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 1347 / 2000 contains an exception from the requirement for the cause of action and parties to be identical only in the case of divorce . 16 Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters ( OJ 1998 C 27 , p . 1 ) , as modified by successive conventions relating to the accession of new Member States to the convention . 17 See judgment of 6 October 2015 , A ( C ‑ 489 / 14 , EU : C : 2015 : 654 , paragraph 27 ) . 18 See judgment of 6 October 2015 , A ( C ‑ 489 / 14 , EU : C : 2015 : 654 , paragraph 29 ) . 19 See judgment of 6 October 2015 , A ( C ‑ 489 / 14 , EU : C : 2015 : 654 , paragraph 30 ) . 20 See judgment of 6 October 2015 , A ( C ‑ 489 / 14 , EU : C : 2015 : 654 , paragraph 34 ) .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


This interpretation , inspired by that of Article 27 of Regulation No 44 / 2001 , is equally applicable to Article 19 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 2201 / 2003 .


This solution enables cases to be resolved where the court first seised has not expressly ruled on its own jurisdiction . 21 See judgment of 9 November 2010 , Purrucker ( C ‑ 296 / 10 , EU : C : 2010 : 665 , paragraph 81 ) .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


In that regard , the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters ( EJNCCM ) plays a key role in simplifying and accelerating judicial cooperation in applying these provisions relating to lis pendens or Article 15 of Regulation No 2201 / 2003 . 22 The same is true of Article 27 of Regulation No 44 / 2001 , by contrast with the provisions applicable in the event of related actions ( Article 28 of that regulation ) .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


It should be noted that Regulation No 2201 / 2003 , as with the preceding Regulation No 1347 / 2000 , does not contain any particular provision on related actions . 23 See judgment of 6 October 2015 , A ( C ‑ 489 / 14 , EU : C : 2015 : 654 , paragraph 29 and the case-law cited ) . 24 See judgment of 9 November 2010 , Purrucker ( C ‑ 296 / 10 , EU : C : 2010 : 665 , paragraph 66 and the case-law cited ) . 25 C ‑ 489 / 14 , EU : C : 2015 : 654 .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE O O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


It should be noted that that judgment was delivered more than two years after the final decision of the Romanian court in the case in the main proceedings .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


However , at that date , the autonomous nature of the concept of ‘ lis pendens ’ had already been stated in several judgments of the Court . 26 Paragraph 33 of that judgment .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Such cases can also be categorised as ‘ quasi lis pendens ’ or ‘ false lis pendens ’ .


That expression was used by Borrás , A . , in the Explanatory Report on the Convention , drawn up on the basis of Article K .3 of the Treaty on European Union , on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters ( OJ 1998 C 221 , p . 27 , in particular paragraph 54 ) .

O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


That explanation relates to Article 11 of Regulation No 1347 / 2000 , which is essentially repeated in Article 19 of Regulation No 2201 / 2003 in a simplified form , requiring only that proceedings relating to divorce , legal separation or marriage annulment are brought between the same parties , regardless of their procedural position . 27 See , to that effect , Gaudemet-Tallon , H . , ‘ Divorce — Divorce prononcé en France — Introduction — Compétence des tribunaux français — Particularités de l ’ instance ’ , JurisClasseur — Droit international , LexisNexis , Paris , March 2017 , fascicle 547 - 10 , in particular paragraph 135 . 28 See , in relation to the interpretation of these concepts , judgment of 9 November 2010 , Purrucker ( C ‑ 296 / 10 , EU : C : 2010 : 665 , paragraphs 67 and 68 and the case-law cited ) .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON O B-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-COUNTRY
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-CITY
O
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


See also , by way of illustration , judgment of 22 December 2010 , Mercredi ( C ‑ 497 / 10 PPU , EU : C : 2010 : 829 , paragraphs 68 and 69 ) . 29 The same is true when , under Article 15 of Regulation No 2201 / 2003 , at the initiative of either of the courts concerned , the jurisdiction of the court better placed to hear the case is given priority . 30 In relation to the importance of this examination in matters of parental responsibility and the grounds for decisions made on that point , see judgments of 15 July 2010 , Purrucker ( C ‑ 256 / 09 , EU : C : 2010 : 437 , paragraph 73 and the case-law cited ) , and 15 February 2017 , W and V ( C ‑ 499 / 15 , EU : C : 2017 : 118 , paragraphs 51 and 54 ) .

O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


In relation to the obligation to carry out the examination at all stages of proceedings , a comparison can be drawn with the judgment of 12 November 2014 , L ( C ‑ 656 / 13 , EU : C : 2014 : 2364 , paragraph 58 and the case-law cited ) , and the case in IQ ( C ‑ 478 / 17 ) , currently pending , concerning the conditions for the application of Article 15 of Regulation No 2201 / 2003 .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


See Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in that case ( C ‑ 478 / 17 , EU : C : 2018 : 552 ) . 31 Under Article 12 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 2201 / 2003 , prorogation of jurisdiction assumes that the mother has not challenged the jurisdiction of the Italian court ( see point 23 of this Opinion ) and that the Italian court has ensured that its jurisdiction is in the best interests of the child ( see , by analogy , judgment of 1 October 2014 , E .

O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON I-PERSON

O
O
O
B-ROLE
I-ROLE
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME


This can be compared to the order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2018 , PM ( C ‑ 604 / 17 , not published , EU : C : 2018 : 10 , paragraphs 27 to 29 ) , and the judgment of 19 April 2018 , Saponaro and Xylina ( C ‑ 565 / 16 , EU : C : 2018 : 265 , paragraphs 23 , 24 and 33 to 35 and the case-law cited ) . 32 See footnotes 25 and 26 of this Opinion . 33 The consequences of the legal separation judgment do not appear to have been debated , although two further judgments were given in Romania after that date , namely the judgment of 3 December 2012 and the judgment of 12 June 2013 rejecting Mr Liberato ’ s appeal . 34 According to Article 12 ( 2 ) ( a ) of Regulation No 2201 / 2003 , prorogation of jurisdiction ceases as soon as judgment relating to the legal separation becomes final .

O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-PROFESSION
I-PROFESSION
I-PROFESSION
I-PROFESSION
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-COUNTRY
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-TITLE
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


In addition , as the Court noted in the judgment of 28 June 2018 , HR ( C ‑ 512 / 17 , EU : C : 2018 : 513 , paragraph 59 and the case-law cited ) , concerning the interpretation of Article 8 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 2201 / 2003 , ‘ the EU legislature considers that the courts geographically closest to the child ’ s place of habitual residence are generally the best placed to assess the measures to be taken in the interests of that child ’ . 35 The Court has not expressly ruled on the application of that provision .

O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


See , to the same effect , the Opinion of Advocate General Wathelet in IQ ( C ‑ 478 / 17 , EU : C : 2018 : 552 , point 45 ) .

O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-ROLE
I-ROLE
B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


That interpretation may be a result of the commentary of Pataut , É . , and Gallant , E . , ‘ Article 12 : Prorogation of jurisdiction ’ , in Magnus , U . , and Mankowski , P . , European Commentaries on Private International Law , Brussels IIbis Regulation , Vol .

O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME
O
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


IV , Sellier European Law Publishers , Otto Schmidt , Cologne , 2017 , paragraph 41 ( p . 160 ) .

O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON O B-ADDRESS O B-DATE O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-COUNTRY
O
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


That scenario is not considered by Joubert , N . , in ‘ Autorité parentale — Conflits de juridictions ’ , JurisClasseur — Droit international , LexisNexis , Paris , March 2009 , fascicle 549 - 20 , in particular paragraph 44 . 36 That analysis must be compared to that in the judgments of 1 October 2014 , E .

O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O B-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON I-PERSON

O
O
O
O
O
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-CITY
O
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME


( C ‑ 436 / 13 , EU : C : 2014 : 2246 , paragraphs 45 to 47 and 49 ) , and of 15 February 2017 , W and V ( C ‑ 499 / 15 , EU : C : 2017 : 118 , paragraphs 51 and 52 ) . 37 In my opinion , it must be clear from the judgment delivered by the last Italian court that its ruling was given following an examination , with regard to the best interests of the child , of the prorogation of jurisdiction allowed after the first Italian court was seised in 2007 . 38 By way of reminder , the parties must be identical in relation to maintenance matters .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


In relation to the matrimonial matter , the Italian court delivered a final judgment . 39 C ‑ 497 / 10 PPU , EU : C : 2010 : 829 . 40 See paragraphs 68 and 69 of that judgment . 41 See paragraph 70 of that judgment . 42 C ‑ 497 / 10 PPU , EU : C : 2010 : 829 . 43 On why a divorce judgment is not irreconcilable with a legal separation judgment , see the Explanatory Report of Borrás , A . , cited in footnote 26 , in particular paragraph 71 . 44 The same is true in relation to maintenance matters .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


Article 34 ( 1 ) and Article 35 ( 3 ) of Regulation No 44 / 2001 apply . 45 The contested decision had been delivered by the court first seised .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


The dispute related to the place of residence of the child and , therefore , to the jurisdiction of that court which was alleged to have ruled in breach of the obligations in Article 15 of Regulation No 2201 / 2003 . 46 C ‑ 681 / 13 , EU : C : 2015 : 471 ( paragraphs 40 to 42 and 44 ) . 47 Paragraph 35 of the judgment in P . 48 Paragraph 36 of the judgment in P .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O O O O B-PERSON O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O


Very recently , the Court recalled in the judgment of 15 February 2017 , W and V ( C ‑ 499 / 15 , EU : C : 2017 : 118 , paragraph 50 and the case-law cited ) , that the principle of mutual recognition of judicial decisions is the ‘ cornerstone for the creation of a genuine judicial area ’ , those terms being taken from recital 2 of Regulation No 2201 / 2003 . 49 Such a prohibition features in most regulations since it is an integral element of the principle of mutual trust .

O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


See , in particular , Article 45 ( 3 ) of Regulation No 1215 / 2012 and Article 39 of Regulations 2016 / 1103 and 2016 / 1104 .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


The Court regards it as a fundamental principle ; see judgment of 28 March 2000 , Krombach ( C ‑ 7 / 98 , EU : C : 2000 : 164 , paragraph 31 ) . 50 See paragraph 42 of the judgment in P . 51 In making such reference , the wording of that article differs from Article 35 ( 3 ) of Regulation No 44 / 2001 , which is worded in general terms : ‘ … the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin may not be reviewed .

O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


The test of public policy referred to in point 1 of Article 34 may not be applied to the rules relating to jurisdiction ’ . 52 See paragraph 45 of the judgment in P . 53 See judgment of 28 June 2018 , HR ( C ‑ 512 / 17 , EU : C : 2018 : 513 , paragraph 59 and the case-law cited ) . 54 See paragraph 46 of the judgment in P , reiterating an established rule prohibiting the revision of a judgment ( see , in particular , Article 36 and Article 45 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 44 / 2001 and Article 26 of Regulation No 2201 / 2003 ) . 55 Expression used in the judgments of 16 July 2009 , Hadadi ( C ‑ 168 / 08 , EU : C : 2009 : 474 , paragraph 56 ) , and of 9 October 2014 , C ( C ‑ 376 / 14 PPU , EU : C : 2014 : 2268 , paragraph 37 ) . 56 See , by way of illustration , the judgment in P and the judgment of 15 February 2017 , W and V ( C ‑ 499 / 15 , EU : C : 2017 : 118 ) .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


See , also , the observations of Joubert , N . , in ‘ La résidence de l ’ enfant du divorce face à la demande de modification de la décision relative à la garde et aux aliments ’ , Revue critique de droit international privé , Dalloz , Paris , 2018 , pp . 138 to 142 , in particular paragraph 9 ( pp . 140 and 141 ) . 57 Given the importance of this question , like the one dealt with in the judgment in P , an addition could be proposed in relation to Article 24 when Regulation No 2201 / 2003 is recast .

O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O B-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-CITY
O
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


It should be noted that no amendment to the rules on jurisdiction was made in the initial draft , namely the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction , the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility , and on international child abduction ( COM ( 2016 ) 411 final ) , nor in the European Parliament legislative resolution of 18 January 2018 on that proposal , available at the following address : http : / / www.europarl.europa.eu / sides / getDoc.do ?

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


For the latest state of Council discussions relating to this project , see Europe Daily Bulletin No 12033 , Agence Europe , 5 June 2018 , p . 2 . 58 See footnote 51 of this Opinion . 59 See paragraphs 35 to 39 of that judgment and the judgment of 16 July 2015 , Diageo Brands ( C ‑ 681 / 13 , EU : C : 2015 : 471 ) , cited in paragraphs 37 and 39 of the judgment in P , which allows the same solution to be applied in maintenance matters , governed by Regulation No 44 / 2001 . 60 In relation to Regulation No 44 / 2001 , see , by way of recent illustration , judgment of 25 May 2016 , Meroni ( C ‑ 559 / 14 , EU : C : 2016 : 349 , paragraphs 38 to 42 and the case-law cited ) . 61 See paragraph 39 of the judgment in P .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O


See also point 93 of this Opinion . 62 See paragraph 53 of the judgment in P . 63 See judgments of 28 March 2000 , Krombach ( C ‑ 7 / 98 , EU : C : 2000 : 164 ) , and of 2 April 2009 , Gambazzi ( C ‑ 394 / 07 , EU : C : 2009 : 219 ) , compared to the judgment of 25 May 2016 , Meroni ( C ‑ 559 / 14 , EU : C : 2016 : 349 ) . 64 By way of illustration of the way in which delaying tactics are favoured by the assimilation of separation to divorce and by delays in dealing with a divorce application as a result of the rule on lis pendens , see Bonomi , A . , ‘ La compétence internationale en matière de divorce , quelques suggestions pour une ( improbable ) révision du règlement Bruxelles II bis ’ , Revue critique de droit international privé , Dalloz , Paris , 2017 , pp . 511 to 534 , in particular pp . 528 to 530 ( heading ( a ) ) and the reference , in footnote 80 , to the commentary of Mankowski , P . , ‘ Article 19 : Lis pendens and dependent actions ’ , in Magnus , U . , and Mankowski , P . , op . cit . , paragraph 37 ( pp . 249 and 250 ) . 65 See , to that effect , judgment of 16 July 2015 , Diageo Brands ( C ‑ 681 / 13 , EU : C : 2015 : 471 , paragraph 40 ) . 66 That interpretation will need to be taken in combination with judgments already delivered by the Court in relation to Regulation No 4 / 2009 applicable to maintenance matters since 18 June 2011 . 67 See point 50 of this Opinion . 68 See , on that point , the very interesting proposals made by Niboyet , M .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O B-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-CITY
O
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME


- L . , and de Geouffre de la Pradelle , G . , Droit international privé , 6th edition , Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence , ‘ Manuels ’ Collection , Paris , 2017 , paragraphs 621 and 622 ( pp . 424 to 426 ) . 69 In relation to the limitations on staying proceedings due to lis pendens determined by the Court for situations where there has been a lack of response from the court first seised , see , by way of illustration , judgment of 9 November 2010 , Purrucker ( C ‑ 296 / 10 , EU : C : 2010 : 665 , paragraphs 82 to 84 ) .

B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O B-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME
O
O
B-FAMILY NAME
I-FAMILY NAME
I-FAMILY NAME
I-FAMILY NAME
I-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-CITY
O
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


See also a more pronounced assertion of this principle in the Council proposal to recast Regulation No 2201 / 2003 , cited in footnote 57 of this Opinion . 70 It should be noted that , in the present case , which relates to parental responsibility and maintenance applications made in respect of a child who was born in February 2006 and who has been living in Romania since October 2006 , proceedings have been pending in Italy for 11 years ( after proceedings were brought in May 2007 , the first judgment on the substance of the case was given in July 2013 , after a deferral in January 2012 ) and that the dispute relates to the recognition of a judgment delivered in Romania which became final five years ago ( 12 June 2013 ) . 71 For a reminder of the general principle in cases where Article 15 of Regulation No 2201 / 2003 applies , see , in particular , judgment of 27 October 2016 , D .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O B-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON I-PERSON

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-COUNTRY
O
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-COUNTRY
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-COUNTRY
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME


( C ‑ 428 / 15 , EU : C : 2016 : 819 , paragraph 43 ) . 72 This can be compared to paragraph 44 of the judgment of 28 March 2000 , Krombach ( C ‑ 7 / 98 , EU : C : 2000 : 164 ) , which states that ‘ recourse to the public-policy clause must be regarded as being possible in exceptional cases where the guarantees laid down in the legislation of the State of origin and in the Convention [ of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters , as amended by subsequent conventions relating to the accession of new Member States to that convention ] itself have been insufficient to protect the defendant from a manifest breach of his right to defend himself before the court of origin , as recognised by the [ European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms , signed in Rome on 4 November 1950 ] ’ , and the judgment of 25 May 2016 , Meroni ( C ‑ 559 / 14 , EU : C : 2016 : 349 , paragraphs 44 to 46 and the case-law cited ) . 73 See judgment of 16 July 2015 , Diageo Brands ( C - 681 / 13 , EU : C : 2015 : 471 , paragraph 55 ) . 74 See judgment of 25 May 2016 , Meroni ( C - 559 / 14 , EU : C : 2016 : 349 , paragraph 47 and the case-law cited ) .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE O O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-CITY
O
B-DAY
O
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


Judgment of the Court ( Fourth Chamber ) of 12 July 2018 ( request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy ) — VAR Srl , Azienda Trasporti Milanesi SpA ( ATM ) v Iveco Orecchia SpA ( Case C - 14 / 17 ) 1 ( Reference for a preliminary ruling — Public procurement — Directive 2004 / 17 / EC — Article 34 — Supply of spare parts for buses and trolley-buses — Technical specifications — Equivalent products — Whether proof of equivalence may be provided after the contract has been awarded ) Language of the case : Italian Referring court Consiglio di Stato Parties to the main proceedings Appellants : VAR Srl , Azienda Trasporti Milanesi SpA ( ATM ) Respondent : Iveco Orecchia SpA Operative part of the judgment Article 34 ( 8 ) of Directive 2004 / 17 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water , energy , transport and postal services sectors must be interpreted as meaning that , when the technical specifications in the contract documentation refer to a specific mark , origin or production , the contracting authority must require the tenderer to submit , already in its tender , proof that the products which it proposes are equivalent to those defined in the technical specifications . 1 OJ C 168 , 29.5.2017 .

O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O O B-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION O B-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION O B-ORGANISATION O O B-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION O B-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION O B-ORGANISATION O O O B-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE O

O O O O O O O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O B-COUNTRY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Judgment of the Court ( Third Chamber ) of 11 July 2018 ( request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus — Finland ) — Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp . v Rajavartiolaitos ( Case C - 15 / 17 ) 1 ( Reference for a preliminary ruling — Montego Bay Convention — Article 220 ( 6 ) — Powers of the coastal State — Jurisdiction of the Court to interpret provisions of international law — Directive 2005 / 35 / EC — Ship-source pollution — Article 7 ( 2 ) — Marpol Convention 73 / 78 — Oil spill in the exclusive economic zone from a foreign vessel in transit — Circumstances in which a coastal State may instigate proceedings against a foreign vessel — Freedom of navigation — Protection of the marine environment — Major damage or threat of major damage to the coastline , related interests or any resources in the territorial sea or exclusive economic zone — Clear objective evidence ) Language of the case : Finnish Referring court Korkein oikeus Parties to the main proceedings Applicant : Bosphorus Queen Shipping Ltd Corp .

O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O B-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION O B-ADDRESS O O B-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION O O B-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS I-ADDRESS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O B-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION

O O O O O O O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O B-COUNTRY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CITY I-CITY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Defendant : Rajavartiolaitos Operative part of the judgment Article 220 ( 6 ) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea , signed at Montego Bay on 10 December 1982 , and Article 7 ( 2 ) of Directive 2005 / 35 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties , including criminal penalties , for pollution offences , as amended by Directive 2009 / 123 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 , must be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘ clear objective evidence ’ within the meaning of those provisions covers not only the commission of a violation , but also evidence of the consequences of that violation .

O O B-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS I-ADDRESS O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CITY I-CITY O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


The expression ‘ coastline or related interests ’ in Article 220 ( 6 ) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7 ( 2 ) of Directive 2005 / 35 , as amended by Directive 2009 / 123 , must be interpreted as meaning that , in principle , it has the same meaning as the expression ‘ coastline or related interests ’ in Article I ( 1 ) and Article II ( 4 ) of the International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties , concluded at Brussels on 29 November 1969 , it being understood that Article 220 ( 6 ) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea also applied to non-living resources of the territorial sea of the coastal State and to any resources in its exclusive economic zone .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-COUNTRY O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Article 220 ( 6 ) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7 ( 2 ) of Directive 2005 / 35 , as amended by Directive 2009 / 123 , must be interpreted as meaning that the resources of the territorial sea and the exclusive economic zone of a coastal State , within the meaning of those provisions , cover both harvested species and also species associated with them and which are dependent on them , such as animal and plant species which feed on the harvested species .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


It is unnecessary , in principle , to take account of the concept of ‘ significant pollution ’ referred to in Article 220 ( 5 ) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea when applying Article 220 ( 6 ) of that convention and Article 7 ( 2 ) of Directive 2005 / 35 , as amended by Directive 2009 / 123 , and , in particular , when assessing the consequences of a violation , such as those defined in those provisions .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


In order to assess the consequences of a violation , as defined in Article 220 ( 6 ) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7 ( 2 ) of Directive 2005 / 35 , as amended by Directive 2009 / 123 , all the evidence to establish that damage has been caused or that there is a threat of damage to the resources and related interests of the coastal State and to evaluate the extent of the damage caused or threatened to those resources or related interests , taking account inter alia of the cumulative nature of the damage on several or all of those resources and related interests and the difference in sensitivity of the coastal State with regard to damage to its various resources and related interests ; the foreseeable harmful consequences of discharge on those resources and related interests , not only on the basis of the available scientific data , but also with regard to the nature of the harmful substance ( s ) contained in the discharge concerned and the volume , direction , speed and the period of time over which the oil spill spreads The specific geographical and ecological characteristics and sensitivity of the Baltic Sea area have an effect on the conditions of applicability of Article 220 ( 6 ) of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Article 7 ( 2 ) of the Directive 2005 / 35 , as amended by Directive 2009 / 123 , as regards the definition and classification of the violation and , although not automatically , on the assessment of the extent of the damage that that violation has caused to the resources and related interests of the coastal State .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS I-ADDRESS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-TERRITORY I-TERRITORY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Article 1 ( 2 ) of Directive 2005 / 35 , as amended by Directive 2009 / 123 , must be interpreted as meaning that it does not allow the Member States to impose more stringent measures in accordance with international law that those laid down in Article 7 ( 2 ) thereof , where international law is applicable , given that the coastal States are authorised to take other measures equivalent in scope to those laid down in Article 220 ( 6 ) . 1 OJ C 86 , 20.3.2017 .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ( Grand Chamber ) 11 September 2018 ( * ) ( Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2000 / 78 / EC — Equal treatment — Occupational activities within churches and other organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief — Occupational requirements — Acting in good faith and with loyalty to the ethos of the church or organisation — Definition — Difference of treatment on the basis of religion or belief — Dismissal of an employee of the Catholic faith performing managerial duties due to a second , civil marriage entered into after a divorce ) In Case C ‑ 68 / 17 , REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Bundesarbeitsgericht ( Federal Labour Court , Germany ) , made by decision of 28 July 2016 , received at the Court on 9 February 2017 , in the proceedings IR JQ THE COURT ( Grand Chamber ) , composed of K .

O O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ORGANISATION O O O O O B-ADDRESS O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O B-ORGANISATION B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-COUNTRY
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME


B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-PROFESSION
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME


Silva de Lapuerta , T . von Danwitz , J.L . da Cruz Vilaça , A .

B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O B-PERSON I-PERSON

B-FAMILY NAME
I-FAMILY NAME
I-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME
B-FAMILY NAME
I-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME
B-FAMILY NAME
I-FAMILY NAME
I-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME


B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME


Malenovský , Presidents of Chambers , E .

B-PERSON O B-PERSON I-PERSON I-PERSON O B-PERSON I-PERSON

B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-PROFESSION
I-PROFESSION
I-PROFESSION
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME


B-PERSON O B-PERSON O O B-PERSON I-PERSON

B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-PROFESSION
O
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME


B-PERSON O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON O B-PERSON I-PERSON

B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-PROFESSION
O
B-PROFESSION
I-PROFESSION
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME


Malacek , Administrator , having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 27 February 2018 , after considering the observations submitted on behalf of – IR , by B .

B-PERSON O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O B-ORGANISATION O O B-PERSON I-PERSON

B-FAMILY NAME
O
B-PROFESSION
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME


Thüsing , – the German Government , by T .

B-PERSON O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON

B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME


Klebs , acting as Agents , – the Polish Government , by B .

B-PERSON O O O O O O O B-ORGANISATION I-ORGANISATION O O B-PERSON I-PERSON

B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
B-ROLE
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME


Szwarc , acting as Agents , – the European Commission , by D .

B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON


B-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME
I-INITIAL NAME


Killmann , acting as Agents , after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 31 May 2018 , gives the following Judgment 1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 4 ( 2 ) of Council Directive 2000 / 78 / EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation ( OJ 2000 L 303 , p . 16 ) . 2 The request has been made in a dispute between JQ and his employer , IR , in respect of the lawfulness of JQ ’ s dismissal , which was justified by an alleged infringement of the duty of good faith and loyalty to IR ’ s ethos .

B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON I-PERSON O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON O O O O B-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ORGANISATION O O O O

B-FAMILY NAME
O
O
O
B-ROLE
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-PROFESSION
I-PROFESSION
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


Legal context European Union law 3 Recitals 4 , 23 , 24 and 29 of Directive 2000 / 78 state : ‘ ( 4 ) The right of all persons to equality before the law and protection against discrimination constitutes a universal right recognised by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women , United Nations Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic , Social and Cultural Rights and by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms , to which all Member States are signatories .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Convention No 111 of the International Labour Organisation ( ILO ) prohibits discrimination in the field of employment and occupation . ( 23 ) In very limited circumstances , a difference of treatment may be justified where a characteristic related to religion or belief , disability , age or sexual orientation constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement , when the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Such circumstances should be included in the information provided by the Member States to the Commission . ( 24 ) The European Union in its Declaration No 11 on the status of churches and non-confessional organisations , annexed to the Final Act of the Amsterdam Treaty , has explicitly recognised that it respects and does not prejudice the status under national law of churches and religious associations or communities in the Member States and that it equally respects the status of philosophical and non-confessional organisations .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CITY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


With this in view , Member States may maintain or lay down specific provisions on genuine , legitimate and justified occupational requirements which might be required for carrying out an occupational activity . ( 29 ) Persons who have been subject to discrimination based on religion or belief , disability , age or sexual orientation should have adequate means of legal protection .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


To provide a more effective level of protection , associations or legal entities should also be empowered to engage in proceedings , as the Member States so determine , either on behalf or in support of any victim , without prejudice to national rules of procedure concerning representation and defence before the courts . ’ 4 Article 1 of that directive provides : ‘ The purpose of this Directive is to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief , disability , age or sexual orientation as regards employment and occupation , with a view to putting into effect in the Member States the principle of equal treatment . ’ 5 Article 2 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of that directive states : ‘ 1 .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


For the purposes of this Directive , the “ principle of equal treatment ” shall mean that there shall be no direct or indirect discrimination whatsoever on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 . 2 .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


For the purposes of paragraph 1 : ( a ) direct discrimination shall be taken to occur where one person is treated less favourably than another is , has been or would be treated in a comparable situation , on any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 ; 6 Article 4 of that directive is worded as follows : ‘ 1 .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Notwithstanding Article 2 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) , Member States may provide that a difference of treatment which is based on a characteristic related to any of the grounds referred to in Article 1 shall not constitute discrimination where , by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities concerned or of the context in which they are carried out , such a characteristic constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement , provided that the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate . 2 .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Member States may maintain national legislation in force at the date of adoption of this Directive or provide for future legislation incorporating national practices existing at the date of adoption of this Directive pursuant to which , in the case of occupational activities within churches and other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief , a difference of treatment based on a person ’ s religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination where , by reason of the nature of these activities or of the context in which they are carried out , a person ’ s religion or belief constitute a genuine , legitimate and justified occupational requirement , having regard to the organisation ’ s ethos .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


This difference of treatment shall be implemented taking account of Member States ’ constitutional provisions and principles , as well as the general principles of Community law , and should not justify discrimination on another ground .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Provided that its provisions are otherwise complied with , this Directive shall thus not prejudice the right of churches and other public or private organisations , the ethos of which is based on religion or belief , acting in conformity with national constitutions and laws , to require individuals working for them to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation ’ s ethos . ’ 7 Article 9 ( 1 ) of Directive 2000 / 78 provides : ‘ Member States shall ensure that judicial and / or administrative procedures , including where they deem it appropriate conciliation procedures , for the enforcement of obligations under this Directive are available to all persons who consider themselves wronged by failure to apply the principle of equal treatment to them , even after the relationship in which the discrimination is alleged to have occurred has ended . ’ 8 Article 10 ( 1 ) of that directive states : ‘ Member States shall take such measures as are necessary , in accordance with their national judicial systems , to ensure that , when persons who consider themselves wronged because the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them establish , before a court or other competent authority , facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination , it shall be for the respondent to prove that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment . ’

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


German law Basic Law 9 Article 4 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of the Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ( Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany ) of 23 May 1949 ( BGBl . 1949 I , p . 1 ; ‘ the GG ’ ) states : ‘ ( 1 ) Freedom of belief and of conscience and freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed shall be inviolable . ( 2 ) Every person shall have the right to practise his religion without interference . ’ 10 In accordance with Article 140 of the GG , the provisions of Articles 136 to 139 and 141 of the Weimarer Reichsverfasssung ( Weimar Constitution ) of 11 August 1919 ( ‘ the WRV ’ ) are an integral part of the GG . 11 Article 137 of the WRV provides : ‘ ( 1 ) There shall be no State church . ( 2 ) Freedom of association to form religious societies shall be guaranteed .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS I-ADDRESS O O O O O B-ADDRESS I-ADDRESS I-ADDRESS I-ADDRESS O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O O B-ADDRESS O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-COUNTRY I-COUNTRY O O O O O B-COUNTRY I-COUNTRY I-COUNTRY I-COUNTRY O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-CITY O O B-CITY O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


There shall be no restrictions on the ability of religious societies to form associations within the territory of the State . ( 3 ) Each religious society shall organise and administer its affairs independently within the limits of the law that applies to all persons .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


It shall appoint its officers without any interference on the part of the State or the civil municipal authorities . ( 7 ) Associations whose purpose is to foster a philosophical belief in the community shall have the same status as religious societies . ’ 12 According to the case-law of the Bundesverfassungsgericht ( Federal Constitutional Court , Germany ) , the right of self-determination , guaranteed by Article 140 of the GG in conjunction with Article 137 ( 3 ) of the WRV , is enjoyed not only by churches themselves as religious communities , but also by all institutions specifically affiliated to them , if and to the extent that they are required , in accordance with the church ’ s faith-defined self-perception and with their own purpose or mission , to undertake and fulfil the church ’ s mandate and mission .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ORGANISATION O O O O O B-ADDRESS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-COUNTRY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Law on Protection against Dismissal 13 Paragraph 1 of the Kündigungsschutzgesetz ( Law on Protection against Dismissal ) of 25 August 1969 ( BGBl . 1969 I , p . 1317 ) , in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings , provides : ‘ Socially unjustified dismissals ( 1 ) The dismissal of an employee whose employment relationship has continued for more than six months without interruption with the same business or undertaking shall be void where it is socially unjustified . ( 2 ) A dismissal is socially unjustified when it is not based on reasons relating to the person or conduct of the employee , or is due to urgent operational requirements that preclude the employee ’ s continued employment with the business .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


General Law on Equal Treatment 14 The Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz ( General Law on Equal Treatment ) of 14 August 2006 ( BGBl . 2006 I , p . 1897 ; ‘ the AGG ’ ) transposed Directive 2000 / 78 into German law . 15 Paragraph 1 of the AGG , which sets out the objective of the law , states : ‘ The objective of this law is to prevent or eliminate discrimination on grounds of race , ethnic origin , sex , religion or belief , disability , age or sexual identity . ’ 16 Paragraph 7 ( 1 ) of the AGG provides : ‘ Workers shall not be discriminated against on any of the grounds mentioned in Paragraph 1 ; this also applies where the person responsible for the discrimination merely assumes in the course of the discriminatory conduct that one of the grounds mentioned in Paragraph 1 exists . ’ 17 Under Paragraph 9 of the AGG : ‘ ( 1 ) Without prejudice to Paragraph 8 [ of this law ] , a difference of treatment on grounds of religion or belief in connection with employment by religious communities , institutions affiliated to them , regardless of their legal form , or associations that devote themselves to the communal nurture of a religion or belief shall also be permitted if a particular religion or belief constitutes a justified occupational requirement , having regard to the self-perception of the religious society or association concerned , in view of its right of self-determination , or the nature of the activities engaged in . ( 2 ) The prohibition of a difference of treatment on grounds of religion or belief shall not affect the right of the religious communities mentioned in subparagraph 1 , institutions affiliated to them , regardless of their legal form , or associations that devote themselves to the communal nurture of a religion or belief , to require their employees to act in good faith and with loyalty in accordance with their self-perception . ’

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O B-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Canon law 18 According to Canon 1085 of the Codex Iuris Canonici ( Code of Canon Law ) : ‘ ( 1 ) Marriage by a person bound by the bond of a prior marriage , even if not consummated , is invalid . ( 2 ) Even if the prior marriage is invalid or dissolved for whatever reason , the person concerned shall not on that account be permitted to contract another marriage before the nullity or dissolution of the prior marriage is established lawfully and definitively . ’ 19 Article 1 of the Grundordnung des kirchlichen Dienstes im Rahmen kirchlicher Arbeitsverhältnisse ( Basic regulations on employment relationships in the service of the Church ) of 22 September 1993 ( Amtsblatt des Erzbistums Köln 1993 , p . 222 ; ‘ the GrO 1993 ’ ) states as follows : ‘ Basic principles of service in the Church All persons working in an institution of the Catholic Church shall work together , irrespective of their employment status , to ensure that the institution can play its part in the mission of the Church ( community of service ) . 20 Article 4 of the GrO 1993 , headed ‘ Duty of loyalty ’ , reads as follows : ‘ ( 1 ) Catholic employees are expected to recognise and observe the principles of Catholic doctrinal and moral teaching .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O B-ADDRESS B-DATE O O O O O O O O B-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O B-CITY B-YEAR O O O O O O O O B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


In pastoral , catechetical and educational work in particular , as well as among employees who are working on the basis of a missio canonica [ canonical mission ] , employees shall conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the principles of Catholic doctrinal and moral teaching .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


This also applies to employees performing managerial duties . ( 2 ) Non-Catholic Christian employees shall be expected to respect the truths and values of the Gospel and to contribute to giving them effect within the organisation . ( 4 ) All employees shall refrain from acting in a manner that is contrary to the Church .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


They must not , by their personal life and their conduct at work , undermine the credibility of the Church and the institution by which they are employed . ’ 21 Article 5 of the GrO 1993 , headed ‘ Breaches of the duty of loyalty ’ , states : ‘ ( 1 ) If an employee no longer complies with the requirements for employment , the employer shall attempt to counsel the employee to remedy this shortcoming on a lasting basis .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Dismissal shall be considered as a last resort . ( 2 ) For dismissal on grounds relating specifically to the Church , the following breaches of the duty of loyalty in particular shall be regarded by the Church as serious : – entering into a marriage that is invalid according to the Church ’ s teachings and its legal system , ( 3 ) In the case of [ employees ] occupying managerial posts , conduct generally considered to be a possible ground for dismissal in accordance with paragraph 2 shall rule out any possibility of continued employment .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


In exceptional cases , dismissal may be avoided if there are serious reasons in the individual case indicating that such dismissal would be excessive . ’ 22 The Grundordnung für katholische Krankenhäuser in Nordrhein-Westfalen ( Basic regulations for Catholic hospitals in North Rhine-Westphalia , Germany ) of 5 November 1996 ( Amtsblatt des Erzbistums Köln , p . 321 ) states as follows : ‘ A .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS I-ADDRESS I-ADDRESS I-ADDRESS O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O B-ADDRESS O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-TERRITORY O O O O O O O B-TERRITORY I-TERRITORY O B-COUNTRY O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O B-CITY O O O O O O O O O O O O


Assignment to the church ( 6 ) The [ GrO 1993 ] , adopted on the basis of the statement issued by the German bishops on service in the Church , as amended and supplemented , shall be binding on the body responsible .

O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O B-NATIONALITY B-PROFESSION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Employees occupying managerial posts within the meaning of the abovementioned basic regulations include members of hospital management and heads of department . ’

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling 23 IR is a limited liability company established under German law .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


Its purpose is to carry out the work of Caritas ( the international confederation of Catholic charitable organisations ) , as an expression of the life and nature of the Roman Catholic Church , through , among other things , the operation of hospitals .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


IR is primarily a non-profit organisation and is subject to the supervision of the Archbishop of Cologne ( Germany ) . 24 JQ is of the Roman Catholic faith .

B-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS I-ADDRESS I-ADDRESS I-ADDRESS O O B-PERSON O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-CITY
O
B-COUNTRY
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-ETHNIC CATEGORY
I-ETHNIC CATEGORY
I-ETHNIC CATEGORY
O


He trained as a doctor and began working in 2000 as Head of the Internal Medicine Department of an IR hospital pursuant to an employment contract concluded on the basis of the GrO 1993 . 25 JQ was married in accordance with the Roman Catholic rite .

O O O O O O O O O B-DATE O O O O O O O O O B-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
B-PROFESSION
O
O
O
O
B-YEAR
O
B-ROLE
I-ROLE
I-ROLE
I-ROLE
I-ROLE
I-ROLE
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-ETHNIC CATEGORY
I-ETHNIC CATEGORY
I-ETHNIC CATEGORY
O


His first wife separated from him in 2005 , and their divorce was granted in March 2008 .

O O O O O O O B-DATE O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE O

O O O O O O O B-YEAR O O O O O O O B-MONTH B-YEAR O


In August 2008 , JQ married his new partner in a civil ceremony without his first marriage having been annulled . 26 Having learned of the second marriage , IR dismissed JQ , by letter dated 30 March 2009 , with effect from 30 September 2009 . 27 JQ brought an action against the dismissal before the Arbeitsgericht ( Labour Court , Germany ) , claiming that his remarriage was not a valid ground for the dismissal .

O B-DATE I-DATE O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ORGANISATION O B-PERSON O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-COUNTRY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


In JQ ’ s view , the dismissal was an infringement of the principle of equal treatment because , under the GrO 1993 , the remarriage of a head of department of the Protestant faith or of no faith would not have had any consequences for the employment relationship between that person and IR . 28 IR asserted that JQ ’ s dismissal was socially justified .

O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ORGANISATION O O B-ORGANISATION O O B-PERSON O O O O O O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-ETHNIC CATEGORY
I-ETHNIC CATEGORY
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O


Given that JQ occupied a managerial post within the meaning of Article 5 ( 3 ) of the GrO 1993 , by entering into a marriage that is invalid under canon law , he had clearly infringed his obligations under his employment contract with IR . 29 The Arbeitsgericht ( Labour Court ) upheld JQ ’ s application .

O O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


As the appeal lodged by IR against that decision was dismissed by the Landesarbeitsgericht ( Higher Labour Court , Germany ) , IR then brought an application for review on a point of law before the Bundesarbeitsgericht ( Federal Labour Court , Germany ) , which dismissed the application , by judgment of 8 September 2011 , holding , in essence , that JQ ’ s dismissal was not justified , as IR would not dismiss employees occupying the same post as JQ who were not of the Roman Catholic faith in the event of their remarriage . 30 IR brought the case before the Bundesverfassungsgericht ( Federal Constitutional Court , Germany ) .

O O O O O B-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O O B-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O B-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O O O O O B-ADDRESS O O

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-COUNTRY
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-COUNTRY
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-DAY
B-MONTH
B-YEAR
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-ETHNIC CATEGORY
I-ETHNIC CATEGORY
I-ETHNIC CATEGORY
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
B-COUNTRY
O
O


By order of 22 October 2014 , that court set aside the judgment of the Bundesarbeitsgericht ( Federal Labour Court ) and referred the case back to the latter court . 31 The Bundesarbeitsgericht ( Federal Labour Court ) considers that the outcome of the dispute in the main proceedings depends on whether JQ ’ s dismissal by IR is lawful under Paragraph 9 ( 2 ) of the AGG .

O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-PERSON O O O O B-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


However , that court observes that that provision must be interpreted in accordance with EU law and that , consequently , the outcome of the dispute depends on the interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 4 ( 2 ) of Directive 2000 / 78 , which was transposed into national law by Paragraph 9 ( 2 ) of the AGG . 32 More specifically , the referring court is uncertain , in the first place , whether , as a private limited company owned by the Catholic Church , IR falls within the scope of the second subparagraph of Article 4 ( 2 ) of Directive 2000 / 78 and is , therefore , entitled to require its employees to act in good faith and with loyalty to the ethos of that church .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O B-ORGANISATION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


According to that court , it cannot be ruled out that EU law precludes such a company , which is established under private law , active in the healthcare sector and applies market practices , from invoking rights that are specific to the Church . 33 In that respect , the referring court is uncertain whether churches or other public or private organisations the ethos of which is based on religion or belief may themselves definitively determine what constitutes acting in good faith and with loyalty ‘ to the ethos of the organisation ’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 4 ( 2 ) of Directive 2000 / 78 , and whether in that regard they may also — as they are permitted under German constitutional law — independently impose a scale of loyalty requirements for the same managerial positions that takes into account only the denominational affiliation of the employee . 34 In the second place , the referring court notes that , after the Court has interpreted the second subparagraph of Article 4 ( 2 ) of Directive 2000 / 78 , it will be required , taking into account all the rules of national law and applying the interpretation methods recognised by that law , to decide whether and to what extent Article 9 ( 2 ) of the AGG can be interpreted in a manner consistent with Article 4 ( 2 ) of Directive 2000 / 78 and , if that provision of national law does not lend itself to such consistent interpretation , whether that provision must be disapplied in whole or in part . 35 The referring court is uncertain whether the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief enshrined in Article 21 ( 1 ) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ( ‘ the Charter ’ ) confers an individual right on a person that can be enforced by that person before the national courts and which , in disputes between private individuals , requires those courts not to apply national provisions that are incompatible with that prohibition .

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


While it is aware that the Charter entered into force only on 1 December 2009 and the dismissal at issue in the main proceedings occurred in March 2009 , the referring court notes that it is arguable that , prior to the entry into force of the Charter , a prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of religion or belief already existed as a general principle of EU law .

O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O B-DATE I-DATE O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O O O O B-DAY B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O B-MONTH B-YEAR O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


In accordance with the principle of the primacy of EU law , that law takes precedence over national law , including constitutional law . 36 In the third place , the referring court seeks to ascertain which criteria are to be used to determine whether the requirement to act in good faith and with loyalty is consistent with the second subparagraph of Article 4 ( 2 ) of Directive 2000 / 78 . 37 In those circumstances , the Bundesarbeitsgericht ( Federal Labour Court ) decided to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling . ‘ ( 1 ) Is the second subparagraph of Article 4 ( 2 ) of [ Directive 2000 / 78 ] to be interpreted as meaning that the [ Catholic ] Church can decide with binding effect that an organisation such as the defendant in the present proceedings is to differentiate , in connection with the requirement that employees in managerial positions act in good faith and with loyalty , between employees who belong to the same church and those who belong to another faith or to none at all ?

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


( 2 ) If the first question is answered in the negative : ( a ) Must a provision of national law , in this case Article 9 ( 2 ) of the [ AGG ] , under which unequal treatment of this kind , based on the employee ’ s religious affiliation , is justified by reference to the Church ’ s self-perception , be disapplied in these proceedings ?

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O


( b ) What conditions apply , in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 4 ( 2 ) of [ Directive 2000 / 78 ] , in respect of the requirement that employees of a church or one of the other organisations mentioned in that provision act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation ’ s ethos ? ’

O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O