Proceedings brought by Alessandro Saponaro and Kalliopi-Chloi Xylina.
Date: 2018-04-19
17


In that regard, the Court has already held in the judgment of 6 October 2015, Matoušková (C‑404/14, EU:C:2015:653, paragraph 31), that the fact that a measure — such as the approval from the court dealing with guardianship matters of an agreement on the sharing out of an estate concluded in the name of minor children — has been requested in succession proceedings cannot be regarded as decisive as to whether that measure should be classified as falling within the law on succession. The need to obtain approval from the court dealing with guardianship matters is a direct consequence of the status and capacity of the minor children and constitutes a protective measure for the child relating to the administration, conservation or disposal of the child’s property in the exercise of parental responsibility within the meaning of Article 1(1)(b) and 2(e) of Regulation No 2201/2003.
23


As the Court held in the judgment of 12 November 2014, L (C‑656/13, EU:C:2014:2364, paragraph 56), that provision requires express, or at least unequivocal, agreement to be established on the prorogation of jurisdiction between all the parties to the proceedings.
24


Such an agreement does not exist if one party initiates proceedings before a court and another party later appears before that same court in order to challenge its jurisdiction (see, to that effect, the judgment of 12 November 2014, L, C‑656/13, EU:C:2014:2364, paragraph 57).
27


In addition, it must be recalled, having regard to recital 12 of Regulation No 2201/2003, that the head of jurisdiction provided for in Article 12(3) is an exception to the criterion of proximity, under which it is in the first place for the courts of the Member State of the child’s habitual residence to hear actions concerning parental responsibility for that child, and of which Article 8(1) of the regulation is an expression. That exception is intended to allow the parties a certain autonomy in matters of parental responsibility by emphasising that the condition as to the unequivocal nature of the acceptance of jurisdiction of the courts seised by all the parties to the proceedings must be interpreted strictly (judgment of 21 October 2015, Gogova, C‑215/15, EU:C:2015:710, paragraph 41).
30


As regards the date at which the parties acceptance of the proceeding must be given, namely the date on which the court is seised, Article 16 of Regulation No 2201/2003 states that that date corresponds, in principle, to when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court (judgments of 1 October 2014, E, C‑436/13, EU:C:2014:2246, paragraph 38, and of 12 November 2014, L, C‑656/13, EU:C:2014:2364, paragraph 55).
31


Facts arising after the date on which the court is seised may nevertheless demonstrate that the acceptance required under Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 was lacking at that date. Thus, in the judgment of 12 November 2014, L (C‑656/13, EU:C:2014:2364, paragraphs 56 and 57), the Court held that the existence of an express or at least unequivocal agreement within the meaning of that provision manifestly cannot be established where the court in question is seised on the initiative of only one of the parties to the proceedings and, later, another party to those proceedings, on taking the first step required of him in the first proceedings, pleads the lack of jurisdiction of the court seised.
33


Article 12(3) of Regulation No 2201/2003 makes it clear that recourse to prorogation of jurisdiction cannot in any case be contrary to the best interests of the child and whether that condition is complied with must be examined in each individual case (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 November 2014, L, C‑656/13, EU:C:2014:2364, paragraphs 49 and 58).
34


In the judgment of 27 October 2016, D, (C‑428/15, EU:C:2016:819, paragraph 58), concerning the interpretation of Article 15 of Regulation No 2201/2003, which concerns the transfer to a court better placed to hear the case, the Court held that the requirement that the transfer must be in the best interests of the child implies that the court having jurisdiction must be satisfied, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, that the envisaged transfer of the case to a court of another Member State is not liable to be detrimental to the situation of the child concerned.