Edyta Mikołajczyk v Marie Louise Czarnecka and Stefan Czarnecki.
Date: 2016-10-13
24


To determine whether an application falls within the scope of that regulation, the focus must be on the object of the application (judgment of 21 October 2015, Gogova, C‑215/15, EU:C:2015:710, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited). In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that the referring court has been requested to rule on an application for annulment of the marriage contracted on 4 July 1956 in Paris between Marie Louise Czarnecka and Stefan Czarnecki, an application based on the alleged existence of a previous marriage contracted between Zdzisława Czarnecka and Stefan Czarnecki. In principle, the object of that action is therefore ‘marriage annulment’ within the meaning of Article 1(1)(a) of Regulation No 2201/2003.
26


In that regard, it follows from the Court’s settled case-law that in interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also its context and the aims pursued by the legislation of which it forms part (judgments of 19 September 2013, Van Buggenhout and Van de Mierop, C‑251/12, EU:C:2013:566, paragraph 26, and of 26 March 2015, Litaksa, C‑556/13, EU:C:2015:202, paragraph 23).
33


In that regard, it should be noted that, according to recital 1 of Regulation No 2201/2003, that regulation is to contribute to the creation of an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons is ensured. Accordingly, with the objective of ensuring legal certainty, Chapters II and III of the regulation lay down rules on jurisdiction and on recognition and enforcement of judgments concerning the dissolution of matrimonial ties (judgment of 16 July 2009, Hadadi, C‑168/08, EU:C:2009:474, paragraphs 47 and 48).
44


The Court of Justice has consistently held that the need for a uniform application of EU law and the principle of equality require that the terms of a provision of EU law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an autonomous and uniform interpretation throughout the European Union, which must take into account the context of that provision and the purpose of the legislation in question (see, to that effect, judgments of 2 April 2009, A, C‑523/07, EU:C:2009:225, paragraph 34, and of 16 July 2009, Hadadi, C‑168/08, EU:C:2009:474, paragraph 38).
46


As regards the context of the fifth and sixth indents of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 2201/2003, it is apparent from the case-law of the Court that that article provides for a number of grounds of jurisdiction, without establishing any hierarchy, since the objective criteria set out in that article are alternatives (see, to that effect, judgment of 16 July 2009, Hadadi, C‑168/08, EU:C:2009:474, paragraph 48).
47


It follows that the system for sharing jurisdiction established by Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning the dissolution of matrimonial ties is not intended to preclude the courts of several States having jurisdiction. Rather, the coexistence of several courts having jurisdiction is expressly provided for, without any hierarchy being established between them (judgment of 16 July 2009, Hadadi, C‑168/08, EU:C:2009:474, paragraph 49).
48


As regards the criteria listed in Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation, the Court has held that they are based in various respects on the habitual residence of the spouses (judgment of 16 July 2009, Hadadi, C‑168/08, EU:C:2009:474, paragraph 50).
50


Such an interpretation is consonant with the objective pursued by that regulation, which established flexible conflict of law rules to reflect the mobility of individuals and to protect the rights of a spouse who has left the country of common habitual residence, while ensuring there is a genuine link between the party concerned and the Member State exercising jurisdiction (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 November 2007, Sundelind Lopez, C‑68/07, EU:C:2007:740, paragraph 26).