Bianca Purrucker v Guillermo Vallés Pérez.
Date: 2010-11-09
64. The rules relating to lis pendens  are intended, in the interests of the proper administration of justice within the European Union, to prevent parallel proceedings before the courts of different Member States and to avoid conflicts between decisions which might result therefrom (see, to that effect, in relation to the Brussels Convention, Case C‑116/02 Gasser  [2003] ECR I‑14693, paragraph 41, and Case C‑39/02 Mærsk Olie & Gas  [2004] ECR I‑9657, paragraph 31).
66. Having regard to the objectives pursued by Regulation No 2201/2003 and the fact that the wording of Article 19(2) thereof, instead of referring to the term ‘ lis pendens’  as used in the different national legal systems of the Member states, lays down a number of substantive conditions as components of a definition, it must be concluded that the terms used in Article 19(2) in order to determine whether a situation of lis pendens  arises must be regarded as autonomous (see, to that effect, in relation to the Brussels Convention, Case 144/86 Gubisch Maschinenfabrik  [1987] ECR 4861, paragraph 11).
68. The Court has previously ruled, in the context of the Brussels convention, that the ‘object of the action’ (‘objet’) is the end the action has in view (see Case C‑406/92 Tatry  [1994] ECR I‑5439, paragraph 41). To ascertain whether two actions have the same object, account must be taken of the applicants’ respective claims in each of the sets of proceedings (Case C‑111/01 Gantner Electronic  [2003] ECR I‑4207, paragraph 26). Further, the Court has interpreted the concept of the ‘cause of the action’ (‘cause’) as comprising the facts and the rule of law relied on as the basis of the action (see Tatry , paragraph 39).
70. As the Court stated in paragraph 61 of Purrucker I , Article 20 of Regulation No 2201/2003 cannot be regarded as a provision which determines substantive jurisdiction.
81. According to what is permitted by provisions of its national law, the court second seised may, where the opposing parties in two sets of proceedings are the same, seek information from the party relying on the objection of lis pendens  on the existence of the alleged proceedings and the content of the action. Moreover, taking into consideration the fact that Regulation No 2201/2003 is based on judicial cooperation and mutual trust, that court may advise the court first seised that an action has been brought before it, alert the court first seised to the possibility of lis pendens , and invite the court first seised to send to it information on the action pending before it and to state its position on its jurisdiction within the meaning of Regulation No 2201/2003 or to notify it of any judgment already delivered in that regard. Lastly, the court second seised will be able to approach the central authority in its Member State.
83. The duration of that reasonable waiting period must be determined by the court having regard above all to the interests of the child. The fact that a child is very young is one criterion to be taken into consideration in that regard (see, to that effect, Case C‑195/08 PPU Rinau  [2008] ECR I‑5271, paragraph 81).
85. Lastly, it must be emphasised that, under Article 24 of Regulation No 2201/2003, the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin may not be reviewed. However, while Article 19(2) of that Regulation provides that the court second seised must stay proceedings in the event of lis pendens , the specific purpose of its doing so is to enable the court first seised to rule on its jurisdiction.