L v M.
Date: 2014-11-12
38. According to settled case-law of the Court, in interpreting a provision of European Union law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgments in Merck , 292/82, EU:C:1983:335, paragraph 12, and Detiček , C‑403/09 PPU, EU:C:2009:810, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
44. Moreover, the Court has previously held that jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility which has been prorogued, under Article 12(3) of Regulation No 2201/2003, in favour of a court of a Member State before which proceedings have been brought by mutual agreement by the holders of parental responsibility ceases following a final judgment in those proceedings (judgment in E , C‑436/13, EU:C:2014:2246, paragraph 50). That implies that the jurisdiction of the court chosen may be prorogued even to hear those parental responsibility proceedings alone.
45. It follows from the above that the prorogation of jurisdiction provided for in Article 12(3) of Regulation No 2201/2003 in matters of parental responsibility may be applied without it being necessary for those proceedings to be related to other proceedings already pending before the court in whose favour the prorogation of jurisdiction is sought.
48. First, as stated in recital 12 in the preamble, the grounds of jurisdiction established by Regulation No 2201/2003 are shaped in the light of the best interests of the child, in particular of the criterion of proximity. It follows that the regulation proceeds from the idea that the best interests of the child must come first (see, to that effect, judgment in Rinau , C‑195/08 PPU, EU:C:2008:406, paragraph 51). As stated in paragraph 46 above, limiting the possibility of having recourse to the prorogation of jurisdiction provided for in Article 12(3) of Regulation No 2201/2003 to cases in which the proceedings in matters of parental responsibility may be related to other proceedings would exclude the possibility of having recourse to that prorogation in numerous situations, even where that prorogation of jurisdiction might be in the best interests of the child concerned.
49. It should be emphasised here that, as is apparent from Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003 — which in any event makes the applicability of the prorogation of jurisdiction provided for by that paragraph conditional not only on the acceptance, expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner, of prorogation by all the parties to the proceedings at the time the court is seised, but also on the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State chosen being in the best interests of the child — recourse to that prorogation cannot in any case be contrary to those best interests.
52. Having regard to all the above considerations, the answer to Question 1 is that Article 12(3) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as allowing, for the purposes of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility, the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State which is not that of the child’s habitual residence to be established even where no other proceedings are pending before the court chosen.
Question 2
55. According to the actual wording of Article 12(3)(b) of Regulation No 2201/2003, the jurisdiction of the court chosen must have ‘been accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by all the parties to the proceedings at the time the court is seised’. Article 16 of that regulation states that a court is deemed to be seised, in principle, at the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court.
56. The clear wording of that provision, read in the light of Article 16, thus requires the existence to be shown of an agreement, express or at least unequivocal, on the prorogation of jurisdiction between all the parties to the proceedings, at the latest at the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court chosen.
57. That manifestly cannot be the case where the court in question is seised on the initiative of only one of the parties to the proceedings, another party to the proceedings brings other proceedings before the same court at a later date, and that other party, on taking the first step required of him in the first proceedings, pleads the lack of jurisdiction of the court seised.
58. It should be added that where a court is seised of proceedings in accordance with Article 12(3) of Regulation No 2201/2003, the best interests of the child can be assured only by an examination, in each individual case, of whether the prorogation of jurisdiction sought is in accordance with those interests, and that prorogation of jurisdiction on the basis of Article 12(3) of Regulation No 2201/2003 is valid only for the specific proceedings of which the court whose jurisdiction is prorogued is seised (see, to that effect, judgment in E , EU:C:2014:2246, paragraphs 47 and 49).