natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
6 Under Article 1(1)(a) of Regulation No 2201/2003, the regulation is to apply, whatever the nature of the court or tribunal, in civil matters relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment.
6 Na temelju članka 1. stavka 1. točke (a) Uredbe br. 2201/2003, uredba se primjenjuje, bez obzira na prirodu suda, u građanskim stvarima koje se odnose na razvod, zakonsku rastavu ili poništaj braka.
7 Article 3 of that regulation, headed `General jurisdiction', provides in paragraph 1:
7 Člankom 3. navedene uredbe naslovljenim „Opća nadležnost" propisuje se u stavku 1.:
`In matters relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment, jurisdiction shall lie with the courts of the Member State:
„U predmetima koji se odnose na razvod, zakonsku rastavu ili poništaj braka, nadležni su sudovi država članica:
(a) in whose territory:
(a) na čijem području:
the spouses are habitually resident, or
bračni drugovi imaju uobičajeno boravište, ili
the spouses were last habitually resident, in so far as one of them still resides there, or
su bračni drugovi imali zadnje uobičajeno boravište, ako jedan od njih i dalje ima isto boravište, ili
the respondent is habitually resident, or
protustranka ima uobičajeno boravište, ili
in the event of a joint application, either of the spouses is habitually resident, or
u slučaju zajedničkog prijedloga za pokretanje postupka, ima uobičajeno boravište bilo koji od bračnih drugova, ili
the applicant is habitually resident if he or she resided there for at least a year immediately before the application was made, or
stranka koja pokreće postupak ima uobičajeno boravište, ako je on ili ona tamo imao boravište najmanje godinu dana prije pokretanja postupka, ili
the applicant is habitually resident if he or she resided there for at least six months immediately before the application was made and is either a national of the Member State in question or, in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, has his or her "domicile" there;
stranka koja pokreće postupak ima uobičajeno boravište, ako je on ili ona tamo imao boravište najmanje šest mjeseci prije pokretanja postupka, a on ili ona je bio državljanin države članice o kojoj je riječ ili, u slučaju da je riječ o Velikoj Britaniji ili Irskoj, tamo imao svoj ,domicile';
(b) of the nationality of both spouses or, in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, of the "domicile" of both spouses.'
(b) prema državljanstvu oba bračna druga ili, u slučaju Velike Britanije ili Irske, prema ,domicile' oba bračna druga."
8 Article 6 of that regulation, headed `Exclusive nature of jurisdiction under Articles 3, 4 and 5', provides:
8 Člankom 6. navedene uredbe naslovljenim „Isključiva priroda nadležnosti u skladu s člancima 3., 4. i 5.", propisuje se:
`A spouse who:
„Protiv bračnog druga koji:
(a) is habitually resident in the territory of a Member State, or
(a) ima uobičajeno boravište na području države članice; ili
(b) is a national of a Member State, or, in the case of the United Kingdom and Ireland, has his or her "domicile" in the territory of one of the latter Member States,
(b) je državljanin neke države članice, ili, u slučaju Velike Britanije i Irske, ima ,domicile' na državnom području jedne od navedenih država članica,
may be sued in another Member State only in accordance with Articles 3, 4 and 5.'
može biti pokrenut postupak u drugoj državi članici samo u skladu s člancima 3., 4. i 5. 9 Člankom 16.
9 Article 16 of Regulation No 2201/2003, headed `Seising of a Court', provides:
Uredbe br. 2201/2003 naslovljenim „Pokretanje postupka pred sudom" propisuje se:
`1. A court shall be deemed to be seised:
„1. Smatra se da je pred sudom pokrenut postupak:
(a) at the time when the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document is lodged with the court, provided that the applicant has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have service effected on the respondent;
(a) u trenutku u kojemu je pismeno kojim se pokreće postupak, ili jednakovrijedno pismeno, predano sudu, pod uvjetom da osoba koja pokreće postupak nije nakon toga propustila poduzeti radnje koje je morala poduzeti u vezi s dostavom pismena protustranci;
(b) if the document has to be served before being lodged with the court, at the time when it is received by the authority responsible for service, provided that the applicant has not subsequently failed to take the steps he was required to take to have the document lodged with the court.'
(b) ako pismeno mora biti dostavljeno prije njegova podnošenja sudu, u trenutku u kojemu ga je primilo tijelo ovlašteno za dostavu, pod uvjetom da osoba koja pokreće postupak nije nakon toga propustila poduzeti radnje koje je morala poduzeti kako bi pismeno bilo predano sudu."
10 Article 19 of that regulation provides:
10 Člankom 19. navedene uredbe propisuje se:
`1. Where proceedings relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment between the same parties are brought before courts of different Member States, the court second seised shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established.
„1. Ako je postupak koji se odnosi na razvod, zakonsku rastavu ili poništaj braka između istih stranaka pokrenut pred sudovima različitih država članica, sud pred kojim je postupak započeo kasnije s njim zastaje, po službenoj dužnosti, dok se ne utvrdi nadležnost suda pred kojim je postupak započeo ranije. [...]
... 3. Where the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established, the court second seised shall decline jurisdiction in favour of that court.
3. Ako je utvrđena nadležnost suda pred kojim je postupak započeo ranije, sud pred kojim je postupak započeo kasnije proglašava se nenadležnim u korist prvog suda.
In that case, the party who brought the relevant action before the court second seised may bring that action before the court first seised.'
U tom slučaju, stranka koja je pokrenula odgovarajući postupak pred drugim sudom može pokrenuti postupak pred prvim sudom."
11 Article 21 of that regulation, entitled `Recognition of a judgment', provides:
11 Člankom 21. navedene uredbe naslovljenim „Priznavanje sudske odluke" propisuje se:
`1. A judgment given in a Member State shall be recognised in the other Member States without any special procedure being required.
„1. Sudska odluka donesena u državi članici priznaje se u drugim državama članicama bez potrebe bilo kakvog posebnog postupka.
... 4. Where the recognition of a judgment is raised as an incidental question in a court of a Member State, that court may determine that issue.'
[...] 4. Ako je priznavanje sudske odluke pred sudom neke države članice postavljeno kao prethodno pitanje, o njemu odlučuje taj sud."
12 Article 24 of Regulation No 2201/2003, headed `Prohibition of review of jurisdiction of the court of origin', provides:
12 Člankom 24. Uredbe br. 2201/2003 naslovljenim „Zabrana preispitivanja nadležnosti suda podrijetla" propisuje se:
`The jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin may not be reviewed.
„Nadležnost suda države članice podrijetla ne može se preispitivati.
The test of public policy referred to in Articles 22(a) and 23(a) may not be applied to the rules relating to jurisdiction set out in Articles 3 to 14.'
Ispitivanje javnog reda iz članaka 22. stavka (a) i članka 23. stavka (a) ne može se primjenjivati na propise koji se odnose na nadležnost iz članaka 3. do 14."
13 Article 64(1) and (4), which appear in Chapter VI of Regulation No 2201/2003, headed `Transitional provisions', provide:
13 Člankom 64. stavcima 1. i 4. iz poglavlja VI. Uredbe br. 2201/2003 naslovljenog „Prijelazne odredbe" propisuje se:
`1. The provisions of this Regulation shall apply only to legal proceedings instituted, to documents formally drawn up or registered as authentic instruments and to agreements concluded between the parties after its date of application in accordance with Article 72.
„1. Odredbe ove Uredbe primjenjuju se samo na pokrenute sudske postupke, na pismena koja su službeno sastavljena ili upisana u registar kao autentične isprave te na sporazume zaključene između stranaka nakon datuma početka njezine primjene u skladu s člankom 72.
... 4. Judgments given before the date of application of this Regulation but after the date of entry into force of Regulation ... No 1347/2000 in proceedings instituted before the date of entry into force of Regulation ... No 1347/2000 shall be recognised and enforced in accordance with the provisions of Chapter III of this Regulation provided they relate to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment or parental responsibility for the children of both spouses on the occasion of these matrimonial proceedings and that jurisdiction was founded on rules which accorded with those provided for either in Chapter II of this Regulation or in Regulation ... No 1347/2000 or in a convention concluded between the Member State of origin and the Member State addressed which was in force when the proceedings were instituted.'
[...] 4. Sudske odluke donesene prije datuma početka primjene ove Uredbe, ali nakon stupanja na snagu Uredbe [...] br. 1347/2000 u postupcima koji su pokrenuti prije datuma stupanja na snagu Uredbe [...] br. 1347/2000, priznaju se i na temelju njih se određuje izvršenje u skladu s odredbama poglavlja III. ove Uredbe, pod uvjetom da se odnose na razvod, zakonsku rastavu ili poništaj braka ili na roditeljsku odgovornost u odnosu na zajedničku djecu bračnih drugova u tim bračnim sporovima i da se nadležnost temeljila na propisima sukladnim onima u poglavlju II. ove Uredbe, onima u Uredbi [...] br. 1347/2000 ili onima u konvenciji koju su sklopile država članica podrijetla i zamoljena država članica, a koja je bila na snazi u trenutku pokretanja sudskog postupka."
14 According to Article 72 of Regulation No 2201/2003, the regulation entered into force on 1 August 2004 and was to apply from 1 March 2005, with the exception of Articles 67 to 70, which are not relevant to the main proceedings.
14 U skladu s člankom 72. Uredbe br. 2201/2003, Uredba je stupila na snagu 1. kolovoza 2004., a trebala se primjenjivati od 1. ožujka 2005., osim članaka 67. do 70., koji nisu bitni za glavni postupak.
French legislation
Francusko pravo
15 Article 1070, fourth paragraph, of the Code de procédure civile (Code of Civil Procedure) states:
15 U članku 1070. četvrtom stavku Zakona o građanskom postupku (Code de procédure civile) navodi se:
`Territorial jurisdiction shall be determined by residence on the date of the application or, in divorce matters, on the date on which the initial petition is submitted.'
„Teritorijalna nadležnost određena je boravištem na dan zahtjeva ili, u slučaju razvoda, na dan kada je podnesen početni zahtjev."
16 In 1979, Mr Hadadi and Ms Mesko, both of Hungarian nationality, married in Hungary.
16 L. Hadadi i C. M. Mesko, oboje mađarski državljani, sklopili su 1979. brak u Mađarskoj.
They emigrated to France in 1980, where, according to the order for reference, they still reside.
Iselili su u Francusku 1980., gdje, prema odluci kojom je sud uputio zahtjev, još uvijek borave.
In 1985, they became naturalised French citizens, so that they each hold Hungarian and French nationality.
Godine 1985. postali su naturalizirani francuski državljani te su stoga oboje mađarski i francuski državljani.
17 On 23 February 2002, Mr Hadadi instituted divorce proceedings before Pest Court.
17 L. Hadadi je 23. veljače 2002. podnio tužbu za razvod braka pred Sudom u Pešti.
18 Ms Mesko instituted proceedings for divorce on the ground of fault before the Tribunal de grande instance de Meaux (Meaux Regional Court) (France) on 19 February 2003.
18 C. M. Mesko podnijela je 19. veljače 2003. tužbu za razvod braka na osnovi načela krivnje pred Tribunal de grande instance de Meaux (Regionalni sud u Meauxu) (Francuska).
19 On 4 May 2004, that is after the accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union on 1 May 2004, the couple's divorce was granted by judgment of Pest Court.
19 4. svibnja 2004., dakle nakon pristupanja Mađarske Europskoj uniji 1. svibnja 2004., Sud u Pešti presudom je razveo brak L. Hadadija i C. M. Mesko.
According to the order for reference, that judgment has become final.
Prema odluci kojom je sud uputio zahtjev ta je presuda postala pravomoćna.
20 By order of 8 November 2005, the Juge aux Affaires Familiales (Family Court) of the Tribunal de grande instance de Meaux declared the divorce proceedings brought before it by Ms Mesko to be inadmissible.
20 Rješenjem od 8. studenoga 2005. Juge aux Affaires Familiales (Obiteljski sud) pri Tribunal de grande instance de Meaux proglasio je postupak za razvoda braka, koji je pred tim sudom pokrenula C. M. Mesko, nedopuštenim.
21 On 12 October 2006, following Ms Mesko's appeal against that order, the Cour d'appel de Paris (Paris Court of Appeal) (France) held that the divorce granted by judgment of Pest Court could not be recognised in France.
21 12. listopada 2006., nakon žalbe C. M. Mesko na navedeno rješenje, Cour d'appel de Paris (Žalbeni sud u Parizu) (Francuska) odlučio je da razvod koji je proglašen presudom Suda u Pešti ne može biti priznat u Francuskoj.
The Cour d'appel de Paris therefore held Ms Mesko's proceedings for divorce to be admissible.
Cour d'appel de Paris je stoga odlučio da je tužba C. M. Mesko za razvod braka dopuštena.
22 Mr Hadadi appealed on a point of law against the decision of the Cour d'appel de Paris, on the ground that it had rejected the jurisdiction of the Hungarian court on the sole basis of Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 2201/2003, concerning the habitual residence of the spouses, without having examined whether such jurisdiction could be founded on the spouses' Hungarian nationality, as provided for under Article 3(1)(b) of the regulation.
22 L. Hadadi podnio je kasacijsku žalbu protiv odluke Cour d'appel de Paris zbog toga što je taj sud odbacio presudu mađarskog suda samo na temelju članka 3. stavka 1. točke (a) Uredbe br. 2201/2003, koja se odnosi na uobičajeno boravište bračnih drugova, a da nije ispitao proizlazi li takva nadležnost iz mađarskog državljanstva bračnih drugova, kako je predviđeno na temelju članka 3. stavka 1. točke (b) uredbe.
23 In those circumstances, the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
23 U tim je okolnostima Cour de cassation (Kasacijski sud) odlučio prekinuti postupak i postaviti Sudu sljedeća prethodna pitanja:
`1. Is Article 3(1)(b) [of Regulation No 2201/2003] to be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation where the spouses hold both the nationality of the State of the court seised and the nationality of another Member State of the European Union, the nationality of the State of the court seised must prevail?
„1. Treba li članak 3. [stavak 1. točku (b) Uredbe br. 2201/2003] tumačiti tako da, u slučaju kada bračni drugovi istovremeno imaju državljanstvo države suda pred kojim je pokrenut postupak i državljanstvo druge države članice Europske unije, prednost mora imati državljanstvo države suda pred kojim je pokrenut postupak?
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, is that provision to be interpreted as referring, in a situation where the spouses each hold dual nationality of the same two Member States, to the more effective of the two nationalities?
2. Ako je odgovor na prvo pitanje negativan, treba li tu odredbu tumačiti tako da, u situaciji kada bračni drugovi oboje imaju dvojno državljanstvo iste dvije države članice, od dva predmetna državljanstva prednost ima državljanstvo koje je efektivnije?
3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the negative, should it therefore be considered that that provision offers the spouses an additional option, allowing those spouses the choice of seising the courts of either of the two States of which they both hold the nationality?'
3. Ako je odgovor na drugo pitanje negativan, treba li stoga smatrati da se tom odredbom bračnim drugovima nudi dodatna mogućnost, kojom se tim bračnim drugovima omogućuje odabir pokretanja postupka pred sudovima bilo koje od dvije države čije državljanstvo oboje imaju?"
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling
O prethodnim pitanjima
24 The dispute in the main proceedings arises from the action for divorce brought in France by Ms Mesko on 19 February 2003.
24 Glavni postupak proizlazi iz tužbe za razvod braka koju je u Francuskoj podnijela C. M. Mesko 19. veljače 2003.
According to the documents before the court, in the context of the examination of the admissibility of that action, the recognition of the judgment granting a divorce of Pest Court of 4 May 2004 is an incidental question.
Iz sudskog spisa je razvidno da je, u kontekstu ispitivanja dopuštenosti navedene tužbe, priznanje presude Suda u Pešti od 4. svibnja 2004. kojom se razvodi brak predmet prethodnog pitanja. Na temelju članka 21. stavka 4.
Under Article 21(4) of Regulation No 2201/2003, the French courts may determine that issue.
Uredbe br. 2201/2003, francuski sudovi mogu odlučivati o tom pitanju.
In that context, the Cour de cassation has raised questions concerning the interpretation of Article 3(1) of the regulation.
U tom kontekstu, Cour de cassation postavio je pitanja o tumačenju članka 3. stavka 1. te uredbe.
25 It should be noted that, in accordance with Article 72 of Regulation No 2201/2003, the regulation entered into force on 1 August 2004 and has been applicable since 1 March 2005.
25 Valja napomenuti da je, u skladu s člankom 72. Uredbe br. 2201/2003, navedena uredba stupila na snagu 1. kolovoza 2004, a primjenjiva je od 1. ožujka 2005.
26 Moreover, Regulation No 1347/2000 was applicable in Hungary only from 1 May 2004, pursuant to Article 2 of the Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 2003 L 236, p. 33).
26 Osim toga, Uredba br. 1347/2000 bila je primjenjiva u Mađarskoj tek od 1. svibnja 2004., u skladu s člankom 2. Akta o uvjetima pristupanja Europskoj uniji Češke Republike, Republike Estonije, Republike Cipar, Republike Latvije, Republike Litve, Republike Mađarske, Republike Malte, Republike Poljske, Republike Slovenije i Slovačke Republike i prilagodbama ugovora na kojima se temelji Europska unija (SL 2003, L 236, str. 33.).
27 It follows that the judgment of Pest Court of 4 May 2004 granting a divorce postdates the entry into force of Regulation No 1347/2000 in Hungary, in proceedings instituted before that date of entry into force.
27 Iz toga je razvidno da je presuda Suda u Pešti od 4. svibnja 2004. o razvodu braka donesena nakon stupanja na snagu Uredbe br. 1347/2000 u Mađarskoj, u postupku pokrenutom prije tog datuma stupanja na snagu.
It must also be pointed out that that judgment was given before 1 March 2005, the date from which Regulation No 2201/2003 became applicable.
Isto tako valja istaknuti da je presuda objavljena prije 1. ožujka 2005., datuma na koji je Uredba br. 2201/2003 postala primjenjiva.
28 In those circumstances, as the French, German, Polish and Slovak Governments argue, the question of recognition of that judgment must be assessed by applying Article 64(4) of Regulation No 2201/2003, since proceedings were instituted and the judgment delivered within the period set out in that provision.
28 U takvim okolnostima, kako tvrde francuska, njemačka, poljska i slovačka vlada, pitanje priznavanja navedene presude mora se ocijeniti primjenom članka 64. stavka 4. Uredbe br. 2201/2003, budući da je postupak pokrenut i presuda donesena u razdoblju utvrđenom u toj odredbi.
29 In accordance with Article 64(4), that divorce judgment is to be recognised pursuant to Regulation No 2201/2003 if jurisdiction was founded on rules which accorded with those provided for either in Chapter II of that regulation, or in Regulation No 1347/2000, or in a convention concluded between the Member State of origin (in the present case the Republic of Hungary) and the Member State addressed (in this case, the French Republic) which was in force when the proceedings were instituted.
29 U skladu s člankom 64. stavkom 4., navedenu presudu o razvodu braka treba priznati na temelju Uredbe br. 2201/2003 ako su primijenjena pravila o nadležnosti u skladu s pravilima iz poglavlja II. te uredbe ili iz Uredbe br. 1347/2000 ili iz konvencije koju su sklopile država članica podrijetla (u ovom slučaju Republika Mađarska) i zamoljena država (u ovom slučaju Francuska Republika), koja je bila na snazi u trenutku pokretanja sudskog postupka.
30 The documents before the Court do not indicate the provisions on which Pest Court founded jurisdiction or the wording of those provisions.
30 Iz sudskog spisa nisu razvidne odredbe na kojima je Sud u Pešti utvrdio svoju nadležnost ni tekst tih odredbi.
However, that fact must be regarded as having no bearing on the main proceedings if the jurisdiction of the Hungarian courts was able to be established by applying Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003, whatever rules on jurisdiction were in fact applied by them.
Međutim, mora se smatrati da ta činjenica ne utječe na glavni postupak ako se nadležnost mađarskih sudova mogla utvrditi primjenom članka 3. stavka 1. Uredbe br. 2201/2003, bez obzira na to koja su pravila o nadležnosti ti sudovi de facto primijenili.
Thus, in essence, the present reference for a preliminary ruling seeks to establish whether, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the Hungarian courts could have had jurisdiction under that provision to rule in divorce proceedings concerning Mr Hadadi and Ms Mesko.
Stoga se u biti ovim zahtjevom za prethodnu odluku nastoji utvrditi jesu li, u okolnostima kakve su u glavnom postupku, mađarski sudovi mogli na temelju te odredbe biti nadležni za odlučivanje u postupku razvoda braka L. Hadadija i C. M. Mesko.
31 Finally, it is true that Ms Mesko maintains, in her written observations to the Court, that she only became aware of the divorce proceedings before Pest Court six months after they were instituted by Mr Hadadi.
31 Naposljetku, istina je da C. M. Mesko u svojim pisanim očitovanjima Sudu tvrdi da je za postupak razvoda braka pred Sudom u Pešti doznala tek šest mjeseci nakon što je taj postupak pokrenuo L. Hadadi.
However, she does not claim that Mr Hadadi failed to take the steps he was required to take to have service effected or that, in accordance with Article 16 of Regulation No 2201/2003, the Hungarian court could not, in consequence, be deemed to have been seised at that date.
Međutim, ona ne tvrdi da L. Hadadi nije poduzeo radnje koje je trebao poduzeti za dostavu pismena niti da, u skladu s člankom 16. Uredbe br. 2201/2003, mađarski sud posljedično nije mogao smatrati da mu je tužba podnesena tog datuma.
The documents before the court indicate, moreover, that Ms Mesko entered an appearance in the proceedings before that court.
Štoviše, iz sudskog je spisa razvidno da je C. M. Mesko sudjelovala u postupku pred tim sudom.
In addition, in response to a question put by the Court at the hearing, the Hungarian Government stated that, under national law, once proceedings have been instituted before a court, that court ensures service on the respondent.
Osim toga, u odgovoru na pitanje koje joj je uputio Sud na raspravi, mađarska vlada navela je da, prema nacionalnom pravu, jednom kada je postupak pokrenut pred nekim sudom, taj sud osigurava dostavu pismena protustranci.
In those circumstances, the assumption must be that Pest Court is deemed to have been properly seised within the meaning of Article 16.
U takvim okolnostima valja pretpostaviti da je postupak pred Sudom u Pešti uredno pokrenut u smislu članka 16.