Latest articles
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
How does a jointly held property pass on death?
When meeting with clients to discuss their succession planning, many cannot recall whether their property is held jointly as joint tenants or jointly as tenants in common. The distinction is that with...
View all articles
Authors

W, V v X (C‑499/15)

Sep 29, 2018, 19:44 PM
Jurisdiction – BIIA – Habitual residence – Whether a court retained jurisdiction despite the child living in a different Member State
The CJEU made a preliminary ruling as to jurisdiction in private law children proceedings.
Slug : w-v-v-x-c-499-15
Meta Title : W, V v X (C‑499/15)
Meta Keywords : Jurisdiction – BIIA – Habitual residence – Whether a court retained jurisdiction despite the child living in a different Member State
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Feb 21, 2017, 05:09 AM
Article ID : 113802

(Court of Justice of the European Union, 15 February 2017)

Jurisdiction – BIIA – Habitual residence – Whether a court retained jurisdiction despite the child living in a different Member State

The CJEU made a preliminary ruling as to jurisdiction in private law children proceedings.

The Lithuanian father and Dutch/Argentinian mother were married in the USA. Their child was born in 2006 in the Netherlands and held dual Lithuanian and Italian nationality but he had never visited Lithuania. The family moved to Canada in 2007 and the parents separated in 2010.

In 2011 the mother and child moved to Italy before returning to the Netherlands. The father was habitually resident in Lithuania.

The mother was granted a divorce in 2011 in the Canadian court as well as sole custody of the child. Neither the Lithuanian nor Dutch court recognised and enforced that order.

Also in 2011 the Lithuanian court granted the husband a divorce and sole custody of the child. That decision was subsequently overturned and custody was awarded to the mother. The court also made contact and maintenance provisions.

In 2014 the Netherlands court ordered the father to pay the mother maintenance for herself and the child and granted the mother sole custody. The Lithuanian court refused to enforce the order and the father applied to amend the previous order of the Lithuanian court.

The court stayed the proceedings and referred the matter to the CJEU for preliminary ruling. The CJEU rephrased the questions asked to: whether Art 8 of BIIA must be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State which had adopted a decision that had become final concerning parental responsibility and maintenance obligations in respect of a minor child retained jurisdiction to rule on an application for amendment of the orders made in that decision, even though the child was habitually resident in the territory of another Member State.

The CJEU held that for the purposes of Art 8 of BIIA where the courts of a Member State had made a final decision concerning parental responsibility and maintenance obligations with regard to a minor child, those courts no longer had jurisdiction to decide on an application for variation of the provisions ordered in that decision, inasmuch as the habitual residence of the child was in another Member State. It was the courts of the Member State of habitual residence that had jurisdiction to decide on that application.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber)

15 February 2017 (*)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Articles 8 to 15 — Jurisdiction concerning maintenance obligations — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Article 3(d) — Conflicting judgments given in the courts of different Member States — Child habitually resident in the Member State of residence of his mother — The courts of the father’s Member State of residence without jurisdiction to vary a decision that has become final which they adopted earlier concerning the residence of the child, maintenance obligations and contact arrangements)

In Case C 499/15,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas (District Court, Vilnius, Lithuania), made by decision of 16 September 2015, received at the Court on 22 September 2015, in the proceedings

W,
V
v
X,


THE COURT (First Chamber),

W and V v X (C 499-15).docx

Categories :
  • Judgments
  • Jurisdiction
Tags :
FLR_cover
Provider :
Product Bucket : Family
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from