Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
Practical aspects to assessing competence in children
Rebecca Stevens, Partner, Royds Withy KingThis is an article regarding the practical aspects to assessing competence in children. The article explores a range of practicalities, such as meeting a...
Scrumping the crop of recent pension decisions
Rhys Taylor, 36 Family and 30 Park PlaceJonathan Galbraith, Mathieson Consulting2020 has thus far proved to be a memorable year for all the wrong reasons, but nonetheless it remains an interesting one...
Conduct in financial remedies – when is it now a relevant consideration?
Rachel Gillman, 1 GC/Family LawThis article provides an overview of all aspects of financial misconduct following the recent decision of Mostyn J in OG v AG [2020] EWFC 52, wherein all aspects of...
The treatment of RSUs/Stock Options in light of XW v XH
Peter Mitchell QC, 29 Bedford RowStock Options and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs) are frequently encountered by the Family Court when dividing property on divorce or dissolution of a Civil Partnership....
Hundreds of thousands of companies worldwide fall victims to hackers every year. Is your firm one of them?
SPONSORED CONTENT Image source: Information is beautifulYou and other lawyers and legal assistants in your firm likely have accounts on the hacked websites listed in the image above. If a hacker...
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