Brussels I Regulation, article 34.1- Judgment of the EU Court of Justice (July 16)
The EU Court of Justice has interpretated Article 34(1) EC Regulation Brussels I relating to the possibility of refusal of recognition of a judgment if it is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member State in which recognition is sought.
In this case, the Court was notably requested to rule on the following questions:
1. Must Article 34(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that ground for refusal is also applicable in a case where the decision of the court of the Member State of origin is manifestly contrary to EU law, and that fact has been recognised by that court?
2. Must Article 34(1) of Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that successful reliance on that ground for refusal is precluded by the fact that the party which has recourse to that ground for refusal failed to make use of the legal remedies available in the Member State of origin of the decision?
The Court started by recalling the principle of mutual trust between the Member States and then ruled that:
– “Article 34(1) must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that a judgment given in a Member State is contrary to EU law does not justify that judgment’s not being recognised in another Member State on the grounds that it infringes public policy in that State where the error of law relied on does not constitute a manifest breach of a rule of law regarded as essential in the EU legal order and therefore in the legal order of the Member State in which recognition is sought or of a right recognised as being fundamental in those legal orders.
– When determining whether there is a manifest breach of public policy in the State in which recognition is sought, the court of that State must take account of the fact that, save where specific circumstances make it too difficult, or impossible, to make use of the legal remedies in the Member State of origin, the individuals concerned must avail themselves of all the legal remedies available in that Member State with a view to preventing such a breach before it occurs”.
Jurisdiction in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Article 3(c) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Judgment of the Court (July 16th)
A., aff. C-184/14
The EU Court of Justice has interpretated Article 3 c) d) of EC Regulation of EC Regulation 4/2009/EC on Maintenance Obligations.
The Court was requested to answer to the following question:
‘May the decision on a request for child maintenance raised in the context of proceedings concerning the legal separation of spouses, being ancillary to those proceedings, be taken both by the court before which those separation proceedings are pending and by the court before which proceedings concerning parental responsibility are pending, on the basis of the prevention criterion, or must that decision of necessity be taken only by the latter court, as the two distinct criteria set out in points (c) and (d) of [Article 3 of Regulation No 4/2009] are alternatives (in the sense that they are mutually exclusive)?’
And ruled by stating that:
“Article 3(c) and (d) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations must be understood as meaning that, in the event that a court of a Member State is seised of proceedings involving the separation or dissolution of a marital link between the parents of a minor child and a court of another Member State is seised of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility involving that same child, an application relating to maintenance concerning that child is ancillary only to the proceedings concerning parental responsibility, within the meaning of Article 3(d) of that regulation”.