Not really any dramatic new law
but this decision adopts a the same sort of approach to applications to vary
custody/contact order that the Court of Appeal adopted in Re G (jurisdiction:
art 19 biia) [2015] 1 flr 276. Basically
once you have a final order in Member State A you cant apply to ‘vary’ it where the child
is now HR in Member State B.
In Case C‑499/15, W-v-X
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling
under Article 267 TFEU from the Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismas
(District Court, Vilnius, Lithuania).
Article 8
of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003
concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in
matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing
Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, and Article 3 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 interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as
that in the main proceedings, the courts of the Member State which made a
decision that has become final concerning parental responsibility and
maintenance obligations with regard to a minor child no longer have
jurisdiction to decide on an application for variation of the provisions
ordered in that decision, inasmuch as the habitual residence of the child is in
another Member State. It is the courts of the Member State of habitual
residence that have jurisdiction to decide on that application.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30d5d2151ef70249448d87e4bf9f4636339c.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxyKchn0?text=&docid=187865&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=209917
No comments:
Post a Comment