- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-644/20: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 12 May 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Poznaniu — Poland) — W.J. v L.J. and J.J., legally represented by A.P. (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Determination of the applicable law — Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations — Article 3 — Habitual residence of the creditor — Point in time when habitual residence is to be determined — Wrongful retention of a child)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62020CA0644
62020CA0644
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 257/8
(Case C-644/20) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Determination of the applicable law - Hague Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations - Article 3 - Habitual residence of the creditor - Point in time when habitual residence is to be determined - Wrongful retention of a child)
(2022/C 257/11)
Language of the case: Polish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: W.J.
Respondents: L.J. and J.J., legally represented by A.P.
Operative part of the judgment
Article 3 of the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations, approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/941/EC of 30 November 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of determining the law applicable to the maintenance claim of a minor child removed by one of his or her parents to the territory of a Member State, the fact that a court of that Member State has ordered, in separate proceedings, the return of that child to the State where he or she was habitually resident with his or her parents immediately before his or her removal is not sufficient to prevent that child from acquiring habitual residence on the territory of that Member State.
Language of the case: Polish.