- 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
Joined Cases C-400/13 and C-408/13: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf and the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe — Germany) — Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders represented by Marianne Sanders v David Verhaegen (C-400/13), Barbara Huber v Manfred Huber (C-408/13) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Area of freedom, security and justice — Cooperation in civil matters — Regulation No 4/2009 — Article 3 — Jurisdiction to rule on an action relating to a maintenance obligation in respect of a person resident in another Member State — National legislation establishing a centralisation of jurisdiction)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CA0400
62013CA0400
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
23.2.2015
Official Journal of the European Union
C 65/8
(Joined Cases C-400/13 and C-408/13) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Cooperation in civil matters - Regulation No 4/2009 - Article 3 - Jurisdiction to rule on an action relating to a maintenance obligation in respect of a person resident in another Member State - National legislation establishing a centralisation of jurisdiction))
(2015/C 065/11)
Language of the case: German
Referring courts
Amtsgericht Düsseldorf, Amtsgericht Karlsruhe
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicants: Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders represented by Marianne Sanders (C-400/13), Barbara Huber (C-408/13)
Defendants: David Verhaegen (C-400/13), Manfred Huber (C-408/13)
Operative part of the judgment
Article 3(b) 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 precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which establishes a centralisation of judicial jurisdiction in matters relating to cross-border maintenance obligations in favour of a first instance court which has jurisdiction for the seat of the appeal court, except where that rule helps to achieve the objective of a proper administration of justice and protects the interests of maintenance creditors while promoting the effective recovery of such claims, which is, however, a matter for the referring courts to verify.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.