- 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-572/21: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 July 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen — Sweden) — CC v VO (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility — Parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 8(1) and Article 61(a) — General jurisdiction — Perpetuatio fori principle — Transfer, during the proceedings, of the habitual residence of a child from a Member State of the European Union to a third State that is party to the 1996 Hague Convention)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62021CA0572
62021CA0572
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 359/10
(Case C-572/21) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility - Parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 8(1) and Article 61(a) - General jurisdiction - Perpetuatio fori principle - Transfer, during the proceedings, of the habitual residence of a child from a Member State of the European Union to a third State that is party to the 1996 Hague Convention)
(2022/C 359/12)
Language of the case: Swedish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: CC
Defendant: VO
Operative part of the judgment
Article 8(1) 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, read in conjunction with Article 61(a) of that regulation, must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State that is hearing a dispute relating to parental responsibility does not retain jurisdiction to rule on that dispute under Article 8(1) of that regulation where the habitual residence of the child in question has been lawfully transferred, during the proceedings, to the territory of a third State that is a party to the Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, signed at The Hague on 19 October 1996.
(*)
Language of the case: Swedish
* * *
(1) OJ C 481, 29.11.2021.
ECLI:EU:C:2022:140