- 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-604/17: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 January 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven kasatsionen sad — Bulgaria) — PM v AH (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Area of freedom, security and justice — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Jurisdiction of a court of a Member State to hear and determine an action relating to parental responsibility where the child is not resident in the territory of that State — Jurisdiction in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62017CB0604
62017CB0604
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 190/3
(Case C-604/17) (*)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Jurisdiction of a court of a Member State to hear and determine an action relating to parental responsibility where the child is not resident in the territory of that State - Jurisdiction in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009))
(2018/C 190/04)
Language of the case: Bulgarian
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: PM
Defendant: AH
Operative part of the order
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, must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State with jurisdiction, under Article 3(1)(b) of that regulation, to hear and determine an application for divorce between two spouses who are nationals of that Member State does not have jurisdiction to rule on rights of custody and rights of access in respect of the spouses’ child in the case where, at the time when the court is seised, that child is habitually resident in another Member State, that the conditions for such jurisdiction, under Article 12 of that regulation, are not satisfied by that court, and that, on account of the circumstances of the main proceedings, it follows that neither does that court have such jurisdiction under Articles 9, 10 or 15 of that regulation. Furthermore, that court does not satisfy the conditions, laid down in Article 3(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, for having jurisdiction to rule on an application relating to maintenance.
(*) Language of the case: Bulgarian.
* * *
(1) OJ C 22, 22.1.2018.