- 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-455/15 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varbergs tingsrätt — Sweden) — P v Q (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 23(a) — Grounds of non-recognition of judgments in matters of parental responsibility — Public policy)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CA0455
62015CA0455
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
18.1.2016
Official Journal of the European Union
C 16/13
(Case C-455/15 PPU) (<span class="super">1</span>)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 23(a) - Grounds of non-recognition of judgments in matters of parental responsibility - Public policy))
(2016/C 016/15)
Language of the case: Swedish
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: P
Defendant: Q
Operative part of the judgment
Article 23(a) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of a manifest breach, having regard to the best interests of the child, of a rule of law regarded as essential in the legal order of a Member State or of a right recognised as being fundamental within that legal order, that provision does not allow a court of that Member State which considers that it has jurisdiction to rule on the custody of a child to refuse to recognise a judgment of a court of another Member State which has ruled on the custody of that child.
* Language of the case: Swedish.
(1) OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.