- 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-372/22, CM (Right of access to a child who has moved): Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 27 April 2023 (request for a preliminary ruling from the tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg — Luxembourg) — CM v DN (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Articles 9 and 15 — Continuing jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of the child’s former habitual residence following the child having moved — Concept of ‘moving’ — Application for modification of a decision relating to access rights — Calculation of the time limit within which such an application must be submitted — Transfer of the case to a court of the Member State of the child’s new habitual residence, better placed to hear the case)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62022CA0372
62022CA0372
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
12.6.2023
Official Journal of the European Union
C 205/20
(Case C-372/22, CM (Right of access to a child who has moved))
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Articles 9 and 15 - Continuing jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of the child’s former habitual residence following the child having moved - Concept of ‘moving’ - Application for modification of a decision relating to access rights - Calculation of the time limit within which such an application must be submitted - Transfer of the case to a court of the Member State of the child’s new habitual residence, better placed to hear the case)
(2023/C 205/23)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: CM
Defendant: DN
Operative part of the judgment
1.Article 9(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, must be interpreted as meaning that the three-month period during which, by way of derogation from Article 8(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003, the courts of the Member State of the child’s former habitual residence retain jurisdiction to hear an application for modification of a final judgment concerning rights of access, begins on the day following that on which that child actually moved to the Member State of his or her new habitual residence.
2.Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that the court of the Member State of the child’s former habitual residence, which has jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter under Article 9 of that regulation, may exercise the option of transferral, set out in Article 15 of that regulation, to the court of the Member State of that child’s new habitual residence provided that the conditions laid down in Article 15 are satisfied.
(1) OJ C 359, 19.9.2022.