- 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
C-61/24, Lindenbaumer: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 March 2025 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof – Germany) – DL v PQ (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Area of freedom, security and justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation – Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 – Article 8(a) and (b) – Concept of habitual residence of the spouses – Status of diplomatic agent of one of the spouses – Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62024CA0061
62024CA0061
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 series
—
C/2025/2633
19.5.2025
(C-61/24,
Lindenbaumer)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Area of freedom, security and justice - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation - Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 - Article 8(a) and (b) - Concept of ‘habitual residence’ of the spouses - Status of diplomatic agent of one of the spouses - Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations)
(C/2025/2633)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: DL
Defendant: PQ
Operative part of the judgment
Article 8(a) and (b) of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation
must be interpreted as meaning that the status of diplomatic agent of one of the spouses and his or her assignment to a post in the receiving State preclude, in principle, the ‘habitual residence’ of the spouses from being considered to be established in that State, unless it is determined, following an overall assessment of all the circumstances specific to the case, including, in particular, the duration of the spouses’ physical presence and their social and family integration in that State (i) that the spouses intend to establish in that State the habitual centre of their interests and (ii) that there is a sufficiently stable presence in the territory of that State.
—
(1) OJ C C/2024/2925.
(2) The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings.
—
ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2633/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)
—