- 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-41/19: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 4 June 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Köln — Germany) — FX v GZ, represented for legal purposes by her mother (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations — Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 — Article 41(1) — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 — Article 24(5) — Maintenance order declared enforceable — Application opposing enforcement — Jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of enforcement)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62019CA0041
62019CA0041
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
10.8.2020
Official Journal of the European Union
C 262/6
(Case C-41/19) (<span class="oj-super oj-note-tag">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 - Article 41(1) - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 - Article 24(5) - Maintenance order declared enforceable - Application opposing enforcement - Jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of enforcement)
(2020/C 262/08)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: FX
Defendant: GZ, represented for legal purposes by her mother
Operative part of the judgment
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 is to be interpreted as meaning that an application opposing enforcement brought by the maintenance debtor against enforcement of a decision given by a court of the Member State of origin and which established that debt, which has a close link with the procedure for enforcement, falls within its scope and is within the international jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State of enforcement.
Pursuant to Article 41(1) of Regulation No 4/2009 and to the relevant provisions of national law, it is for the referring court, being a court of the Member State of enforcement, to adjudicate on the admissibility and the validity of the evidence adduced by the maintenance debtor, seeking to support the submission that he has predominantly discharged his debt.
(<span class="oj-super">1</span>) OJ C 155, 6.5.2019.
* * *