- 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-656/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 12 December 2013 — L v M, R and K
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013CN0656
62013CN0656
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
22.3.2014
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 85/11
(Case C-656/13)
2014/C 85/19
Language of the case: Czech
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
*Applicant: L
Other parties to the proceedings: M; R and K
Questions referred
1.Must Article 12(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) 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, (‘the Brussels IIa Regulation’) be interpreted as establishing jurisdiction over proceedings concerning parental responsibility even where no other related proceedings (that is, ‘proceedings other than those referred to in paragraph 1’) are pending?
In the event of an affirmative answer to Question 1:
2.Must Article 12(3) of the Brussels IIa Regulation be interpreted as meaning that acceptance expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner includes also the situation in which the party who has not initiated proceedings makes a separate application for the initiation of proceedings in the same case but immediately on doing the first act required of him objects that the court lacks jurisdiction in the proceedings previously started on the application by the other party?
(1) OJ 2003 L 388, p. 1.