- 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-281/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht München (Germany) lodged on 11 June 2015 — Soha Sahyouni v Raja Mamisch
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62015CN0281
62015CN0281
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
7.9.2015
Official Journal of the European Union
C 294/29
(Case C-281/15)
(2015/C 294/36)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Soha Sahyouni
Defendant: Raja Mamisch
Questions referred
1.Does the scope of Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 (1) of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (OJ 2010 L 343, p. 10), as defined in Article 1 of that regulation, also include ‘private divorce’, in this instance one pronounced before a religious court in Syria on the basis of sharia?
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative:
(a)In the case of an examination as to whether a divorce is eligible for recognition in national territory, must Article 10 of Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 also be applied?
If the answer to Question 2(a) is in the affirmative:
(1)Is account to be taken in the abstract of a comparison showing that, while the law of the forum grants access to divorce to the other spouse too, that divorce is, on account of the other spouse’s sex, subject to different procedural and substantive conditions than access for the first spouse,
(2)Does the validity of that rule depend on whether the application of the foreign law, which is discriminatory in the abstract, also discriminates in the particular case in question?
If the answer to Question (b)(2) is in the affirmative:
Does the fact that the spouse discriminated against consents to the divorce — including by duly accepting compensation — itself constitute a ground for not applying that rule?
(1) OJ 2010 L 343, p. 10.