EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62018CB0085
Case C-85/18 PPU: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea — Romania) — CV v DU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Child custody — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Articles 8, 10 and 13 — Concept of ‘habitual residence’ of a child — Judgment delivered by a court of another Member State concerning the place of residence of a child — Wrongful removal or retention — Jurisdiction in cases of child abduction)
Case C-85/18 PPU: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea — Romania) — CV v DU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Child custody — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Articles 8, 10 and 13 — Concept of ‘habitual residence’ of a child — Judgment delivered by a court of another Member State concerning the place of residence of a child — Wrongful removal or retention — Jurisdiction in cases of child abduction)
Case C-85/18 PPU: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea — Romania) — CV v DU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Child custody — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Articles 8, 10 and 13 — Concept of ‘habitual residence’ of a child — Judgment delivered by a court of another Member State concerning the place of residence of a child — Wrongful removal or retention — Jurisdiction in cases of child abduction)
OJ C 240, 9.7.2018, p. 8–9
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
Case C-85/18 PPU: Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea — Romania) — CV v DU (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Child custody — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Articles 8, 10 and 13 — Concept of ‘habitual residence’ of a child — Judgment delivered by a court of another Member State concerning the place of residence of a child — Wrongful removal or retention — Jurisdiction in cases of child abduction)
Order of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 April 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Oradea — Romania) — CV v DU
(Case C-85/18 PPU) ( 1 )
‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Child custody — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Articles 8, 10 and 13 — Concept of ‘habitual residence’ of a child — Judgment delivered by a court of another Member State concerning the place of residence of a child — Wrongful removal or retention — Jurisdiction in cases of child abduction)’
2018/C 240/12Language of the case: RomanianReferring court
Judecătoria Oradea
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: CV
Respondent: DU
Operative part of the order
Article 10 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, and Article 3 of 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, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue in the main proceedings, in which a child who was habitually resident in a Member State was wrongfully removed by one of the parents to another Member State, the courts of that other Member State do not have jurisdiction to rule on an application relating to custody or the determination of a maintenance allowance with respect to that child, in the absence of any indication that the other parent consented to his removal or did not bring an application for the return of that child.
( 1 ) OJ C 152, 30.4.2018.