Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62013CN0656

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

OJ C 85, 22.3.2014, p. 11–11 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.3.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/11

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Nejvyšší soud České republiky (Czech Republic) lodged on 12 December 2013 — L v M, R and K

(Case C-656/13)

2014/C 85/19

Language of the case: Czech

Referring court

Nejvyšší soud České republiky

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.

Top