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 62014CN0489

Case C-489/14: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) (United Kingdom) made on 4 November 2014 — A v B

OJ C 26, 26.1.2015, p. 10–11 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

26.1.2015   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/10

Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) (United Kingdom) made on 4 November 2014 — A v B

(Case C-489/14)

(2015/C 026/13)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A

Defendant: B

Questions referred

1.

For the purposes of Article 19(1) and (3) (1), what does ‘established’ mean, in circumstances where:-

a)

the applicant, in the proceedings in the court first seised (‘the first proceedings’), takes virtually no steps in the first proceedings beyond the first court appointment, and in particular does not issue a Petition (Assignation) within the time limit for the expiry of the Request (Requête), with the result that the first proceedings expire undetermined by effluxion of time and in accordance with the local (French) law of the first proceedings, namely 30 months after the first directions appointment;

b)

the first proceedings expire as above very shortly (3 days) after the proceedings in the court second seised (‘the second proceedings’) are issued in England, with the result that there is no judgment in France nor any danger of irreconcilable judgments between the first proceedings and the second proceedings; and

c)

by virtue of the United Kingdom's time zone the applicant in the first proceedings would, following the lapse of the first proceedings, always be able to issue divorce proceedings in France before the applicant could issue divorce proceedings in England?

2.

In particular, does ‘established’ import that the applicant in the first proceedings must take steps to progress the first proceedings with due diligence and expedition to a resolution of the dispute (whether by the Court or by agreement), or is the applicant in the first proceedings, having once secured jurisdiction under Articles 3 and 19(1), free to take no substantive steps at all towards resolution of the first proceedings as above and free thereby simply to secure a stop of the second proceedings and a stalemate in the dispute as a whole?

(1)  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 OJ L 338, p. 1

Top