EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017CN0478
Case C-478/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 9 August 2017 — IQ v JP
Case C-478/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 9 August 2017 — IQ v JP
Case C-478/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 9 August 2017 — IQ v JP
OJ C 347, 16.10.2017, p. 17–18
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
16.10.2017 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 347/17 |
Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Cluj (Romania) lodged on 9 August 2017 — IQ v JP
(Case C-478/17)
(2017/C 347/22)
Language of the case: Romanian
Referring court
Tribunalul Cluj
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellant: IQ
Respondent: JP
Questions referred
|
1. |
Does the expression ‘the courts of a Member State having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter’ which appears in Article 15 of the Brussels II Regulation (1) refer equally to courts hearing the case at first instance and to courts of appeal? It is important to know whether the case may be transferred, on the basis of that provision, to a court better placed to hear it if the court having jurisdiction and being asked to transfer the case to a better placed court is a court of appeal, while the better placed court is a court of first instance. |
|
2. |
If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, how is the court having jurisdiction and transferring the case to a better placed court to deal with the judgment at first instance? |
(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 2003 L 338, p. 1).