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 62022CN0372

Case C-372/22: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 9 June 2022 — CM v DN

OJ C 359, 19.9.2022, p. 28–28 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, GA, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

19.9.2022   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 359/28

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg (Luxembourg) lodged on 9 June 2022 — CM v DN

(Case C-372/22)

(2022/C 359/31)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: CM

Defendant: DN

Questions referred

1.

Does Article 9(1) 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 (1) apply:

(a)

to an application to modify rights of access as defined by Article 2(10) of that regulation, made by a person granted such rights by a judicial decision which, in the interests of the children, was not to take effect until a future time, but which became final and has the status of res judicata, delivered in the State in which the children were formerly habitually resident more than four months before the application is brought before the court on the basis of Article 9(1);

(b)

so as to exclude, if it does so apply, the general rule of jurisdiction contained in Article 8 of that regulation,

notwithstanding that recital 12 of that regulation states that ‘the grounds of jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility established in the present Regulation are shaped in the light of the best interests of the child, in particular on the criterion of proximity[; t]his means that jurisdiction should lie in the first place with the Member State of the child’s habitual residence, except for certain cases of a change in the child’s residence …’?

2.

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative, does the jurisdiction which thus exists under Article 9(1) 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, which is expressed to be ‘by way of exception to Article 8’ of that regulation, preclude the application of Article 15 of the same regulation, which is expressed to apply ‘by way of exception’ and where it ‘is in the best interests of the child’?

(1)  OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1.

Top