Case C‑455/15 PPU

P

v

Q

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varbergs tingsrätt)

‛Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 23(a) — Grounds of non-recognition of judgments in matters of parental responsibility — Public policy’

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 19 November 2015

1. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation No 2201/2003 — Recognition and enforcement — Grounds for refusing enforcement — Infringement of the public policy of the Member State in which recognition is sought — Conditions — Determination by the courts of the Member State in which recognition is sought — Limits — Judicial review by the Court

   (Council Regulation No 2201/2003, Art. 23(a))

2. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation No 2201/2003 — Recognition and enforcement — Prohibition of review of jurisdiction of the court of origin — Scope

   (Council Regulation No 2201/2003, Arts 15 and 24)

3. Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation No 2201/2003 — Recognition and enforcement — Grounds for refusing enforcement — Infringement of the public policy of the Member State in which recognition is sought — Conditions — Manifest breach, having regard to the best interests of the child, of a rule of law regarded as essential in the legal order of a Member State or of a right recognised as being fundamental within that legal order

   (Council Regulation No 2201/2003, Art. 23(a))

1.  See the text of the decision.

   (see paras 35-40)

2.  Article 24 of Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation No 1347/2000, prohibits any review of the jurisdiction of the court of the Member State of origin, and even provides expressly that Article 23(a) of the regulation cannot be used to carry out such a review. Admittedly, Article 24 of Regulation No 2201/2003 refers only to Articles 3 to 14, not to Article 15 of the regulation. However, Article 15 of Regulation No 2201/2003, which is in Chapter II of the regulation, entitled ‘Jurisdiction’, supplements the rules of jurisdiction in Articles 8 to 14 of that chapter by introducing a means of cooperation by which a court of a Member State which has jurisdiction to hear the case under one of those rules may, by way of exception, transfer it to a court of another Member State which is better placed to hear the case. It follows that an alleged breach of Article 15 of that regulation by a court of a Member State does not allow a court of another Member State to review the jurisdiction of that court, despite the fact that the prohibition in Article 24 of the regulation does not refer expressly to Article 15.

   (see paras 42-45)

3.  Article 23(a) of Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of a manifest breach, having regard to the best interests of the child, of a rule of law regarded as essential in the legal order of a Member State or of a right recognised as being fundamental within that legal order, that provision does not allow a court of that Member State which considers that it has jurisdiction to rule on the custody of a child to refuse to recognise a judgment of a court of another Member State which has ruled on the custody of that child.

   (see para. 53, operative part)