AG Szpunar delivered this week (29 July 2019) his opinion in case C‑468/18 (R v P), which is about the Maintenance Regulation, including by contrast with Brussels II bis:

“(1) Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations must be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the application relating to the maintenance obligation is ancillary to an application relating to parental responsibility, within the meaning of Article 3(d) of that regulation, does not have the effect of precluding the jurisdiction of the court of a Member State based on Article 3(a) of the regulation or, failing that, on Article 5 of thereof.

(2) In the absence of specific provisions made by the EU legislature in Regulation No 4/2009, such as those set out Article 15 of [Brussels II bis], or ensuring coordination with Article 12 of [Brussels II bis], the court seised may not refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a court better placed to rule on all the applications concerning the child”.

Source: here

Advertisements