Summary
The court of first instance stayed its proceedings relating to divorce, because the defendant had argued that the Belgian court is also seised. The court of first instance stayed its proceedings according to the national Polish provisions. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a petition for protective measures relating to the parental responsibility. The court of first instance rejected this application and pointed out that, according to Polish law, the court cannot take any protective measures if the proceedings are stayed and the foreign court is seised. The court of second instance disagreed with this decision. The reasons were as follows; first of all, it stated that the provisions of Brussels IIa Regulation should have been applied and that the suspension of proceedings under Polish provisions was incorrect. The appellate court pointed out that the court of first instance, before the suspension of proceedings, should have examined which court had been seised first according to Art. 16 of the Brussels IIa Regulation. Secondly, the appellate court emphasised that the Polish court can, in urgent cases, take protective measures according to Art. 20 par. 1 of the Brussels IIa Regulation.