EUPillar I ACz 1669/14 (SA w Krakowie)

Summary

The court of first instance stated that the judgment given by a Dutch court cannot be recognised because it had been given in default of appearance and the applicant didn’t produce any evidence which established that the defending party was served with the document instituting the proceeding or evidence indicating that the defendant had accepted the judgment unequivocally. The applicant challenged the decision of the court of first instance; she indicated that she fulfilled all conditions required by Brussels IIa Regulation. She also emphasised that no one knows where her ex-husband was and that he was wanted by the police and other Dutch authorities. The court of second instance emphasised that the type of document introducing the proceedings and the delivery method shall be governed by the national provision of the Member State of origin. The information on the divorce proceedings (according to Dutch law) was announced in the newspaper. The appellate court stated that the application for recognition had been rejected because the applicant had not indicated the specific dates of acts concerning the informing of the defendant of the divorce proceedings and thus it was impossible to determine whether the defendant had sufficient time to arrange his defence.