Summary
In this case, the court of first instance rejected the application for maintenance; it stated that it had no jurisdiction under the Maintenance Regulation, because the creditor’s habitual residence was in Ireland. Moreover, it was impossible to establish the habitual residence of the defendant. The court of first instance pointed out that it was highly probable that the defendant’s habitual residence was abroad. However, the appellate court disagreed with the position of the court of first instance. Instead, It stated that before rejecting the application, the court is obliged to determine that the defendant’s habitual residence is not in Poland. This statement: ‘it is highly probable that the defendant’s habitual residence is abroad’, is not sufficient to declare that the court has no jurisdiction.