Summary
The court of first instance rejected the application for the annulment of the maintenance obligation. It stated that it had no jurisdiction under the Maintenance Regulation because, according to Article 3(a) of the Maintenance Regulation, the jurisdiction shall lie with the court for the place where the defendant is habitually resident. What is more, the court of first instance stated that it has no jurisdiction under Article 5 of the Maintenance Regulation because the defendant (whose place of habitual residence is unknown) was represented by the guardian ad litem and therefore it was impossible for him to enter an appearance. The court of second instance disagreed with the above-mentioned argumentation and stated that the court of first instance had violated Article 5 of the Maintenance Regulation. It emphasised that the defendant had no possibility to enter an appearance, and the jurisdiction could not have been established on the basis of Article 5 of the Maintenance Regulation because she, the defendant, was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings.