EUPillar VI RCa 40/15 (SO w Olsztynie)

Summary

The court of first instance decided to increase the maintenance obligation on the application of the creditor, whose habitual residence is in Germany. The court of first instance rejected the counterclaim brought by the defendant and the court of second instance agreed with the court of first instance. However, it emphasised that the counterclaim brought by the defendant should not have been rejected without being examined first. It pointed out that the jurisdiction in the cases which has arisen from the filing of a counterclaim is not governed by the provisions of the Maintenance Regulation. The court of second instance pointed out that the court of first instance had jurisdiction to hear the case that has arisen from the filing of a counterclaim i.e (reduction of the maintenance obligation). The appellate court found that if the Maintenance Regulation does not contain any provision concerning the counterclaims it is necessary to determine what the objectives of the EU legislator were. The court of second instance stated the EU legislator aimed to facilitate the obtaining of decisions on maintenance obligation. It stated that the EU legislator did not intend to multiply the proceedings concerning the same legal relationship. The court of second instance pointed out that the choice of court made by the applicant defines which court shall have jurisdiction in the cases that have arisen from the filing of a counterclaim. Considering the above, the court of first instance should have heard the case.