Summary
The applicant lodged an application for the augmentation of the maintenance obligation. The court stated that at the time the court was seised the defendant had its habitual residence in Denmark so it was obliged to (regardless of the fact that during the proceeding he – the defendant – stayed in Poland) define which court shall have jurisdiction and which law shall be applicable. The jurisdiction was established under Article 3 of the Maintenance Regulation. The court emphasised that in accordance with Article 3 of the Agreement between the European Union and Denmark, Denmark has by letter of 14 January 2009 notified the Commission of its decision that Denmark shall not be bound by the provisions concerning the determination of the applicable law (Chapter III of the Maintenance Regulation). Considering the above, the court found that the law applicable shall be established according to the Convention on the law applicable to maintenance obligations (concluded on 2 October 1973). According to Art. 1 of this Convention it shall apply to maintenance obligations arising from a family relationship, parentage, marriage or affinity, including a maintenance obligation in respect of a child who is not legitimate. Article 4 of this Convention states that the internal law of the habitual residence of the maintenance creditor shall govern the maintenance obligations referred to in Article 1. It follows that in this case Polish law shall be applicable.