The spouses were married in Arlon, they have Belgian nationality and the last marital residence was established in France. The defendant habitually resides in France. Pursuant to the Brussels IIa Regulation, jurisdiction shall lie with the courts of the Member State of the nationality of both spouses in matters relating to divorce (cf. Art. 3(1)(b)) as well as relating to provisional measures depending on the divorce (cf. Art. 12). The jurisdictional grounds of Art. 3 are put on the same level. The Belgian courts have jurisdiction.
On the internal level, the courts of the place of the last marital residence or of the residence of the defendant are competent (cf. Art. 628 § 1 Belgian Judicial Code). None of these factors establishes a connection with Belgium. Therefore one has to transpose the provisions which determine the international jurisdiction and apply them to the territorial jurisdiction. The courts of Brussels are competent (cf. Art. 13(2) in fine Belgian Code on Private International Law). However, the territorial jurisdiction is not mandatory and is not contested in this case.
It appears from the case file that F.A. initiated divorce proceedings against R.B. in France before the courts of Aix-en-Provence on 21 April 2008, which makes it the court first seised. Pursuant to Art. 19 Brussels IIa, where proceedings relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment between the same parties are brought before courts of different Member States, the court second seised shall of its own motion stay its proceedings until such time as the jurisdiction of the court first seised is established.
Short critique: the Court correctly applies Brussels IIa.