EUPillar C-436/13 E. v B. (Second Chamber)

Summary

A Spanish father and British mother who lived together in Spain with their child who was born in May 2005 separated in November 2009 and the mother moved with the son to the UK. The parents reached an agreement in July 2010 according to which the mother had custody and the father access. The terms of this agreement were approved by a Spanish court’s decision in October 2010. The mother sought a contact order in the English courts in December 2010 to reduce the amount of contact the father had under the agreement/Spanish decision. The father applied in January 2011 for the enforcement of the Spanish decision in England and Wales under Arts 41 and 47 of the Brussels IIa Regulation. At the hearing in December 2011 the mother acknowledged that she had prorogued the jurisdiction of the Spanish court and did not resist the enforcement of the Spanish decision. Immediately afterwards she brought proceedings in Spain seeking to transfer the prorogued jurisdiction of the Spanish court to the courts of England and Wales but in February 2012 the Spanish court dismissed her application on the basis that there were no pending proceedings in Spain. The mother then obtained a declaration from the English High Court in March 2013 that it had jurisdiction pursuant to Art 8 of the Regulation based on the child’s habitual residence in England and Wales. The father was granted permission to appeal that decision but the appeal was stayed as the Court of Appeal made a reference to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling on the following two questions: 1.) Where there has been a prorogation of the jurisdiction of a court of a Member State in relation to matters of parental responsibility pursuant to Art 12(3) of the Regulation, does that prorogation of jurisdiction only continue until there has been a final judgment in those proceedings or does it continue even after a final judgment has been made? 2.) Does Art 15 of the Regulation allow the courts of a Member State to transfer a jurisdiction in circumstances where there are no current proceedings concerning the child? The CJEU held that the grounds of jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility established in the Regulation were shaped in the light of the best interests of the child, and any prorogation of jurisdiction in accordance with Article 12(3)(b) had to be in the light of those interests. Such a prorogation, however, does not necessarily remain in the child’s best interests beyond the end of the proceedings. The jurisdiction of the court therefore must be reviewed in each specific case where a court is seised of proceedings in matters of parental responsibility. Consequently, a prorogation of jurisdiction is valid only in relation to specific proceedings. That jurisdiction ceases, in favour of a court of a Member State with general jurisdiction under Art 8(1), following a final judgment in the proceedings from which the prorogation of jurisdiction derives. The CJEU further held that in the view of this conclusion, it was not necessary to rule on the second question. The reasoning of the Court in this judgment is coherent and fully in line with the principle of the best interests of the child on which the jurisdictional rules in matters of parental responsibility in the Brussels IIa Regulation are based. This was a straightforward case as seen by the fact that it was decided to proceed to judgment without receiving a view from the Advocate General.