EUPillar AG Karlsruhe, 17.6.2013

Summary

The plaintiff, who lives in Kehl, Germany, is seeking separation maintenance from her Husband who lives in Barbados. The Local Court of Kehl referred the dispute to the Local Court of Karlsruhe because of Art. 28 para. 1 of the German AUG (Auslandsunterhaltsgesetz; Foreign Maintenance Code). This law establishes a concentrated jurisdiction at the Local Court in the county of the Higher Regional Court. This is Karlsruhe in this case. The question is whether the Local Court of Kehl, where the plaintiff originally sued, or the Local Court of Karlsruhe is competent to hear the claim. The Local court of Karlsruhe requested a preliminary ruling of the CJEU. In its opinion, Art. 28 para. 1 AUG violates Art. 3 a) and b) of the Maintenance Regulation because the plaintiff cannot sue at the place of her habitual residence although Art. 3 states that possibility and the parties would also agree on this forum. The court states that the organisational reasons of the German legislator for implementing Art. 28 para. 1 AUG do not suffice in order to justify the deviation from Art. 3 Maintenance Regulation. The CJEU answered the question in C-408/13 (Sanders): Article 3(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings which establishes a centralisation of judicial jurisdiction in matters relating to cross-border maintenance obligations in favour of a first instance court which has jurisdiction for the seat of the appeal court, except where that rule helps to achieve the objective of a proper administration of justice and protects the interests of maintenance creditors while promoting the effective recovery of such claims, which is, however, a matter for the referring courts to verify.