EUPillar AG Düsseldorf, 9.7.2013

Summary

The parties argued about maintenance claims. The applicant brought an action concerning maintenance claims against the defendant who lived in Belgium. This was made before the Local Court in Mettmann where the applicant was living. This Local Court transferred the proceedings pursuant to § 28 AUG (Auslandsunterhaltsgesetz; Foreign Maintenance Code) to the Local Court in Düsseldorf. The German rule orders a concentration of jurisdiction. The Local Court Düsseldorf made a preliminary reference to the CJEU asking whether § 28 AUG violated Art. 3 lit. a and b Maintenance Regulation. The reason for this question lies in the fact that the German rule prescribing a concentration of jurisdiction in some cases as the present seems to interfere with the order of the Maintenance Regulation. It is therefore doubtful which order should prevail, in other words whether the concentration is in accord with European law. The CJEU answered the question in C-400/13 (connected with C-408/13, whose subject was a preliminary reference of the Local Court Karlsruhe): 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.