EUPillar M. v G. - Civ. Bruxelles, 17 November 2011

Summary

The parties were married in Las Vegas on 17 March 2002. Initially they lived in Slovakia, but they moved to Washington in December 2002, where they stayed until February 2005, when they established themselves in Brussels. The last marital residence was in Brussels. In December 2008, Mr. G. moved to the USA where he currently resides. Since 1 October 2010, Mrs. M. resides in Washington with the couple’s only child. On 17 June 2010, Mrs. M. brought divorce proceedings before the Court of First Instance of Brussels. Mrs. M. states that she currently resides in Washington for professional reasons, but that she plans to return to Belgium in September 2011 – where she is still domiciled – and that she does not intend to establish a durable connection with the US. This is contested by Mr. G. The Court determines that on the date of the seising of the court: - Mrs. M. had Slovak nationality, resided and was domiciled in 1150 Brussels, also the place of the last conjugal residence; - Mr. G. had American nationality and was habitually resident in the US. The Court examines the “habitual” character of Mrs. M.’s residence in Belgium. Her enrollment in the national population register is not sufficient in this regard. The Court considers that: - Mrs. M. stayed in the old conjugal residence until 30 July 2010; - She has habitually resided in Belgium since February 2005; - She works for the European Commission and was accorded a temporary leave to work for the World Bank from 1 October 2010 until 30 September 2011; - She has annulled the enrollment of the child at the European School in Brussels, but asked for its re-enrollment for the academic year 2011-12. It is therefore established that her stay in Washington is only temporary. The Belgian courts have jurisdiction. Mr. G. also initiated divorce proceedings before the courts in California, but this is unimportant since the Belgian courts are the first seised. SHORT CRITIQUE This case offers an analysis of the notion of "habitual residence". Even if Mrs. M. currently resides in Washington DC, USA, it is decided that this stay is only temporary because it appears from all the facts that she intends to return to Belgium after one year. Therefore, her habitual residence remains unchanged. This is in line with the case law of the ECJ in Mercredi (C-497/10).