EUPillar P. v B. - Civ. Bruxelles, 8 November 2006

Summary

Mrs. P. applied for a divorce between the parties. Mr. B. contests the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts. The parties both have French nationality. At first, they lived in France before moving to Singapore because of Mr. B.’s job. Mr. B. returned to Belgium in March 2005, while Mrs. P. stayed in Singapore until the end of the school year before returning with their children. Mr. B. left the conjugal home in March 2006. Mrs. P. commenced divorce proceedings on 31 March 2006. On 5 May 2006, Mr. B. applied to the tribunal de Grande Instance de Dinant, in France, to obtain “measures following the divorce, regarding the spouses and their three children”. The Tribunal de Grande Instance declined its jurisdiction in favour of the Belgian courts. Mr. B. appealed this decision on 5 October 2006. DECISION OF THE COURT Pursuant to Art. 17 Brussels IIa, the court examines its jurisdiction of its own motion. 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 (cf. Art. 19(1) Brussels IIa). There are two separate divorce proceedings pending. The court first seised, i.e. the Belgian court, shall examine its jurisdiction first. It appears from the case file that the last habitual residence of the spouses was in Ixelles, Belgium and that the applicant, Mrs. P., still resides there. Therefore, the Belgian courts have jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 3(1)(a) Brussels IIa. SHORT CRITIQUE The Court correctly applies the lis pendens provisions of the Brussels IIa Regulation. It establishes jurisdiction on the basis of Art. 3(1)(a), second indent (the Court itself limits its reference to Art. 3(1)(a)).