Earlier this month (6 June 2024), the Court of Justice, asked by the Local Court of Mönchengladbach-Rheydt, Germany, (Amtsgericht Mönchengladbach-Rheydt) to interpret Art 12 of Regulation (EC) No 4/2009, delivered its judgment on the case No C-381/23, ZO v. JS.
The judgment focuses on the interpretation of the rules on lis pendens and related actions within the Maintenance Regulation. In the case in the main proceedings, ZO is claiming maintenance from her mother for the period from November 2017 until an unspecified date. However, ZO’s mother raises a plea of lis pendens, since proceedings brought by her against ZO’s father were already pending before the Court of another Member State when the main proceedings were brought. In those proceedings, the mother claims a right to compensation for having provided accommodation and maintenance for her daughter from 1 August 2017 to 31 December 2018. In a nutshell, the referring court asks whether, in such situation, the conditions for recognition of a situation of lis pendens laid down in Art 12 Regulation No 4/2009, under which proceedings must have the same cause of action and must be brought between the same parties, are satisfied.
In the decision, the Court of Justice stated that Art 12(1) of Regulation No 4/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that “the conditions for recognition of a situation of lis pendens laid down in that provision, under which proceedings must have the same cause of action and must be brought between the same parties, are not satisfied when, at the time a claim is brought before a court of one Member State by a child – who has in the meantime become an adult – for payment of maintenance from his or her mother, a claim has already been brought before a court of another Member State by the mother seeking compensation from the child’s father for accommodation and maintenance of that child, since the applicants’ actions do not have the same end in view and do not relate to the same period. The absence of a situation of lis pendens, within the meaning of Art 12(1) of Regulation No 4/2009, does not, however, preclude the application of Art 13 of that regulation if the actions at issue are sufficiently closely connected for them to be regarded as related within the meaning of Arti 13(3) of that regulation, with the result that, where it is not the court first seised, the referring court may stay the proceedings”.
On the topics addressed in the judgment, the readers of RDIPP may refer to:
Ilaria Viarengo, 2015, No 4, p. 823 ff.; Fausto Pocar, Ilaria Viarengo, 2009, No 4, 805 ff.; Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti, 2006, No 1, 119 ff.; Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti, 2005, No 3, 699 ff.; Filippo Laviani, 2004, No 1, 157 ff.; Federica Persano, 2000, No 3, 713 ff.; Alberto Malatesta, 1994, No 3, 511 ff.
Moreover, see, in our Book Series:
Antonietta Di Blase, Book No 39; Fausto Pocar, Ilaria Viarengo, Francesca C. Villata (eds.), Book No 76; Franco Ferrari, Francesca Ragno (eds.), Book No 80; Lenka Válková, Book No 87.