Today, (20 March 2025), the Court of Justice – asked by the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) to interpret Art 8(a) and (b) of Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 – delivered its judgment on the case No C-61/24, Lindenbaumer.
The request for preliminary ruling concerns the determination of the habitual residence of a couple who, in recent years, have lived in various States due to the husband’s work as a diplomatic agent and his assignments to different embassies.
After recalling that reasons of consistency between the Brussels II-bis Regulation and the Rome III Regulation call for a unitary conception of habitual residence, the Court of Justice, in the decision, stated that Art 8(a) and (b) of Regulation No 1259/2010 must be interpreted as meaning that “the status of diplomatic agent of one of the spouses and his or her assignment to a post in the receiving State preclude, in principle, the ‘habitual residence’ of the spouses from being considered to be established in that State, unless it is determined, following an overall assessment of all the circumstances specific to the case, including, in particular, the duration of the spouses’ physical presence and their social and family integration in that State (i) that the spouses intend to establish in that State the habitual centre of their interests and (ii) that there is a sufficiently stable presence in the territory of that State”.
On the topics addressed in the judgment, the readers of RDIPP may refer to:
Olivia Lopes Pegna, 2023, No 4, 832 ff.;
Ilaria Viarengo, 2022, No 2, 257 ff.;
Curzio Fossati, 2022, No 2, 283 ff.;
Cristina Campiglio, 2021, No 3, 497 ff.;
Francesco Pesce, 2019, No 4, 777 ff.;
Ilaria Queirolo and Laura Carpaneto, 2012, No 1, 59 ff.;
Ilaria Viarengo, 2011, no 3, 601 ff.;
Carola Ricci, 2011, No 1, 55 ff.
Moreover, see, in our Book Series:
Stefania Bariatti, Carola Ricci (eds.), Book No 70;
Stefania Bariatti, Ilaria Viarengo, Francesca C. Villata (eds.), Book No 81;
Carola Ricci, Book No 84;
Lenka Válková, Book No 87.