Judicial jurisdiction for divorce applications in the European context – New impetus through the ECJ ruling
The area of tension between international family law and cross-border court jurisdiction has been significantly clarified by the recent decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ, judgment of 20.01.2022, Case No. C-289/20), particularly concerning jurisdiction for divorce applications and its limitations. Below, the central core statements as well as their impact on proceedings in international divorces are analyzed and explained.
Significance and background of the decision
Starting point: International marriages and the role of the Brussels IIa Regulation
Increasing mobility within the European Union has led to marriages with international elements being heard more frequently before European courts. The so-called Brussels IIa Regulation (Regulation [EC] No. 2201/2003) governs jurisdiction and the recognition of decisions in matrimonial matters across the Union. Key questions include: Which court must be seized in a cross-border divorce proceeding? When is a court seized permitted to examine or must it refuse a divorce application?
Point of contention before the ECJ
In the underlying case, one spouse had filed for divorce in a Member State. The particularity—and the trigger for the referral—lay in the fact that the other spouse had died in the meantime before a decision could be made on the application. Uncertainty arose over whether the seized court could still decide on the divorce application or if the case became moot with the death of a party. This constellation led to the referral to the ECJ.
Core legal questions and considerations
Direct binding effect of the Brussels IIa Regulation
The ECJ was particularly concerned with interpreting Articles 3 and 6 of the Brussels IIa Regulation. These provisions regulate international jurisdiction in matters of divorce, legal separation, and annulment of marriage.
Termination of the proceedings upon death of a spouse
The Court held the view that the dissolution of a marriage by death has a conclusive legal effect, neutralizing all pending divorce applications. The jurisdiction of the seized court to decide on the divorce application lapses upon the death of a spouse. The idea underlying this view is that the objective subject matter of the dispute—the existence of the marriage—is automatically resolved. Consequently, there is no further scope for consideration or continuation of the divorce proceedings.
Distinction between procedural and substantive law perspectives
A key point made by the ECJ concerns the allocation of jurisdiction within the Union: The question of whether a pending procedure after the death of a party may still be conducted is, according to the Court, not a matter of Union law, but is subject to the respective national law. Accordingly, it is up to the national legislator to determine how to deal with divorce proceedings not yet concluded in the event of the death of a spouse.
Implications and practical relevance
Risk limitation for subsequent proceedings
The ECJ’s decision brings clarification, especially for inheritance disputes and issues of estate law. Once one of the spouses dies during an ongoing divorce proceeding, the continued existence of the marriage is no longer in dispute—the death as a dissolving event takes precedence over the divorce judgment. A “retroactive” divorce, which would have effects beyond the time of death, is not provided for under Union law.
Distinction concerning spousal maintenance and equalization of accrued gains
Although the divorce proceedings are terminated, it must be reviewed whether any related matters—such as maintenance or asset division—can be continued under national law. The ECJ expressly refers to the relevant national regulations, so a differentiated consideration taking into account the respective national law is essential.
Convergence of EU jurisdiction law and national regulations
The judgment emphasizes the necessity of distinguishing between the EU-wide substantive and local jurisdiction (international civil procedure law) and national regulations on the termination of proceedings. This highlights the need to always keep both sets of rules in view.
Classification in the overall context of European family law
The ECJ’s interpretation ensures a uniform legal framework for dealing with the death of a spouse during pending divorce proceedings in a cross-border context. The result is that the clear separation between jurisdictional issues and circumstances terminating proceedings creates increased legal certainty and protects courts from contradictory decisions at the Union and national level.
Source reference and reporting notice
The above explanations are based on the judgment of the European Court of Justice dated 20 January 2022 (C-289/20), which can be found on the official website curia.europa.eu and the referenced summary at urteile.news. It should be noted that ongoing proceedings develop according to the priority principle and findings of fact are subject to judicial appraisal.
Conclusion
The decision underscores the importance of an accurate assessment of international jurisdiction rules as well as the influence of national regulations in matrimonial matters with cross-border elements. For companies, investors, or wealthy private individuals confronted with intercultural family law matters, this case law yields important implications for future procedural strategies and the assessment of potential risks.
For more in-depth legal questions on cross-border divorce proceedings and international jurisdiction in matrimonial matters, the Rechtsanwälte at MTR Legal are always available to individually address the respective challenges.
