PROBLEMA JURIDICĂ
Divorțul privat unilateral în fața unei instanțe religioase intră în domeniul de aplicare al Regulamentului Roma III?
Faptele relevante
După o declarație unilaterală de divorț în fața unei instanțe religioase siriene, soțul a solicitat recunoașterea în Germania; soția a contestat recunoașterea. Trimiterea a pus în discuție domeniul Roma III și, numai subsidiar, discriminarea și consimțământul (pct. 17–25).
Soluția
Divorțul rezultat din declarația unilaterală a unui soț în fața unei instanțe religioase, ca în speță, este exclus din domeniul material de aplicare al Regulamentului Roma III.
Motivarea, pe scurt
Textul, contextul și obiectivul regulamentului arată că acesta acoperă divorțuri pronunțate de o instanță statală sau de o autoritate publică ori sub controlul ei. Extinderea la alte tipuri de divorț revine legiuitorului (pct. 35–49).
Ce putem învăța și ce limite are
Determinarea corectă a legii divorțului și a limitelor regulilor europene.
Nu soluționează recunoașterea în România a fiecărui act religios sau privat.
Nu formulează o soluție de fond pentru întrebările a doua și a treia privind discriminarea și consimțământul.
Rezumatul se bazează pe versiunea oficială în limba engleză a hotărârii din 20 decembrie 2017.
Ghiduri asociate
Textul hotărârii
Hotărârea poate fi consultată la sursa publică indicată. Fișa de pe această pagină rezumă problema juridică și nu înlocuiește textul hotărârii.
Texte citate în ghiduri 9 EXTRASE
Extrasele exacte din hotărâre la care trimit ghidurile.
pct. 19 · textul original, în limba engleză
19 On 19 May 2013, Mr Mamisch declared his intention to dissolve his marriage by having his representative pronounce the divorce formula before the religious sharia court in Latakia (Syria). On 20 May 2013, that court declared the couple divorced. On 12 September 2013, Ms Sahyouni signed a declaration that she was to receive from Mr Mamisch, under religious law, a total of USD 20000 (approximately EUR 16945), that declaration being worded as follows: ‘... I have received all payments due to me under the marriage contract and on the basis of the unilateral divorce and hereby release him from all obligations towards me under the marriage contract and the divorce decree … issued by the Latakia sharia court on 20 May 2013 …’
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗pct. 25 · textul original, în limba engleză
25 In those circumstances, the Oberlandesgericht München (Higher Regional Court, Munich) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Does the scope of [Regulation No 1259/2010], as defined in Article 1 of that regulation, also include cases of private divorce, in this instance one pronounced by unilateral declaration of a spouse before a religious court in Syria on the basis of sharia? (2) If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: In applying Regulation [No 1259/2010] [when examining] Article 10 thereof in cases of private divorce, (a) is account to be taken in the abstract of a comparison showing that, while the applicable law pursuant to Article 8 grants access to divorce to the other spouse too, that divorce is, on account of the other spouse’s sex, subject to procedural and substantive conditions different from those applicable to access for the first spouse, or (b) does the applicability of that rule depend on whether the application of the foreign law, which is discriminatory in the abstract, also discriminates in the particular case in question? (3) If the answer to [Question 2(b)] is in the affirmative: Does the fact that the spouse discriminated against consents to the divorce — including by duly accepting compensation — itself constitute a ground for not applying that rule?’
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗pct. 26 · textul original, în limba engleză
26 It must be noted, first of all, that the referring court has before it, not an application for divorce, but an application for recognition of a divorce decision delivered by a religious authority in a third country.
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗pct. 27 · textul original, în limba engleză
27 The Court has already held that recognition of a divorce decision delivered in a third country does not come within the scope of EU law, since neither the provisions of Regulation No 1259/2010 nor those of Regulation No 2201/2003, or any other legal act of the European Union, apply to such recognition (see, to that effect, order of 12 May 2016, Sahyouni, C‑281/15, EU:C:2016:343, paragraphs 22 and 23).
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗pct. 39 · textul original, în limba engleză
39 Next, although it is true that private divorces are not explicitly excluded from the scope of Regulation No 1259/2010, as the Advocate General has noted in point 60 of his Opinion, the references made to the involvement of a ‘court’ and to the existence of a ‘proceeding’ in a number of provisions of that regulation, such as Article 1(2), Article 5(2) and (3), Article 8, Article 13 and Article 18(2) thereof, show that the regulation covers exclusively divorces pronounced either by a national court or by, or under the supervision of, a public authority. Moreover, the fact that Article 18(1) of Regulation No 1259/2010 makes reference to ‘legal proceedings’ supports that conclusion.
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗pct. 48 · textul original, în limba engleză
48 Accordingly, in the light of the definition of the concept of ‘divorce’ in Regulation No 2201/2003, it is clear from the objectives pursued by Regulation No 1259/2010 that the latter regulation covers solely divorces pronounced either by a national court or by, or under the supervision of, a public authority.
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗pct. 49 · textul original, în limba engleză
49 In light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the first question is that Article 1 of Regulation No 1259/2010 must be interpreted as meaning that a divorce resulting from a unilateral declaration made by one of the spouses before a religious court, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not come within the substantive scope of that regulation.
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗pct. 50 · textul original, în limba engleză
50 In the light of the answer to the first question, there is no need to answer the second and third questions.
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗pct. 51 · textul original, în limba engleză
51 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗
Informațiile nu constituie consultanță juridică.