Faptele relevante
Într-un litigiu de filiație în Italia, reclamantul a cerut stabilirea paternității față de o persoană decedată și înmormântată în Franța. Instanța italiană a dispus expertiza genetică și a transmis instanței franceze, la 18 noiembrie 2022, cererea de exhumare și prelevare ADN în temeiul Regulamentului (UE) 2020/1783.
Motivarea, pe scurt
Trimiterea la dreptul național al instanței solicitate privește modul procedural al executării. Ea nu extinde motivele limitative de refuz ale metodei indirecte prin importarea interdicțiilor materiale sau a motivului privind principiile fundamentale prevăzut pentru metoda directă. Obligația de respectare a Cartei și exigențele de proporționalitate rămân; Curtea a examinat separat limitele excepționale ale încrederii reciproce și a constatat că situația descrisă nu le justifica.
Ce putem învăța și ce limite are
Clarifică motivele de refuz în metoda UE prin instanța solicitată, într-un litigiu de familie, și împiedică confundarea acesteia cu obținerea directă.
Nu decide filiația și nu confirmă rezultatul procesului național.
Nu înlătură privilegiile de refuz ori celelalte condiții aplicabile unei probe concrete.
Nu transferă soluția automat la Convenția de la Haga, la un stat terț sau la audierea directă.
Nu afirmă că drepturile fundamentale sunt irelevante; motivarea păstrează analiza Cartei și situațiile excepționale ale încrederii reciproce.
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 14 EXTRASE
Extrasele exacte din hotărâre la care trimit ghidurile.
par. 2 · textul original, în limba engleză
2 The request has been made in proceedings between, in Italy, xx, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, ww, yy, zz and vv, aa’s legitimate children, concerning the establishment of parentage between xx and aa, buried in France, and having given rise to a request for the execution, in the latter Member State, of a measure of inquiry ordered by an Italian court and seeing the exhumation of aa’s body with a view to the drawing up of a genetic expert’s report post-mortem. Legal context European Union law The Charter
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗par. 18 · textul original, în limba engleză
18 The applicant in the main proceedings, xx, brought an action before the Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa, Italy) seeking a finding that he is the illegitimate son of aa, who is buried in France, authorisation to use his paternal surname, to order the competent registrar to enter into the record the judgment to be delivered once it has become final and to have an expert’s report drawn up to establish the biological parentage after exhumation of the body of the putative father.
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗par. 19 · textul original, în limba engleză
19 The legitimate children of aa, who are the defendants in the main proceedings, objected to the tests necessary for an expert’s report by a haematologist to determine whether the applicant in the main proceedings has genetic characteristics matching their own genetic characteristics. They requested that genetic testing be carried out on the body of their deceased father at the place where his remains are buried. The Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa) ordered an expert’s report by a haematologist and appointed an expert to carry out a genetic comparison between the applicant in the main proceedings and the remains of the putative father, after the latter had been exhumed.
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗par. 20 · textul original, în limba engleză
20 On 18 November 2022, the Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa) transmitted a request under Regulation 2020/1783 to the tribunal judiciaire de Chambéry (Court of Chambéry, France), which is the referring court, seeking the taking of evidence, namely the exhumation of the body of the putative father, together with the collection of a sample of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) for the purposes of the haematologist’s report concerned.
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗par. 23 · textul original, în limba engleză
23 In the present case, the referring court takes the view that there is no ground precluding the execution of that request under Article 16 of Regulation 2020/1783. A request to exhume a body in order to obtain a DNA sample constitutes a request for the taking of evidence. The execution of such a request falls within the functions of the French judiciary, the right of action to establish parentage being recognised under French law. In addition, the referring court did not consider it necessary to make any request seeking that the request to take evidence be completed by the Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa), as it has the option of doing under Article 10(1) of that regulation.
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗par. 25 · textul original, în limba engleză
25 However, the referring court harbours doubts as to the issue of whether Article 12(2) of Regulation 2020/1783 allows a requested court to refuse to apply that regulation and to refuse to comply with a request for the taking of evidence on the ground that the ‘procedure’ specified in that request appears to it to be contrary to the fundamental principles of the law of the Member State of the requested court. According to that court, it is apparent from the Practice Guide, drafted by the European Commission’s departments, for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 of 28 May 2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 174, p. 1), that regulation having been repealed and replaced, as of 1 July 2022, by Regulation 2020/1783, that a ‘procedure’ could be considered to be incompatible with the law of that Member State if it is in conflict with fundamental principles of that law. That is the case here, since French law, namely Article 16-11 of the French Civil Code, prohibits the exhumation of a body for the purpose of establishing parentage, unless the person concerned has given express consent to it during his or her lifetime.
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗par. 30 · textul original, în limba engleză
30 In those circumstances, the tribunal judiciaire de Chambéry (Court of Chambéry) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Does Article 12 of [Regulation 2020/1783] allow a national court to refuse to apply that regulation and to comply with the request from the requesting State, on the ground that the procedure specified in the request is contrary to fundamental principles of the national law of the requested State, and in particular Article 16-11 of the [French Civil Code]? (2) If Article 12 of [Regulation 2020/1783] applies regardless of national law, how should Article 1 (right to dignity) and Article 7 (right to respect for private life) of the [Charter] be interpreted and the links between them determined in order to establish whether or not such an application of the Regulation infringes the [Charter]?’ Consideration of the questions referred
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗par. 34 · textul original, în limba engleză
34 In the first place, so far as concerns the scope of Regulation 2020/1783, it must be recalled that that regulation applies as a general rule only if the court of a Member State decides to take evidence according to one of the methods provided for by that regulation, in which case it is required to follow the procedures relating to those methods (see, to that effect, judgment of 21 February 2013, ProRail, C‑332/11, EU:C:2013:87, paragraph 42 and the case-law cited).
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗par. 51 · textul original, în limba engleză
51 The foregoing considerations support an interpretation of Article 12(2) of Regulation 2020/1783 according to which that provision applies only to the detailed procedural rules for the execution of measures of inquiry, so that only those detailed rules are governed, in principle, by the law of the requested Member State.
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗par. 58 · textul original, în limba engleză
58 It follows that the requested court, before which a request for the taking of evidence transmitted by the requesting court on the basis of Article 1(1)(a) and Article 12 of Regulation 2020/1783 has been brought, must, in order to guarantee effective cooperation in the taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters, execute the measure of inquiry requested, in accordance with the procedural law of the requested Member State. In that regard, the power of the requested court to refuse to execute such a measure of inquiry is restricted solely to the grounds for refusal set out in Article 16 of that regulation, without, in particular, grounds derived from the substantive law of the Member State of the requested court, including grounds derived from fundamental principles of the law of the State of the requested court, being capable of justifying a refusal to execute the measure of inquiry, for the purposes of Article 12 of Regulation 2020/1783.
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗par. 61 · textul original, în limba engleză
61 In the third place, since the application of Regulation 2020/1783 constitutes an implementation of EU law within the meaning of Article 51(1) of the Charter, the national courts which give effect to the cooperation under that regulation must comply with the requirements arising from the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter.
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗par. 70 · textul original, în limba engleză
70 In addition, it is sufficient to note that, here, there is no fact which gives grounds for assuming that the situation is an exceptional case, within the meaning of the Court’s case-law recalled in paragraphs 62 and 63 above, in which the requested court would be justified in calling into question whether the measure of inquiry at issue in the main proceedings is consistent with the fundamental rights guaranteed by the European Union.
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗par. 71 · textul original, în limba engleză
71 Having regard to all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 12(2) of Regulation 2020/1783, read in the light of Articles 1 and 7 of the Charter, must be interpreted as not allowing a requested court to refuse to execute a request for a measure of inquiry seeking the taking of evidence, consisting of a genetic sample collected after exhumation of the body of the putative parent, that request having been transmitted pursuant to that regulation by the requesting court before which proceedings concerning parentage have been brought, by justifying that refusal on the ground that a rule of substantive law of the Member State of the requested court prohibits the taking of such evidence. Costs
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗Dispozitiv · textul original, în limba engleză
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules: Article 12(2) of Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2020 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (taking of evidence), read in the light of Articles 1 and 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union must be interpreted as not allowing a requested court to refuse to execute a request for a measure of inquiry seeking the taking of evidence, consisting of a genetic sample collected after exhumation of the body of the putative parent, that request having been transmitted pursuant to that regulation by the requesting court before which proceedings concerning parentage have been brought, by justifying that refusal on the ground that a rule of substantive law of the Member State of the requested court prohibits the taking of such evidence. [Signatures] * * * * Language of the case: French. * * * i The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings. [Input]
Textul în documentul-sursă ↗
Informațiile nu constituie consultanță juridică.