SR (Frais de traduction dans une procedure civile) (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Judgment) [2022] EUECJ C-196/21 (02 June 2022)

SR (Frais de traduction dans une procedure civile) (Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents - Judgment) [2022] EUECJ C-196/21 (02 June 2022)

A court ordering the transmission of judicial documents to third parties seeking leave to intervene cannot be regarded as the 'applicant' within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1393/2007; the applicant is the party interested in service, not the court.

Citation
[2022] EUECJ C-196/21
Parties
Appellant/respondent: SR; Appellant/respondent: EW; Intervener (supporting Ew): FB; Intervener (supporting Ew): CX; Intervener (supporting Ew): IK
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
02 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Ruling (cjeu) / Judgment on Reference From National Court
Outcome
Preliminary ruling issued; Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1393/2007 interpreted.
Legal Topics
Service of Documents, Translation Costs, Definition of Applicant, Parental Responsibility, Intervention in Proceedings
European Union Law Civil Procedure Family Law Service of Documents Translation Costs Definition of Applicant Parental Responsibility Intervention in Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SR

Appellant/respondent

EW

Appellant/respondent

FB

Intervener (supporting Ew)

CX

Intervener (supporting Ew)

IK

Intervener (supporting Ew)

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Ruling (cjeu) / Judgment on Reference From National Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court ordering service of documents to interveners is the 'applicant' under Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1393/2007 for translation cost liability.

Ratio Decidendi

A court ordering the transmission of judicial documents to third parties seeking leave to intervene cannot be regarded as the 'applicant' within the meaning of Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1393/2007; the applicant is the party interested in service, not the court.

Court Disposition

Preliminary ruling issued; Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1393/2007 interpreted.

Orders

  • Article 5(2) of Regulation No 1393/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that, where a court orders the transmission of judicial documents to third parties that apply for leave to intervene in the proceedings, that court cannot be regarded as being the 'applicant' within the meaning of that provision.