1. EUROPEAN PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW: CASE C-283/16
SARAH SCHEERLINCK ALONSO

2. INTRODUCTION
The concept of maintenance, it has origin in the Family law.
Basicly, it is a legal obligation on a person to provide financial support to their spouse before or after divorce or marital separation.
COUNCIL REGULATION No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations: the most important aims of this Regulation consist of guaranteeing an equality of treatment to all the creditors of food and, in addition, of assuring a rapid and effective collection of the food credits.

3. COUNCIL REGULATION No 4/2009
It applies in the territory of the 27 Member States of the Union European including United Kingdom and Ireland. However, Denmark, it has some peculiarities in that it will be partially implemented.
The entry into force of this instrument was scheduled for June 18, 2011.
Regarding the scope of personal application, it should be operated regardless of whether the nationality of the parties is that of a Member State or a third State, the determinant will be the domicile of the parties.

4. The Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007
The European Union declares that it will apply the rules of Hague Protocol with provisional carácter, as of June 18, 2011, date of application of Regulation (EC) n. 4/2009 of the Council, of December 18, 2008.
The purpose of the Hague Protocol is to determine the law applicable to obligations derived from a family, filiation, marriage or affinity relationship, including maintenance obligations in favor of a child regardless of the conjugal situation of their parents.

5. Case C-283/16: parts The request has been made in proceedings between:
Mrs M.S., residing in Germany 🇩🇪,
Mr P.S., residing in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧
They concerning maintenance claims.

6. what happened? 💒 Mr and Mrs S. married in 2005 💔 separated in 2012.
👪 They have two children, aged 9 and 5 at the time of the request for a preliminary ruling.
Their divorce was granted by the Amstgericht Walsrode (Germany), which made an order for the maintenance of the two children on 7 August 2014 (‘the order of the German court’).

7. what happened?
Since the divorce, Mrs S. and the children live in Germany.
Mr S. lives and works in the United Kingdom.
He refuses to pay the maintenance under the terms of the order of the German court because, he alleges, Mrs S. is increasingly obstructing his contact with the children.

8. Finally…
Mrs S. sought to enforce a financial order in respect of provision for her children made in the German Court, in the English court. The mother and children continued to live in Germany but the father had moved to the UK. He refused to pay maintenance to the mother because he claimed she was obstructing contact with the children.
That court indicates that it is required to determine, as a preliminary issue, may be issued directly to the Family Court or whether the application must, in all cases, first be lodged with the central authority referred to in Article 49 of Regulation No 4/2009, namely, in the present case, the Lord Chancellor, for forward transmission to the Family Court through REMO.

9. Finally…
The referring court refers to inconsistencies in the approach adopted by the United Kingdom courts and cites two cases in that regard
In the first case, the court with jurisdiction took the view that an applicant could issue an application for enforcement of a decision directly in the Family Court and that there must be an error in the domestic legislation, which requires the application to be issued through the Central Authority
In the second case, which concerned an application for modification, as opposed to enforcement, of a decision, the court with jurisdiction expressed reservations in relation to the decision in the first case, taking the view that the applicant must necessarily issue the application through the Central Authority.
The referring court adds that, when questioned on the subject in connection with the main proceedings, REMO stated that there was no error in the national legislation, which requires recourse to be had to the Central Authority, and that the wording of the national provisions at issue was intended.

10. preliminary ruling
Q1: In circumstances where a maintenance creditor wishes to enforce in one Member State an order which has been obtained in another Member State, does Chapter IV of Regulation No 4/2009 confer upon her a right to make an application for enforcement directly to the competent authority of the requested State?
Q2: If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, should Chapter IV of Regulation No 4/2009 be interpreted so as to mean that each Member State is obliged to provide a procedure or mechanism such as will enable the right to be recognised?’

11. The first question
Article 17: Abolition of exequatur 1. A decision given in a Member State bound by the 2007 Hague Protocol shall be recognised in another Member State without any special procedure being required and without any possibility of opposing its recognition.
An exequatur is a legal document issued by a sovereign authority that permits the exercise or enforcement of a right within the jurisdiction of the authority. 
The resolution that is enforceable in a member state, will be in any other without the need for a declaration of enforceability (articles 39 and 40): which does not mean that the execution is immediate. Since the same conditions as for national decisions will be applicable to the foreign resolution, it must first be according to the local rules (article 41.1).

12. First question
The Brussels I recast has made a significant change in the procedure of rendering a judgment granted in one Member State enforceable in another. Instead of the party wishing to enforce the judgment ‘the judgment creditor’ having to apply for a declaration of enforceability such a judgment will be directly enforceable in the other Member State if certain documents are produced. A judgment creditor wishing to enforce a judgment requests the court of origin to issue a certificate confirming the enforceability and giving details of the judgment . The certificate and a copy of the judgment are then sufficient authority for enforcement in the Member State addressed
In addition to empowering the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment in the Member State addressed in accordance with the law of, and under the same conditions as a judgment given in, that State an enforceable judgment carries with it the power to use any provisional, including protective, measures in accordance with the law of the Member State addressed. If a judgment contains an order not known in the law of the Member State addressed the order is to be adapted to one of equivalent effect in that State

13. First question
RECITALS 9 AND 27 OF REGULATION NO 4/2009
- Recital 9 states that a maintenance creditor should be able to obtain easily, in a Member State, a decision which will be automatically enforceable in another Member State without further formalities.
- According to recital 27, one of the objectives of Regulation No 4/2009 is to limit as far as possible the formal enforcement requirements likely to increase the costs to be borne by the maintenance creditor.
We must bear in mind that ALWAYS try to facilitate and expedite the judicial processes

14. FIRST QUESTION: solution
The Article 41 thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that a maintenance creditor who has obtained an order in one Member State and wishes to enforce it in another Member State may make an application directly to the competent authority of the latter Member State, such as a specialised court, and cannot be required to submit the application to that court through the Central Authority of the Member State of enforcement.

15. SECOND QUESTION
there is an obligation to provide a procedure or mechanism whereby it is possible to submit an application directly to the competent authority of the Member State of enforcement?

16. Article 288 TFEU, the impementation of a regulation is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
The direct application of a regulation means that its entry into force and its application in favour of or against those subject to it are independent of any measure of reception into national law (unless the regulation in question leaves it to the Member States themselves to adopt the necessary legislative)

17. Second question
A national court which is called upon, within the exercise of its jurisdiction, to apply provisions of EU law is under a duty to give full effect to those provisions, if necessary refusing of its own motion to apply any conflicting provision of national law, even if adopted subsequently, and it is not necessary for the court to request or await the prior setting-aside of such provision by legislative or other constitutional means
Regulation No 4/2009, (applicable with effect from 18 June 2011)provides in Article 76 thereof for the deferred application of its provisions rom the date of its entry (20 January 2009). Between those two dates, it fell to the Member States, where necessary, to amend their domestic legislation by adapting their procedural rules.
Mrs S., can to exercise their right to submit an application directly to the competent authority of the Member State of enforcement, as provided for in the regulation.

18. finally ACORDING TO ARTICLE 41:
a maintenance creditor who has obtained an order in one Member State and wishes to enforce it in another Member State may make an application directly to the competent authority of the latter Member State, such as a specialised court, and cannot be required to submit the application to that court through the Central Authority of the Member State of enforcement. SO
What Mrs. S did is correct