Department of Justice for Northern Ireland (Judicial cooperation in civil matter - Recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Opinion) [2020] EUECJ C-729/19

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Department of Justice for Northern Ireland (Judicial cooperation in civil matter - Recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations - Opinion) [2020] EUECJ C-729/19_O (12 November 2020) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/2020/C72919_O.html Cite as: EU:C:2020:923, [2020] EUECJ C-729/19_O, ECLI:EU:C:2020:923

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom))

(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations – Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 – Article 75 – Temporal scope – Possibility to register and enforce judgments delivered before the accession of the State of origin to the European Union)

1. In what (if any) circumstances is a judgment for maintenance delivered by a national court prior to the accession of that country to the European Union entitled to recognition under the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations? (2) This is essentially the issue posed by the following request for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom).

2. The present request for a preliminary ruling accordingly concerns the recognition and enforcement in the United Kingdom of decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations given in Poland prior to its accession to the European Union on 1 May 2004 and prior to the date of application, namely 18 June 2011, of Regulation No 4/2009. Before examining the factual circumstances giving rise to this request for a preliminary ruling, it is necessary first to set out the relevant legal provisions.

3. Article 66 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (3) provides:

‘1. This Regulation shall apply only to legal proceedings instituted and to documents formally drawn up or registered as authentic instruments after the entry into force thereof.

2. However, if the proceedings in the Member State of origin were instituted before the entry into force of this Regulation, judgments given after that date shall be recognised and enforced in accordance with Chapter III,

(a) if the proceedings in the Member State of origin were instituted after the entry into force of the [Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32; ‘the Brussels Convention’)] or the Lugano Convention [on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (OJ 1988 L 319, p. 9; ‘the Lugano Convention’)] both in the Member State of origin and in the Member State addressed;

(b) in all other cases, if jurisdiction was founded upon rules which accorded with those provided for either in Chapter II or in a convention concluded between the Member State of origin and the Member State addressed which was in force when the proceedings were instituted.’

‘(31) To facilitate cross-border recovery of maintenance claims, provision should be made for a system of cooperation between Central Authorities designated by the Member States. These Authorities should assist maintenance creditors and debtors in asserting their rights in another Member State by submitting applications for recognition, enforceability and enforcement of existing decisions, for the modification of such decisions or for the establishment of a decision. They should also exchange information in order to locate debtors and creditors, and identify their income and assets, as necessary. Lastly, they should cooperate with each other by exchanging general information and promoting cooperation amongst the competent authorities in their Member States.

(44) This Regulation should amend Regulation No 44/2001 by replacing the provisions of that Regulation applicable to maintenance obligations. Subject to the transitional provisions of this Regulation, Member States should, in matters relating to maintenance obligations, apply the provisions of this Regulation on jurisdiction, recognition, enforceability and enforcement of decisions and on legal aid instead of those of Regulation No 44/2001 as from the date on which this Regulation becomes applicable.

(47) In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of the Protocol on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland, annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty establishing the European Community, the United Kingdom is not taking part in the adoption of this Regulation and is not bound by it or subject to its application. This is, however, without prejudice to the possibility for the United Kingdom of notifying its intention of accepting this Regulation after its adoption in accordance with Article 4 of the said Protocol.’

5. Article 2(1)(1) of Regulation No 4/2009, entitled ‘Definitions’, provides:

1. the term “decision” shall mean a decision in matters relating to maintenance obligations given by a court of a Member State, whatever the decision may be called, including a decree, order, judgment or writ of execution, as well as a decision by an officer of the court determining the costs or expenses. For the purposes of Chapters VII and VIII, the term “decision” shall also mean a decision in matters relating to maintenance obligations given in a third State’.

6. Chapter IV of Regulation No 4/2009, entitled ‘Recognition, enforceability and enforcement of decisions’, is divided into three sections. In accordance with Article 16 of that regulation, Section 1, comprising Articles 17 to 22 of that regulation, applies to decisions given in a Member State bound by the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations (‘the Hague Protocol’); Section 2, comprising Articles 23 to 38 of that regulation, applies to decisions given in a Member State not bound by the Hague Protocol; while Section 3, comprising Articles 39 to 43 of that regulation, contains provisions common to all decisions.

7. Chapter VII of Regulation No 4/2009 includes provisions on cooperation between Central Authorities in Articles 49 to 63 of that regulation.

8. Article 75 of Regulation No 4/2009, entitled ‘Transitional provisions’, provides that:

‘1. This Regulation shall apply only to proceedings instituted, to court settlements approved or concluded, and to authentic instruments established as from its date of application, subject to paragraphs 2 and 3.

(a) to decisions given in the Member States before the date of application of this Regulation for which recognition and the declaration of enforceability are requested as from that date;

(b) to decisions given as from the date of application of this Regulation following proceedings begun before that date,

in so far as those decisions fall with the scope of [Regulation No 44/2001] for the purposes of recognition and enforcement.

[Regulation No 44/2001] shall continue to apply to procedures for recognition and enforcement under way on the date of application of this Regulation.

The first and second subparagraphs shall apply mutatis mutandis to court settlements approved or concluded and to authentic instruments established in the Member States.

3. Chapter VII on cooperation between Central Authorities shall apply to requests and applications received by the Central Authority as from the date of application of this Regulation.’

9. According to Article 76 of Regulation No 4/2009, except for Articles 2(2), 47(3), 71, 72 and 73, the regulation shall apply from 18 June 2011, subject to the Hague Protocol being applicable in the Union by that date.

10. In accordance with Article 2 of Commission Decision 2009/451/EC of 8 June 2009 on the intention of the United Kingdom to accept Regulation (EC) No 4/2009, (4) that regulation entered into force in the United Kingdom on 1 July 2009.

11. In accordance with Article 4 of Council Decision 2009/941/EC of 30 November 2009 on the conclusion by the European Community of [the Hague Protocol], (5) the rules of this protocol have been provisionally applied within the Union from 18 June 2011.

12. Rule 4(1A) of the Magistrates’ Courts (Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982) Rules (Northern Ireland) 1986 provides:

‘Where the clerk of petty sessions receives an application under Article 26 of [Regulation No 4/2009] for the registration of a maintenance order made in a Regulation State other than the United Kingdom he shall, subject to Article 24 of [Regulation No 4/2009] and to paragraphs (3) and (4) of this Rule, cause the order to be registered in his court by means of a minute or memorandum entered and signed by him in the Order Book.’

13. TKF and AKF, both Polish nationals, were married in Poland in 1991. They had two sons. On 1 April 1999, a Polish Court made a maintenance decision in favour of AKF against TKF. Further maintenance proceedings were commenced before the Polish courts, between December 2002 and February 2003. These later proceedings gave rise to what the referring court has described as ‘updated maintenance orders’ dated 14 February 2003, those decisions being ‘variations of original orders made on 1 April 1999’ by the same court. (6)

14. TKF and AKF divorced in 2004. Two years later, in August 2006, TKF came to Northern Ireland, where he has resided ever since.

15. By decisions of 24 October 2013 and 15 August 2014 (‘the decisions to register’), a Clerk of the Magistrates’ Court for the Petty Sessions District of Belfast and Newtownabbey (United Kingdom) registered, and declared enforceable the two maintenance decisions made by the Polish court, dated 14 February 2003. The decisions to register were made in accordance with Article 75 of Regulation No 4/2009. They also declare that the decisions so registered are enforceable for the purposes of Section 2 of Chapter IV of the same regulation.

16. TFK challenged the decisions to register before the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen’s Bench Division (United Kingdom) on the grounds that, as Poland was not a Member State when the Polish Court decisions in question were made, Section 2 of Chapter 4 of Regulation No 4/2009 did not apply. He also argued that Articles 23 and 26 did not apply to the Polish Court decisions and that, in any event, these decisions did not comply with Article 24 of Regulation No 4/2009, as there was no evidence that TFK was aware of, attended or was represented at the proceedings in question.

17. However, his action was dismissed by the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen’s Bench Division, on the grounds that Regulation No 4/2009 contains no provision restricting its temporal scope to court maintenance orders made in Poland only after the date of Polish accession to the EU. In addition, if Article 75(2) of Regulation No 4/2009 did not apply, as Poland is a State party to the Hague Protocol, Chapter VII of Regulation No 4/2009 did apply, by virtue of Article 75(3), to the matters at hand. The High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen’s Bench Division, accordingly held that the Polish Court decisions had been properly registered and enforced under that chapter. TFK then appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (‘the referring court’).

18. The issue before the referring court accordingly concerned the proper temporal application of Regulation No 4/2009 for the purpose of registering and declaring enforceable maintenance decisions, and the applicability of Article 75(2) to decisions issued in States parties to the Hague Protocol. In that context, the referring court has doubts as to the applicability of Regulation No 4/2009 to maintenance decisions given in Poland before its accession to the EU and whether the Magistrates’ Court for Petty Sessions District of Belfast and Newtownabbey had jurisdiction to register the relevant decisions under any part of Article 75 of Regulation No 4/2009.

19. It is in those circumstances that, by decision of 2 September 2019, received at the Court on 2 October 2019, the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1) Must Article 75(2) of [Regulation No 4/2009] be interpreted as applying only to “decisions” which were given in States that were Member States of the EU at the time those decisions were made?

(2) Bearing in mind that Poland is now a Member State of the European Union which is bound by the Hague Protocol, are maintenance decisions made by a court in Poland in 1999 and 2003, that is, prior to Poland becoming a Member State of the European Union, now capable of being registered and enforced in another EU Member State pursuant to any part of [Regulation No 4/2009], and in particular:

(b) Pursuant to Article 75(2) and Section 2 of Chapter IV of [Regulation No 4/2009];

20. Written observations were submitted by TKF and by the European Commission. In addition, TKF, the Department of Justice for Northern Ireland, the Polish Government and the European Commission all presented oral arguments at the oral hearing which was held on 14 October 2020.

21. As was remarked at the oral hearing, it is an unfortunate fact that the present request for a preliminary ruling may well be the very last case from Northern Ireland with which this Court has occasion directly to deal. Indeed, the United Kingdom left the European Union at midnight (CET) on 31 January 2020. It may be noted, however, that, pursuant to the provisions of Article 86(2) and Article 89(1) of the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, (7) the judgment of this Court will continue to have binding force in its entirety on and in the United Kingdom (including Northern Ireland) irrespective of the date on which the judgment of this Court is pronounced.

22. By its first question, the referring court asks whether the derogation from the temporal application of Regulation No 4/2009, laid down in Article 75(2) of Regulation No 4/2009, is to be interpreted as applying only to ‘decisions’ which were given by national courts in States which were already members of the EU at the time those decisions were given.

23. According to settled case-law of the Court, in interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part. (8)

24. Applying these principles to the present case, it may first be observed that, according to the definition given in Article 2(1)(1) of Regulation No 4/2009, a ‘decision’ is a decision in matters relating to maintenance obligations given by a court of a Member State. The starting point, therefore, is that Regulation No 4/2009 proceeds from the premiss that the judgment must have been delivered by a court of a Member State. This, of course, was not the position in respect of Poland prior to May 2004.

25. Article 75 of Regulation No 4/2009 is a transitional provision which seeks to address the status of decisions delivered before the entry into force of that regulation. It must be recalled, of course, that, as recital 44 of that regulation makes clear, Regulation No 4/2009 essentially replaces the general provisions in relation to jurisdiction and enforcement of maintenance orders which were formerly contained in Regulation No 44/2001. Regulation No 4/2009 constitutes, in other words, a lex specialis in matters relating to jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions in the specific field of maintenance obligations. (9)

26. As there is an essential continuity between the two sets of regulations, it was only to be expected that Regulation No 4/2009 would make provision for decisions in maintenance matters delivered in the Member States prior to the date of application of the latter regulation on 18 June 2011. (10) This, as we shall now see, is reflected in the transitional provisions contained in Article 75 of Regulation No 4/2009. The essential question remains, however, as to whether these provisions can be interpreted so as to reach back and to apply to decisions given by national courts prior to their accession as Member States of the Union. It is to this key question which we can now turn.

27. Article 75(1) first provides that, subject to paragraphs 2 and 3 of that article, the regulation shall apply only to proceedings commenced, to court settlements approved or concluded, and to authentic instruments established as from the date of application of the regulation. Article 75(3) deals with the transitional arrangements in respect of cooperation between the Central Authorities and is not relevant for purposes of the first question, although I propose to consider the potential impact of this clause when dealing with the second question.

28. Article 75(2) of Regulation No 4/2009 – and, in particular, Article 75(2)(a) – is, however, of central importance and it deals with two slightly different situations. First, Article 75(2)(a) of Regulation No 4/2009 provides that Section 2 (which comprises Articles 23 to 38 of that regulation and applies to decisions given in a Member State not bound by the Hague Protocol) and Section 3 (comprising Articles 39 to 43 of that regulation and which contains provisions common to all decisions) apply to ‘decisions given in the Member States before the date of application of this regulation for which recognition and the declaration of enforceability are requested as from that date’. (11)

29. The words which I have taken the liberty of underlining – ‘in the Member States’ – must, of course, be read in conjunction with the very definition of ‘decision’ contained in Article 2(1)(1) of Regulation No 4/2009. All of this provides clear textual evidence that the decision of the national court in question must have been given at a time when the State was itself also a Member State of the Union. This was, of course, not true of Poland prior to May 2004.

30. Second, Article 75(2)(a) and (b) of Regulation No 4/2009 provides that Section 2 and Section 3 apply to decisions given before the date of application of this regulation or after this date but following proceedings which had begun before it, in so far as those decisions fall with the scope of Regulation No 44/2001 for the purposes of recognition and enforcement. This provision thus clearly indicates that only decisions which come within the scope of Regulation No 44/2001 can obtain the benefit of the transitional provisions of Article 75(2)(a) and (b) respectively.

31. It is therefore necessary to examine Article 66 of Regulation No 44/2001, which deals with the temporal application of that regulation.

32. In that regard, as the Polish Government argued in its oral submissions at the hearing of 14 October 2020, it is true that Article 66(2)(a) of Regulation No 44/2001 provides that judgments given after the entry into force of that regulation must be recognised and enforced in accordance with Chapter III of that regulation, ‘if the proceedings in the Member State of origin were instituted after the entry into force of the Brussels [Convention] or the Lugano Convention both in the Member State of origin and in the Member State addressed’.

33. However, as the Court has held with particular clarity in its judgment of 21 June 2012, Wolf Naturprodukte (C-514/10, EU:C:2012:367, paragraph 34), in order for that particular regulation to be applicable for the purpose of the recognition and enforcement of a judgment, it is necessary that, at the time when the judgment is given, Regulation No 44/2001 was in force in both the Member State of origin and in the Member State in respect of which the application for recognition and enforcement is addressed.

34. In other words, so far as the present case is concerned, it must first of all be noted that the proceedings were instituted at a time when the Lugano Convention did not apply to Poland, since the maintenance decision dates from 1 April 1999. (12) While it is for the referring court to ascertain whether the applications seeking to update this original decision were actually made in the very same proceedings – as suggested by the term ‘update’ – the fact that the Lugano Convention became applicable in Poland when these applications were brought would, in any event, not be relevant since the latest decisions were delivered on 14 February 2003, that is to say, at a time when Poland was not yet a Member State of the European Union.

35. It follows from this interpretation of the transitional provisions of Regulation No 44/2001 that, in any case, when decisions at issue have been given by a court of a State which, at that time, was not yet a member of the European Union, those decisions do not fall within the scope of Regulation No 44/2001 – since it did not yet apply to it – and, consequently, do not fall within the scope of the transitional provisions laid down in Article 75(2) of Regulation No 4/2009 either.

36. Third, while a close reading of the text of Article 75(2) of Regulation No 4/2009 unambiguously confirms that what might be termed ‘pre-accession judgments’ fall outside the scope of these recognition and enforcement provisions, this conclusion is, in any event, underscored and confirmed by any purposive or teleological interpretation of Article 75(2) of Regulation No 4/2009. Indeed, it follows from recital 44 of Regulation No 4/2009 that the purpose of the transitional provisions provided for in Article 75 is to ensure the transition from the general arrangements provided for by Regulation No 44/2001 to the specific arrangements for maintenance obligations laid down by Regulation No 4/2009, thus allowing the recognition and enforcement of judgments given under the first regulation. Since decisions given in States which were not at the time members of the Union do not fall within the scope of Regulation No 44/2001, there is therefore no reason to extend to these decisions the benefit of the said transitional provisions.

37. The Court has consistently stressed in the context of the entire Brussels Convention and regulations regime that the system of recognition and enforcement is built on mutual trust, not least the confidence that the courts of all Member States will conscientiously apply (if necessary of their own motion) the rules as to jurisdiction and the procedural safeguards provided for in the Brussels Convention and the regulations that have succeeded it, so that the recognition of pre-accession judgments is contingent on whether the judgment-rendering court itself assumed jurisdiction by reference to jurisdictional rules which accorded with those prescribed by the relevant Convention or regulation. (13)

38. It follows that the application of the simplified rules of recognition and enforcement, which protect the claimant especially by enabling him or her to obtain the swift, certain and effective enforcement of the judgment delivered in his or her favour in the Member State of origin, is justified only to the extent that the judgment which is to be recognised or enforced was delivered in accordance with the rules of jurisdiction which are capable to protect the interests of the defendant. Such a protection is not, however, likely to be guaranteed where the decision was given in a State where Regulation No 44/2001 was not applicable at the time when the proceedings giving rise to the decision concerned were initiated, specifically because that court was under no obligation at the time to ensure that the rules governing the very jurisdiction of the court were founded on the jurisdictional rules contained in Article 3 and Sections 2 to 7 of Chapter II of that regulation.

39. This point was most recently made by the Court in its judgment of 21 June 2012, Wolf Naturprodukte (C-514/10, EU:C:2012:367), where the Court held that an Austrian judgment dating from 2003 was not entitled to enforcement in Czechia in 2007 pursuant to the provisions of Regulation No 44/2001 as that regulation was not in force in Czechia as of the date that the judgment was delivered by the Austrian courts. (14)

40. Accordingly, in the light of these considerations, I am of the view that the derogation from the temporal application of Regulation No 4/2009, laid down in Article 75(2) thereof, is to be interpreted as applying only to ‘decisions’ which were given by a court in States which were already members of the EU at the time those decisions were given.

41. This interpretation is consistent with the wording, context and purpose of Article 75 of Regulation No 4/2009. Moreover, it is also in line with the principle that exceptions are to be interpreted strictly, so that general rules are not negated. (15)

42. By its second question, the referring court seeks to ascertain, in substance, whether it is possible to recognise and enforce in another Member State a decision made by a court of a State before its accession to the Union on the basis of any part of Regulation No 4/2009.

43. It might be recalled at the outset that, in accordance with Article 76 of Regulation No 4/2009, the regulation applies with effect from 18 June 2011, save for the exceptions contained in Articles 2(2), 47(3), 71, 72 and 73. Moreover, the only derogations to this rule have been expressly regulated by the Union legislator in Article 75(2) and (3) of Regulation No 4/2009. In these circumstances, these provisions seem to me to be the only ones relevant to answer the second question referred.

44. It follows, however, from my answer to the first question asked by the referring court that Article 75(2) of Regulation No 4/2009 cannot be applied to decisions which were given in States which were not yet members of the EU at the time those decisions were given. If this interpretation of Article 75(2) of Regulation No 4/2009 is correct, it might be thought somewhat improbable that the ancillary provisions of Article 75(3) of Regulation No 4/2009 would have the indirect effect of facilitating the recognition and enforcement of a decision made by a court of a State before its accession to the Union. I have come to the conclusion that this provision cannot be interpreted in this sense either. I take this view for the following reasons.

45. First, it follows from the wording of Article 75(3) of Regulation No 4/2009 that the provisions of Chapter VII of that regulation, which concern cooperation between Central Authorities, shall apply to requests and applications received by the Central Authority from the date of application of Regulation No 4/2009 without any other restriction. However, in accordance with the definition given in Article 2(1)(1) of Regulation No 4/2009, the term ‘decision’ also covers decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations given in a third State within the framework of that Chapter VII.

46. Nevertheless, these provisions could not realistically lead to the conclusion that a decision given in a third State prior to its accession to the Union is recognised and enforced in a Member State by benefiting from the simplified rules of Regulation No 4/2009 simply by reason of the fact that the creditor might have recourse to a Central Authority.

47. This would, first of all, counter to the concern for balance between claimants and defendants which underlies the restrictive interpretation of the derogation provided for in Article 75(2) of Regulation No 4/2009. (16) Second, it would discriminate between creditors who choose to have recourse to the Central Authorities and those who act alone, even though this Court has expressly recognised that a person has an entitlement – but is not under any obligation – to make an application to the Central Authorities for assistance pursuant to the provisions in Chapter VII of Regulation No 4/2009. (17) It could therefore scarcely be suggested that the recognition and enforcement of a pre-accession decision could turn on whether the maintenance decision creditor had in fact availed of the options provided by Chapter VII. Nor, as the agent for TKF observed at the hearing, is there anything to suggest that – in stark contrast with the provisions of Chapter IV – there is any feature of these Chapter VII provisions which was intended to confer jurisdiction.

48. In order not to deprive Article 75(3) of Regulation No 4/2009 of its meaning, it should be made clear that the suggested restrictive interpretation does not apply to applications and requests referred to in Articles 51 and 56 of Regulation No 4/2009 which do not directly concern the recognition and enforcement of decisions given by a court of a State prior to its accession. It would be quite possible, for example, for such a judgment creditor to request the assistance of the Central Authority to help locate a debtor (18) or to facilitate the search for relevant information concerning his or her income and, where appropriate, other financial circumstances, (19) or even to obtain the establishment of a decision where the recognition and declaration of enforceability of a decision given in a State other than the requested Member State is not possible. (20)

49. Accordingly, in the light of the foregoing considerations, I am of the opinion that it is not possible to obtain, on the basis of Article 75 of Regulation No 4/2009 or any other provision of that regulation, the recognition and enforcement of a decision made by a court of a State before its accession to the Union in accordance with the rules laid down in Regulation No 4/2009. It follows, therefore, that the judgments rendered by the Polish courts prior to Poland’s accession to the European Union are not entitled to recognition and enforcement on that basis.

50. Accordingly, in the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court should answer the questions referred by the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) as follows:

1. The derogation from the temporal application of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, laid down in Article 75(2) of Regulation No 4/2009, is to be interpreted as applying only to decisions which were given by a court in States which were already members of the EU at the time those decisions were given.

2. It is not possible to obtain, on the basis of Article 75 of Regulation No 4/2009 or any other provision of that regulation, the recognition and enforcement of a decision made by a court of a State before its accession to the Union in accordance with the rules laid down in Regulation No 4/2009.

2 OJ 2009 L 7, p. 1, and corrigenda OJ 2011 L 131, p. 26, and OJ 2013 L 8, p. 19.

6 It is, however, not entirely clear from the file whether the 2002-2003 proceedings represented an entirely new set of proceedings or whether (as is possibly more likely) the ‘updated’ maintenance order was the result of fresh applications made in 2002-2003 in respect of the pre-existing 1999 proceedings. This is ultimately a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

8 See, to that effect, judgment of 12 November 2014, L (C-656/13, EU:C:2014:2364, paragraph 38).

9 See, to that effect, judgment of 4 June 2020, FX (Opposing enforcement of a maintenance claim) (C-41/19, EU:C:2020:425, paragraph 33).

13 See, for example, judgment of 9 October 1997, von Horn (C-163/95, EU:C:1997:472, paragraphs 18 to 20).

15 See, to that effect, judgment of 26 February 2015, Wucher Helicopter and Euro-Aviation Versicherung (C-6/14, EU:C:2015:122, paragraph 24). See also judgment of 29 July 2019, Commission v Austria (Civil engineers, patent agents and veterinary surgeons) (C-209/18, EU:C:2019:632, paragraph 35).

17 See, to that effect, judgment of 9 February 2017, S. (C-283/16, EU:C:2017:104, paragraph 40).

Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)