Circumstances that prevent recognition and enforcement of a foreign court decision in the territory of the Russian Federation.
Below is a court ruling on an international family law dispute on separation, place of residence of a minor child, and recovery of legal costs.
Legal positions of the Second Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction:
1. When resolving issues of jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, and enforcement of decisions concerning the rights of parents with respect to minor children, both the Convention of 25.01.1979 and the Convention of 19.10.1996 must be applied.
2. If the claim is filed during the period of residence of the parents and the child in the territory of one of the parties to the Convention of 25.01.1979, however, during the consideration of the case this situation has changed, and one of the parents together with the child began to live in the territory of the other party, the rules established by the Convention of 19.10.1996 shall be applied to resolve this issue.
3. The main criterion for determining jurisdiction in cases covered by the scope of the Convention of 19.10.1996 is not citizenship, but the place of habitual residence of the child, a change in which entails a corresponding change in jurisdiction.
4. The justice authorities of the Italian Republic, as of the date of the civil claim hearing in the conference room - 21.09.2022 [that is, during the litigation in Milan!] lost jurisdiction to take measures aimed at protecting the person and property of the child [...], while the resolution of these issues was within the competence of the courts in the Russian Federation.
5. As of the date of the civil claim hearing by the foreign court, the child had lived in the territory of the Russian Federation for more than two years.
6. The foreign court did not take measures to notify the defendant, as provided for in Articles 7, 9, 21 of the Convention of 25.10.1979, regulating the procedure for the execution of individual orders and the service of documents.
7. The refusal to satisfy the petition was due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Milan court to consider the civil claim of G. Paterno, as well as the absence in the case materials of evidence confirming proper notification of the debtor S.V. Vagner.
Below is a court ruling on an international family law dispute on separation, place of residence of a minor child, and recovery of legal costs.
Legal positions of the Second Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction:
1. When resolving issues of jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition, and enforcement of decisions concerning the rights of parents with respect to minor children, both the Convention of 25.01.1979 and the Convention of 19.10.1996 must be applied.
2. If the claim is filed during the period of residence of the parents and the child in the territory of one of the parties to the Convention of 25.01.1979, however, during the consideration of the case this situation has changed, and one of the parents together with the child began to live in the territory of the other party, the rules established by the Convention of 19.10.1996 shall be applied to resolve this issue.
3. The main criterion for determining jurisdiction in cases covered by the scope of the Convention of 19.10.1996 is not citizenship, but the place of habitual residence of the child, a change in which entails a corresponding change in jurisdiction.
4. The justice authorities of the Italian Republic, as of the date of the civil claim hearing in the conference room - 21.09.2022 [that is, during the litigation in Milan!] lost jurisdiction to take measures aimed at protecting the person and property of the child [...], while the resolution of these issues was within the competence of the courts in the Russian Federation.
5. As of the date of the civil claim hearing by the foreign court, the child had lived in the territory of the Russian Federation for more than two years.
6. The foreign court did not take measures to notify the defendant, as provided for in Articles 7, 9, 21 of the Convention of 25.10.1979, regulating the procedure for the execution of individual orders and the service of documents.
7. The refusal to satisfy the petition was due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Milan court to consider the civil claim of G. Paterno, as well as the absence in the case materials of evidence confirming proper notification of the debtor S.V. Vagner.
Appellate ruling of the 2nd Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction dated 09.09.2024.