header-logo header-logo

EU

03 March 2017
Issue: 7736 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

W and another v X C-499/15, [2017] All ER (D) 180 (Feb)

The Court of Justice of the European Union gave a preliminary ruling deciding that Art 8 of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 and Art 3 of Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 should be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, the courts of the member state which had made a decision that had become final concerning parental responsibility and maintenance obligations with regard to a minor child no longer had jurisdiction to decide on an application for variation of the provisions ordered in that decision, inasmuch as the habitual residence of the child was in another member state. It was the courts of the member state of habitual residence that had jurisdiction to decide on that application.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll