TKF submissions for appeal

Published: 12 May 2021

1. Following The ECJ’s Preliminary Ruling (hearing in at the ECJ in Luxembourg on 14^th October 2020) which supports the pleadings and submissions that our client has relied on from the outset, The NI Court of Appeal have allowed our client’s appeal and the impugned decisions have been quashed.

2. In the case before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg the The ECJ ruled:

“1. Article 75(2)(a) 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 must be interpreted as applying only to decisions given by national courts in States which were already members of the European Union on the date of adoption of those decisions.

2. Regulation No 4/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that no provision of that regulation enables decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations, given in a State before its accession to the European Union and before the date of application of that regulation, to be recognised and enforced, after that State’s accession to the European Union, in another Member State.”

3. The ECJ’s unambiguous conclusion was that “Regulation No 4/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that no provision of that regulation enables decisions in matters relating to maintenance obligations, given in a State before its accession to the European Union and before the date of application of that regulation, to be recognised and enforced, after that State’s accession to the European Union, in another Member State.”

4. Our client’s appeal was allowed and a final Order was made by the NI Court of Appeal on Monday 17^th May 2021.  The ECJ ruling confirms that the Clerk of Petty Sessions had no lawful power to register and declare enforceable the Maintenance Decisions under the provisions by which they purported to do this. Those purported decisions were therefore quashed. The enforcement decisions taken by the District Judge (Magistrates Courts) were based on those erroneous decisions and were therefore ultra vires and of no legal effect. The Court also quashed those decisions.

5. This fully concludes this case and our client is delighted with the outcome.  It is significant on a wider level as it is sets a precedent is respect of this legal issue across the entire European Union (population of approximately 430 million people prior to the UK leaving the EU) and it is probably the last UK case to come before the ECJ, as remarked by the Advocate General, Mr Gerard Hogan.