C-295/95
ECLI:EU:C:1996:499
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61995CC0295
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
FARRELL ν L O N G
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL LÉGER delivered on 12 December 1996*
1. This reference for a preliminary ruling, creditor has been recognized by judicial made by the Circuit Court, County of Dub- decision. lin, under Article 3 of the Protocol of 3 June 1971, 1 presents a further opportunity for defining one of the terms used by the Con- vention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, 2 as amended, in I — The special jurisdiction provided for by particular, by the 1978 Accession Conven- tion 3 ('the Convention'). the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968
3. The provisions of the Convention giving rise to the question referred are contained in Title II, headed 'Jurisdiction'. 2. The point in issue is the interpretation of the term 'maintenance creditor' in Article 5(2) of the Convention, which has not hith- erto been defined by the Court. That term identifies those who may invoke the special jurisdiction provided for by Article 5(2), and thus serves to define the scope of the choice of jurisdiction open to them. The Court is requested, in essence, to rule whether 'main- 4. The basic jurisdictional rule laid down by tenance creditor' is to be interpreted as cov- the Convention is set out in the first para- ering any person claiming maintenance or graph of Article 2, which provides: only a person whose status as a maintenance
* Original language: French. 1 — Protocol on the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 50). 2 — OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36. 'Subject to the provisions of this Conven- 3 — Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the King- dom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great tion, persons domiciled in a Contracting Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1, and the amended text of the Convention of 27 September 1968, cited State shall, whatever their nationality, be above, p. 77). sued in the courts of that State.'
I-1685
OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-295/95
5. Article 5 of the Convention lays down, in II — Facts and procedure certain areas, jurisdictional rules providing alternatives to the principle that jurisdiction is conferred on the courts of the State in which the defendant is domiciled. It pro vides, inter alia:
7. According to the reference for a prelimi nary ruling in the present case, the applicant, Ms Jackie Farrell, an unmarried woman of 28 'A person domiciled in a Contracting State years of age, residing at Dalkey, Ireland, is may, in another Contracting State, be sued: the mother of a child born on 3 July 1988. Ms Farrell asserts that the father of her child is the respondent, Mr James Long, a married man who is habitually resident in Bruges, Belgium, where he also works.
(...)
2. in matters relating to maintenance, in the 8. The applicant applied to the District courts for the place where the maintenance Court for an order requiring Mr Long to pay creditor is domiciled or habitually resident maintenance. The respondent contests the or, if the matter is ancillary to proceedings application on the ground that he denies concerning the status of a person, in the being the father of the child. court which, according to its own law, has jurisdiction to entertain those proceedings, unless that jurisdiction is based solely on the nationality of one of the parties'. 4
9. O n 11 February 1994 the District Court dismissed Ms Farrelľs application on the 6. A maintenance creditor therefore enjoys a ground that it lacked jurisdiction. O n appeal choice of jurisdiction, being entitled to bring, to the Circuit Court, County of Dublin, proceedings either in the courts for the place Ms Farrell argued that the Irish courts had where the defendant is domiciled or in those jurisdiction under Article 5(2) of the Con for his or her own place of domicile or resi vention. Mr Long maintained that the term dence. 'maintenance creditor' referred only to a per son already in possession of a maintenance order, and not to a person in the applicant's 4 — Emphasis added. position, seeking such an order.
I -1686
FARRELL ν LONG
10. In the context of that appeal, the Circuit III — Applicability of Article 5(2) Court, County of Dublin, has referred the following question to the Court of Justice:
13. As is apparent both from the question 'Do the provisions of Article 5(2) of the referred and the wording of the decision to Convention on jurisdiction and the enforce seek a preliminary ruling, 6 the national ment of judgments in civil and commercial court's question concerns the first part of matters signed at Brussels on the 27th day of Article 5(2), which applies to proceedings September 1968 require as a condition prece seeking payment of maintenance, and not the dent to the institution of maintenance pro second part, which is restricted to mainte ceedings in the Irish courts by an applicant nance applications ancillary to proceedings who is domiciled in Ireland against a respon concerning the status of a person. dent who is domiciled in Belgium that the applicant has previously obtained an order for maintenance against the respondent?'
14. The national court therefore considers that the question raised is decisive for the 11. In his observations, 5 the respondent determination of the dispute. argues that the maintenance proceedings are ancillary to the issue of paternity and that the applicant cannot therefore rely on the first part of Article 5(2). Consequently, only the second part of that provision is appli cable.
15. The Court of Justice has consistently held that 'the considerations which may have led a national court or tribunal to its choice of questions as well as the relevance which it attributes to such questions in the context of 12. Since the relevance of the question a case before it are excluded from review by referred is thus contested, it is necessary first the Court of Justice'. 7 of all to examine that point before undertak ing an assessment of the contested concept. 6 — See, in particular, p. 7 of the judgment accompanying the ref erence for a preliminary ruling. 7 — Case 26/62 Van Gend & Loos ν Nederlandse Administratie 5 — Point 1.5. der Belastingen [1963] ECR 1, at p. 11.
I-1687
OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-295/95
16. More particularly, it has ruled that 'when 19. Whilst the term 'maintenance creditor', a national court or tribunal refers a provision as used in Article 5(2) of the Convention, of Community law for interpretation, it is to may call for interpretation, its meaning in the be supposed that the said court or tribunal Irish statute cited by the national court considers this interpretation necessary to appears less ambiguous. enable it to give judgment in the action' and that 'the Court cannot require the national court or tribunal to state expressly that the provision which appears to that court or tri- bunal to call for an interpretation is appli- cable'. 8 20. First, Section 1 of the 1988 Act provides: '"maintenance creditor" means, in relation to a maintenance order, the person entitled to the payments for which the order pro- vides'. 9
17. I am of the view, therefore, that the question referred by the national court must be answered, regardless of its relevance to the dispute before it, and that the answer to be given requires an interpretation of the term 'maintenance creditor'. 21. Second, Rule 20 of the District Court [Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) Act, 1988] Rules, 1988, which deals with the pro- cedure for bringing an application before the District Court, refers to an application brought by virtue of Article 5(2) of the Con- IV — The term 'maintenance creditor' vention 'for the variation of a maintenance order'.
18. According to the referring court, the law governing jurisdiction in the present pro- 22. The national court, noting the diver- ceedings is set out in the Jurisdiction of gence between the wording of the Conven- Courts and Enforcement of Judgments tion and that of the Irish statute, states: '... it (European Communities) Act, 1988 ('the may be that the terms of the Irish statute do 1988 Act'). That statute gives the force of not fully reflect the intentions and purpose law to the Convention in Ireland. of the Convention'. 10
8 — Case 5/77 Tedeschi ν Denkavit [1977] ECR 1555, paragraphs 9 — Page 3 of the judgment accompanying the reference for a 17 to 19. see also Joined Cases C-358/93 and C-416/93 Bor- preliminary ruling. dessa and Others [1995] ECR I-361, paragraph 10. 10 — Ibid., p. 7.
I-1688
FARRELL ν L O N G
23. The question of the interpretation of the (1) An autonomous concept term 'maintenance creditor' appears, there fore, to be decisive.
27. Whilst the Court has not hitherto had occasion to interpret the term 'maintenance creditor', an autonomous definition has been given to other expressions used to define the 24. The numerous terms used in the Con scope of some of the types of special jurisdic vention may differ in meaning from one tion laid down by Article 5 of the Conven Contracting State to another. The Court of tion. Justice has had occasion, in the exercise of its interpretative functions, to decide whether such legal concepts must be regarded as autonomous, and therefore given a uniform interpretation in all the Contracting States, or whether they may bear their ordinary 28. One instance is the term 'matters relating meaning under national law. to a contract' in Article 5(1). The Court has stated: 'Having regard to the objectives and the general scheme of the Convention, it is important that, in order to ensure as far as possible the equality and uniformity of the rights and obligations arising out of the Convention for the Contracting States and the persons concerned, that concept should 25. As the Court has held: 'Neither of these not be interpreted simply as referring to the two options rules out the other since the national law of one or other of the States appropriate choice can only be made in concerned'. 12 respect of each of the provisions of the Con vention to ensure that it is fully effective having regard to the objectives of Article 220 of the Treaty'. 11
29. The concepts contained in the phrase 'dispute arising out of the operation of a branch, agency or other establishment', which determine the special jurisdiction pro vided for in Article 5(5), provide another example. 1 3 In that connection, the Court has very clearly stated: 'Multiplication of the 26. It is in the light of that principle, I sug bases of jurisdiction in one and the same case gest, that the intended meaning of the term 'maintenance creditor' must be sought.
12 — Case 34/82 Peters v ZNAV [1983] ECR 987, paragraph 9, and Case 9/87 Arcado v Haviland [1988] ECR 1539. 11 — Case 12/76 Tessili ν Dunlop [1976] ECR 1473, paragraph 13 — Case 33/78 Somafer v Saar-Femgas [1978] ECR 2183, para 11. graph 3 et seq.
I -1689
OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-295/95
is not likely to encourage legal certainty and desire to establish a unified corpus of rules the effectiveness of legal protection through- of jurisdiction precluding, in my view, any out the territory of the Community and possibility that terms may vary in meaning. therefore it is in accord with the objective of the Convention to avoid a wide and multi- farious interpretation of the exceptions to the general rule of jurisdiction contained in Article 2'. 14
33. A variable definition would not only give rise to discrimination which, in the light of the objective of protection set forth in the 30. I propose that the Court should follow preamble, cannot be justified. It would main- the line taken in those decisions, and regard tain a complex fabric of rules of jurisdiction, the term 'maintenance creditor' as referring inherent in the plurality of national laws, to an autonomous concept. which the Convention was intended to reduce.
31. To decide otherwise would be to allow a situation in which persons could exercise a choice of jurisdiction in one Contracting State and not in another, depending on (2) The meaning of the term 'maintenance whether the national authorities chose to creditor' group them together within the same cat- egory or, on the contrary, to distinguish between them in accordance with criteria which might themselves vary from State to State.
34. As the Court has consistently held, the autonomous concepts used in the Conven- 32. In the preamble to the Convention, the tion must, for the purpose of its application, Contracting States express their concern to be interpreted by reference, first, to the sys- strengthen in the Community the legal pro- tem and objectives of the Convention 15 and, tection of persons therein established and, second, to the general principles which stem for that purpose, to determine the interna- from the corpus of the national legal sys- tional jurisdiction of their courts. By resort- tems. 16 ing to a common set of norms, they evince a
15 — Arcado ν Havãand, cited above, paragraph 11. 16 — Case 814/79 Netherlands State ν Rüffer [1980] ECR 3807, 14 — Ibid., paragraph 7, emphasis added. paragraph 7.
I - 1690
FARRELL ν LONG
35. Among the legal systems of the Member general principle which may assist in the States, several categories may be discerned. interpretation of the term 'maintenance creditor'. It is not used in most legal systems. Where it is, its meaning has not been deter mined with any certainty. Interpretation of the wording used in the Convention must therefore seek, primarily, to adhere as closely 36. Most of the laws in the Member States as possible to the objectives and system of (in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, England and the Convention. Wales, Finland, Greece, Italy, the Nether lands and Sweden) do not use the term 'maintenance creditor' to define a domestic rule of jurisdiction. The concept of 'mainte nance creditor' is not found in German law either, although there is a rule of jurisdiction in respect of maintenance obligations. Under 38. What is meant by the term 'maintenance • French law, the applicant may choose, in creditor' may be defined by examining, in matters relating to maintenance, to bring turn, three possible meanings, ranging from proceedings before the courts of the place the narrowest to the widest sense of the where the creditor resides. However, the term. French legislation does not define what is meant by 'creditor', and the meaning of that term has not been judicially defined. Spanish law uses the term 'maintenance creditor', but no conclusions as to its meaning can be drawn either from legal literature or from case-law. The position is the same under 39. First, as the respondent contends in part Scots law. In Luxembourg law, on the other of his argument, 1 7 'maintenance creditor' hand, the statute concerning territorial juris may mean a person in whose favour a main diction in matters relating to maintenance tenance order has been made. O n that basis, uses the term 'creditor' and expressly refers Article 5(2) offers a choice of jurisdiction to to 'applications for the payment of mainte persons who, having obtained a maintenance nance or for variation of a maintenance order in another Member State, wish to order'. In Ireland, doubt remains as to obtain an additional order in the State where whether the 1988 Act is restricted to the they are domiciled or habitually resident. enforcement within Ireland of maintenance decisions given in other States, or whether its provisions constitute rules governing the domestic or international jurisdiction of the Irish courts in the determination of mainte nance obligations or variation of mainte nance orders. 40. Second, 'maintenance creditor' may mean a person whose right to maintenance has not been established but who is legiti mately entitled, by reason of his or her
37. It does not seem possible, therefore, to derive from the national legal systems any 17 — Point 4.7 of his observations.
I-1691
OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-295/95
status, in particular a family link with the mination of the amount of maintenance, person against whom the application is where there has been an initial decision made, to claim the payment of sums of merely declaring that maintenance is in prin- money. ciple payable, and those seeking variation of the amount of maintenance originally ordered.
41. Lastly, in its widest sense, the term may apply to any person who seeks the payment of maintenance.
45. However, there is nothing in the Con- vention to justify dividing maintenance cases up into two categories: those seeking recog- 42. If the term is taken to mean a person in nition of the claim and those seeking deter- whose favour a maintenance order has heen mination of the amounts due. Moreover, made, the scope of Article 5(2) appears such a division does not appear compatible remarkably restricted, especially if one with the requirements as to simplified proce- attempts to identify the categories of cases in dural rules and expeditious procedures by which a rule of special jurisdiction has been which the Treaty and the Convention seek to considered justified. facilitate the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments of courts or tribu- nals in the Member States. 18 Nor, moreover, does either the Commission or any of the parties or intervening States propose such an interpretation. 43. We may immediately discount those cases in which the maintenance creditor applies to the courts for the place where he or she is domiciled or habitually resident for recognition or enforcement of a judicial decision within the territorial jurisdiction of those courts. Article 5 forms part of Title II of the Convention, relating to jurisdiction. It does not fall within the scope of Title III, 46. We may therefore question why a choice which lays down rules of jurisdiction specific of jurisdiction should be reserved to a cat- to applications for recognition and enforce- egory of cases as limited as those seeking ment of judgments and is thus designed to variation of maintenance obligations in regulate such applications. respect of which a judicial decision has already been given. N o r is it clear why the initial maintenance proceedings should be excluded from such special jurisdiction.
44. Two other categories of proceedings thus 18 — See Article 220 of the EC Treaty and the preamble to the remain to be considered: those seeking deter- Brussels Convention.
I-1692
FARRELL ν LONG
47. It is true that the danger that putative place of habitual residence of the mainte maintenance debtors would have to bear the nance creditor. This alternative is justified in principal burden imposed by legal proceed relation to maintenance obligations since it ings improperly brought against them enables in particular a wife deserted by her abroad might justify providing for a choice husband to sue him for payment of mainte of jurisdiction limited strictly to applications nance in the courts for the place where she brought by creditors recognized as such. herself is habitually resident, rather than the place of her legal domicile.' 2 1
48. But if that concern was the justification for such a demarcation within the rules of special jurisdiction, it is surprising that there 50. N o t only does Mr Jenard draw no dis is no indication of it in the wording of tinction between the initial proceedings and Article 5(2) of the Convention or in the the application for the determination or reports of Mr P. J e n a r d 1 9 and Professor variation of the amount of maintenance pay Schlosser. 2 0 able, but the explanations given by him attest to the general character, applicable without distinction to all proceedings brought in maintenance matters, of the rule laid down.
49. O n the contrary, the Jenard Report states:
51. The justification given for the rule con tained in Article 5(2) of the Convention, '... the court for the place of domicile of the namely the capacity of the court to know maintenance creditor is in the best position whether the creditor is in need and to deter to know whether the creditor is in need and mine the extent of such need, is not valid to determine the extent of such need. only for a single category of maintenance proceedings; it is perfectly applicable to the initial proceedings seeking the payment of maintenance. Moreover, the example of a wife deserted by her husband, which Mr Je However, in order to align the Convention nard gives to show why the maintenance with the Hague Convention, Article 5(2) also creditor's habitual residence should serve as confers jurisdiction on the courts for the an alternative criterion of jurisdiction, quite clearly relates to an initial application for maintenance, as is shown by the terminology 19 — Report on the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforce used (suing 'for payment' of maintenance, ment of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 1979 C 59, p. 1), known as 'the Jenard Report'. not for the 'determination', 'review' or 20 — Report on the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Acces 'variation' of maintenance). sion of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judg ments in civil and commercial matters and to the Protocol on its interpretation by the Court of Justice (OJ 1979 C 59, p. 71), known as 'the Schlosser Report'. 21 — Jenard Report, cited above, p. 25.
I -1693
OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-295/95
52. Furthermore, counsel for the respondent loan of a sum of money giving rise to a referred at the hearing to a definition of the repayment obligation or a blood relationship term 'debt' given in England in 1883, accord- creating a maintenance obligation). ing to which 'a debt is a sum of money which is payable or which will become pay- able in the future by reason of a present obli- gation'. He inferred from this that, in the present case, entitlement to payment of this sum of money is not established whilst 55. Consequently, the existence of a judg- paternity remains in issue, which means that ment does not in my view constitute a sine the question raised turns on the question of qua non for recognizing that a person is a legal status. maintenance creditor, which can be estab- lished by other criteria.
53. I endorse the definition proposed, but, as 56. That is the position where it is possible stated above, 22 I do not consider that it is to prove a family relationship between the for the Court to assess the relevance of the person claiming maintenance and the person question or the extent to which the answer from whom it is claimed which is such as to to be given to it may resolve the dispute render the maintenance claim legitimate. pending before the referring court.
57. It would be possible, by means of such a distinction, to reserve the choice of jurisdic- tion to putative creditors and to deny it to 54. O n the other hand, once it is agreed that persons who merely claim maintenance a debt is an obligation arising from some fact without having any obvious entitlement — which may be either a legal fact in the thereto. Interpreted in that way, the rule laid strict sense of the term or a legal act — by down in Article 5(2) would protect those virtue of which the creditor is entitled to against whom improper claims are made payment of a sum of money from his debtor, from the excessive burden of legal proceed- it becomes clear that a person does not need ings abroad. to have obtained a court judgment in order to qualify as a creditor. Such a judgment cer- tainly constitutes undeniable proof of his status as a creditor. However, that status is not conditional on the existence of a judg- ment, since the fact giving rise to the obliga- 58. In my view, however, any such distinc- tion, and thus the debt, may well precede the tion is again precluded by the broadness of judgment (as, for example, in the case of the the wording of Article 5(2) and the need for simplicity in the procedural rules laid down by the Convention pursuant to Article 220 22 — See point 15 et seq. of this Opinion. of the Treaty.
I - 1694
FARRELL ν LONG
59. Different approaches may be taken with the very fact — in this instance, parentage — regard to what constitutes a family relation giving rise to such status as a creditor. ship as a criterion for determining whether a person is a maintenance creditor.
62. In the broad sense, a maintenance credi tor would then be a person who, in order to exercise a choice of jurisdiction, first proves the family relationship on which the indebt 60. In a narrow sense, a maintenance credi edness is based. In such circumstances, how tor might be a person who is able to rely on ever, the criterion ceases to be objective, a legally recognized family relationship with since the court seised is required, in each the person from whom maintenance is individual case, to assess the likely veracity claimed. That construction would afford a of the alleged relationship. There is therefore choice of jurisdiction to, for example, a a risk that the outcome may vary from one spouse or former spouse, or a child whose State to another, or even from one court to affiliation is established by the fact of the another, contrary to the minimum objectives marriage or an act of recognition. of legal certainty and simplicity of proce dural rules. Moreover, and for the same rea sons, it is unacceptable that the determina tion of a rule of jurisdiction should be thus dependent on the outcome of complex argu ments on a substantive issue. 61. The advantage of such a solution lies in the fact that it is based on an objective crite rion. However, it is open to challenge in two respects: first, in order to be accepted, such a precise distinction would have to be evident 63. The use of family relationships, in that from the wording of Article 5(2) of the Con sense of the term, in order to establish that a vention or from the reports cited above, 2 3 person is a maintenance creditor, and thus to which is not the case. Second, it deviates determine the right to exercise a choice of from the very definition of indebtedness, by jurisdiction, may therefore be seen as awk denying the choice of jurisdiction to persons ward, arbitrary and open to challenge. who are entitled to maintenance but who do not possess any legal status enabling them to establish such entitlement. A maintenance claim made, for example, on behalf of an 64. The remaining solution, advocated by all unacknowledged child against his real par of the parties except for the respondent, is to ents would be excluded from the scope of apply the widest definition to the term Article 5(2) solely because of the denial of 'maintenance creditor'. According to that his parentage. It is not possible to define a construction, 'maintenance creditor' within creditor as a person entitled to the payment the meaning of the Convention must mean of a sum of money by reason of a fact giving the person bunging a principal daim for rise to indebtedness and, at the same time, to maintenance. 2 4 deny a person the opportunity of proving
24 — See, in particular, point 21 of the Commission's observa 23 — See footnotes 19 and 20 to this Opinion. tions.
I -1695
OPINION OF MR LÉGER — CASE C-295/95
65. It is apparent from what has been stated 69. Article 5(2) is designed to relieve the above that that construction is most closely maintenance creditor from having to bring in accordance with the objectives pursued by proceedings in a distant court. There are two the Convention, namely, simplicity, expedi- main reasons for this. tiousness and legal protection of individuals.
70. First, the maintenance claimant is ex hypothesi and, in most cases, in practice the more impecunious of the parties to the pro- 66. The criterion for determining whether a ceedings, so that it seems fair that he or she person is eligible to effect a choice of juris- should be spared the costs of an action diction is a very precise and objective one. abroad, including those incurred at the stage Consequently, it reduces the risk of potential of the initial application. litigation arising from uncertainty as to its parameters, which may itself cause delay and unjustified differentiation between persons who may be entitled to make such a choice. 71. Second, the court for the place where the applicant is domiciled or resident is best placed, by reason of its familiarity with the economic and social climate in which the applicant lives, to make findings as to the reality and extent of the needs expressed. It 67. The claim relevant for that purpose may is in a position to determine the merits of be one seeking either an initial maintenance the application and to appraise the amount order or the review of such an order. It does to be awarded. Its suitability is no different not require the bringing of separate proceed- whether it is seised of an initial application ings, which would hardly accord with the or a fresh stage in the litigation. This is con- efficacy which it is sought to achieve. firmed by the Jenard Report, cited above, in which it is stated that the court for the place of domicile of the maintenance creditor is in the best position to know whether the main- tenance creditor is in need and to determine the extent of such need. 26 68. Lastly, the Court has held that 'although Article 5 makes provision in a number of cases for a special jurisdiction which the plaintiff may choose, this is because of the existence, in certain clearly-defined situa- 72. The term as thus defined appears to me, tions, of a particularly close connecting fac- therefore, to accord with the system and tor between a dispute and the court which objectives of the Convention as previously may be called upon to hear it, with a view to interpreted by the Court with a view to the efficacious conduct of proceedings'. 25 clarifying the provisions concerning special jurisdiction.
25 — Peters, cited above, paragraph 11. See also the Jenard Report, p. 22, and point 92 of the Schlosser Report, p. 102. 26 — Jenard Report, p. 25.
I -1696
FARRELL ν LONG
73. O n this view, there is no reason why the 74. It thus appears that the objective of the proximity intended by the legislature bet Convention is not to differentiate according ween an individual and the court which is to the type of proceedings brought but to called upon to determine his or her claim facilitate the institution of lawsuits by main should not also benefit those making initial tenance claimants, who are frequently at a maintenance applications. disadvantage. Consequently, for the purposes of deciding upon a rule of jurisdiction, it must be accepted that 'maintenance creditor', within the meaning of the Convention, des ignates a person claiming to qualify as such.
Conclusion
75. I n the light of the foregoing considerations, I p r o p o s e t h a t the C o u r t give the following answer t o the question referred:
O n a p r o p e r c o n s t r u c t i o n of Article 5(2) of t h e C o n v e n t i o n o n jurisdiction and t h e enforcement of j u d g m e n t s in civil and commercial matters, signed at Brussels o n 27 September 1968, an applicant domiciled in Ireland, w h o wishes t o b r i n g m a i n t e nance proceedings u n d e r t h a t provision before the Irish courts against a r e s p o n d e n t domiciled in Belgium, does n o t need t o have previously obtained an o r d e r requiring the r e s p o n d e n t t o p a y maintenance.
T h e t e r m 'maintenance c r e d i t o r ' in the first p a r t of Article 5(2) m u s t b e i n t e r p r e t e d as meaning any p e r s o n w h o brings a claim for maintenance b y w a y of principal application.
I - 1697