The new international jurisdiction of Romania Courts in the field of divorce and of marriage annulement, in Romania’s relationship with the Republic o
New Romanian jurisdiction of the courts in matters of divorce and marriage annulment in Romania's relations with Poland

Summary/Abstract: After the accession of Romania to the European Union on January 1, 2007, the Romanian judges have to use a more intricate method for solving cases of divorce and marriage annulment between spouses that are Polish citizens with habitual residence in Romania, or Romanian citizens with habitual residence in the Republic of Poland or between a Polish citizen and a Romanian one. They have to establish their jurisdiction on the provisions of Article 3 and Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000. These new legal provisions repealed the international jurisdiction rules provided by Articles 31 and 32 of the Treaty between Romania and the Republic of Poland on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil and Criminal Matters (Bucharest, May 15, 1999), ratified by Romania by Government Ordinance no. 65 of August 30, 1999, ordinance approved in its turn by Act no. 33 of April 17, 2000. The provisions of Articles 3 and 4 of the regulation will suffer an adaptation to the specific requirements provided in Article 30 of the Treaty (where the jurisdiction rules of Articles 31 and 32 refers to). In order to find out the substantial law that will govern the divorce or the claim for the marriage annulment, the refers in that respect to the first two paragraphs of Article 30) and Article 32 of the above mentioned treaty (article which refers in that respect to Article 29). In the case of divorce claims, it is possible to appear a discrepancy between the solutions of the jurisdiction conflicts, that use the “habitual residence” concept (according to Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003), and the solutions of the conflicts of laws, that use, as a connecting factor, the Romanian concept of “domicile” (among the “common nationality” and “the lex fori”) . This discrepancy should be solved by assimilating the “habitual residence” concept with the Romanian “domicile” concept (which should be quite easy, because the habitual residence is, in fact, a Romanian domicile proved only by facts). By doing so, the Romanian judges would obtain identical jurisdictional solutions with those provided in Articles 31 and 32 of the treaty. However, the introduction of uniform choice-of-law rules regarding divorce and marriage annulment, by an E.U. regulation should lighten the Romanian judges’ burden in such cases.

• Details
• Contents