Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders v David Verhaegen and Barbara Huber v Manfred Huber (C-400/13, C-408/13)
Judgment
Consideration of the questions referred
40

Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders v David Verhaegen and Barbara Huber v Manfred Huber (C-400/13, C-408/13)

Judgment of 18 Dec 2014law://eu/cjeu/2013/c-400-13/para_40@2026-11-10

40However, although proximity between the competent court and the maintenance creditor is one of the objectives pursued by Article 3(b) of Regulation No 4/2009, it is not, as has been stated in paragraphs 26 to 29 above, the only objective of that regulation.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Third Chamber
Cases: C-400/13, C-408/13 · ECLI:EU:C:2014:2461
Decided: 18 Dec 2014
Procedure: Preliminary reference · referred by the Amtsgericht Düsseldorf and the Amtsgericht Karlsruhe (Germany)
Applicants: Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders; Barbara Huber
Defendants: David Verhaegen; Manfred Huber
Rapporteur: C. Toader
Advocate General: N. Jääskinen
Bench: 5 judges
M. Ilešič, A. Ó Caoimh, C. Toader, E. Jarašiūnas, C.G. Fernlund
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62013CJ0400

Topics

Judicial cooperation in civil matters

History · 1 version

18 Dec 2014Reading

Connections

Interprets 1: 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
Cited by 7: RH v AB Volvo and Others (C-30/20); BC v LG (C-516/24); WV v Landkreis Harburg (C-540/19); FX v GZ (C-41/19)2 provisions; R v P (C-468/18); Proceedings brought by Vincent Pierre Oberle (C-20/17); M. S. v P. S (C-283/16)
Cites 12: Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters; Zuid-Chemie BV v Philippo's Mineralenfabriek NV/SA (C-189/08); flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines AS v Starptautiskā lidosta Rīga VAS and Air Baltic Corporation AS (C-302/13); Color Drack GmbH v Lexx International Vertriebs GmbH (C-386/05); Cartier parfums — lunettes SAS and Axa Corporate Solutions assurances SA v Ziegler France SA and Others (C-1/13); 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; Freistaat Bayern v Jan Blijdenstein (C-433/01); Health Service Executive v S.C. and A.C (C-92/12 PPU); Mulox IBC Ltd v Hendrick Geels (C-125/92); Sophia Marie Nicole Sanders v David Verhaegen and Barbara Huber v Manfred Huber (C-400/13); Jackie Farrell v James Long (C-295/95); GIE Groupe Concorde and Othes v The Master of the vessel "Suhadiwarno Panjan" and Others (C-440/97)