Étiquette : divorce franco américain

Dans le cadre d’un divorce franco-américain, qu’en est-il de l’opposabilité d’un jugement américain en France, lorsque ledit jugement américain écarte l’application d’un contrat de mariage français de séparation de biens, signé par les parties en la forme authentique et reçu par un officier public français ?

 

Article :

 

Il convient de s’intéresser à une jurisprudence qui a été rendue juste avant Noël 2020 et qui vient aborder la particularité de l’exequatur en France d’un jugement de divorce qui a été prononcé à l’étranger.

 

Dans cette affaire, la question qui se posait était de savoir dans quelles conditions le Juge français pouvait accorder l’exequatur et par là-même vérifier la régularité internationale de la décision étrangère.

 

Il convient de rappeler que dans le cadre d’une procédure d’exequatur, le Juge français doit s’assurer que la décision rendue par le Juge étranger doit être conforme à l’ordre public international de fond et de procédure et doit faire preuve d’une absence de fraude, comme le rappelle l’article 569 du Code de procédure civile.

 

Quels sont les faits de l’espèce ?

 

Dans cette affaire, Monsieur Z de nationalité française et Madame I de nationalité russe et américaine se sont mariés à Paris le 28 mai 1991 sous le régime de la séparation des biens suivant contrat de mariage reçu par notaire français le 21 mai 1991.

 

Ils se sont par la suite installés aux Etats-Unis où sont nés leurs deux enfants.

 

Par la suite, cependant le couple s’est séparé,

 

La procédure de divorce aux USA

 

Madame I avait alors, dès le 08 novembre 2001, saisi la Cour Suprême de l’état de New-York d’une requête en divorce et par decision and order du 28 juin 2002, le Juge new-yorkais avait rejeté la demande de Monsieur Z tendant à la validation et à l’opposabilité du contrat de mariage conclu en France afin de le rendre applicable et opposable sur le sol américain.

 

Le juge américain, décidant d’écarter l’application du contrat de mariage français.

 

Un deuxième Juge new-yorkais a ensuite rendu une trial decision le 03 octobre 2003 puis un judgement of divorce le 09 janvier 2004, prononçant le divorce aux torts exclusifs du mari, confié la garde des enfants mineurs à la mère avec un droit de visite et d’hébergement au profit du père en précisant que la mère devrait consulter le père sur toutes les décisions significatives concernant les enfants mais qu’elle aurait le pouvoir de décision finale, fixé les modalités de contribution du père à l’entretien et l’éducation des enfants, alloué à l’épouse une pension alimentaire mensuelle pendant sept ans et statué sur la liquidation des intérêts patrimoniaux des époux.

 

A hauteur d’appel, ce jugement avait été partiellement réformé par une décision de la Cour d’appel de l’État de New-York du 03 mai 2005 qui a notamment précisé que l’intégralité du solde du produit de la vente de l’appartement new-yorkais devait revenir à Monsieur Z.

 

La procédure d’exequatur en France

 

Par la suite et par acte en date du 09 février 2005, Madame I avait saisi le Tribunal de grande instance de Paris d’une demande d’exéquatur des décisions américaines des 03 octobre 2003 et du 09 janvier 2004 en leurs seules dispositions relatives aux pensions alimentaires.

 

C’est dans le cadre de cette procédure d’exequatur qu’à titre reconventionnel Monsieur Z avait alors demandé que soit déclaré inopposable en France le jugement du 28 juin 2002.

 

Dès lors, la question se posait de savoir dans quelles conditions le Juge français dans sa mission d’exéquatur de la décision du divorce étrangère devait intervenir.

 

Le juge français devrait-il alors lui aussi écarter le contrat de mariage français par le biais de l’exequatur ?

 

Le premier moyen soulevé par Monsieur Z dans le cadre de cette contestation de l’exéquatur consistait à considérer que la décision qui avait été rendue par le Juge le 22 juin 2002 ne pouvait être déclarée exécutoire en France car il n’était pas conforme à l’ordre public international français.

 

Ce dernier considérait que l’exigence d’impartialité du Juge telle que prévu et exigée par l’article 6-1 de la convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales n’avaient pas été respectées.

 

En réponse, la Cour de cassation rappelle sur ce premier moyen qu’en application de l’article 509 du Code de procédure civile, dans le cadre d’une procédure d’exéquatur, et ce, en dehors de toute convention internationale ou convention bilatérale, le Juge français doit vérifier la régularité internationale de la décision étrangère en s’assurant que celle-ci remplit les conditions de compétences indirectes du Juge étranger fondée sur le rattachement du litige au for saisi de conformité à l’ordre public international de fond et de procédure et d’absence de fraude.

 

La Cour de cassation rappelant également qu’au terme de l’article 6-1 de la convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, toute personne a droit à ce que sa cause soit entendue équitablement, publiquement et dans un délai raisonnable par un tribunal indépendant et impartial établi par la loi qui décidera soit des contestations sur ses droits et obligations de caractère civil soit du bien-fondé de toute accusation en matière pénale dirigée contre elle.

 

Dès lors, il convenait de vérifier le déroulement de la procédure américaine dans laquelle Monsieur Z considérait qu’en tant que ressortissant français il n’avait pas eu la faveur du Juge américain qui avait préféré privilégier de droit Madame I, de nationalité russe et surtout américaine aurait manqué d’impartialité.

 

Pour autant, la Cour de cassation relève que l’appréciation portée par le Juge ne relevait d’aucun parti pris hostile.

 

D’autre part que les mesures prises étaient fondées sur des éléments objectifs tirés de la situation personnelle des parties.

Mais surtout, Monsieur Z avait pu exercer des voies de recours puisque celui-ci avait frappé d’appel la décision, ce qui lui avait permis de faire entendre sa cause devant une autre juridiction dont l’impartialité n’était pas discutée.

 

Ce qui était dès lors de nature à exclure toute atteinte à ses droits.

 

Qu’en est-il du contrat de mariage de séparation de biens ?

 

Par ailleurs, monsieur Z reprochait au jugement américain d’avoir écarté sans aucune raison valable l’acte authentique français reçu par un officier public français au nom de la République française, de telle sorte que le rejet par le Juge américain du contrat de mariage français était nécessairement contraire à l’ordre public international.  

 

Au soutien de son argumentaire, Monsieur Z soutenait que le choix du droit familial français, concrétisé dans l’acte authentique avait été une base de prévisions pour les parties, prévisions parfaitement légitimes puisque l’acte authentique était valable en France.

 

De telle sorte que le contrat de mariage français devait trouver force obligatoire en France, tant bien même le juge américain avait, dans sa décision du 28 juin 2002, écarté péremptoirement l’acte authentique français

 

Ainsi, la convention conclue entre les parties au contrat de mariage était nécessairement valide en France.

 

Monsieur Z considérant que le Juge américain a violé l’ordre public international français ainsi que l’article 509 du Code de procédure civile, tout comme les principes qui gouvernent le droit international privé.

 

Il y avait donc lieu de considérer, qu’à supposer que le contrat de mariage de séparation de biens par acte authentique français reçu par un officier public français au nom de la République française soit écarté par un jugement étranger, il n’en demeurait pas moins que le Juge étranger devait a minima en tenir compte comme un simple élément d’appréciation et de distribution équitable opérée par lui au moment de liquider le régime matrimonial des époux.

 

Dès lors, Monsieur Z considérait qu’en déclarant le jugement américain du 22 juin 2002 opposable en France alors qu’il avait écarté le contrat de mariage conclu en France, ce dernier ne respectait pas les principes qui gouvernent le droit international privé.

 

Ceci d’autant plus que le contrat de mariage avait cristallisé justement la liberté pour les époux de choisir la loi applicable à leur régime matrimonial et partant le contrat de mariage en ce qu’il détermine le régime matrimonial garantissait la sécurité juridique et le respect des légitimes prévisions des époux.

 

De telle sorte, qu’il devait liquider les intérêts patrimoniaux des époux conformément au droit français de la séparation de biens, choisi par les époux au moment du mariage.

 

Monsieur Z reprochant au Juge américain d’avoir refusé purement et simplement de prendre en considération le contrat de mariage et la volonté commune des époux ainsi exprimée en liquidant les intérêts patrimoniaux et pécuniaires des deux époux en divorce, le juge américain se reposant sur les dispositions de la Loi de l’état de New-York en écartant tout simplement le régime de contrat de mariage de séparation de biens choisi pourtant par les époux au moment de leur mariage.

 

Cette question était au cœur des débats.

 

Qu’en est-il de l’opposabilité d’un jugement américain en France, lorsque ledit jugement américain écarte l’application d’un contrat de mariage français de séparation de biens, signé par les parties en la forme authentique et reçu par un officier public français ?

 

Pour autant, la Cour de cassation considère qu’une décision rendue par une juridiction étrangère, qui par application de sa loi nationale refuse de donner effet à un contrat de mariage reçu en France n’est pas en soi contraire à l’ordre public international français de fond et ne peut être écarté que si elle consacre de manière concrète une situation incompatible avec les principes du droit français considéré comme essentiel.

 

Dans cette décision, la Cour de cassation rappelle que le litige se rattache pour l’essentiel à la vie du couple aux USA et les époux se sont aussitôt établis après le mariage et n’ont cessé d’y résider.

 

C’est d’ailleurs là où sont nés leurs enfants et où le mari a obtenu des diplômes et développé diverses activités professionnelles et où se situaient enfin les actifs immobiliers du couple au jour de la demande en divorce.

 

De telle sorte que pour répartir les biens communs à proportion de 75 % à l’épouse et 25 % au mari, le Juge américain pouvait procéder à la liquidation des intérêts patrimoniaux aux époux selon le principe de la distribution équitable conformément au régime matrimonial en vigueur aux Etats-Unis et dans l’état de New-York.

 

Le juge de New-York avait d’ailleurs tenu compte des revenus et charges des parties et des conséquences des choix communs fait pendant le mariage, de telle sorte qu’aucun élément fourni par Monsieur Z ne laissait à penser qu’il y a eu un caractère disproportionné dans les effets découlant directement de la décision américaine rendue et pour laquelle l’exéquatur était demandée.

 

La Cour de cassation considérant que le litige se rattachait pour l’essentiel aux Etats-Unis et  que la décision étrangère en application de la loi du for pour la liquidation des droits patrimoniaux des époux n’avait pas consacré concrètement une situation incompatible avec les principes essentiels du droit français.

 

Par voie de conséquence, il convenait d’écarter l’argumentation liée à la notion d’inconciliabilité, et que ni le principe de la liberté des conventions matrimoniales d’ordre public en droit interne ni les objectifs de sécurité juridique et de prévisibilité invoquées ne pouvait faire obstacle à la reconnaissance en France de la décision américaine.

 

Dernier point qui posait souci pour Monsieur Z était la problématique liée à l’exercice de l’autorité parentale qui relève de l’ordre public international français.

 

Or, il reprochait au jugement de divorce étranger de mettre à néant l’exercice conjoint de l’autorité parentale en donnant à la mère le droit de prendre seule toutes les décisions concernant les enfants sans autre justification que les mauvaises relations mutuelles entre les parents portant ainsi atteinte au principe essentiel du droit français fondé sur l’égalité des parents en l’exercice de l’autorité parentale.

En effet, Monsieur Z n’acceptait pas le fait que les jugements américains prévoyaient que la décision finale appartiendrait dans tous les cas à la mère, privant par la même le père de toute autorité parentale.

 

Un dernier point était par ailleurs soulevé par Monsieur Z

 

Exequatur et autorité parentale

 

Là encore, la Cour de cassation considère que si le principe d’égalité des parents au regard de l’autorité parentale relève de l’ordre public international français, la circonstance qu’une décision étrangère réserve à l’un des parents le soin de prendre seul certaines décisions relatives aux enfants ne aux principes d’autorité parentale telle que consacrée en droit français.

 

Pour autant, la Cour a relevé que la décision américaine qui organise les droits de visites et d’hébergement du père en tenant compte de l’éloignement géographique de celui-ci conformément à l’accord des parties, lui ménage des rencontres régulières avec ses enfants pendant l’année scolaire et les vacances.

 

La Cour retient ensuite, s’agissant des modalités d’exercice de l’autorité parentale, que les jugements américains s’appuyaient sur les recommandations d’un expert psychiatre afin de réserver à la mère la décision finale en cas de désaccord,

 

Le juge américain motivant sa décision en soulignant, d’une part, les mauvaises relations entre les parents qui ne sont pas parvenus par la procédure de divorce à discuter sur les questions de l’éducation de leurs enfants, et d’autre part, par l’intérêt pour les enfants d’éviter des conflits constants concernant leur vie.

 

La Cour rappelle enfin que ces jugements rappellent le devoir de consulter le père, de prendre ses préférences et préoccupations et d’essayer de l’inclure dans les événements significatifs de la vie des enfants.

 

C’est ainsi que la Cour de cassation a considéré que la décision américaine faisait ressortir que les mesures relatives aux enfants avaient été arrêtées par référence à leur intérêt supérieur et que les droits du père n’avaient pas été méconnus, celui-ci devant être, à chaque fois, consulté avant toute décision.

 

La Cour de cassation décide ainsi que la décision américaine devait être reconnue dans l’ordre juridique français en l’absence de violation de l’ordre public international.

 

C’est dans ces circonstances que le pourvoi de Monsieur Z est rejeté.

 

 Cette jurisprudence qui vient aborder plusieurs points est intéressante à plusieurs titres.

 

Elle met en exergue les paradoxes possibles de la procédure d’exequatur.

 

Deux leçons s’imposent.

 

Premièrement, force est de constater que le contrat de mariage de séparation de biens ne saurait pas forcément survivre au-delà des frontières françaises, ce qui doit amener chaque ressortissant français s’installant durablement à l’étranger de transposer ce contrat de mariage séparatiste français en droit local.

Deuxièmement, elle illustre parfaitement les difficultés procédurales propre à la procédure d’exequatur en ne faisant pas perdre de vue la nécessité de bien se défendre dans le pays ou la procédure du divorce est initiée, et ce, sans attendre de voir la décision étrangère exequaturée en France.

 

La synergie entre cabinets d’avocats étranger et avocat français demeure plus que jamais une nécessité, d’où l’investissement de Maître Laurent Latapie, avocat français, au sein de l’union Internationale des Avocats.

 

 

Article rédigé par Maître Laurent LATAPIE,

Avocat, Docteur en Droit,

www.laurent-latapie-avocat.frdivorc 

In the context of a Franco-American divorce, what about the enforceability of an American judgment in France, when the said American judgment rules out the application of a French marriage contract of separation of property, signed by the parties in the authentic form and received by a French public officer?

 

Item:

 

It is worth looking at a case law that was issued just before Christmas 2020 and which addresses the particularity of the exequatur in France of a divorce judgment that was pronounced abroad.

 

In this case, the question that arose was to know under what conditions the French judge could grant exequatur and thereby verify the international regularity of the foreign decision.

 

It should be remembered that in the context of an exequatur procedure, the French judge must ensure that the decision rendered by the foreign judge must comply with international public order of substance and procedure and must demonstrate ‘an absence of fraud, as Article 569 of the Code of Civil Procedure recalls.

 

What are the facts of the case?

 

In this case, Mr. Z of French nationality and Mrs. I of Russian and American nationality were married in Paris on May 28, 1991 under the regime of separation of property following a marriage contract received by a French notary on May 21, 1991.

 

They subsequently settled in the United States where their two children were born.

 

Subsequently, however, the couple broke up,

 

Divorce proceedings in the USA

 

Madame I had then, on November 8, 2001, seized the Supreme Court of the State of New York with a petition for divorce and by decision and order of June 28, 2002, the New York judge had rejected Mr. Z tending to the validation and enforceability of the marriage contract concluded in France in order to make it applicable and enforceable on American soil.

 

The American judge, deciding to rule out the application of the French marriage contract.

 

A second New York judge then rendered a trial decision on October 3, 2003 then a judgment of divorce on January 9, 2004, pronouncing the divorce to the exclusive wrongs of the husband, entrusted the custody of the minor children to the mother with a right of visit and accommodation for the father’s benefit by specifying that the mother should consult the father on all significant decisions concerning the children but that she would have the final decision-making power, set the terms of the father’s contribution to maintenance and education children, awarded the wife a monthly alimony for seven years and ruled on the liquidation of the patrimonial interests of the spouses.

 

At appeal level, this judgment had been partially reformed by a decision of the Court of Appeal of the State of New York of May 3, 2005 which specified in particular that the entire balance of the proceeds from the sale of the he New York apartment was to belong to Mr. Z.

 

The exequatur procedure in France

 

Subsequently and by deed dated February 9, 2005, Madame I had seized the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris with a request for exequatur of the American decisions of October 3, 2003 and January 9, 2004 in their only provisions relating to pensions. food.

 

It was within the framework of this exequatur procedure that Mr. Z had then requested that the judgment of June 28, 2002 be declared unenforceable in France.

 

Therefore, the question arose as to the conditions under which the French judge in his mission of exequatur of the foreign divorce decision should intervene.

 

Should the French judge then also rule out the French marriage contract through exequatur?

 

The first plea raised by Mr. Z in the context of this challenge to the exequatur consisted in considering that the decision which had been rendered by the Judge on June 22, 2002 could not be declared enforceable in France because it did not comply with the French international public order.

 

The latter considered that the requirement of impartiality of the Judge as provided for and required by Article 6-1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms had not been respected.

 

In response, the Court of Cassation recalls on this first plea that in application of article 509 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the context of an exequatur procedure, and this, outside any international convention or bilateral convention , the French judge must verify the international regularity of the foreign decision by ensuring that it fulfills the conditions of indirect jurisdiction of the foreign judge based on the connection of the dispute to the forum seized of conformity with the substantive international public order and of procedure and absence of fraud.

 

The Court of Cassation also recalling that under Article 6-1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, everyone has the right to have their case heard fairly, publicly and in a timely manner. reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law which will decide either on disputes over her civil rights and obligations or on the merits of any criminal charges brought against her.

 

Therefore, it was necessary to verify the course of the American procedure in which Mr. Z considered that as a French national he had not had the favor of the American judge who had preferred to privilege by right Mrs. I, of Russian nationality and especially American would have lacked impartiality.

 

However, the Court of Cassation notes that the assessment made by the Judge did not fall within any hostile bias.

 

On the other hand, the measures taken were based on objective elements drawn from the personal situation of the parties.

 

But above all, Mr. Z had been able to exercise legal remedies since he had appealed against the decision, which allowed him to have his case heard before another court whose impartiality was not in dispute.

 

This was therefore likely to exclude any infringement of his rights.

 

What about the marriage contract for separation of property?

 

In addition, Mr. Z criticized the American judgment for having rejected without any valid reason the authentic French document received by a French public officer in the name of the French Republic, so that the rejection by the American judge of the French marriage contract was necessarily contrary to international public order.

 

In support of his argument, Mr. Z maintained that the choice of French family law, embodied in the authentic instrument had been a basis for forecasts for the parties, perfectly legitimate forecasts since the authentic instrument was valid in France.

 

So that the French marriage contract had to become binding in France, even if the American judge had, in his decision of June 28, 2002, peremptorily rejected the French authentic act.

 

Thus, the agreement concluded between the parties to the marriage contract was necessarily valid in France.

 

Mr. Z considering that the American judge violated French international public order as well as article 509 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as the principles which govern private international law.

 

It was therefore necessary to consider that, assuming that the marriage contract of separation of property by a French authentic instrument received by a French public officer in the name of the French Republic was set aside by a foreign judgment, it did not remain. less than the foreign judge had to at least take into account as a simple element of appreciation and equitable distribution operated by him at the time of liquidating the matrimonial regime of the spouses.

 

Consequently, Mr. Z considered that by declaring the American judgment of June 22, 2002 enforceable in France whereas he had set aside the marriage contract concluded in France, the latter did not respect the principles which govern private international law.

 

This all the more so since the marriage contract had crystallized the freedom for the spouses to choose the law applicable to their matrimonial regime and hence the marriage contract in that it determines the matrimonial regime guaranteed legal security and respect for legitimate expectations of the spouses.

 

In this way, he had to liquidate the patrimonial interests of the spouses in accordance with French law on the separation of property, chosen by the spouses at the time of marriage.

 

Mr. Z reproaching the American judge for having refused purely and simply to take into consideration the marriage contract and the common will of the spouses thus expressed by liquidating the patrimonial and pecuniary interests of the two divorced spouses, the American judge relying on the provisions of the law of the State of New York by simply rejecting the regime of marriage contract of separation of property chosen by the spouses at the time of their marriage.

 

This question was at the heart of the debates.

 

What about the opposability of an American judgment in France, when the said American judgment excludes the application of a French marriage contract of separation of property, signed by the parties in the authentic form and received by a French public officer?

 

However, the Court of Cassation considers that a decision rendered by a foreign court, which by application of its national law refuses to give effect to a marriage contract received in France is not in itself contrary to international public order. French substantive and can only be ruled out if it concretely enshrines a situation incompatible with the principles of French law considered essential.

 

In this decision, the Court of Cassation recalls that the dispute relates essentially to the life of the couple in the United States and the spouses immediately established themselves after the marriage and have continued to reside there.

 

This is also where their children were born and where the husband obtained diplomas and developed various professional activities and where the couple’s real estate assets were finally located on the day of the divorce petition.

 

So that to distribute the common property in proportion of 75% to the wife and 25% to the husband, the American judge could proceed to the liquidation of the patrimonial interests to the spouses according to the principle of equitable distribution in accordance with the matrimonial regime in force. in the United States and in the state of New York.

 

The New York judge had moreover taken into account the income and expenses of the parties and the consequences of the common choices made during the marriage, so that nothing provided by Mr. Z suggested that there was a disproportionate nature in the effects resulting directly from the American decision rendered and for which the exequatur was requested.

 

The Court of Cassation considering that the dispute was essentially linked to the United States and that the foreign decision in application of the law of the forum for the liquidation of the economic rights of the spouses had not concretely established a situation incompatible with the principles essentials of French law.

 

Consequently, it was necessary to reject the argument relating to the concept of irreconcilability, and that neither the principle of the freedom of matrimonial agreements of public order in domestic law nor the objectives of legal certainty and foreseeability invoked. could stand in the way of recognition in France of the American decision.

 

The last point of concern for Mr. Z was the issue related to the exercise of parental authority, which falls under French international public order.

 

However, he criticized the foreign divorce judgment for nullifying the joint exercise of parental authority by giving the mother the right to make all decisions concerning the children alone without any justification other than the bad mutual relations between the parents. thus violating the essential principle of French law based on the equality of parents in the exercise of parental authority.

Indeed, Mr. Z did not accept the fact that American judgments provided that the final decision would in all cases rest with the mother, thereby depriving the father of any parental authority.

 

A final point was also raised by Mr. Z

 

Exequatur and parental authority

 

Here again, the Court of Cassation considers that if the principle of equality of parents with regard to parental authority falls within French international public order, the circumstance that a foreign decision reserves to one of the parents the care of take certain decisions relating to children alone, not in accordance with the principles of parental authority as enshrined in French law.

 

However, the Court noted that the American decision which organizes the rights of visits and accommodation of the father taking into account the geographical distance of the latter in accordance with the agreement of the parties, provides him with regular meetings with his children during the school year and the holidays.

 

The Court then held, with regard to the modalities of exercise of parental authority, that the American judgments were based on the recommendations of an expert psychiatrist in order to reserve the final decision for the mother in the event of disagreement,

 

The American judge justifying his decision by underlining, on the one hand, the bad relations between the parents who did not manage to discuss the issues of the education of their children through the divorce proceedings, and on the other hand, by the interest for children to avoid constant conflicts concerning their lives.

 

The Court finally recalls that these judgments recall the duty to consult the father, to take his preferences and concerns and to try to include him in the significant events in the life of the children.

 

Thus the Court of Cassation considered that the American decision showed that the measures relating to the children had been adopted by reference to their best interests and that the rights of the father had not been disregarded, the latter having to be , each time, consulted before any decision.

 

The Court of Cassation thus decides that the American decision should be recognized in the French legal order in the absence of violation of international public order.

 

It is in these circumstances that Mr. Z’s appeal is dismissed.

 

 This case law, which addresses several points, is interesting in several ways.

 

It highlights the possible paradoxes of the exequatur procedure.

 

Two lessons stand out.

 

First, it is clear that the marriage contract of separation of property cannot necessarily survive beyond French borders, which must lead every French national settling permanently abroad to transpose this French separatist marriage contract. in local law.

Second, it perfectly illustrates the procedural difficulties specific to the exequatur procedure by not losing sight of the need to defend oneself properly in the country where the divorce procedure is initiated, and this, without waiting to see the foreign decision exequatur. in France.

 

The synergy between foreign law firms and French lawyers remains more than ever a necessity, hence the investment of Maître Laurent Latapie, French lawyer, in the International Union of Lawyers.

 

 

Article written by Maître Laurent LATAPIE,

Lawyer, PhD, Doctor of Law,

www.laurent-latapie-avocat.fr

Divorce in France of spouses of foreign nationality, and outside the EU, is it possible if the place of residence of the parent with whom the minor child or children usually resides in the event of the joint exercise of parental authority is inFrance ? Is the French family court judge competent? Example of a Moldavian-Russian divorce under the jurisdiction of a French family court judge.

Article :

It is worth looking at a case law that was recently issued in June 2020 and which addresses the issue of the application of the Brussels 2 regulation, in matters of international divorce Even so, and this is the peculiarity of this case law, we would not only be dealing with an intra-European divorce.

 

Reminder of the facts of this international divorce:

 

In this case, Mr C of Moldovan and Romanian nationality and Mrs J of Bulgarian and Russian nationality, were married in Chisinau, in the Republic of Moldova.

 

Madame J a, by request of October 13, 2017, filed a request for divorce with the Family Affairs Judge in France.

 

By order of January 18, 2018, rendered by default, the French family court judge had, after having retained his own jurisdiction, that is, the jurisdiction of the French judge in application of French law relating to the divorce of spouses, maintenance obligations and liability. parental.

 

The French family court judge therefore issued an order of non-conciliation of the spouses and, at the same time, prescribed the measures necessary to ensure the residence of the wife and that of the children, living in France, until the date on which the divorce judgment would have become final.

 

On the conflict of jurisdiction and jurisdiction:

 

However, Mr C, for his part, argued that on June 28, 2017, he himself had seized for the same purposes of divorce, the Moldovan judge, who by a decision of December 15, 2017, appealed against by Mrs J had pronounced the divorce of the spouses and had fixed the residence of the minors with the father in Moldova.

 

Therefore, which decision to apply and which competence to retain?

 

Mr. C, taking advantage of these proceedings in Moldova, had then strongly contested, before the Court of Appeal, the jurisdiction of the French judge in favor of the Moldovan jurisdiction.

 

The question arose as to whether or not the French judge was competent even if he pronounced the provisional measures ending the marriage between two people who were not of French nationality, were not even within the competence of nationality. intra-European and who had otherwise married and had even fixed their first common residence outside the European Union, and in this case, in Moldova.

 

The divorce proceedings initiated in Moldova had not slowed down the French judge, who, as part of his French proceedings, had retained the application of the European regulation Brussels 2 bis to recognize the jurisdiction of the French court and thus rule on the provisional measures in the context of divorce proceedings initiated by the wife, in France.

 

However, the difficulty is that the Brussels 2 regulation on the competence for the recognition of the enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility entering into force in 2005 is intended to regulate only the relations between nationals of the European Union.

 

Which was not the case with the Republic of Moldova

 

Indeed, the Republic of Moldova being an independent state, had not yet joined the European Union and was therefore not subject to the internal regulations that governed it.

 

It should be remembered that the rule of conflict of jurisdictions is governed in French law by Articles 14 and 15 of the Civil Code which recognizes the jurisdiction of French courts in the event of a dispute between a foreigner and a French person.

 

These texts of domestic law therefore do not seem to be applicable in the present case since neither of the two spouses had French nationality.

 

All the more so as no bilateral agreement had been concluded between France and the Republic of Moldova, establishing specific rules on conflict of jurisdictions.

 

In such a way that it was necessary to apply private international law and therefore to turn to the Hague Convention and to look at the couple’s first domicile and the place of marriage which suddenly could generate jurisdiction in France.

 

While it is true that the couple had lived in France, neither of them had French nationality and the marriage had not been celebrated in France, which posed difficulties.

 

All the more so as they had strong ties with the Republic of Moldova.

 

Indeed, Mr C. was of Moldovan nationality.

 

Their marriage had been celebrated and the latter owns a family home in which the couple and their children regularly went to spend their holidays.

 

All these elements also explained that Mr. C had seized the Moldovan jurisdiction in July 2017 to initiate divorce proceedings.

 

So that Mr. C considered that Ms. J was in complete bad faith in instituting a second divorce proceeding through a request filed in France before the French Family Affairs Judge.

 

This commented case law recalls, however, that EC regulation n ° 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 constitutes the common law of member states in matrimonial matters.

This applies once one of the competence criteria set out in Article 3 is met.

 

It does not matter that the spouses are nationals of a non-member state of the European Union.

 

Is the French family court judge competent?

 

To understand, in application of the ordinary rules of international jurisdiction, the French courts obtained by extension to the international order of the rules of internal territorial jurisdiction which take precedence over the exorbitant rules of articles 14 and 15 of the civil code, the business judge French family is competent.

 

Thus, the divorce in France of spouses of foreign nationality, and outside the EU, is perfectly possible if the place of residence of the parent with whom the minor child or children usually resides in the event of the joint exercise of parental authority is in France.

 

It was therefore up to the French Family Affairs Judge to verify whether the habitual residence of Mrs J with her children was indeed in France and not in Moldova.

 

And in such a case, that would justify the competence of the French jurisdiction with regard to the Brussels 2 bis regulation.

 

While it is true that French private international law does not know the forum rule, this does not suit the rule which offers the judge of the forum to decline jurisdiction for a court of a state with which the dispute represents strong support, the fact remains that, notwithstanding the existence of perhaps stronger links between the dispute and Moldova, the Brussels 2 bis regulation would allow referral to the French courts.

 

The Court of Cassation rightly considers that the visa of article 3 of regulation 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 “Brussels 2 bis” relating to jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions of  » a regime in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility, that it follows from this text that a court of a Member State is competent to hear a petition for divorce when the alternatives of jurisdiction are located on the territory of that state.

 

It is immaterial whether the spouses are nationals of a third state or whether the defendant spouse is domiciled in a third state.

 

This decision is interesting.

 

It specifies that when a spouse is domiciled in France with his children, regardless of whether he is a citizen of foreign nationality, even outside the European Union, he has the right to refer the matter to the French Family Affairs Judge to consider a procedure. of divorce and fix all provisional measures for the spouses and for the children, until the divorce is definitively pronounced, and this, regardless of the nationality of the spouses and the nationality of the children.

 

Article written by Maître Laurent LATAPIE,

Lawyer, Doctor of Law,

www.laurent-latapie-avocat.fr