EDG v RR

Under Article 41 of the Maintenance Regulation No. 4/2009, a maintenance decision enforceable in another Member State must be enforced under the same conditions as a domestic decision. Direct enforcement therefore requires no special or additional procedural steps. Where domestic implementing regulations appear to require transmission through a magistrates’ court, they must be construed consistently with that right. An apparent reference to direct enforcement under Chapter IV was corrected to a reference to delegated enforcement under Chapter VII. The applicant could accordingly issue a general enforcement application in the Principal Registry of the Family Division.

The applicant sought enforcement in England of a French order dated 14 May 2013 requiring monthly child maintenance. The respondent had made no payments. The applicant wished to use the direct-enforcement route in Chapter IV of the Maintenance Regulation No. 4/2009, including the general enforcement machinery under rule 33.3 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010, rather than delegated enforcement through the Lord Chancellor and a magistrates’ court.

The issue was whether paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Maintenance) Regulations 2011 required the application to be transmitted to a magistrates’ court despite Articles 17 and 41 of the Regulation.

1. Application granted. The applicant was entitled to issue her application for general enforcement in the Principal Registry of the Family Division.
2. Article 41 of the Maintenance Regulation No. 4/2009 requires a decision enforceable in the enforcing Member State to be enforced under the same conditions as a domestic decision. Article 17 confirms that recognition requires no special procedure where the relevant conditions are met. Direct enforcement of the French order therefore did not require any additional procedural step.
3. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Maintenance) Regulations 2011 was ambiguous. Subparagraph (1) referred to enforcement under Chapter IV, the direct-enforcement route, while subparagraph (2) contemplated transmission by the Lord Chancellor, which was apt only to delegated enforcement under Chapter VII.
4. The court construed the reference to Chapter IV as a mistake and read it as a reference to Chapter VII. That construction reconciled the two subparagraphs and preserved the applicant’s unfettered right to direct enforcement under Article 41. Requiring use of a magistrates’ court would not place the foreign decision under the same conditions as a domestic decision enforceable in the County Court or High Court.
5. The court noted that the imminent creation of the single Family Court might make the existing enforcement arrangements anomalous. It invited the Ministry of Justice draftsmen to consider amending the 2011 Regulations, but this observation was not necessary to the decision.