TFL Vsebine / Zbornik znanstvenih razprav

Prispevek obravnava nekatere vidike pravil o pristojnosti iz uredb št. 1103 in 1104, ki jih je sprejel Evropski svet 24. junija 2016 in ki obravnavata premoženjska razmerja parov z različnimi državljanstvi. Najpomembnejši vidik teh pravil je koncentracija pristojnosti v primeru tekočih postopkov v zadevah dedovanja, sporih glede statusa v zakonski zvezi ali prenehanja registrirane zveze. V dednopravnih zadevah obe uredbi to merilo postavljata na prvo mesto, s čimer se zagotavlja pravna varnost in ekonomičnost postopka. Po drugi strani pa lahko avtonomija strank na področju sodnih sporov, povezanih s partnersko ali zakonsko zvezo, pomembno vpliva na pristojnost. Uredba 1103/2016 določa nekatere primere, v katerih je dodelitev pristojnosti za primere premoženjskih razmerij odvisna od sporazuma med zakoncema. V Uredbi 1104 se sporazum strank celo vedno zahteva, tako da sodišče države članice, ki odloča o registriranem partnerstvu, lah ko pristojnost razširi tudi na premoženjske posledice. Prispevek obravnava tudi vpliv avtonomije strank, ki se izraža tako s sporazumom o izbiri sodišča kot tudi s sprejemanjem pristojnosti na podlagi nastopa toženca. Čeprav lahko v praksi pravila o pristojnosti prinesejo nekatere težave, jih je mogoče odpraviti z izobraževanjem strank, tako da se lahko pri uveljavljanju svoje avtonomije glede izbire prava in pozneje tudi sodišča informirano odločijo.

The present paper explores some aspects of rules of jurisdiction included in Regulations No. 1103 and 1104 adopted by the European Council on 24 June 2016 in the field of property regimes of transnational couples. The most significant aspect of these rules is concentration of jurisdiction in the event of pending proceedings in matters of succes-sion, matrimonial status or dissolution of a registered union. In matters of succession, both Regulations give this criterion an imperative character, to satisfy the need for cer-tainty and procedural economy. On the other hand, in the field of litigation related to matrimonial or partnership crisis, the autonomy of parties may have a significant impact on jurisdiction by connection. Indeed, Regulation 1103/2016 provides some cases in which the allocation of jurisdiction on property regime cases shall be subject to the agreement of the spouses, and even in Regulation 1104 the agreement of the parties is always requested so that a court of a Member State seised to rule on a registered part-nership may extend its jurisdiction to rule on property consequences as well. Another issue investigated is the significance of party autonomy, expressible through a choice-of-court agreement as well as the acceptance of jurisdiction based on the appearance of the defendant. Although the practical functioning of rules of jurisdiction may present some problems, these difficulties can be addressed by educating the parties so they can make well-informed decisions in the exercise of their private autonomy through the choice of Law and later, the choice of Court.