See, in that regard, Article 1071 of the Codul de procedură civilă (Code of Civil Procedure), cited in the order for reference in the case of OF (C‑759/18), currently pending before the Court (p. 5).

See, in particular, judgments in A (paragraphs 15 to 17), and of 6 October 2015, A (C‑489/14, EU:C:2015:654, paragraphs 13 and 14), and order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2018, PM (C‑604/17, not published, EU:C:2018:10, paragraphs 12 à 14), and judgment of 4 October 2018, IQ (C‑478/17, EU:C:2018:812, paragraphs 13 and 14). See, in addition, the request for a preliminary ruling in OF (C‑759/18), currently pending before the Court, which refers, in paragraph 13, to numerous similar cases concerning Romanian nationals habitually resident in another Member State, in that particular case in Italy, which relate to the jurisdiction of the court seised in matters of parental responsibility and the maintenance obligation, in the same circumstances as those of the main proceedings.

In that regard, the referring court has observed that, in accordance with national law, in such a case, the matters of parental authority and maintenance are ancillary to the divorce petition (Article 931(2) of the Code of [Civil] Procedure). The choice of the criterion of the spouses’ nationality may also be justified by the designation of the law applicable to the separation. In that regard, it may be emphasised that the United Kingdom is not bound by Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (OJ 2010 L 343, p. 10).

See point 22 of this Opinion.

Article 4 of Regulation No 4/2009, entitled Choice of court, is not to apply to a dispute relating to a maintenance obligation towards a child under the age of 18, in accordance with paragraph 3. Article 6 of that regulation provides for subsidiary jurisdiction based on the common nationality of the parties, while Article 7 of that regulation establishes a forum necessitatis.

See, with regard to the lack of opposition from the father to the jurisdiction of the court seised of those proceedings, point 25 of this Opinion.

As regards the application of that criterion, see judgment of 18 December 2014, Sanders and Huber (C‑400/13 and C‑408/13, EU:C:2014:2461, and especially, on the justification for that criterion, paragraph 34).

See definition of maintenance creditor in Article 2(10) of Regulation No 4/2009. Cf. Article 46 of that regulation on free legal aid for applications concerning maintenance to children. See also judgment of 15 January 2004, Blijdenstein (C‑433/01, EU:C:2004:21, paragraph 30, from which it is apparent that the maintenance creditor is the person whose needs must be determined by the court seised). See, in addition, Fongaro, E., and Hector, P., Obligation alimentaire, Répertoire de droit européen, Encyclopédie juridique Dalloz, Dalloz, Paris, 2018, point 97, and also Ancel, B., and Muir Watt, H., Aliments sans frontières, Revue critique de droit international privé, Dalloz, Paris, 2010, No 3, pp. 457 to 484, in particular point 4, footnote 9 (p. 460), and point 8 (pp. 463 and 464). See, to the same effect, Hellner, M., Maintenance obligations, Encyclopedia of Private International Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, 2017, pp. 1185 to 1194, in particular p. 1190.

CF. the judgment of 4 October 2018, IQ (C‑478/17, EU:C:2018:812, paragraph 16).

It may be observed that this criterion was not taken into consideration for the divorce.

See points 24 and 31 of this Opinion.

In that case, the spouses and their two minor children were Italian and lived permanently in London (United Kingdom). An Italian court had been seised of claims relating to the marital link and to its consequences for the children, while proceedings had subsequently been initiated by the same applicant before a court of England and Wales to have the procedures for the exercise of parental responsibility defined. The court first seised inferred from Article 8(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 that only the United Kingdom courts had jurisdiction to entertain proceedings relating to parental responsibility, within the meaning of Article 2(7) of that regulation, because the children were habitually resident in London.

I share the opinion expressed by the European Commission that that article is a form of tacit prorogation of jurisdiction. To the same effect, see, in particular, Gallant, E., Droit processuel civil de l’Union européenne, LexisNexis, Paris, 2011, point 319, p. 109, who uses the same expression and explains that that rule authorises a court not having jurisdiction to adjudicate on maintenance obligations. Cf. Article 26(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2012 L 351, p. 1).

That, in my view, is the position in the context of the case relating to the maintenance obligation following the separation of the cases and, consequently, of the proceedings. See, in that respect, the referring court’s questions referred to in point 30 of this Opinion.

See Article 12 of Regulation No 4/2009.

See Article 13 of Regulation No 4/2009.

See, to that effect, Gallant, E., op. cit., point 313, p. 108.

See judgment in A (paragraphs 43 to 46 and, more particularly, the latter paragraph).

C‑604/17, not published, EU:C:2018:10.

C‑85/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:220.

See order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2018, PM (C‑604/17, not published, EU:C:2018:10, paragraph 33), and order of 10 April 2018, CV (C‑85/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:220, paragraph 55).

See, in particular, for a reminder of the interpretation method normally applied by the Court, judgment of 21 June 2018, Oberle (C‑20/17, EU:C:2018:485, paragraph 34).

See judgment in A (paragraphs 33, 34 and 48).

This article reproduced, without amendment, the wording of Article 5(2) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 36), as amended by the successive Conventions relating to the accession of the new Member States to that Convention (‘the Brussels Convention), including the addition in 1978 of the jurisdiction of the court seised of proceedings concerning the status of a person. See also Gaudemet-Tallon, H., and Ancel, M.-E., op. cit., point 219, p. 320.

See, to that effect, Boiché, A., Les règles de compétence judiciaire, dossier Recouvrement des obligations alimentaires dans l’Union, Actualité juridique: famille, Dalloz, Paris, 2009, No 3, pp. 107 to 112, in particular the commentary on Article 3(d) of Regulation No 4/2009.

See also, to that effect, Boiché, A., op. cit., in particular commentary on Article 10 of Regulation No 4/2009.

See Article 14 of Regulation No 4/2009.

See point 29 of this Opinion.

See footnote 8 of this Opinion.

Namely, if the Member State concerned is bound by that protocol, the creditor’s choice of a court of the Member State in which the defendant is habitually resident ensures the application of the lex fori, in application of Article 4(3) of that protocol.

See Article 23 et seq. of Regulation No 4/2009. See also, as regards the consequences of Brexit, which would lead to the United Kingdom being regarded as a third State and to the absence of effect as concerns the recognition of decisions since, as matters now stand, decisions delivered in the United Kingdom are not enforceable, Farge, M., Conjectures sur le Brexit … in Droit de la famille, La Semaine juridique, Édition générale, LexisNexis, Paris, 2016, No 38, pp. 1723 to 1729, in particular p. 1725. See also, Pilich, M., Brexit and EU private international law: May the UK stay in?, Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, Sage Publishing, New York, 2017, Vol. 24, No 3, pp. 382 to 398, in particular pp. 391 to 393.

See, in that regard, judgment of 9 February 2017, S. (C‑283/16, EU:C:2017:104, paragraphs 32 to 34 and the case law cited), and also recital 9 of Regulation No 4/2009, for a reminder of the objectives of simplicity and rapidity pursued by that regulation.

See, for a reminder of the objectives of Regulation No 4/2009 intended to ensure the effective recovery of maintenance claims in cross-border situations, recital 15 of that directive and also judgment of 18 December 2014, Sanders and Huber (C‑400/13 and C‑408/13, EU:C:2014:2461, paragraph 41). See also, for a detailed account of the rules on the recognition and enforcement of decisions delivered in a Member State not bound by the 2007 Hague Protocol, in particular, Fongaro, E., and Hector, P., op. cit., points 78 to 90.

See paragraph 31 of those observations.

See, for observations on the consequences of the system chosen in Regulation No 2201/2003, Ancel, B., and Muir Watt, H., L’intérêt supérieur de l’enfant dans le concert des juridictions: le Règlement Bruxelles II bis, Revue critique de droit international privé, Dalloz, Paris, 2005, No 4, pp. 569 to 606, in particular footnote 7 and reference to recital 6 of that regulation.

In fact, in that procedural context, a renunciation of that head of claim before the court initially seised, which has jurisdiction, might be regarded as a waiver of the maintenance obligation, contrary to public policy in the locus fori.

See judgment in A (paragraph 43).

In that regard, comparison may be made with the judgment of 4 October 2018, IQ (C‑478/17, EU:C:2018:812, paragraph 47).

See, in that regard, the reasoning for the lack of anticipation of current difficulties to be managed based on the finding, set out in recital 11 of Regulation No 2201/2003, that the courts having jurisdiction under this regulation will generally have jurisdiction to rule on maintenance obligations, referred to in the Commission’s Green Paper of 15 April 2004 on maintenance obligations (COM(2004) 254 final), point 5.1.1, p. 14.

That article introduced a rule inspired by the theory of forum non conveniens. It is also to be found in Articles 8 and 9 of the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (available at the following web address: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=70) which breaks the mechanism down into a transfer or claim of jurisdiction, in the words of Gallant, E., Le forum non conveniens de l’article 15 du règlement Bruxelles II bis, Revue critique de droit international privé, Dalloz, Paris, 2017, No 3, pp. 464 to 471, point 2.