PARENTS IN family disputes who are ordered to pay maintenance and who go to another EU state will face enforcement proceedings there under a new EU regulation Ireland has signed.
A maintenance order from an Irish court will now be easily enforceable by another EU court, according to family law expert Geoffrey Shannon.
The new regulation will not apply in our nearest neighbour, the UK, as it has not signed up to the regulation, he said. But an older and more cumbersome procedure will continue to apply there.
Mr Shannon told a European conference on family law yesterday that Ireland had opted into a protocol that required it to implement European law in relation to the maintenance of dependants. This has never happened before and it means Irish judges will be applying foreign law in relation to some family law matters.
Ireland has not opted in to another EU regulation on divorce between citizens of different EU states, which comes into force at the end of the year, he said. This could lead to anomalies, with the maintenance aspects of a marriage breakdown regulated under the law of another EU state, but not the divorce.
“This new regulation means there is no hiding place for those who seek to avoid paying maintenance,” he said.
Ireland decided not to opt in to the regulation that will allow divorcing parties from different countries choose the jurisdiction under which they would divorce. For citizens of those states who do opt in, it means they can sign an agreement as to which law they wish to divorce under. The courts can also decide on the basis of establishing a firm connection between one of the parties and the jurisdiction in question.
This measure is the successor to a regulation known as Brussels II, which already made some provision for a couple from different member states of the EU to opt for one or other jurisdiction, based on a number of criteria.
This had created anomalies with Irish law, whereby an Irish citizen married to someone from another EU country could have a divorce without waiting for the four years prescribed by the Constitution. It also gave an impetus to “forum shopping”, whereby one party sought to make an early application to a court in another state in order to obtain the jurisdiction where he or she expected a more favourable outcome.