( 83 ) In the light of these, and taking into account the drafting history of Regulation No , ( 84 ) it is my view that the use of that opening phrase is simply a reference to the situations which are described in Article 10 in order to define the circumstances caught by that article, as the Commission states, and cannot be understood as reflecting an intention on the part of the legislature to limit the application of that provision exclusively to dissolutions in which the discrimination in question has actually occurred.
In any event, in accordance with settled case-law, the wording used in one language version of a provision of EU law cannot serve as the sole basis for the interpretation of that provision or be given priority over the versions established in the other languages. Consequently, where there is divergence between the various language versions of an EU legislative text, the scope of the provision in question must be assessed by reference to the general scheme and purpose of the rules of which it forms part. ( 85 )
More specifically, Article 10 of that regulation must be interpreted in the light of Article 12 thereof, which allows a provision of the law designated by virtue of that instrument to be disregarded where its application would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the forum, as well as in the light of recital 25 of that regulation, which relates to the content of Article 12. ( 86 )
The interpretation which I am proposing that the Court adopt is, in my view, confirmed, in the second place https://www.hookupdate.net/es/blued-review, by the general scheme of Regulation No
In that regard, Mr Mamisch and the German Government contend that, in so far as it constitutes a derogation from the rules designating the law applicable in principle and a particular expression of the general public policy exception referred to above, Article 10 of Regulation No must be interpreted strictly, and that the existence of discrimination must accordingly be investigated on a case-by-case basis, at the very least when it comes to examining the validity of a divorce which has already been pronounced in another State. ( 87 )
The need for the uniform application and, therefore, interpretation of an EU act precludes that act from being considered in only one of its versions
I, like the Hungarian and Portuguese Governments and the Commission, consider it inappropriate to interpret the scope of Article 10 of Regulation No restrictively by carrying out a ‘teleological reduction’, in the words of the referring court, which has the consequence of requiring the foreign law to be discriminatory not only by reason of its content but also in the light of its actual effects.
A comparison of both the wording and the spirit of those provisions shows that Article 10 cannot be regarded as a mere variation on the public policy reservation set out in Article 12 of that regulation, ( 88 ) even though those provisions are complementary. ( 89 ) After all, Article 10 is formulated in broader terms, since it makes it possible to disapply the foreign law in its entirety rather than simply to stand in the way of an isolated ‘provision’ deemed to be incompatible with the public policy of the forum, as provided for in Article 12. Moreover, unlike Article 12, which gives national courts the freedom to assess on a discretionary basis the existence of an infringement of public policy, Article 10 contains no such discretion, ( 90 ) but is intended to apply quasi-automatically once the court seised establishes that the conditions laid down there are actually met. ( 91 )