This is general information for Romanian diaspora families and is not legal advice; forum selection in cross-border divorce is fact-sensitive and should be assessed on your documents and timeline.
If you and your spouse live in different countries, you can easily end up with two (or more) courts that appear “competent” at the same time, plus separate tracks for children, maintenance, and assets.
In the EU, the first court properly seized can block (or at least freeze) later filings elsewhere, which is why timing, service, and evidence of habitual residence matter as much as the merits of the divorce itself (see “seising” and lis pendens in Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 (Brussels II ter)).
1) Start with the “map”: what can be decided where
A premium cross-border strategy begins by separating four questions that people often mix up: (1) divorce status, (2) children, (3) maintenance (child or spousal support), and (4) property division.
Even if one country is best for the divorce itself, another may be better (or unavoidable) for maintenance or assets, depending on the relevant instruments and where enforcement will happen.
Key terms you will hear in a cross-border consultation
- Habitual residence: a factual “centre of life” concept used heavily in EU family jurisdiction rules; the CJEU has clarified that a spouse may have multiple residences but only one habitual residence at a given time for EU divorce jurisdiction purposes (CJEU Press Release, concept of habitual residence in Brussels IIa context).
- Nationality / citizenship: can be a jurisdiction hook in some EU scenarios (see Brussels II ter, Article 3).
- Seising / first seized court: the “race to court” trigger, defined in Brussels II ter, Article 17.
- Lis pendens: the anti-parallel-proceedings mechanism forcing the second court to stay/decline once the first court’s jurisdiction is established (see Brussels II ter, Article 20).
2) EU–EU divorces: your decision tree under Brussels II ter
If both countries are EU Member States (for proceedings started on or after 1 August 2022, per Brussels II ter, Article 100 and Article 105), jurisdiction for divorce/legal separation/annulment is determined primarily by habitual residence and, in limited configurations, by common nationality.
Brussels II ter lists alternative jurisdiction grounds (meaning several courts can be available at once), including where spouses are habitually resident, where they were last habitually resident and one still resides there, or where the respondent is habitually resident (see the full list in Brussels II ter, Article 3).
The “race to court” is real in the EU, and it is mostly about procedure
When multiple EU courts could hear the divorce, the first court properly seized gains priority and the second court must stay the case until the first court’s jurisdiction is confirmed; if the first court has jurisdiction, the second must decline (see Brussels II ter, Article 20).
“Seised” is not just “I decided to file”; it depends on the exact procedural step under national law and whether the applicant took the required steps for service (see the definition in Brussels II ter, Article 17).
Practical implication: you must decide forum early, before emotions decide timing for you
A “premium” approach is not filing fast at any cost; it is filing correctly in the forum that best matches your enforcement reality (kids, assets, income streams), and doing it with a complete jurisdiction package (proof of habitual residence, service plan, and a parallel-proceedings prevention plan).
3) EU choice of law: Rome III can reduce forum-shopping surprises
In many cross-border EU divorces, the court that has jurisdiction and the law applied to the divorce are separate questions, and the applicable law can sometimes be chosen by the spouses under Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 (Rome III).
Rome III allows spouses to agree on the law applicable to divorce/legal separation within the options listed (e.g., law of habitual residence, last habitual residence, nationality, or the forum’s law), subject to its conditions (see Rome III, Article 5 and formal requirements in Rome III, Article 7).
Strategically, a well-timed choice-of-law discussion can prevent a later “tactical” filing from changing the legal framework unexpectedly, but it must be done carefully and only where Rome III applies and the facts support it (Rome III (enhanced cooperation framework)).
4) When one spouse is outside the EU: Romania’s “fallback” rules and the recognition angle
If your case is not fully inside the EU system (e.g., EU–UK, EU–USA/Canada), EU jurisdiction tools may not solve everything, and Romania’s private international law rules in the Code of Civil Procedure become central for any Romanian filing or for recognition steps.
Romania’s international jurisdiction is governed by Book VII of the Code of Civil Procedure, including the basic rule that Romanian courts have international jurisdiction if the defendant has domicile/residence in Romania at the start of proceedings (see Code of Civil Procedure, Article 1.066 and the general framework in Articles 1.065–1.069).
Romanian law also provides a “forum of necessity” mechanism for exceptional situations where you cannot reasonably access a foreign court and the case has sufficient connection to Romania (see Code of Civil Procedure, Article 1.069).
In practice, a diaspora case often needs a two-layer plan: (1) where to dissolve the marriage, and (2) where to make that divorce effective for Romanian authorities, property registers, and enforcement realities, depending on the instrument pathway applicable to your country pair (EU recognition tools under Brussels II ter versus non-EU recognition procedures under Romanian law in Book VII, Title III).
5) UK after Brexit: how to think about EU–UK parallel filings
For England and Wales, the UK government has published guidance explaining that for cases starting after the end of the transition period, the court applies relevant non-EU rules for jurisdiction and that new jurisdictional rules based on Brussels IIa grounds were inserted into domestic legislation (see UK Ministry of Justice guidance (family law disputes involving the EU)).
One of the core statutory anchors for divorce jurisdiction in England and Wales is section 5 of the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973 (see DMPOA 1973, section 5).
Strategically, EU-style “automatic” lis pendens rules are not a universal shield in EU–UK pairs, so preventing parallel proceedings is more about early forum commitment, clean service, and coordinated steps to persuade the second forum to stay or narrow the case than about relying on a single mandatory mechanism.
6) USA/Canada: avoid a split between “status” and “money/assets”
In North America, divorce jurisdiction is primarily local (state/province) and residence requirements are not harmonised at federal level in the USA (see general explanations in Cornell Law School (LII) – Divorce and jurisdiction nuances like LII – Ex parte divorce).
In Canada, federal legislation provides that a court in a province has jurisdiction to grant a divorce if either spouse has been ordinarily resident in that province for at least one year immediately preceding the proceeding (see Canada Divorce Act, section 3).
Canada also regulates recognition of foreign divorces in the Divorce Act (see Canada Divorce Act, section 22), which becomes relevant when you need the divorce to “travel” back to Romania for civil status and asset administration.
7) Parallel proceedings map: one couple, multiple legal tracks
| Issue | EU tool (typical) | EU–UK / EU–US/Canada practical anchor | Strategic note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Divorce status | Brussels II ter (2019/1111) | UK domestic rules (see UK MoJ guidance) / local US-Canadian rules | Choose the forum with the best enforcement pathway for your next steps (status + documents + registries). |
| Children (parental responsibility / relocation risks) | Brussels II ter plus Hague layer for abduction interfaces | Hague child abduction framework where applicable (1980 Child Abduction Convention) | Do not let divorce filing timing create a child relocation “facts on the ground” problem. |
| Maintenance (child/spousal support) | Maintenance Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 | Hague maintenance recovery cooperation can matter outside the EU (2007 Child Support Convention) | Support can become a parallel case even if divorce is “single-track”; plan it from day one. |
| Property division / matrimonial property regime | Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 (where applicable) | Often still needs Romania-based enforcement steps for Romanian assets | Assets in Romania frequently require Romania-facing moves even if divorce is abroad. |
| Service of documents and evidence | Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 and Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 | Outside the EU: 1965 Hague Service Convention is often the backbone | Bad service can destroy your timing advantage and invite a competing filing. |
8) The practical playbook: how to prevent parallel divorce lawsuits
Use the following steps as a risk-control checklist before anyone files anything (including you, your spouse, or a lawyer abroad).
- Build a jurisdiction file: addresses, employment, tax residence, registrations, children’s school and medical records, and travel pattern evidence to support habitual residence (EU focus: Brussels II ter, Article 3).
- Decide the target forum first, then decide the filing date; do not “file fast” without a service plan and document completeness (EU timing logic: Brussels II ter, Article 17).
- Run a parallel-proceedings risk test: what can your spouse file tomorrow in their country, and what would it block via lis pendens or practice-based stays (EU: Brussels II ter, Article 20; UK: see UK MoJ guidance).
- If non-EU service is needed, confirm whether the target country uses the Hague Service framework and plan the Central Authority route early (1965 Hague Service Convention).
- Where children are involved, decide the child-centric forum and protective steps before divorce timing escalates (cross-border abduction risk tool: 1980 Child Abduction Convention).
- Where support is relevant, plan maintenance jurisdiction and enforcement from the start (EU: Maintenance Regulation 4/2009; outside EU often: 2007 Child Support Convention).
- For Romanian filings, validate Romanian international jurisdiction and any necessity arguments under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC, Articles 1.065–1.069).
- Consider a controlled “notice” strategy: once filed, notify the other side promptly and formally to reduce the incentive for tactical duplicate filings.
- If a second forum is already seized, act fast with a stay/decline strategy anchored in the correct rule set (EU lis pendens: Brussels II ter, Article 20).
- Ensure the endgame is executable in Romania: civil status updates, registry entries, and asset administration often require Romania-facing steps even after a foreign divorce (Romanian CPC Book VII).
Forum selection scorecard (quick self-check)
| Factor | Why it matters | What to gather now |
|---|---|---|
| Habitual residence evidence | It can unlock or exclude EU jurisdiction grounds and affect “first seized” priority | Lease, payroll, tax, utility bills, school and medical records, travel pattern |
| Children’s real centre of life | Children issues can force a separate forum if ignored | School enrollment, childcare, doctor, visas, written parenting history |
| Income and enforcement country | Support orders are only valuable if enforceable where money is | Employer details, bank jurisdictions, asset map |
| Romanian assets exposure | Romanian property often requires Romania-facing steps | Land registry extracts, company shares, bank accounts, contracts |
| Service feasibility | Bad service can collapse timing advantages and invite parallel proceedings | Exact addresses, language needs, Hague Service route analysis |
9) Mini-scenarios (RO + DE, RO + UK, RO + USA/Canada)
Scenario A: Romanian spouses, one in Germany, one in Romania (RO + DE)
If one spouse is habitually resident in Germany and the other in Romania, both courts may look plausible depending on facts, because EU jurisdiction grounds are alternative and can overlap (see the list in Brussels II ter, Article 3).
If both files are launched, the first court properly seized takes priority and the second must stay/decline once jurisdiction is established (see Brussels II ter, Articles 17 and 20), so the practical winner is often the party with the cleaner service plan and better habitual residence evidence.
Scenario B: One spouse in England, one in Romania (RO + UK)
An England-and-Wales filing will be assessed under domestic jurisdiction rules, with section 5 of the DMPOA 1973 as a central reference point (DMPOA 1973, section 5), and UK post-transition guidance explains the framework shift for EU-linked disputes (UK MoJ guidance).
A Romania filing requires checking Romania’s international jurisdiction rules (starting point: CPC, Article 1.066), and the practical strategy usually focuses on avoiding two active tracks by aligning filing, service, and recognition objectives from the start.
Scenario C: One spouse in Romania, one in USA or Canada (RO + USA/Canada)
If Canada is involved, a province court can grant a divorce if the one-year ordinary residence condition is met (Canada Divorce Act, section 3), and you should plan the “Romania effectiveness” layer early via recognition and civil status steps (Canada Divorce Act, section 22 and Romania-facing procedures under Romanian CPC Book VII).
If the USA is involved, requirements and effects are largely state-law driven (overview: Cornell LII – Divorce), so preventing parallel proceedings is typically a coordination exercise: decide which forum handles status first, and ring-fence children/support/assets with a clean service and enforcement plan.
For service outside the EU, the backbone is often the Hague Service Convention where both states are parties, so you should plan the Central Authority route and realistic timelines from day one (1965 Hague Service Convention).
10) “10 screening questions” for a cross-border divorce consultation
Bring short, factual answers; these questions are designed to identify jurisdiction triggers, timing risks, and parallel-proceedings exposure.
- Where has each spouse lived in the last 12–24 months, and what documents prove it (lease, payroll, taxes, registration)?
- Where are the children habitually living now, and what changed in the last 6 months?
- Do you or your spouse have an immediate incentive to file first (deadlines, relocation, new relationship, immigration steps)?
- Which country holds the core assets (real estate, companies, savings), and where must enforcement happen?
- Has either spouse already contacted a lawyer abroad or prepared documents to file?
- Is there any history of unilateral relocation threats or travel disputes involving children (Hague risk indicator: 1980 Child Abduction Convention)?
- Is maintenance (child/spousal support) likely to be a major issue, and where is the payer’s income actually located (EU tool: Maintenance Regulation 4/2009)?
- Do you need the divorce to be immediately effective in Romania for civil status, property, or administrative steps?
- Is there any realistic argument for Romanian international jurisdiction or forum of necessity (Romania: CPC Articles 1.066 and 1.069)?
- What is your acceptable outcome model: fast status divorce, child-stability first, or asset-enforcement first (and what trade-offs are acceptable)?
Documents to prepare before you speak to a lawyer (diaspora-ready set)
- Marriage certificate and any prior court orders or agreements.
- Passports/IDs for spouses and children, plus proof of citizenship(s).
- Proof of residence and “centre of life” in each country (housing, employment, tax, schooling).
- Children’s documents: school enrollment, medical records, travel history, parenting schedules.
- Asset map: Romanian property documents, bank accounts, company shares, loans, major purchases.
- Income map: payslips, contracts, business records, and where payments are received.
- Any written communications relevant to timing and relocation (emails, messages, notices).
Common mistakes that create parallel proceedings (and costs) unnecessarily
- Filing “somewhere” before deciding the correct forum, then trying to repair jurisdiction later.
- Underestimating service of process and losing priority because the case was not properly progressed (EU timing logic: Brussels II ter, Article 17; outside EU often: 1965 Hague Service Convention).
- Ignoring maintenance or children until after filing for divorce, then being forced into a second jurisdiction.
- Assuming the “best” court is the one with the fastest divorce decree rather than the one with enforceable outcomes.
- Letting travel or relocation happen without a plan when children are involved (abduction framework reference: 1980 Child Abduction Convention).
Sources
- EUR-Lex: Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 (Brussels II ter)
- EUR-Lex: Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 (Rome III)
- EUR-Lex: Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 (Maintenance obligations)
- EUR-Lex: Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 (Matrimonial property regimes)
- EUR-Lex: Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 (Service of documents, recast)
- EUR-Lex: Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 (Taking of evidence, recast)
- legislatie.just.ro: Code of Civil Procedure (Romania), Book VII (international jurisdiction and related rules)
- GOV.UK: Family law disputes involving the EU (guidance for legal professionals)
- legislation.gov.uk: Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, section 5
- Justice Laws (Canada): Divorce Act, section 3 (jurisdiction)
- Justice Laws (Canada): Divorce Act, section 22 (recognition of foreign divorces)
- HCCH: 1965 Hague Service Convention (full text)
- HCCH: 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention (full text)
- HCCH: 2007 Child Support Convention (full text)
- Cornell Law School (LII): Divorce (overview)
- Cornell Law School (LII): Ex parte divorce (overview)
- CJEU (Curia): Press release on habitual residence and divorce jurisdiction
Discreet CTA
If you are in the diaspora and your case touches two or more jurisdictions (EU, UK, USA/Canada), a short strategic consultation can clarify (1) the best filing forum, (2) how to prevent parallel proceedings, and (3) what Romania-facing steps are needed for assets and civil status.
You can contact the law office here: Contact (English) – Măglaș Alexandru – Law Office (Bucharest).