1 BY ORDER OF 17 JANUARY 1984 , RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 1 MARCH 1984 , THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE , VERSAILLES , REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING A QUESTION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONVENTION OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1968 ON JURISDICTION AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS IN CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL MATTERS ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' ' THE CONVENTION ' ' ).
2 ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONVENTION , WHICH DEALS COMPREHENSIVELY WITH THE POWER TO GRANT AN ORDER FOR ENFORCEMENT IN RESPECT OF DECISIONS OF THE TYPE COVERED BY THE CONVENTION GIVEN IN A CONTRACTING STATE , PROVIDES THAT APPLICATION MUST BE MADE , ' ' IN FRANCE , TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE ' ' , WHICH , IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 34 OF THE CONVENTION , MUST GIVE ITS DECISION WITHOUT DELAY AND WITHOUT THE PARTY AGAINST WHOM ENFORCEMENT IS SOUGHT BEING ENTITLED , AT THAT STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS , TO MAKE ANY SUBMISSIONS ON THE APPLICATION .
3 IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE , VERSAILLES , HAS BEFORE IT AN APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF A DECISION , DATED 26 MARCH 1979 , OF A COURT IN LAUTERBACH , FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY , ORDERING GISELE MAITRE TO PAY , AS A CONSEQUENCE OF HER DIVORCE , MAINTENANCE IN RESPECT OF HER SON CHRISTOPH VON GALLERA . DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AFOREMENTIONED CHAMBER , NO OBJECTION WAS RAISED AS TO ITS JURISDICTION ; HOWEVER , THE CHAMBER ADDRESSED ITSELF TO THE QUESTION WHETHER
' ' ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONVENTION CONFERS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION ON THE COURT WHICH IT DESIGNATES IN A CONTRACTING STATE TO HEAR APPLICATIONS FOR ORDERS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS GIVEN IN OTHER CONTRACTING STATES ' '
AND WHETHER IT SHOULD THEREFORE RAISE THE MATTER OF ITS LACK OF JURISDICTION OF ITS OWN MOTION . REFERRING TO ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY , THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE , VERSAILLES , SUBMITTED THAT QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE .
4 UNLIKE ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY , WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE , ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ) OF THE PROTOCOL CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONVENTION BY THE COURT OF JUSTICE SIGNED ON 3 JUNE 1971 , RESERVES THE POWER TO REQUEST THE COURT OF JUSTICE TO GIVE PRELIMINARY RULINGS ON QUESTIONS OF INTERPRETATION TO THE COURTS DESIGNATED BY NAME THEREIN AND TO THE ' ' COURTS OF THE CONTRACTING STATES WHEN THEY ARE SITTING IN AN APPELLATE CAPACITY ' ' .
5 THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE , VERSAILLES , IS NOT ONE OF THE COURTS SET OUT IN ARTICLE 2 , AND IT IS NOT SITTING IN AN APPELLATE CAPACITY IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS . THUS , THE COURT OF JUSTICE MANIFESTLY HAS NO JURISDICTION TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE PRESENT REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING ; CONSEQUENTLY , IT MUST AVAIL ITSELF OF THE POSSIBILITY , PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 92 ( 1 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE , READ TOGETHER WITH ARTICLE 103 ( 2 ), OF DECLARING THE REQUEST INADMISSIBLE BY ORDER .
ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT ,
HAVING HEARD THE VIEWS OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL ,
HEREBY RULES :
THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL DE GRANDE INSTANCE , VERSAILLES , BY JUDGMENT OF 17 JANUARY 1984 IS INADMISSIBLE .
