Facts
Mrs. [A.], a national of Northern Ireland, and Mr. [A.], of Scottish nationality, were married on December 27, 1994 in Belfast. No children were born of this union. The parties were domiciled in Geneva and acquired a chalet in Vaud.
In September 2006, Mr. [A.] left the marital home without providing an explanation. In July 2007, Mrs. [A.] filed for divorce before the Justice of the Peace of the District of Aigle. On December 3, 2007, she filed a unilateral divorce petition before the Civil Court of the Eastern Vaud District. On December 18, 2007, Mr. [A.] filed for divorce in Scotland.
On February 26, 2009, the District Court pronounced the divorce of Spouses [A.] and referred the settlement of the effects of the divorce to a subsequent procedure. On February 22, 2011, the Appeals Chamber of the Vaud Cantonal Court dismissed Mr. A.'s appeal against this judgment.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal considered that the decision pronouncing the divorce constituted a partial judgment that could and should be the subject of an immediate appeal.
Although the former Art. 116 CC had been repealed, the Federal Tribunal considered that it could be applied by analogy when, during divorce proceedings pending in Switzerland, the defendant spouse expressly refers to an identical procedure opened abroad, thus demonstrating his or her willingness to dissolve the marriage.
In the present case, the appellant Mr. [A.] had…