THE EU COMMISSION'S PROPOSAL TO REVISE THE BRUSSELS IIa REGULATION: SHORTCOMINGS OF THE “OVERRIDING RULE”

Sanja Marjanovic

DOI Number
https://doi.org/10.22190/TEME190228054M
First page
901
Last page
923

Abstract


As the procedure for the revision of the Brussels IIa Regulation is currently pending in the European Union, this paper focuses on the two issues which are correlated through the so-called “overriding rule” mechanism. The first problem concerns the proceeding on the return of the wrongfully removed or retained child involving two EU Member States – the State of refuge and the State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the abduction. The second one tackles the proceeding, currently regulated in the Brussels IIa, on the rights of custody (parental responsibility) when the return of the child was refused in the EU State on the grounds of Art. 13 of the Hague Child Abduction Convention. The proposals for the revision of the Brussels IIa Regulation heavily involve these issues. In that respect, the author indicates certain shortcomings and inconsistencies of the amendments proposed by the European Commission in the Proposal to Revise the Brussels IIa Regulation (2016) and the latest compromise solutions suggested by the Presidency to the Council in the General Approach to the Recast of Brussels IIa (2018). At the same time, the paper suggests two possible ways in which the balance between the principle of mutual trust between the EU Member States and the principle of the child's best interest could be better balanced. From the perspective of Private International Law of the Republic of Serbia, the revision of the Brussels IIa Regulation is important in view of Serbia’s candidate status for EU membership and the need to keep an eye on changes to the secondary EU legislation.


Keywords

Brussels IIa Regulation, the 2016 EU Commission's Proposal to Revise the Brussels IIa Regulation, the 2018 General Approach of the Presidency on the Revision of the Brussels IIa Regulation, “overriding rule”, “privileged” decisions.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Beaumont, P., Walker, L., Holliday, J. (2016). Conflict of EU courts on child abduction: the reality of Article 11(6)-(8) Brussels IIa proceedings across the EU. Journal of Private International Law, 12(2), 211-260. doi: 10.1080/17441048.2016.1206708.

Case C-211/10 PPU (Povse v. Alpago) (2010] ECR I-6669.

Case C-491/10 Zarraga v Pelz, (2010) ECR I-14247.

Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Official Gazette of the SFRY- International Treaties. No. 7 (1991).

Convention on the Rights of the Child, Official Gazette of the SFRY - International Treaties. No.15 (1990) and Official Gazette of SRY - International Treaties. No. 4 (1996) and 2(1997).

Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, OJ L. 338(23.12.2003).

Council of the EU. Council agrees on more effective rules to solve cross border parental responsibility issues. 2018. Retrieved from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/12/07/council-agrees-on-more-effective-rules-to-solve-cross-border-parental-responsibility-issues/pdf.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C. 326 (26.10.2012).

Drventić, M. (2017). New Trends in European Family Procedural Law. In: Duić, D., Petrašević, T. (Eds): Jean Monnet International Scientific Conference, EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series, Procedural Aspects of EU Law (424-446). Osijek: Faculty of Law Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek.

Dutta, A. (2016). Cross-border protection measures in the European Union. Journal of Private International Law, 12(1), 169-184. doi: 10.1080/17441048.2016.1143689.

Dutta, A., Schulz, A. (2014). First Cornerstones of the EU Rules on Cross-border Child Cases: the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Brussels IIa Regulation from C to Health Service Executive. Journal of Private International Law, 10(1), 1-40. doi:10.5235/17441048.10.1.

European Commission. Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast), COM(2016) 411 final 2016/0190 (CNS). 30.6.2016. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-411-EN-F1-1.PDF.

European Commission. Report from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of Council Regulation (Ec) No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000. COM (2014) 225 final. 15.4.2014. Retrieved from https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f09ad6d9-c494-11e3-9fe4-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.

European Commission. Practice Guide for the Application of the Brussels IIa Regulation. 2014. Retrieved from https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f7d39509-3f10-4ae2-b993-53ac6b9f93ed.

EU Presidency. Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast) - General approach. 30 November 2018. Retrieved from http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14784-2018-INIT/en/pdf.

Kruger, Th., Samyn, L. (2016). Brussels II bis: successes and suggested improvements. Journal of Private International Law. 12(1), 132-168. doi:10.1080/17441048.2016.1151150.

Lembrechts, S. (2019). M.K. v. Greece – Implementing children’s rights in legal proceedings following an international parental abduction. Retrieved from https://strasbourgobservers.com/2018/03/22/m-k-v-greece-implementing-childrens-rights-in-legal-proceedings-following-an-international-parental-abduction/.

Lenaerts, K. (2013). The best interest of the child always come first: the Brussels II bis Regulation and the European Court of Justice. Jurisprudence, 20(4), 1302-1328. doi:10.13165/JUR-13-20-4-02.

author, 875-892.

McEleavy, P. (2015). The European Court of Human Rights and the Hague Child Abduction Convention: Prioritising Return or Reflection? Netherland International Law Review, 62, 365-405. doi: 0.1007/s40802-015-0040-z.

McEleavy, P. (2005). The New Child Abduction Regime in the European Community: Symbiotic Relationship or Forced Partnership. Journal of Private International Law, 1(1), 5-34. doi: 10.1080/17536235.2005.11424287.

M.K. v Greece of 1st February 2018 (application 51312/16).

Nyts, A., 2007 Report Study on Residual Jurisdiction, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/civil/studies/doc_civil_studies_en.htm.

Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. Revised draft Guide to Good Practice on Article 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Convention. March 2019. Retrieved from https://assets.hcch.net/docs/1e6f828a-4120-47b7-83ac-a11852f77128.pdf.

Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. Statistical analysis of applications made in 2008 under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction — Part II ― Regional Report. Prel. Doc. No 8 B ― update of November 2011 for the attention of the Special Commission of June 2011. 2011. Retrieved from https://assets.hcch.net/upload/wop/abduct2011pd08be.pdf.

Povse v Austria (application no. 3890/11).

Raw v France (application no. 10131/11).

Shaw v Hungary (application no. 6457/09).

Ubertazzi, B. (2017). The hearing of the child in the Brussels IIa Regulation and its Recast Proposal. Journal of Private International Law, 13(3), 568-601. doi:10.1080/17441048.2017.1386262.

Walker, L., Beaumont, P. (2011). Shifting the Balance Achieved by the Abduction Convention: The Contrasting Approaches of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. Journal of Private International Law, 7(2), 231-249. doi: 10.5235/174410411796868689.

Šneersone and Kampanella v Italy (application No 14737/09).

Župan, M., Poretti, P. (2015). Concentration of jurisdiction in cross-border family matters - child abduction at focus. In: Vinković, M. (Ed.): Jean Monnet Conference, New developments in EU labour, equality and human rights law (pp. 341-359). Osijek: Faculty of Law Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22190/TEME190228054M

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Print ISSN: 0353-7919
Online ISSN: 1820-7804