scholarly journals Responsabilidad parental y la aplicación del forum non conveniens de carácter reglado del artículo 15 del reglamento (CE) Nº 2201/2003 : la STJUE de 27 de octubre de = Parental responsibility and the application of regulated forum non conveniens of article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) Nº 2001/2003 : the ECJ judgement of 27th October 2016

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 639
Author(s):  
Bárbara Sánchez López
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Council Regulation

Resumen: Esta sentencia del TJUE aborda el ámbito y las condiciones que impone el artículo 15 del Reglamento (CE) 2201/2003, del Consejo, de 27 de noviembre de 2003, relativo a la competencia, el reconocimiento y la ejecución de resoluciones judiciales en materia matrimonial y de responsabilidad parental, para que el tribunal competente se abstenga de conocer del asunto por apreciar que los tribunales de otro Estado miembro con el que el menor presenta una vinculación especial está mejor situado para resolverlo en atención a su superior interés. La sentencia examina las circunstancias de este peculiar forum non conveniens de carácter reglado que es característico de este reglamento comunitario.Palabras clave: competencia judicial internacional; responsabilidad parental; forum non conveniens; remisión del asunto al tribunal mejor situado; interés del menor. Abstract: This ECJ judgment addresses the scope of application and the conditions that art. 15 of Council Regulation (EC) nº 2201/2003 (…) impose in order to a court having jurisdiction may transfer the case to a court of another Member State which the child has a particular connection with and it would be a court better placed to hear the case taking into account the best interest of the child. The Judgment examines the circumstances of this particular and regulated forum non conveniens that is characteristic of this Council Regulation. Keywords: international jurisdiction; parental responsibility; forum non conveniens; transfer to a court better placed to hear the case; best interest of the child.

scholarly journals The Rinau Case and the wrongful removal or retention of children

2014 ◽  
pp. 124-146
Author(s):  
Anabela Susana de Sousa Gonçalves
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Comprehensive Understanding ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Special Rules

The Rinau Case is a landmark decision of the ECJ regarding the wrongful removal or retention of children in the Regulation 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments both in matrimonial matters and those of parental responsibility (Brussels II bis). Having this case as starting point, this article explains the fast proceedings laid down in Brussels II bis Regulation for situations of wrongful removal or retention of children and the special rules for the recognition of the decision of return of the child wrongfully removed or retained in another Member State. However, as a preliminary point of discussion, and in order to allow a more comprehensive understanding of the proceedings concerning the wrongful removal or retention of children under the Regulation, a brief explanation of the framework of the regulation and the rules of international jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility is provided.

scholarly journals Residencia habitual del menor y tribunales competentes para modificar una resolución judicial sobre derecho de visita. Aplicación jurisprudencial de los artículos 8 y 9 del reglamento (CE) 2201/2003 = Habitual residency of the minor and competent courts to modify a judicial resolutionon the right of visit. Jurisprudential application of articles 8 and 9 of regulation (EC) 2201/2003

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 751
Author(s):  
Diana Gluhaia
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
General Criterion ◽  
Court Ruling ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Habitual Residence ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Article 9 ◽  
Judicial Ruling ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Minor

Resumen: En este Auto se cuestiona la competencia judicial internacional de los órganos juris­diccionales españoles en materia de responsabilidad parental de una menor que cambió la residencia habitual a otro Estado miembro: Alemania. El artículo 9 del Reglamento (CE) nº 2201/2003 es una excepción al criterio general de determinación de la competencia judicial internacional y sólo se activa cuando se cumplen todos los requisitos exigidos por esta norma. La Sala entendió que no se cumplían todas las condiciones, ya que no existía un pronunciamiento judicial previo respecto al derecho de visita que requiriese una modificación debido al traslado de la menor a otro Estado miembro, y que carece de sentido en este caso alterar una decisión judicial no existente.Palabras clave: responsabilidad parental, competencia judicial internacional, residencia habitual del menor. Competencia para modificar una resolución judicial sobre derecho de visita.Abstract: His Order questions the international judicial competence of the Spanish courts in mat­ters of parental responsibility of a minor who changed habitual residence to another Member State: Germany. Article 9 of Regulation (EC) nº 2201/2003 is an exception to the general criterion of deter­mination of international jurisdiction and is only activated when all the requirements demanded by this rule are met. The Chamber understood that all the conditions were not met, since there was no previous judicial ruling regarding the visiting right that required an amendment due to the transfer of the minor to another Member State, and that it makes no sense in this case to alter a decision non-existent judicial.Keywords: parental responsibility, international jurisdiction, habitual residence of the minor, competence to modify a court ruling on visiting rights.

scholarly journals La reinterpretación del Forum Societatis: nota a la Sentencia del TJUE de 7 de marzo de 2018, C-560/16, e.On = Forum Societatis revisited: commentary to the ECJ Judgment of 7 march 2018, c-560/16, e.On

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 811
Author(s):  
Ángel María Ballesteros Barros
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Council Regulation ◽  
A Company

Resumen: La sentencia del TJUE de 7 de marzo de 2018, C-560/16, E.ON, resuelve una cuestión relativa al alcance del foro de competencia exclusiva previsto en el art. 22.2 del Reglamento 44/2001, interpretando que una demanda que tiene por objeto el control judicial del carácter razonable de la con­traprestación que el accionista mayoritario de una sociedad debe abonar a sus accionistas minoritarios en caso de transmisión obligatoria de sus acciones es competencia exclusiva de los tribunales del Estado miembro en cuyo territorio está domiciliada dicha sociedad. El presente artículo discrepa del razona­miento utilizado por el TJUE y propone una solución diferente al conflicto de calificación de la acción objeto del litigio principal.Palabras clave: Artículo 22 (2) Reglamento (CE) nº 44/2001, competencia exclusiva, litigios re­lativos a la validez de las decisiones de los órganos de las sociedades, alcance.Abstract: ECJ Judgment of 7 March 2018, C-560/16, E.ON, clarify the scope of application of Ar­ticle 22(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001. The Court held that Article 22.2 must be interpreted as meaning that an action, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, for review of the reasonableness of the consideration that the principal shareholder of a company is required to pay to the minority sha­reholders of that company in the event of the compulsory transfer of their shares to that principal share­holder comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which that company is established. The author of this article disagrees with the reasoning used by the ECJ and proposes a different solution to the characterization of the action in the main proceedings.Keywords: Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, exclusive jurisdiction, disputes relating to the validity of decisions of the company’s organs, scope.

scholarly journals La protección del menor no acompañado solicitante de asilo: entre estado competente y estado responsable = The protection of unaccompanied minors asylum-seekers: between competent state and responsible state

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 482
Author(s):  
Marta Requejo Isidro
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Unaccompanied Minors ◽  
International Protection ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
The Common ◽  
Responsible Member

Resumen: Los instrumentos de la segunda generación del Sistema Europeo Común de Asilo (SECA) incorporan el interés superior del menor como consideración primordial. En consonancia con ello prevén medidas de protección de los menores, en particular de los no acompañados, a adoptar primero por el Estado miembro que determina el Estado miembro responsable de decidir sobre la solicitud de asilo, y luego por este mismo. Por su parte, inspirado también en el interés superior del menor el Reglamento Bruselas II bis regula la competencia judicial internacional en materia de responsabilidad parental. Habida cuenta de la convergencia es legítimo preguntarse por las relaciones entre los textos. Si del examen resulta una falta de alineación de los instrumentos susceptible de afectar negativamente a los menores a los que presuntamente quieren proteger será preciso reflexionar sobre cómo resolver los conflictos.Palabras clave: menores no acompañados, solicitud de protección internacional, competencia judicial internacional, Estado miembro responsable, Reglamento Bruselas II bis, Reglamento de Dublín III.Abstract: The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) instruments of second generation incorporate the child’s best interests as a primary consideration. Accordingly, they provide for measures to protect minors, in particular unaccompanied ones, to be adopted firstly by the Member State which determines the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection, and then by the latter Member State. Inspired as well by the best interests of the child, the Brussels II bis regulation sets the rules on international jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility. The convergence begs the question of the interface between the texts. If the examination results in a lack of alignment among the instruments that may adversely affect the individuals they are meant to protect it will be necessary to reflect on how to resolve the conflict.Keywords: unaccompanied minors, application for international protection, jurisdiction, responsible Member State, Brussels II bis regulation, Dublin III regulation

scholarly journals Orden público internacional y prohibición de control de competencia judicial internacional: Asunto c-455/15 PPU, P y Q = Public policy rule and prohibition of review of jurisdiction of the court of origin: Case c 455/15 PPU, P v Q

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 635
Author(s):  
Celia M. Caamiña Domínguez
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Policy Rule ◽  
The Public ◽  
Child Abduction ◽  
Palabras Clave ◽  
International Child ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
Council Regulation

Resumen: Este artículo trata sobre la Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 19 de noviembre de 2015, relativa al orden público internacional como motivo de denegación del reconocimiento de una resolución en materia de responsabilidad parental y a la prohibición de control de la competencia judicial internacional del tribunal del Estado miembro de origen, en el ámbito del Reglamento 2201/2003.Palabras clave: derecho de custodia, orden público internacional, forum non conveniens, sustracción internacional de menores.Abstract: This article deals with the Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 November 2015, related to the public policy rule as a ground of non-recognition of judgments in matters of parental responsibility and to the prohibition of review of jurisdiction of the court of origin in the field of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003.Keywords: rights of custody, public policy rule, forum non conveniens, international child abduction.

scholarly journals Retiring Forum Non Conveniens

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maggie Gardner
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
New York University ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Forum Non Conveniens ◽  
Scope Of Application

92 New York University Law Review 390 (2017)When it comes to transnational litigation in the federal courts, it is time to retire the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The doctrine, which allows judges to decline jurisdiction in cases they believe would be better heard in foreign courts, is meant to promote international comity and protect defendant fairness. But it is not well-designed for the former purpose, and given recent developments at the Supreme Court, it is dangerously redundant when it comes to the latter. This Article seeks to demythologize forum non conveniens, to question its continuing relevance, and to encourage the courts and Congress to narrow its scope of application so that, when the time is right, it may be fully interred.

European Cross-Border Insolvency Law

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reinhard Bork ◽  
Renato Mangano
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Insolvency Law ◽  
Main Interest ◽  
Significant Development ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
European State ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Insolvency Regulation ◽  
Centre Of Main Interest

This book provides a distilled and accessible analysis of the European cross-border insolvency law. With reference to the amended Insolvency Regulation (EIR) and related sources it examines the issues involved in intra-member state cross-border insolvency. The book analyses in depth the main areas of change brought about by the EIR such as the restatement of the meaning of 'centre of main interest' (COMI) and the rules on international jurisdiction, the new specific measures for multi-national enterprises, and the move towards co-operation between insolvency practitioners and courts. The EIR represents a very significant development in European insolvency law which will have an impact on all insolvencies with an international element involving a European state. All practitioners advising on the area need a clear grasp of the implications of the changes and this book aims to deliver just that.

6. Free movement of persons

2020 ◽  
pp. 121-153
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Internal Market ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
Free Movement Of Persons ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

This chapter discusses the law on the free movement of persons in the EU. Free movement of persons is one of the four ‘freedoms’ of the internal market. Original EC Treaty provisions granted free movement rights to the economically active—workers, persons exercising the right of establishment, and persons providing services in another Member State. The Treaty also set out the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, ‘within the scope of application of the Treaty’. All these provisions are now contained in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Early secondary legislation granted rights to family members, students, retired persons, and persons of independent means. The Citizenship Directive 2004/38 consolidated this legislation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document