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 Sustracción internacional de menores. Asunto vinculado con Suiza y España. Comentario de la sentencia de la Audiencia Provincial de Pontevedra (Sección 1ª) núm. 52/2018, de 17 de abril = International child abduction. Case related with Switzerland and Spain. Comment on the judgment of the Spanish Court of Appeal of Pontevedra (Section 1) number 52/2018 of 17th April

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 671
Author(s):  
Carmen Azcárraga Monzonís
Keyword(s):  
Hague Convention ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Habitual Residence ◽  
Child Abduction ◽  
International Child ◽  
The Hague ◽  
A Minor ◽  
The Hague Convention ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Resumen: Sustracción internacional a España de menor residente en Suiza en aplicación del Con­venio de La Haya de 1980 sobre los aspectos civiles de la sustracción internacional de menores. Discre­pancia sobre la residencia habitual del menor. No se aprecian motivos de no retorno.Palabras clave: sustracción internacional de menores, Convenio de La Haya sobre sustracción, Convenio de La Haya sobre responsabilidad parental y protección de menores, residencia habitualAbstract: International abduction to Spain of a minor residing in Switzerland under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980. Discrepancy about the habi­tual residence of the minor. No grounds for return denial are appreciated.Keywords: international child abduction, Hague Convention on Child Abduction, Hague Conven­tion on Parental Responsibility and Measures of the Protection of Children, habitual residence

scholarly journals TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION AND THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 471-474
Author(s):  
Katarina Trimmings
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
The Other ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Habitual Residence ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Jurisdiction Rule

ARTICLE 8 of the Brussels IIa Regulation sets out the general rule regarding jurisdiction in intra-EU parental responsibility cases, namely that jurisdiction lies with the courts of the Member State of the habitual residence of the child. However, exceptionally, the court that has been seised of a case pursuant to Article 8 may not be the best placed to hear the case. To cater for such situations, the Regulation contains an innovative rule according to which a court that is seised of a case, and has jurisdiction on the substance, can transfer the case to a court of another Member State, if the latter is “better placed” to hear the case, and if the transfer is in the best interests of the child. Additionally, the transfer is subject to the condition that there is a “particular connection” between the child and the other Member State (e.g. the child is a national of that Member State). The “transfer of jurisdiction” rule, which is embodied in Article 15 of the Regulation, is at the heart of the Supreme Court decision in Re N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) (AIRE Centre and others intervening) [2016] UKSC 15; [2016] 2 W.L.R. 1103.

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 INTERNATIONAL JURISDICTION RULES IN MATTERS OF PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA: THE CONCEPT OF HABITUAL RESIDENCE V. NATIONALITY

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 4-14
Author(s):  
Jasmina Alihodžić ◽  
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Habitual Residence ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

The rules of jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility contained in the Brussels II bis Regulation are based on the concept of habitual residence, while the legislation in B&H in this area gave priority to the principle of nationality. Analyzing these concepts, the author of the paper points to the importance of interpreting the concept of habitual residence by the European Court of Justice, and gives possible directions for reform of the relevant provisions of the PIL Act in terms of their compliance with EU law.

scholarly journals Miejsce zwykłego pobytu dziecka — uwagi na tle wyroków Trybunału Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej z dnia 28 czerwca 2018 r. (C-512/17) oraz z dnia 17 października 2018 r. (C-393/18 PPU)

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 ◽  
pp. 319-338
Author(s):  
Olga Bobrzyńska
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Decisive Role ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Habitual Residence ◽  
Combined Model ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Physical Presence

In cases C-512/17 and C-393/18 PPU, the national courts raised doubts as to the significance of the circumstances that should be taken into account in determining the habitual residence of a child. In particular the issue was whether the child’s physical presence is a prerequisite in order to recognize that a child has his habitual residencein the country concerned. In its judgment of 17 October 2018, the Court of Justice found that a child must be physically present in a Member State in order to be regarded as habitually resident in that Member State. The parent’s intention cannot be assigned a decisive role. The arguments in this respect are consistent with the interpretation of the concept of habitual residence laid out in the earlier judgment of 28 June 2018, in which the Court of Justice connected the habitual residence of the child with the place where the centre of that child’s life is actually situated, and not with the place where the child would have lived in accordance with the plans of one of the parents. The Court’s interpretation can be attributed to the so-called combined model of determining a habitual residence by looking for child’s centre of interest, taking into account a number of circumstances, including the intention of parents with parental responsibility. Physical presence has rightly been recognized as a necessary condition for establishing jurisdiction under Regulation No 2201/2003 based on habitual residence.

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 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 La errónea determinación de la competencia judicial internacional cuando los hijos residen en estados miembros diferentes: sentencia de la AP de Lugo nº 44/2018, de 11 de abril de 2018 = The wrong determination of the international jurisdiction when the children have the habitual residence in different member states: the judgment of the Spanish Court of Appeal of Lugo, number 44 /2018, of 11th april 2018

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 870
Author(s):  
Idoia Otaegui Aizpurua
Keyword(s):  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Habitual Residence ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
The Common ◽  
The One ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Resumen: La determinación de la correcta competencia judicial internacional en procedimientos relativos a la responsabilidad parental, reviste una relevancia especial por las consecuencias finales que dicha determinación tiene sobre los menores, principales destinatarios de las medidas que los tribunales competentes adoptarán sobre ellos. Si a ello le añadimos una situación de residencia habitual en Estados miembros diferentes y de litispendencia internacional, la complejidad del caso aumenta. Afortunadamente, las disposiciones comunes del Reglamento Bruselas II bis establecen unos criterios claros para la solución de los conflictos de competencia como el planteado en el caso objeto de análisis.Palabras clave: Reglamento “Bruselas II bis”. Litispendencia. Competencia judicial internacional. Responsabilidad parental. Residencia habitual del menor.Abstract: The determination of the proper international jurisdiction in proceedings related to parental responsibility is particularly relevant due to the final consequences that this determination has on minors, main addressees of the measures that the competent courts will adopt on them. If we add to this a situation of habitual residence in different Member States and an international lis pendens foreclosure, the complexity of the case increases. Fortunately, the common rules of the Brussels II bis Regulation set clear criteria for the resolution of conflicts of competence such as the one raised in the case under analysis.Keywords: “Brussels II bis” Regulation. Lis pendens. International jurisdiction. Parental responsibility. Habitual residence of the child.

Prawo obywateli Unii Europejskiej do czynnego i biernego udziału w wyborach parlamentarnych w kraju członkowskim miejsca pobytu

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (4 (1)) ◽  
pp. 23-37
Author(s):  
Marek Danikowski
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
European Parliament ◽  
European Democracy ◽  
The Right ◽  
Insufficient Knowledge ◽  
The Eu

The right of EU citizens residing in another Member State, to vote and stand in elections to the European Parliament is a major achievement of the European democracy. In the light of EU citizens’ still insufficient knowledge concerning the opportunities and benefits brought in by this right, it is worth making this institution more familiar to themin a straightforward way, at the same time balancing criticism towards the idea of the EU.

Right to Parental Care

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Asha Bajpai
Keyword(s):  
Law Reform ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
Family Courts ◽  
Custody Of Children ◽  
The Family ◽  
Shared Parenting ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Minor ◽  
And Control ◽  
Physical Care

Custody refers to the physical care and control of a minor whereas guardianship is a wider term and includes rights and duties with respect to the care and control of minor’s person and property, and includes the right to make decisions relating to the minor. The present legal regime relating to guardianship and custody of children is discussed, including the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, the personal and matrimonial laws, and relevant provisions in the Family Courts Act and Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The emerging concepts of shared parenting, joint custody, and the interparental child removal or abduction of child is included. There is review and analysis of some major reported judicial decisions. A comparative survey of international laws and trends has been done. Suggestions for law reform in the best interest of the child have been given.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document