scholarly journals Una incorrecta articulación de las fuentes normativas de competencia judicial internacional en materia de responsabilidad parental: sentencia de la AP de A Coruña (Sección 4ª) núm. 119/2018, de 4 de abril = An improper enumeration of internatioanl jurisdiction sources on parental responsability matters: the judgment of the Spanish Court of Appeal of A Coruña (Section 4) number 119/2018, of 4 th April

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 773
Author(s):  
Saioa Goyeneche Echeverria
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Conventional System ◽  
European Regulation ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
El Sistema ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Resumen: Desde la incorporación en el ordenamiento jurídico español de normas convencionales y de la Unión Europea, la configuración del sistema de competencia judicial internacional aplicable por los jueces y tribunales españoles en materia de responsabilidad parental incluye tres bloques normativos potencialmente aplicables: la legislación europea, representada por el Reglamento “Bruselas II bis”; el sistema convencional, representado por el Convenio de La Haya, de 19 de octubre de 1996; y la legis­lación interna o autónoma española, representada por la LOPJ. Como se muestra en este comentario jurisprudencial, la complejidad del sistema plantea el desafío del correcto manejo de las fuentes.Palabras clave: responsabilidad parental, Reglamento “Bruselas II bis”,  Convenio de La Haya de 199,  Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, normas de competencia judicial internacional.Abstract: Since conventional and EU rules have been integrated into the Spanish legal system, the configuration of international jurisdiction system on parental responsibility be applied by Spanish judges and courts of law rests on three normative blocks: European regulation, represented by “Brussels II bis” Regulation; conventional system, represented by the 1996 Hague Convention; and internal laws, represented by the Organic Law of Judicial Power. This comment shows us that the system’s complexity raises the challenge of a correct handling of sources.Keywords: parental responsibility, “Brussels II bis” Regulation, The 1996 Hague Convention,  The Organic Law of Judicial Power, rules on international jurisdiction.

scholarly journals Crisis familiar, responsabilidad parental y alimentos: revisando las cuestiones generales en un divorcio transnacional (Audiencia Provincial Barcelona - Sentencia de 15/04/2019) = Crisis of the couple, parental responsabilit and maintenance: reviewing core matters in a cross-border family judgement (Barcelona Court of Appeal - Decision of 15/04/2019)

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 784
Author(s):  
Marina Vargas Gómez-Urrutia
Keyword(s):  
Family Law ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
International Jurisdiction ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
El Sistema ◽  
Appeal Decision ◽  
Court Of Appeal

Resumen: La interacción entre las normas de competencia judicial internacional y las cuestiones de fondo que resuelven las normas de conflicto en las distintas materias del derecho de familia constitu­yen un problema específico en los divorcios con elementos transfronterizo. En la SAP Barcelona de 15 de abril de 2019 se pone a prueba el sistema de competencia judicial internacional y de ley aplicable a raíz de una acción principal de divorcio donde, además, se han de establecer medidas de responsabilidad parental y fijar la obligación de alimentos.Palabras clave: competencia judicial internacional, ley aplicable, litigios transfronterizos: di­vorcio, responsabilidad parental, obligación de alimentos.Abstract: In family law matters specific issues raises from the interaction between the rules on international jurisdiction and applicable law. The Decision of the Barcelona Court of Appeal rended on April 15, 2019 tests the international jurisdiction system and the issues of applicable law in a cross-bor­der family litigation where a main divorce must be established in addition with parental responsibility measures and maintenance claims.Keywords: International jurisdiction, applicable law, cross-border UE family law: divorce, pa­rental responsability disputes, Maintenance claims.

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 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.

scholarly journals La autonomía del ordenamiento de la Unión y las «funciones esenciales» de su sistema jurisdiccional = The autonomy of the european legal order and the «indispensable tasks» of its jurisdictional system

2013 ◽  
pp. 225
Author(s):  
Miguel Azpitarte Sánchez
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
The Political ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Political Reason ◽  
European Court ◽  
Essential Question ◽  
El Sistema ◽  
Title Iii

La renovada defensa que el Tribunal de Justicia hace del concepto de autonomía contrasta con los impulsos políticos que intentan abrir la jurisdicción de la Unión, sea prolongando su intervención hacia fuera, o reconociendo competencia a tribunales ajenos a ella. Dada esta situación paradójica, mi intención es reflexionar sobre el vínculo entre autonomía del ordenamiento y funciones esenciales del sistema jurisdiccional. Para ello, en el epígrafe II, al modo de un intento de arqueología jurídica, me planteo cuáles han sido las razones constitucionales que condujeron a diseñar ese vínculo que el Tribunal de Justicia ha subrayado. En mi opinión, tres divisiones esenciales —la funcional, la institucional y la de parámetros de validez— dan sentido al modelo de cooperación vigilada que sostendría la autonomía del ordenamiento. A continuación, en el epígrafe III, intento mostrar las debilidades actuales del sistema jurisdiccional de la Unión. En primer lugar, pese a que el Tribunal de Justicia hace causa firme de la autonomía, la realidad y las propias exigencias de los Tratados constitutivos llaman a su complemento por otros actores. La pregunta esencial es saber qué función cumplen tales actores en esa labor de adición. En segundo lugar, la tutela que ofrece el sistema jurisdiccional de la Unión es hoy doblemente asimétrica, de un lado porque no extiende la garantía de la tutela judicial mediante recursos; de otro, porque opera de forma distinta si controla actos del Estado o de los particulares. Finalmente, intentaré defender que estos dos flancos abiertos —una autonomía necesitada de complemento y una tutela asimétrica— explican al menos la razón política encaminada a abrir la jurisdicción más allá de la Unión.The European Court’s renew vindication of the autonomy of the European Union Legal order opposes against the political impulses directed to open the judicial power of the Union, taking its jurisdiction beyond the Union or giving jurisdiction to court outside the Unión. Do to this paradox, I try to analyze the link between autonomy of the legal order and indispensable tasks of the judicial power of the Unión. In title II, in an effort of juridical archeology, I wonder which have been the constitutional reasons that moved to the link mentioned. In my opinion three fundamental divisions —functional, institutional and validity divisions— justify the jurisdictional model of vigilant cooperation that build the autonomy of the legal order. In title III, I try to show the weakness of this model. Firstly, although the European Court holds strong on autonomy, reality and the constitutive Treaties call for a complement. The essential question is to know what function develop several actors. Secondly, the protection offered by the judicial power of the Union is asymmetric in a double sense: it does not extend the protection through a system of appeals and it works in a different way attending to state or private origin of the wrong. Finally, I try to defend that those two asymmetries explain the political reason towards the opening of the judicial power of the Union.

scholarly journals Application of Brussels II bis regulation in exercising the right of access to a child by extended family members

2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (90) ◽  
pp. 189-205
Author(s):  
Radmila Dragišić
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
International Law ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Hague Convention ◽  
Right Of Access

In this paper, the author explores the sources of European Union Law that regulate one segment of parental responsibility - the right of access to a child. The focal point of research is the transition from the conventional (interstate) regulation of judicial cooperation in marital disputes and parental responsibility issues to the regulation enacted by the European Union institutions, with specific reference to the Brussels II bis Regulation. First, the author briefly points out to its relationship with other relevant international law sources regulating this subject matter: the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction; the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in the Field of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children; and other international sources of law. Then, the author examines in more detail its relationship with the Brussels II bis recast Regulation, which will be applicable as of 1 August 2022. In addition, the paper includes an analysis of the first case in which the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) decided on the application of the Brussels II bis Regulation, at the request of granparents to exercise the right of access to the child. On the issue of determining the competent court which has jurisdiction to decide on how this right shall be exercised, the CJEU had to decide whether the competent court is determined on the basis of the Brussels II bis Regulation or on the basis of national Private International Law rules. This paper is useful for the professional and scientific community because it deals (inter alia) with the issue of justification of adopting a special source of law at the EU level, which would regulate the issue of mutual enforcement of court decisions on the right of access to the child. This legal solution was proposed by the Republic of France, primarily guided by the fundamental right of the child to have contact with both parents.

scholarly journals SISTEM PERADILAN DI INDONESIA BERDASARKAN UUD NEGARA REPUBLIK INDONESIA TAHUN 1945

Yustitia ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-62
Author(s):  
Ihat Subihat
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Judicial Power ◽  
Military Justice ◽  
Legal Structure ◽  
Library Studies ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Government

A country’s judicial system cannot be separated from the legal system in force in the country. In other words, a country’s justice system is a sub-system of the country’s justice system. Because the legal system that applies in Indonesia is a legal system based on the Pancasila and the 1945 constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, the judicial system in Indonesia must also be based on Pancasila values and articles in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. This study was conducted by using normative juridical method by reviewing various legal materials; primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. While the data collection method was carried out through library studies. The analysis technique used descriptive method with prescriptive approach. The result of this study showed that the four judicial environments are under the Indonesia Supreme Court; general justice, religious justice, military justice and state administrative courts, as sub-judicial systems in Indonesia, each of which has an institutional, authority and legal structure separate events that differ from one another according to the specificity and absolute competence of each that cannot be mixed up. In contrast to other judicial environments which have adjusted to the changes in the new judicial power law, the institutional structure and authority of the courts within the military court which is part of the judicial system under the Supreme court of the Republic of Indonesia is still regulated in Law Number 31 of 1997 concerning Military justice and not yet adjusted to Lay Number 14 of 2004 concerning Judicial Power, because the Amendment Draft to the Law on Military Justice which had been discussed since 2005 has not yet been agreed upon by the DPR and the Government. Even when the Lay on Military Justice cannot be adjusted to Law Number 4 of 2004, on October 29, 2009 Law Number 4 of 2004 was revoked and then replaced with Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning the latest Judicial Power.

scholarly journals Transfer of Ownership in fiducia and Trust – Preliminary Considerations on the Possibilty of Application of the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition

2018 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 579-605
Author(s):  
Tomislav Karlović
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Real Property ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Hague Convention

Considering the main characteristics of fiducia in Roman law, as well as its functions and place within the real property law and the law of obligations, two features that are also prominent in the definition of anglosaxon trust stand out. These are the fiduciary nature of the relationship between the interested parties, as fides (trust) formed the initial basis of both institutes in the period before they were legally recognized, and the transfer of ownership made for specific purpose, different from the regular enjoyment of the object by the owner. However, there is a significant difference between the two (fiducia and trust) becuase of the duality between common law and equity in English legal system. While the mutual interests of the parties to fiducia in Roman law were protected only by personal actions (actiones in personam), parties’ proprietary interests in English trust were (and still are) recognized with the parallel existence of legal and equitable title. In contemporary Croatian law of real property the closest thing to the division of titles exists with regard to the conditionally transferred ownership as regulated in Art. 34 of Ownership and Other Proprietary Rights Act, entaling the division on prior and posterior ownership, both of which can be entered into Land registry and other registries. In the article it is analysed how this division and the following registration of both titles could allow for the effects to be given to trusts, in case it would be pondered on the benefits of accession of Croatia to the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition. Accordingly, after the exposition of Croatian law, it is given a short overview of English trust with emphasis on trusts of land and, subsequently, of the rules of the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition. In the conclusion it is argued that perceived incompatibility of trust with civilian legal system can be overcome in Croatia with the help of extant legal rules regarding conditionally transferred ownership. Also, this incompatibility has already been refuted in several European continental countries from which examples lessons should be studied and learned, what would be the next step in the deliberations on the accession to the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document