International Jurisdiction to Adjudicate in Parental Responsibility Matters―Focusing on the Introduction to the Brussels II ter Regulation―

2021 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-258
Author(s):  
So Hye Hyun
Keyword(s):  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
International Jurisdiction

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 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 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.

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 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document