Habitual Residence of the Child: Recent Issues in the EU

AbstractThis article examines how the European Court of Human Rights has clarified its jurisprudence on how the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention Article 13 exceptions are to be applied in a manner that is consistent with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It also analyses recent case law of the European Court of Human Rights on how the courts in the EU are to handle child abduction cases where the courts of the habitual residence have made use of their power under Article 11 of Brussels IIa.

Download Full-text

Freedom of movement, social rights and residence-based conditionality in the European Union

Journal of European Social Policy ◽

10.1177/0958928718756262 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 29 (1) ◽

pp. 70-83 ◽

Cited By ~ 16

Author(s):

Cecilia Bruzelius

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Member State ◽

Social Rights ◽

The European Union ◽

Habitual Residence ◽

Member States ◽

Freedom Of Movement ◽

Eu Member States ◽

State Case ◽

The Eu

This article stresses the need to study how European Union (EU) member states define and implement the concept of habitual residence to assess boundaries of welfare in the EU. It focuses specifically on EU migrant citizens’ social rights and draws on comparative qualitative research on two EU member states – Germany and Sweden. The article first clarifies the differences between legal and habitual residence, and distinguishes between legal definitions of habitual residence and administrative formalities tied to such definitions. After examining legal definitions at the EU level, it goes on to consider additional definitions found in each member state case and administrative formalities attached to these definitions. Following this, implications for EU migrant citizens’ social rights in each country are assessed. The analysis reveals how administrative processes of residence registration shape conditionality. In this way, administrative aspects of habitual residence can have far-reaching exclusive effects on EU migrant citizens’ access to social benefits and services in the destination member state, as well as inhibit their ability to enjoy their right to freedom of movement. The article thus illustrates the inherent tension between free movement and residence-based social rights in a Union with devolved social provision.

Download Full-text

The Last Habitual Residence of the Deceased as the Principal Connecting Factor in the Context of the Succession Regulation (650/2012)

Baltic Journal of European Studies ◽

10.1515/bjes-2015-0017 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 5 (2) ◽

pp. 130-146

Author(s):

Max Atallah

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Case Law ◽

Free Movement ◽

Legal Certainty ◽

Habitual Residence ◽

Member States ◽

Legal Definition ◽

Eu Member States ◽

Cross Border ◽

The Eu

AbstractThe objective of this study was to gather information about the last habitual residence (LHR) of the deceased in the context of the upcoming EU Succession Regulation. In addition, the aim was to analyze the adequacy of the legally undefined LHR as the principal connecting factor in cross-border succession within the EU. This study was carried out as a part of a bachelor thesis conducted on the same subject. The data were collected from relevant jurisprudence, international law, national acts, the EU published materials and case law. These results suggest that the legally undefined LHR is an unstable connecting factor for the purposes of the Succession Regulation, since it cannot guarantee sufficient legal certainty, and hence, the EU citizens are not able to fully utilize their right to free movement. The findings indicate that there might be a need to amend a legal definition for the LHR, not only for the EU Member States to be able to apply the concept in an harmonized way, but also for the EU citizens to know whether they are considered habitually resident in a state or not.

Download Full-text

Application of the Succession Regulation by German courts — Selected Issues

Problemy Prawa Prywatnego Międzynarodowego ◽

10.31261/pppm.2020.26.04 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 27-43

Author(s):

Christian Kohler

Keyword(s):

International Law ◽

Case Law ◽

Private International Law ◽

Habitual Residence ◽

Applicable Law ◽

German System ◽

The Impact ◽

The Eu

The article discusses the impact of the EU Succession Regulation on the German system of private international law. The change came with some important differences introduced in the text of the Regulation as in comparison to previous German solutions (especially the use of the habitual residence as the main connecting factor instead of nationality), and, as a result of the number of decisions of the CJEU on the Regulation (in particular the Kubicka case).The paper presents the most important, up-to-date German case-law relating to the EU Succession Regulation. It starts with the general remarks in that regard and continues to discuss judgments covering issues of jurisdiction, applicable law, and the European Certificate of Succession. Three conclusions are drawn therefrom. First, the cases show a general willingness of the courts to cope with the fundamental changes introduced by the Regulation. In particular, the concept of “habitual residence” is applied on the basis of an autonomous interpretation by reference to the case-law of the CJEU on Regulation Brussels IIa. Second, a number of decisions make apparent that the courts are sometimes slow to accept the consequences which flow from the changes brought about by the Regulation, and which oblige to re-consider the German practice in matters of international successions. That applies in particular to the issuing of the European Certificate of Succession. Third, German courts are generally ready to initiate cooperation with the CJEU by formulating preliminary questions (three questions posed by the end of 2019).

Download Full-text

El Regolamento (UE) 1215/2012. Marco jurídico comunitario para la resolución de conflictos de competencia y la libre circulación de decisiones en el àmbito de la exportación de productos agroalimentarios

Przegląd Prawa Rolnego ◽

10.14746/ppr.2018.22.1.10 ◽

2018 ◽

pp. 143-161

Author(s):

Jesús María Serrano Martín

Keyword(s):

Criminal Law ◽

The European Union ◽

Habitual Residence ◽

Judicial Decision ◽

Insolvency Law ◽

Member States ◽

Eu Member States ◽

Exclusive Jurisdiction ◽

Special Procedure ◽

The Eu

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 applies in civil and commercial matters, with the exception of criminal law, family law, insolvency law, succession law and other matters specified in that Regulation, such as social security or arbitration. Under the new law, the so-called exequatur procedure under Brussels I Regulation has been abolished. This means that a judicial decision issued in one of the EU Member States is recognised in other EU Member States without the need for a special procedure. If it is enforceable in the State in which the judgment was given, there is no need for a declaration of enforceability. There must be a link between the proceedings falling within the scope of this Regulation and the territory of EU Member States. Common rules on jurisdiction should in principle apply when the defendant is domiciled in one of the EU Member States. A defendant who is not domiciled in any of the EU Member States (whose habitual residence is outside the EU) should in principle be subject to the national rules of jurisdiction applicable in the territory of the EU Member State where the action has been brought. However, irrespective of the defendant’s residence, certain rules on jurisdiction apply in order to ensure the protection of consumers and workers, and to protect the jurisdiction of EU courts in situations where they have exclusive jurisdiction (e.g. in the case of real estate), and to respect the autonomy of the parties. The author addressed these issues to trade in agri-food products in the European Union.

Download Full-text