HC/E/LT 987
Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea (TJUE)
Alemania
Lituania
7 November 2008
Definitiva
Finalidad del Convenio - Preámbulo, arts. 1 y 2 | Cuestiones relativas a la restitución | Cuestiones procesales
-
-
The ECJ noted that Council Regulation 2201/2003 complemented the 1980 Hague Convention, but also took precedence over it, in cases involving EU Member States (Denmark excepted). The Regulation sought to deter child abductions between Member States, and where abductions had occurred, to obtain the child's return without delay.
In observations made to the Court it was argued that an Art 42 return order and certificate could only be issued following the delivery of a Convention non-return order (Art 13). This was accepted, but the Court rejected the further suggestion that a successful appeal of a non-return order would de-activate the Art 42 mechanism. In this it held that the enforceability of a judgment requiring the return of a child following a judgment of non-return enjoyed procedural autonomy, so as not to delay the return of the abducted child. The procedural steps which, after a non-return decision had been taken, occurred or recurred in the Member State of enforcement were not decisive and might be regarded as irrelevant for the purposes of implementing the Regulation. If the position were otherwise, there would be a risk the Regulation would be deprived of its useful effect, since the objective of the immediate return of the child would remain subject to the condition that the redress procedures allowed under the domestic law of the Member State in which the child is wrongfully retained had been exhausted. Even if the object of the Regulation was not to unify the rules of substantive law and of procedure of the different Member States, it was nevertheless important that the application of those national rules did not prejudice its useful effect. This interpretation was moreover consistent with the requirements and purpose of the Regulation and was the only interpretation which best ensured the effectiveness of Community law. By excluding any appeal against the issuing of a certificate pursuant to Article 42(1), other than an action seeking rectification within the meaning of Article 43(1), the Regulation seeks to ensure that the effectiveness of its provisions is not undermined by abuse of the procedure. Moreover, Article 68 does not list among the redress procedures any appeal against decisions taken pursuant to Section 4 of Chapter III of the Regulation. The sequence of the decisions taken by the Lithuanian courts, as regards both the application for return and that for non-recognition of the decision certified pursuant to Article 42 of the Regulation, did not appear to have observed the autonomy of the procedure provided for in that provision. Second, the number of decisions and their diverse nature (to set aside, overturn, reopen, suspend) were evidence that, even if the most expeditious domestic procedures had been adopted, the periods of time elapsed were already, on the date on which the certificate was issued, in manifest contradiction to the requirements of the Regulation. Furthermore in the absence of doubt as regards the authenticity of the certificate issued by the Amtsgericht Oranienburg, and given it contained all the elements required by Article 42 of the Regulation, an appeal against the issue of the certificate or opposition to its recognition, under Article 43(2) of the Regulation, had to be dismissed, the requested court being able only to declare the enforceability of the certified decision. In the light of these observations, the answer to the fourth to sixth questions had to be that, once a non-return decision had been taken and brought to the attention of the court of origin, it was irrelevant, for the purposes of issuing the certificate provided for in Article 42 of the Regulation, that that decision had been suspended, overturned, set aside or, in any event, had not become res judicata or had been replaced by a decision ordering return, in so far as the return of the child had not actually taken place. Since no doubt had been expressed as regards the authenticity of that certificate and since it was drawn up in accordance with the standard form set out in Annex IV to the Regulation, opposition to the recognition of the decision ordering return was not permitted and it was for the requested court only to declare the enforceability of the certified decision and to allow the immediate return of the child. ****************************************************************** In response to the first question the Court held that whilst there was no possibility for an application of non-recognition where a return order had been adopted and certified pursuant to Articles 11(8) and 42, or where an Art 41 access order had been made, the possibility of making an independent application for non-recognition could not be discounted in general terms. Such an application was capable of satisfying various objectives, either of a substantive nature, in particular those relating to the best interests of the child, or the stability and harmony of the family, or of a procedural nature, by making it possible to bring forward the production of evidence which might no longer be available in the future. As regard the second question the Court held that Article 31(1) of the Regulation, was not applicable to proceedings initiated for non-recognition of a judicial decision if no application for recognition had been lodged beforehand in respect of that decision. In such a situation, the defendant, who was seeking recognition, was entitled to make such submissions. The answer to the third question was self evident: an application for non-recognition of a judicial decision was not permitted if a certificate had been issued pursuant to Article 42 of the Regulation.
It may be noted that the reference for a preliminary ruling was dealt with under the urgent procedure provided for in Article 104b of the Rules of Procedure of the ECJ.
Preparation of INCADAT case law analysis in progress.
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
The application of the 1980 Hague Convention within the Member States of the European Union (Denmark excepted) has been amended following the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, see:
Affaire C-195/08 PPU Rinau v. Rinau, [2008] ECR I 5271 [2008] 2 FLR 1495 [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/ 987];
Affaire C 403/09 PPU Detiček v. Sgueglia, [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/ 1327].
The Hague Convention remains the primary tool to combat child abductions within the European Union but its operation has been fine tuned.
An autonomous EU definition of ‘rights of custody' has been adopted: Article 2(9) of the Brussels II a Regulation, which is essentially the same as that found in Article 5 a) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention. There is equally an EU formula for determining the wrongfulness of a removal or retention: Article 2(11) of the Regulation. The latter embodies the key elements of Article 3 of the Convention, but adds an explanation as to the joint exercise of custody rights, an explanation which accords with international case law.
See: Case C-400/10 PPU J Mc.B. v. L.E, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1104].
Of greater significance is Article 11 of the Brussels II a Regulation.
Article 11(2) of the Brussels II a Regulation requires that when applying Articles 12 and 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention that the child is given the opportunity to be heard during the proceedings, unless this appears inappropriate having regard to his age or degree of maturity.
This obligation has led to a realignment in judicial practice in England, see:
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006] UKHL 51, [2007] 1 A.C. 619 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880] where Baroness Hale noted that the reform would lead to children being heard more frequently in Hague cases than had hitherto happened.
Re M. (A Child) (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2007] EWCA Civ 260, [2007] 2 FLR 72, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 901]
The Court of Appeal endorsed the suggestion by Baroness Hale that the requirement under the Brussels II a Regulation to ascertain the views of children of sufficient age of maturity was not restricted to intra-European Community cases of child abduction, but was a principle of universal application.
Article 11(3) of the Brussels II a Regulation requires Convention proceedings to be dealt with within 6 weeks.
Klentzeris v. Klentzeris [2007] EWCA Civ 533, [2007] 2 FLR 996, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 931]
Thorpe LJ held that this extended to appeal hearings and as such recommended that applications for permission to appeal should be made directly to the trial judge and that the normal 21 day period for lodging a notice of appeal should be restricted.
Article 11(4) of the Brussels II a Regulation provides that the return of a child cannot be refused under Article 13(1) b) of the Hague Convention if it is established that adequate arrangements have been made to secure the protection of the child after his return.
Cases in which reliance has been placed on Article 11(4) of the Brussels II a Regulation to make a return order include:
France
CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No 06/002739 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 947];
CA Paris 15 février 2007 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 979].
The relevant protection was found not to exist, leading to a non-return order being made, in:
CA Aix-en-Provence, 30 novembre 2006, N° RG 06/03661 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 717].
The most notable element of Article 11 is the new mechanism which is now applied where a non-return order is made on the basis of Article 13. This allows the authorities in the State of the child's habitual residence to rule on whether the child should be sent back notwithstanding the non-return order. If a subsequent return order is made under Article 11(7) of the Regulation, and is certified by the issuing judge, then it will be automatically enforceable in the State of refuge and all other EU-Member States.
Article 11(7) Brussels II a Regulation - Return Order Granted:
Re A. (Custody Decision after Maltese Non-return Order: Brussels II Revised) [2006] EWHC 3397 (Fam.), [2007] 1 FLR 1923 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 883]
Article 11(7) Brussels II a Regulation - Return Order Refused:
Re A. H.A. v. M.B. (Brussels II Revised: Article 11(7) Application) [2007] EWHC 2016 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 289, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 930].
The CJEU has ruled that a subsequent return order does not have to be a final order for custody:
Case C-211/10 PPU Povse v. Alpago, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1328].
In this case it was further held that the enforcement of a return order cannot be refused as a result of a change of circumstances. Such a change must be raised before the competent court in the Member State of origin.
Furthermore abducting parents may not seek to subvert the deterrent effect of Council Regulation 2201/2003 in seeking to obtain provisional measures to prevent the enforcement of a custody order aimed at securing the return of an abducted child:
Case C 403/09 PPU Detiček v. Sgueglia, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1327].
For academic commentary on the new EU regime see:
P. McEleavy ‘The New Child Abduction Regime in the European Community: Symbiotic Relationship or Forced Partnership?' [2005] Journal of Private International Law 5 - 34.
-
-
-
Analyse de la jurisprudence de la base de données INCADAT en cours de préparation.
Résumé INCADAT en cours de préparation.
76;2201/2203 (BRUXELLES II BIS)
L'application de la Convention de La Haye de 1980 dans les États membres de l'Union européenne (excepté le Danemark) a fait l'objet d'un amendement à la suite de l'entrée en vigueur du Règlement (CE) n°2201/2003 du Conseil du 27 novembre 2003 relatif à la compétence, la reconnaissance et l'exécution des décisions en matière matrimoniale et en matière de responsabilité parentale abrogeant le règlement (CE) n°1347/2000. Voir :
Affaire C-195/08 PPU Rinau v. Rinau, [2008] ECR I 5271 [2008] 2 FLR 1495 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 987];
Affaire C 403/09 PPU Detiček v. Sgueglia, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1327].
La Convention de La Haye reste l'instrument majeur de lutte contre les enlèvements d'enfants, mais son application est précisée et complétée.
L'article 11(2) du Règlement de Bruxelles II bis exige que dans le cadre de l'application des articles 12 et 13 de la Convention de La Haye, l'occasion doit être donnée à l'enfant d'être entendu pendant la procédure sauf lorsque cela s'avère inapproprié eu égard à son jeune âge ou son immaturité.
Cette obligation a donné lieu à un changement dans la jurisprudence anglaise :
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Foreign Custody Rights) [2006] UKHL 51 [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/UKe 880].
Dans cette espèce le juge Hale indiqua que désormais les enfants seraient plus fréquemment auditionnés dans le cadre de l'application de la Convention de La Haye.
L'article 11(4) du Règlement de Bruxelles II bis prévoit que : « Une juridiction ne peut pas refuser le retour de l'enfant en vertu de l'article 13, point b), de la convention de La Haye de 1980 s'il est établi que des dispositions adéquates ont été prises pour assurer la protection de l'enfant après son retour. »
Décisions ayant tiré les conséquences de l'article 11(4) du Règlement de Bruxelles II bis pour ordonner le retour de l'enfant :
France
CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No 06/002739 [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/FR 947];
CA Paris 15 février 2007 [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/FR 979].
Il convient de noter que le Règlement introduit un nouveau mécanisme applicable lorsqu'une ordonnance de non-retour est rendue sur la base de l'article 13. Les autorités de l'État de la résidence habituelle de l'enfant ont la possibilité de rendre une décision contraignante sur la question de savoir si l'enfant doit retourner dans cet État nonobstant une ordonnance de non-retour. Si une telle décision de l'article 11(7) du Règlement est en effet rendue et certifiée dans l'État de la résidence habituelle, elle deviendra automatiquement exécutoire dans l'État de refuge ainsi que dans tous les États Membres.
Décision de retour de l'Article 11(7) du Règlement de Bruxelles II bis rendue :
Re A. (Custody Decision after Maltese Non-return Order: Brussels II Revised) [2006] EWHC 3397 (Fam.), [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/UKe 883].
Décision de retour de l'Article 11(7) du Règlement de Bruxelles II bis refusée :
Re A. H.A. v. M.B. (Brussels II Revised: Article 11(7) Application) [2007] EWHC 2016 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 289 [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/UKe 930].
Voir le commentaire de :
P. McEleavy, « The New Child Abduction Regime in the European Community: Symbiotic Relationship or Forced Partnership? », Journal of Private International Law, 2005, p. 5 à 34.
-
-
-
En curso de elaboración.
Resumen INCADAT en curso de preparación.
La aplicación del Convenio de la Haya de 1980 entre los Estados Miembro de la Unión Europea (excepto Dinamarca) ha sido reformada como consecuencia de la entrada en vigor del Reglamento del Consejo (CE) N° 2201/2003 de 27 de noviembre de 2003 relativo a la competencia y el reconocimiento y la ejecución de sentencias en materia de matrimonio y responsabilidad parental, que revocara el Reglamento (CE) N° 1347/2000, ver:
Case C-195/08 PPU Rinau v. Rinau, [2008] 2 FLR 1495 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/ 987];
Case C 403/09 PPU Detiček v. Sgueglia, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1327].
El Convenio de la Haya continúa siendo la herramienta primaria para combatir las sustracciones de menores dentro de la Unión Europea pero su funcionamiento ha sido finamente ajustado.
El Artículo 11(2) del Reglamento Bruselas II bis exige que cuando se apliquen los Artículos 12 y 13 del Convenio de la Haya de 1980 se le otorgue al menor la oportunidad de ser oído durante el proceso, excepto que esto parezca inadecuado teniendo en cuenta su edad o grado de madurez.
Esta obligación ha llevado a un realineamiento de la práctica judicial en Inglaterra, ver:
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006] UKHL 51, [2007] 1 A.C. 619 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 880] donde la Baronesa Hale observó que la reforma llevaría a que se oyera a los menores con mayor frecuencia en los casos en virtud del Convenio de La Haya de la que había ocurrido hasta ese entonces.
Re M. (A Child) (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2007] EWCA Civ 260, [2007] 2 FLR 72, [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 901]
El Tribunal de Apelaciones reafirmó la sugerencia de la Baronesa Hale de que el requerimiento establecido por el Reglamento de Bruselas II de averiguar la opinión de los niños de edad y madurez suficiente no estaba restringido a los casos de sustracción de niños de la Comunidad Europea, sino que era un principio de aplicación universal.
El Artículo 11(3) del Reglamento de Bruselas II a requiere que los procedimientos se lleven a cabo dentro de las 6 semanas.
Klentzeris v. Klentzeris [2007] EWCA Civ 533, [2007] 2 FLR 996, [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 931].
Thorpe LJ sostuvo que esto se extendía a las audiencias de apelación y en tal sentido recomendó que las solicitudes de apelación fueran realizadas directamente ante el juez de primera instancia y que se restringiera el período habitual de 21 días para correr el traslado de la apelación.
El Artículo 11(4) del Reglamento Bruselas II bis dispone que no se puede denegar la restitución de un menor en virtud del Artículo 13(1) b) del Convenio de la Haya si se establece que se han realizado arreglos adecuados a fin de asegurar la protección del menor después de su restitución.
Entre los casos en los que se ha invocado el Artículo 11(4) del Reglamento Bruselas II bis para expedir una orden de restitución se encuentran los siguientes:
Francia
CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No 06/002739 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/FR 947]
CA Paris 15 février 2007 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/FR 979]
Se entendió que no existía protección relevante, lo que condujo a que se decidiera una orden de no restitución, en:
CA Aix-en-Provence, 30 novembre 2006, N° RG 06/03661 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/FR 717].
El elemento más notorio del Artículo 11 es el nuevo mecanismo que se aplica actualmente cuando se expide una orden de no restitución sobre la base del Artículo 13. Esto permite a las autoridades del Estado de residencia habitual del menor resolver si el menor debería ser enviado de regreso a pesar de la orden de no restitución. Si se expide una orden de restitución posterior en virtud del Artículo 11(7) del Reglamento, y el juez que la expide la certifica, entonces será automáticamente ejecutable en el Estado de refugio y todos los demás Estados Miembro de la CE.
Artículo 11(7) del Reglamento Bruselas II bis - Orden de Restitución Otorgada:
Re A. (Custody Decision after Maltese Non-return Order: Brussels II Revised) [2006] EWHC 3397 (Fam.), [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 883]
Artículo 11(7) del Reglamento Bruselas II bis - Orden de Restitución Denegada:
Re A. H.A. v. M.B. (Brussels II Revised: Article 11(7) Application) [2007] EWHC 2016 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 289, [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 930]
Para comentarios académicos respecto del nuevo régimen de la UE, ver:
P. McEleavy ‘The New Child Abduction Regime in the European Community: Symbiotic Relationship or Forced Partnership?' [2005] Journal of Private International Law 5 - 34.