CASO

Descargar texto completo FR

Nombre del caso

Cour d'appel de Bruxelles, 5 mai 2009, No de rôle : 2008/JR/177

Referencia INCADAT

HC/E/1070

Tribunal

País

Bélgica

Instancia

Tribunal de Apelaciones

Estados involucrados

Fallo

Fecha

5 May 2009

Estado

Sujeto a apelación

Fundamentos

Residencia habitual - art. 3 | Aceptación posterior - art. 13(1)(a) | Reglamento Bruselas II bis Reglamento (CE) No 2201/2003 del Consejo

Fallo

-

Artículo(s) del Convenio considerados

3 13(1)(a)

Artículo(s) del Convenio invocados en la decisión

-

Otras disposiciones
Arts. 2, 10 y 11 del Reglamento Bruselas II bis Reglamento (CE) nº 2201/2003 del Consejo
Jurisprudencia | Casos referidos

-

Publicado en

-

INCADAT comentario

Excepciones a la restitución

Aceptación posterior
Aceptación posterior

Interrelación con instrumentos internacionales y regionales y Derecho interno

Reglamento Bruselas II bis - Reglamento (CE) nº 2201/2003 del Consejo
Reglamento Bruselas II bis

SUMARIO

Sumario disponible en EN | FR

Facts

The parents (Moroccan father and Polish mother) had met in France as students in 2005. The child was born in September 2006 in Poland and had lived with its parents in Belgium where the father had found work from January to July 2007. Although they separated in the spring of 2007, the parents remained living together.

On 1 August 2007, the mother took the child to Poland with the father's consent. In the latter's view, this was a temporary stay and the mother and child would return to live in Belgium.

The father did not apply for the child's return. When he understood that the mother did not wish to return to Belgium, he initiated proceedings in Belgium in December 2007 for maintenance of shared parental authority and the establishment of a detailed right of access and accommodation. The mother challenged the Belgian courts' jurisdiction.

The Belgian court at first instance held that it had jurisdiction. The mother appealed.

Ruling

The Belgian courts have no jurisdiction: the existence of acquiescence by the father in the child's wrongful retention precludes the international jurisdiction of the Belgian courts on the basis of Article 10 of the Brussels II a Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003).

Grounds

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

The Court pointed out that in accordance with the Belgian code of private international law, the Court seised is required to ascertain sua sponte that it has international jurisdiction when it observes an element of diversity in the dispute. It added that the connecting factor selected is that of the child's habitual residence.

According to the father, the Belgian courts had jurisdiction owing to the wrongful retention suffered by the child. The Court noted that immediately before its retention, the child had its habitual residence in Belgium, as did its parents. Yet under both Polish and Belgian law, the right to determine the location of the child's residence is granted as of right to both parents. Accordingly, the mother had no authority to modify the location of the child's residence unilaterally.

The Court of Appeal observed that starting in mid-August 2007, the father had asked the mother for the date of their return to Belgium. Until October 2007, he believed that the mother would return after completing her master's degree.

The court added that on the basis of the evidence in the record, at no time between July 2007 (when the child still had its habitual residence in Belgium) and 3 December 2007 (the date when it may be considered that the child now had habitual residence in Poland) did the father expressly consent in the establishment of the child's habitual residence in Poland. Accordingly, there had indeed been a wrongful retention.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

The Court of Appeal observed that the father had drafted in 2008 two attestations of his consent for the child to reside in Poland. These documents, according to the Court, had indisputably been drafted at the mother's request, possibly pursuant to some pressure.

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal noted that at no point did the father claim the child's return to Belgium, but on the contrary offered to travel to Poland to care for the child. It deduced that this constituted acquiescence.

Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

In accordance with Article 10 of the Brussels IIa Regulation, the courts of the State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the retention shall forfeit jurisdiction if the child has acquired a habitual residence in another State and the person having rights of custody has acquiesced in the retention.

The Court of Appeal deduced from the father's acquiescence that since the child had acquired a habitual residence in Poland, the Belgian courts had forfeited their jurisdiction to try the case.

On a subsidiary basis, the Court of Appeal added that in accordance with Article 10(b)(i) of the Brussels IIa Regulation, there were further grounds for denying the Belgian courts' jurisdiction: the child had resided for 21 months in Poland where it had acquired a habitual residence and had indisputably settled, and the father had not made any application for return whereas he had known from the outset where the child was located.

Author of the summary: Aude Fiorini

INCADAT comment

Acquiescence

There has been general acceptance that where the exception of acquiescence is concerned regard must be paid in the first instance to the subjective intentions of the left behind parent, see:

Australia
Commissioner, Western Australia Police v. Dormann, JP (1997) FLC 92-766 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 213];

Barry Eldon Matthews (Commissioner, Western Australia Police Service) v. Ziba Sabaghian PT 1767 of 2001 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 345];

Austria
5Ob17/08y, Oberster Gerichtshof, (Austrian Supreme Court) 1/4/2008 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AT 981].

Considering the issue for the first time, Austria's supreme court held that acquiescence in a temporary state of affairs would not suffice for the purposes of Article 13(1) a), rather there had to be acquiescence in a durable change in habitual residence.

Belgium
N° de rôle: 02/7742/A, Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles 6/3/2003, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/BE 545];

Canada
Ibrahim v. Girgis, 2008 ONCA 23, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 851];

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re H. and Others (Minors) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1998] AC 72 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 46];

In this case the House of Lords affirmed that acquiescence was not to be found in passing remarks or letters written by a parent who has recently suffered the trauma of the removal of his children.

Ireland
K. v. K., 6 May 1998, transcript, Supreme Court of Ireland [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 285];

Israel
Dagan v. Dagan 53 P.D (3) 254 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IL 807];

New Zealand
P. v. P., 13 March 2002, Family Court at Greymouth (New Zealand), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 533];

United Kingdom - Scotland
M.M. v. A.M.R. or M. 2003 SCLR 71, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 500];

South Africa
Smith v. Smith 2001 (3) SA 845 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 499];

Switzerland
5P.367/2005 /ast, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 841].

In keeping with this approach there has also been a reluctance to find acquiescence where the applicant parent has sought initially to secure the voluntary return of the child or a reconciliation with the abducting parent, see:

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re H. and Others (Minors) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1998] AC 72 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 46];

P. v. P. (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1998] 2 FLR 835, [INCADAT cite:  HC/E/UKe 179];

Ireland
R.K. v. J.K. (Child Abduction: Acquiescence) [2000] 2 IR 416, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 285];

United States of America
Wanninger v. Wanninger, 850 F. Supp. 78 (D. Mass. 1994), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 84];

In the Australian case Townsend & Director-General, Department of Families, Youth and Community (1999) 24 Fam LR 495, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 290] negotiation over the course of 12 months was taken to amount to acquiescence but, notably, in the court's exercise of its discretion it decided to make a return order.

Brussels II a Regulation

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.