Activities of Notis MARIAS related to 2016/0190(CNS)
Plenary speeches (2)
Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, and international child abduction (debate) EL
Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, and international child abduction (debate) EL
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast)
Amendments (12)
Amendment 13 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The smooth and correct functioning of a Union area of justice with respect for the Member States' different legal systems and traditions is vital for the Union. In that regard, mutual trust in one another's justice systems should be further enhanced. The Union has set itself the objective of creating, maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons and access to justice are ensured. With a view to implementing those objectives, it is essential that the rights of persons, notably children, in legal proceedings should be reinforced in order to facilitate the cooperation of judicial and administrative authorities and the enforcement of decisions in family law matters with cross-border implications. The mutual recognition of decisions in civil matters should be enhanced, access to justice should be simplified and exchanges of information between the authorities of the Member States should be improved upon.
Amendment 14 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 7
Recital 7
(7) Since the application of the rules on parental responsibility often arises in the context of matrimonial proceedings, however, it is appropriate to have a single instrument for matters of divorce and parental responsibility.
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 8
Recital 8
(8) As regards decisions on divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment, this Regulation should apply simply and only to the dissolution of matrimonial ties and should not deal with issues such as the grounds for divorce, property consequences of the marriage or any other ancillary measures.
Amendment 16 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 9
Recital 9
(9) As regards the property of the child, this Regulation should apply only to measures for the protection of the child, namely the designation and functions of a person or body having charge of the child's property, representing or assisting the child, and the administration, conservation or disposal of the child's property. In this context, this Regulation should, for instance, apply in cases where the object of the proceedings is the designation of a person or body administering the child's property. Measures relating to the child's property which do not concern the protection of the child should continue to be governed by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council36. _________________ 36 Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 351, 20.12.2012, p. 1).
Amendment 18 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 13
Recital 13
(13) The grounds of jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility arshould always be shaped in the light of the best interests of the child and should be applied in accordance with them. Any reference to the best interests of the child should be interpreted in light of Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989.
Amendment 20 #
(15) Where the child's habitual residence changes following a lawful relocation, jurisdiction should follow the child in order to maintain the proximity. This should apply where no proceedings are yet pending, and also in pending proceedings. In pending proceedings, however, parties may agree in the interests of the efficiency of justice that the courts of the Member State where proceedings are pending retain their jurisdiction until a final decision has been given, provided that this is in the best interests of the child. This possibility is of particular importance where proceedings are nearing conclusion and one parent wishes to relocate to another Member State with the child.
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 16
Recital 16
(16) Under certain conditions and where it is iIn the best interests of the child, jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility may also beis established in athe Member State where proceedings for divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment are pending between the parents, or in another Member State with which the child has a substantial connection and upon which the parties have agreed, even if the child is not habitually resident in that Member State. Such jurisdiction, which is an exception to the principle of proximity embodied in the jurisdiction of the Member State of habitual residence of the child for which perpetuatio fori does not exist, should cease at the latest as soon as a decision in those proceedings on parental responsibility matters has become final, in order to respect the requirement of proximity for any new proceedings in the future.
Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) This Regulation should not prevent the authorities of a Member State not having jurisdiction over the substance of the matter from taking provisional, including protective measures, in urgent cases, with regard to the person or property of a child present in that Member State. Those measures should be recognised and enforced in all other Member States including the Member States having jurisdiction under this Regulation until a competent authority of such a Member State has taken the measures it considers appropriate. Measures taken by a court in one Member State should however only be amended or replaced by measures also taken by a court in the Member State having jurisdiction over the substance of the matter. An authority only having jurisdiction for provisional, including protective measures should, if seized with an application concerning the substance of the matter, declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction. Insofar as the protection of the best interests of the child so requires, the authority should inform, directly or through the Central Authority, the authority of the Member State having jurisdiction over the substance of the matter under this Regulation about the measures taken. The failure to inform the authority of another Member State should however not as such be a ground for the non-recognition of the measure.Does not affect the EN version)
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) In exceptional cases, tThe authorities of the Member State of habitual residence of the child may not be the most appropriate authorities to deal with the case. In the best interests of the child, as an exception and under certainsubject to conditions, the authority having jurisdiction may transfer its jurisdiction in a specific case to an authority of another Member State if this authority is better placed to hear the case. However, in this case the second authority should not be allowed to transfer jurisdiction to a third authority.
Amendment 32 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26
Recital 26
(26) In order to conclude the return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention as quickly as possible, Member States should concentrate jurisdiction for those proceedings upon one or more courts, taking into account their internal structures for the administration of justice as appropriate. The concentration of jurisdiction upon a limited number of courts within a Member State is an essential and effective tool for speeding up the handling of child abduction cases in several Member States because the judges hearing a larger number of these cases develop particular expertise. Depending on the structure of the legal system, jurisdiction for child abduction cases could be concentrated in one single court for the whole country or in a limited number of courts, using, for example, the number of appellate courts as point of departure and concentrating jurisdiction for international child abduction cases upon one court of first instance within each district of a court of appeal. Every instance should give its decision no later than sixfour weeks after the application or appeal has been lodged with it. Member States should not limit the number of appeals possible against a decision granting or refusing the return of a child under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention to one.
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 27
Recital 27
(27) Where Central Authorities initiate or facilitate the institution of court proceedings for the return of children under the 1980 Hague Convention, they should ensure that the file prepared with a view to such proceedings is complete within six weeks, save where exceptional circumstances make this impossible. In order to enable the requested Central Authority to comply with that time limit, the requesting Central Authority should liaise closely with the applicant and respond to any requests for additional information or missing documents from the requested Central Authority without delay.Does not affect the EN version)
Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 30
Recital 30
(30) Where the court of the Member State to or in which the child has been wrongfully removed or retained decides to refuse the child's return under the 1980 Hague Convention, in its decision it should refer explicitly to the relevant articles of the 1980 Hague Convention on which the refusal was based and state the grounds therefor. Such a decision may be replaced, however, by a subsequent decision, given in custody proceedings after a thorough examination of the child's best interests, by the court of the Member State of habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful removal or retention. Should that decision entail the return of the child, the return should take place without any special procedure being required for the recognition and enforcement of that decision in the Member State to or in which the child has been removed or retained.