18 Amendments of Rainer WIELAND related to 2016/0190(CNS)
Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) IParticular attention should be paid to the fact that, in exceptional cases, the 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 certain 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 30 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) Proceedings in matters of parental responsibility under this Regulation as well as return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention should respect the child’s right to express his or her views freely, and when assessing the child’s best interests, due weight should be given to those views. The hearing of the child in accordance with Article 24(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child plays an important role in the application of this Regulation. This Regulation is howeveremphatically not intended to set out how to hear the child, for instance, whether the child is heard by the judge in person or by a specially trained expert reporting to the court afterwards, or whether the child is heard in the courtroom or in another place.
Amendment 31 #
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 six weeks after the application or appeal has been lodged with it. Member States should 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. Measures should also be taken to ensure that court judgments handed down in one Member State are recognised in another Member State. When a court judgment has been handed down, it should also be recognised throughout the Union, especially in the interests of children.
Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) In all cases concerning children, and in particular in cases of international child abduction, judicial and administrative authorities should consider the possibility of achieving amicable solutions through mediation and other appropriate means, assisted, where appropriate, by existing networks and support structures for mediation in cross-border parental responsibility disputes. Such efforts should not, however, unduly prolong the return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention. In addition, the expertise of ombudsmen should be better used and implemented.
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) AIn special cases, an authority of a Member State contemplating a decision on parental responsibility should be absolutely entitled to request the communication of information relevant to the protection of the child from the authorities of another Member State if the best interests of the child so require. Depending on the circumstances, this may include information on proceedings and decisions concerning a parent or siblings of the child, or on the capacity of a parent to care for a child or to have access to the child.
Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new)
(1a) In order to simplify questions of competence, Member States shall designate a court at national level which shall negotiate all cross-border cases involving children.
Amendment 50 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 18
Recital 18
(18) IParticular attention should be paid to the fact that, in exceptional cases, the 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 certain 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 53 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) Proceedings in matters of parental responsibility under this Regulation as well as return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention should respect the child’s right to express his or her views freely, and when assessing the child’s best interests, due weight should be given to those views. The hearing of the child in accordance with Article 24(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child plays an important role in the application of this Regulation. TIt should be stressed that this Regulation is however not intended to set out how to hear the child, for instance, whether the child is heard by the judge in person or by a specially trained expert reporting to the court afterwards, or whether the child is heard in the courtroom or in another place .
Amendment 53 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 21 – paragraph 1
Article 21 – paragraph 1
Where a person, institution or other body alleging a breach of rights of custody applies to the court in a Member State for a decision on the basis of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ( ‘the 1980 Hague Convention’), ordering the return of a child that has been wrongfully removed or retained in a Member State other than the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention, Articles 22 to 26 shall apply. Calls for a support platform for EU citizens who are seeking the return of a child before courts in other Member States. In addition, EU citizens residing in other Member States where they are seeking the return of a child should be assisted by their respective representations.
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23 a (new)
Recital 23 a (new)
(23a) This Regulation is however not intended to set out how to hear the child, for instance, whether the child is heard by the judge in person or by a specially trained expert reporting to the court afterwards, or whether the child is heard in the courtroom or in another place, but in order to protect the fundamental rights at stake, provision should be made in any case for the hearing of the child to be recorded. The hearing of the child must provide all the guarantees that allow to preserve the emotional integrity and the best interest of the child. Both holders of parental responsibility and their legal advisors must have the opportunity to see the hearing recorded.
Amendment 56 #
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 six weeks after the application or appeal has been lodged with it. Member States should 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. Measures should also be taken to ensure that court judgments handed down in one Member State are recognised in another Member State. When a court judgment has been handed down, it must also be recognised throughout the European Union, especially in the interests of children.
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 63 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
Article 63 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new)
(ea) They shall inform the holders of parental responsibility about legal aid and assistance, for example about specialised bilingual lawyers, in order to prevent holders of parental responsibility giving their consent without having understood the scope of their consent.
Amendment 60 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Article 65 – paragraph 1 a (new)
(1a) Social workers and other staff of authorities dealing with the cross-border placement of children in homes or with foster families shall receive training to raise their awareness of the issues involved.
Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 1 b (new)
Article 65 – paragraph 1 b (new)
(1b) Member States shall guarantee the parents regular right of access, except where this would jeopardise the well- being of the child.
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) In all cases concerning children, and in particular in cases of international child abduction, judicial and administrative authorities should consider the possibility of achieving amicable solutions through mediation and other appropriate means, assisted, where appropriate, by existing networks and support structures for mediation in cross-border parental responsibility disputes. Such efforts should not, however, unduly prolong the return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention. In addition, the expertise of ombudsmen should be better used and implemented.
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 65 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Article 65 – paragraph 4 a (new)
Amendment 82 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 46
Recital 46
(46) AIn special cases, an authority of a Member State contemplating a decision on parental responsibility should be absolutely entitled to request the communication of information relevant to the protection of the child from the authorities of another Member State if the best interests of the child so require. Depending on the circumstances, this may include information on proceedings and decisions concerning a parent or siblings of the child, or on the capacity of a parent to care for a child or to have access to the child.
Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
In so far as the protection of the best interests of the child so requires, the authority having taken the protective measures shall inform the authority of the Member State having jurisdiction under this Regulation as to the substance of the matter, either directly or through the Central Authority designated pursuant to Article 60. This authority must ensure that the parents involved in the proceedings are thoroughly informed without delay about all the measures in question, in a language they understand.