BETA


2016/0190(CNS) Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility; international child abduction. Recast

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead JURI ZWIEFKA Tadeusz (icon: PPE PPE)
Former Responsible Committee JURI ZWIEFKA Tadeusz (icon: PPE PPE)
Committee Opinion LIBE
Committee Opinion FEMM
Committee Opinion PETI
Former Committee Opinion LIBE
Former Committee Opinion FEMM
Former Committee Opinion PETI CABEZÓN RUIZ Soledad (icon: S&D S&D) Notis MARIAS (icon: ECR ECR)
Fromer Committee Recast Technique Opinion JURI BOUTONNET Marie-Christine (icon: ENF ENF)
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
TFEU 081-p3

Events

2019/07/02
   Final act published in Official Journal
2019/06/25
   EP/CSL - Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament
2019/06/25
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2019/03/14
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted, by 553 votes to 7 with 38 abstentions, following a special legislative procedure (repeated consultation of the Parliament), a legislative resolution on the draft Council Regulation on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast).

The European Parliament approved the Council's draft concerning the revision of the Brussels II bis Regulation (Regulation on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction).

The proposed Regulation would aim to facilitate and accelerate the cross-border enforcement of decisions on parental responsibility and international child abduction. It shall apply in civil matters of: (i) divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment; (ii) the attribution, exercise, delegation, restriction or termination of parental responsibility.

Documents
2019/03/13
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2019/01/31
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, reconsultation
Details

The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted, following a special legislative procedure (consultation), the report by Tadeusz ZWIEFKA (EPP, PL) on the draft 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).

The European Parliament being consulted again on the draft Council Regulation aimed to facilitate and accelerate the cross-border enforcement of decisions on parental responsibility and international child abduction. It shall apply in civil matters of: (i) divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment; (ii) the attribution, exercise, delegation, restriction or termination of parental responsibility.

The committee responsible recommended that the European Parliament approve the Council's draft as amended.

Documents
2019/01/23
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2019/01/21
   EP - Responsible Committee
2018/12/19
   EP/CSL - Formal reconsultation of Parliament
2018/12/12
   EC - Amended legislative proposal for reconsultation published
Details

PURPOSE: to improve EU rules to protect children in the context of cross-border parental responsibility disputes concerning custody, access and abduction of children.

PROPOSED ACT: Council Regulation.

ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the Council adopts the act after consulting the European Parliament but without being obliged to follow its opinion.

BACKGROUND: the Council adopted its position on the revision of so called Brussels IIa regulation which sets out rules on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, as well as on intra-EU child abduction.

The proposal was presented by the Commission on 30 June 2016. It aims at improving the current legal EU rules that protect children in the context of cross-border parental responsibility disputes related to custody, access rights and child abduction. A key objective of the new rules is to ensure faster general procedures, given the need to move quickly to protect the best interests of the child in the context of cross-border parental responsibility disputes.

The European Parliament delivered its opinion on the initial proposal on 18 January 2018. It is consulted again on this amended legislative proposal.

CONTENT: the draft Council Regulation aims to facilitate and accelerate the cross-border enforcement of decisions on parental responsibility and international child abduction. It shall apply in civil matters of:

(a) divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment ;

(b) the attribution, exercise, delegation, restriction or termination of parental responsibility . The matters may, in particular, include: (i) rights of custody and rights of access; (ii) guardianship, curatorship and similar institutions; (iii) the designation and functions of any person or body having charge of the person or property of the child, representing or assisting the child; (iv) the placement of the child in institutional or foster care; (v) measures for the protection of the child relating to the administration, conservation or disposal of the property of the child.

The new rules amend the existing Brussels IIa regulation on a number aspects and foresee in particular:

- enhanced and clearer rules on intra-EU child abduction cases with the introduction, for example, of clear deadlines to ensure these cases are treated in the most expeditious manner;

- clearer rules on the opportunity for the child to express his/her views with the introduction of an obligation to give the child a genuine and effective opportunity to express his/her views either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body;

- the complete abolition of exequatur for all decisions in matters of parental responsibility. This will save time and money for citizens whenever a decision needs to circulate from one member state to another. This abolition of exequatur is associated with a number of safeguards;

- clearer provisions on the placement of a child in another Member State, including the need to obtain consent for all placements, except where a child is to be placed with a parent. The best interests of the child should remain the primary consideration;

- the harmonisation of certain rules for the enforcement procedure. While the enforcement procedure remains governed by the law of the member state of enforcement, the regulation includes some harmonised grounds for suspending or refusing enforcement, thereby giving more legal certainty to parents and children;

- clearer rules on the circulation of extra judicial agreements. The text foresees that these agreements, for example on divorce or legal separation, will be allowed to circulate only if they are accompanied by a special certificate;

- as early as possible and at any stage of the proceedings, the court either directly or, where appropriate, with the assistance of the Central Authorities, shall invite the parties to consider whether they are willing to engage in mediation or other means of alternative dispute resolution, unless this is against the best interests of the child, it is not appropriate in the particular case or would unduly delay the proceedings.

Documents
2018/02/15
   EDPS - Document attached to the procedure
Details

OPINION of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on the proposal to recast the Brussels IIa Regulation.

The EDPS opinion focuses on specific recommendations to strengthen the lawfulness of the processing operation provided for in Articles 63 and 64 of the proposal. It also contains recommendations on specific safeguards to protect the fundamental rights and interests of the persons concerned.

Lawfulness of the processing

Since children are among the data subjects affected by the proposal, the EDPS recommends including in the Regulation specific clauses in relation to the purpose of processing and the types of data subject to the processing. In particular, it recommends clarifying whether the cooperation framework set up under Chapter V of the proposal covers only parental responsibility cases or whether it also includes international child abduction.

Considering that Chapter V appears to include the two areas of cooperation, and in order to ensure greater legal certainty and to meet the requirements of the purpose limitation principle, the EDPS considers that Article 63(3) could be amended to limit the purposes to 'cooperation in specific cases relating to parental responsibility and international child abduction', thus excluding 'matrimonial cases', which is the other main area covered by the Regulation.

The EDPS also recommends introducing an explicit reference to the principles of data quality and data minimisation.

Protection of the fundamental rights and interests of the data subject

The EDPS recommends:

- specifying that the reference to the national law of the requested Member State under Article 63(4) does not allow further limitations on the right to information to be introduced at national level, so that the specific measure envisaged to ensure fairness of the processing enshrined in this provision be consistently applied across the Union;

- establishing in the Regulation, as a principle, the right of access of data subjects to the information transmitted to the requesting authority of a Member State;

- supplementing the proposal with a clear and specific provision laying down ‘the scope of the restrictions’, in accordance with the GDPR to the extent restrictions to the rights of access and rectification are considered necessary in the particular context of the proposal.

2018/02/14
   Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2018/01/18
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2018/01/18
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 562 votes to 16, with 43 abstentions, in line with the consultation procedure, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast).

The European Parliament approved the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission subject to the following amendments:

General objectives of the recast : Parliament pointed out that the amendments introduced by the recast of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 shall:

help to strengthen legal certainty and increase flexibility, help to ensure that access to court proceedings is improved, and that such proceedings are made more efficient; enable Member States to retain full sovereignty with regard to substantive law on parental responsibility; ensure the non-discriminatory nature of the procedures and practices used by the competent authorities of the Member States to protect the best interests of the child and the related fundamental rights; guarantee the respect for the rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union , and especially the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, as well as the right to respect for private and family life, and the rights of the child.

Members stressed the need to ensure that court judgments handed down in one Member State are recognised in another Member State and that they be recognised throughout the European Union, especially in the interests of children.

Jurisdiction rules : jurisdiction rules shall also be applicable to all children who are present on Union territory and whose habitual residence cannot be established with certainty. Parliament proposed extending the scope of such rules in particular to cover refugee children and children who have been internationally displaced.

Jurisdiction over parental responsibility : the Regulation shall prevent a child from being taken to another country in order to avoid a potentially unfavourable decision of the authorities. Pending proceedings relating to custody and access rights shall be concluded by means of a final decision so that persons entitled to custody do not remove a child to another country in order thereby to avoid an unfavourable decision by an authority, unless the parties agree that the pending proceedings should be brought to an end.

The designated judges shall be practicing and experienced family judges , in particular with experience in matters having a cross-border jurisdictional dimension.

That authority shall ensure the equal treatment of the parents involved in the proceedings, and shall ensure that they are thoroughly informed without delay about all the measures in question, in a language they fully understand. The best interests of the child shall always be taken into account.

Right of the child to express an opinion : this right shall be exercised in accordance with the national procedural rules, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The hearing of a child shall be conducted by a judge or by a specially trained expert , without any pressure, in particular parental pressure, in a child-friendly setting appropriate for his or her age in terms of language and content and shall provide all the guarantees that allow the emotional integrity and the best interests of the child to be protected. It shall not be conducted in the presence of the parties to the proceedings or their legal representatives, but shall be recorded.

Mediation : the amended text emphasised that, as a result of the recent migration inflows, mediation has often proven to be the only legal means to help families reach an amicable and prompt solution on family disputes.

In this context, the judicial and administrative authorities shall provide assistance to the parties before and during the court proceedings with regard to the selection of mediators or the organisation of mediation. The parties shall be provided with financial assistance to carry out the mediation at least to the extent to which they have been granted or would have been granted legal aid.

Procedure for the return of a child : Members pointed out that when a judicial authority has ordered the return of the child, it shall notify the central authority of the Member State of the habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful removal of such decision and the date upon which it takes effect.

Cooperation in cases concerning parental responsibility : the central authorities should take all appropriate measures to inform the holders of parental responsibility about legal aid and assistance, such as assistance provided by specialised bilingual lawyers, in order to prevent holders of parental responsibility from giving their consent without having understood the scope of that consent.

Where matters of parental responsibility are under scrutiny, the central authority of the Member State where the child is habitually resident shall inform, without undue delay, the central authority of the Member State of which the child or one of the child’s parents is a national on the existence of proceedings.

Placement of the child in another Member State : where an authority of a Member State considers the placement of a child with family members, in a foster family or in an institution in another Member State, it shall obtain the consent of the competent authority of the Member State in which the child should be placed before ordering the placement.

Member States shall guarantee parents right of regular access, except where this would jeopardise the wellbeing of the child.

If the competent authority intends to send social workers to another Member State in order to determine whether a placement or adoption there is compatible with the well-being of the child, it shall inform the Member State concerned accordingly.

Training : Parliament stressed the need to enhance judicial training, especially in cross-border family law, to improve judicial cooperation in civil matters with cross-border implications. Training activities, such as seminars and exchanges, are required at both Union and national level, in order to raise awareness of this Regulation, its content and consequences, as well as to build mutual trust among Member States as regards their judicial systems.

Documents
2018/01/17
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2017/12/08
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2017/12/08
   CSL - Council Meeting
2017/12/01
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the report by Tadeusz ZWIEFKA (EPP, PL) on the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast).

The committee recommended the European Parliament to approve the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission and as amended below:

General objectives of the recast : Members pointed out that the amendments introduced by the recast of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 shall help to strengthen legal certainty and increase flexibility, help to ensure that access to court proceedings is improved, and that such proceedings are made more efficient. At the same time, the changes to this Regulation will help to ensure that Member States retain full sovereignty with regard to substantive law on parental responsibility.

The non-discriminatory nature of the procedures and practices used by the competent authorities of the Member States to protect the best interests of the child and the related fundamental rights shall be ensured.

This Regulation shall fully respect the rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union , and especially the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, as well as the right to respect for private and family life, and the rights of the child.

Jurisdiction rules : jurisdiction rules shall also be applicable to all children who are present on Union territory and whose habitual residence cannot be established with certainty. Members proposed extending the scope of such rules in particular to cover refugee children and children who have been internationally displaced.

Jurisdiction over parental responsibility : the Regulation shall prevent a child from being taken to another country in order to avoid a potentially unfavourable decision of the authorities. Pending proceedings relating to custody and access rights shall be concluded by means of a final decision so that persons entitled to custody do not remove a child to another country in order thereby to avoid an unfavourable decision by an authority, unless the parties agree that the pending proceedings should be brought to an end.

The designated judges shall be practicing and experienced family judges , in particular with experience in matters having a cross-border jurisdictional dimension.

That authority shall ensure the equal treatment of the parents involved in the proceedings, and shall ensure that they are thoroughly informed without delay about all the measures in question, in a language they fully understand. The best interests of the child shall always be taken into account.

Right of the child to express an opinion : this right shall be exercised in accordance with the national procedural rules, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The hearing of a child shall be conducted by a judge or by a specially trained expert , without any pressure, in particular parental pressure, in a child-friendly setting appropriate for his or her age in terms of language and content and shall provide all the guarantees that allow the emotional integrity and the best interests of the child to be protected. It shall not be conducted in the presence of the parties to the proceedings or their legal representatives, but shall be recorded.

Mediation : the judicial and administrative authorities shall provide assistance to the parties before and during the court proceedings with regard to the selection of mediators or the organisation of mediation. The parties shall be provided with financial assistance to carry out the mediation at least to the extent to which they have been granted or would have been granted legal aid.

Procedure for the return of a child : Members pointed out that when a judicial authority has ordered the return of the child, it shall notify the central authority of the Member State of the habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful removal of such decision and the date upon which it takes effect.

Cooperation in cases concerning parental responsibility : the central authorities should take all appropriate measures to inform the holders of parental responsibility about legal aid and assistance , such as assistance provided by specialised bilingual lawyers, in order to prevent holders of parental responsibility from giving their consent without having understood the scope of that consent.

Where matters of parental responsibility are under scrutiny, the central authority of the Member State where the child is habitually resident shall inform, without undue delay, the central authority of the Member State of which the child or one of the child’s parents is a national on the existence of proceedings.

Placement of the child in another Member State : where an authority of a Member State considers the placement of a child with family members, in a foster family or in an institution in another Member State, it shall obtain the consent of the competent authority of the Member State in which the child should be placed before ordering the placement.

Member States shall guarantee parents right of regular access , except where this would jeopardise the wellbeing of the child.

If the competent authority intends to send social workers to another Member State in order to determine whether a placement or adoption there is compatible with the well-being of the child, it shall inform the Member State concerned accordingly.

Lastly, Members stressed the need to enhance judicial training , especially in cross-border family law, to improve judicial cooperation in civil matters with cross-border implications.

Documents
2017/11/21
   EP - Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
2017/06/26
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2017/06/08
   CSL - Debate in Council
Documents
2017/06/08
   CSL - Council Meeting
2017/05/15
   EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2017/05/09
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2017/01/25
   ESC - Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report
Documents
2017/01/24
   EP - Fromer Committee Recast Technique Opinion
2016/11/16
   EP - Former Committee Opinion
2016/10/10
   PT_PARLIAMENT - Contribution
Documents
2016/09/12
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
2016/07/11
   EP - Former Responsible Committee
2016/06/30
   EC - Document attached to the procedure
2016/06/30
   EC - Document attached to the procedure
2016/06/30
   EC - Legislative proposal published
Details

PURPOSE: to improve EU rules that protect children in the context of cross-border parental responsibility disputes related to custody, access rights and child abduction.

PROPOSED ACT: Council Regulation.

ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the Council adopts the act after consulting the European Parliament but without being obliged to follow its opinion.

BACKGROUND: Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 ( the Brussels IIa Regulation ) is the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in family matters in the European Union. It establishes uniform jurisdiction rules for divorce, separation and the annulment of marriage as well as for disputes about parental responsibility in cross-border situations.

It facilitates the free circulation of judgments, authentic instruments and agreements in the Union by laying down provisions on their recognition and enforcement in other Member States. It applies since 1 March 2005 to all Member States except Denmark.

The Commission has assessed the operation of the Regulation in practice and considered necessary amendments to the instrument in its application report adopted in April 2014.

The evaluation showed that between the two major areas covered by the Regulation, the matrimonial and parental responsibility matters, the latter were identified to have caused acute problems . The overall efficiency of certain aspects of the child-related proceedings has been called into question:

in matters concerning parental child abduction, cross-border placement of children, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation between (central and other) national authorities there are excessive and undue delays arising from the way the existing procedures are formulated or applied. This has had a negative impact on parent-child relationships and the best interests of children; the requirement of exequatur generated average delays per case of several months and costs reaching up to EUR 4 000 Euro for citizens; the vague description of the cooperation between Central Authorities has often led to delays of several months or even to the non-fulfilment of requests – which is detrimental to children's welfare; the enforcement of decisions given in another Member State was identified as problematic; decisions are often not enforced or only with significant delays. In addition, the work of specialised lawyers generates costs for parents between EUR 1 000 and 4 000 per case; difficulties arise due to the fact that Member States have diverging rules governing the hearing of the child.

The objective of the recast of the Brussels IIa Regulation is to further develop the European area of Justice and Fundamental Rights based on Mutual Trust by removing the remaining obstacles to the free movement of judicial decisions in line with the principle of mutual recognition and to better protect the best interests of the child by simplifying the procedures and enhancing their efficiency.

IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the policy options and their impact assessment were dealt with separately for each of the issues identified as problematic in the evaluation of the Regulation. For all issues a baseline scenario and alternative options were developed.

For matrimonial and parental responsibility matters, policy options with different degrees of intervention were considered. The preferred package of policy options for parental responsibility matters would meet the simplification objectives by reducing delays relating to the return of the child, the placement decisions, and cooperation between the Central Authorities, and eliminate unnecessary delays and costs related to the exequatur requirement. At the same time it would also respond to the urgency of remedying the problems currently faced in this area, where it is of outmost importance to act and set the scene for changes keeping in mind the situation of children, families and their best interests.

CONTENT: this proposal is a recast of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (the Brussels IIa Regulation) concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000. The main elements of the proposal are as follows:

More efficient proceedings : several substantial modifications are proposed with the aim of improving the efficiency of the return of an abducted child and the problems relating to the complexity of the "overriding mechanism" under the Regulation. More specifically, the proposal:

clarifies the time limit for issuing an enforceable return order : the deadlines applied to different stages of the child return procedure will be limited to a maximum period of 18 weeks (maximum six weeks for the receiving Central Authority to process the application, six weeks for the first instance court, and six weeks for the appellate court) instead of average proceedings taking up to 165 days nowadays; includes an obligation for Member States to concentrate jurisdiction for child abduction cases in a limited number of courts while respecting the structure of the legal system concerned; limits the number of possibilities to appeal a decision on return to one and explicitly invites a judge to consider whether a decision ordering return should be provisionally enforceable; obliges the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention to conduct a thorough examination of the best interests of the child before a final custody decision, possibly implying return of the child, is given.

Decision to place a child : for placement decisions an autonomous consent procedure shall be established to be applied to all cross-border placements, flanked by a time limit for the requested Member State to respond to the request which is now 8 weeks instead of the current 6 months or more.

Rapid enforcement of decisions in other Member States : under the new rules, the exequatur procedure is abolished for all decisions covered by the Regulation's scope. The abolition of exequatur will be accompanied by procedural safeguards which ensure that the defendant's right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair trial.

The defendant parent could make an application to challenge recognition and/or enforcement in the Member State of enforcement in one and the same procedure.

The proposal includes uniform rules to define in which situations not only cross-border enforceability but also enforcement as such could be opposed.

Ensuring the child is heard : the proposal leaves Member States' rules and practices on how to hear a child untouched, but requires mutual recognition between the legal systems. This means that an obligation to give the child who is capable of forming his or her own views an opportunity to express these views would be made explicit in the Regulation.

Improving the efficiency of actual enforcement : in this respect, the proposal:

foresees an indicative time limit for the actual enforcement of a decision . In case the enforcement has not occurred after the lapse of 6 weeks from the moment the enforcement proceedings were initiated, the court of the Member State of enforcement would have to inform the requesting Central Authority in the Member State of origin (or the applicant, if the proceedings were conducted without Central Authority assistance) about this fact and the reasons for the lack of timely enforcement; provides that the court of origin could declare a decision provisionally enforceable even if this possibility does not exist in its national law.

Clarification of the Central Authorities' and other requested authorities’ tasks : the new rules proposed shall promote better cooperation between Central Authorities. Member States shall ensure that Central Authorities have adequate financial and human resources to enable them to carry out the obligations assigned to them under this Regulation. Moreover, courts and child welfare authorities may request the assistance of Central Authorities.

BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: according to the Commission, the proposal triggers relatively modest compliance costs. The abolition of exequatur and the concentration of jurisdiction would require Member States to incur costs for training to familiarise the legal profession with the new procedures envisaged. Training is however already necessary today.

Documents

Activities

Votes

A8-0388/2017 - Tadeusz Zwiefka - Vote unique 18/01/2018 12:10:23.000

2018/01/18 Outcome: +: 562, 0: 43, -: 16
DE FR GB ES IT PL RO PT CZ SE BE HU EL BG NL AT IE SK LT HR LV FI SI MT LU EE DK CY
Total
76
61
63
43
52
46
23
20
19
18
17
17
18
15
25
14
10
12
10
10
7
9
8
6
5
5
8
4
icon: PPE PPE
184
5

Lithuania PPE

Abstain (1)

3
5

Luxembourg PPE

3

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Cyprus PPE

1
icon: S&D S&D
152

Czechia S&D

3

Netherlands S&D

3

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Croatia S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

1

Finland S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Denmark S&D

For (1)

3

Cyprus S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
57

Germany ALDE

3

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Romania ALDE

3

Portugal ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

1
2

Croatia ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

1

Finland ALDE

Abstain (1)

2

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

2
icon: ECR ECR
63

Italy ECR

1

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Greece ECR

For (1)

1

Bulgaria ECR

1

Netherlands ECR

Against (1)

Abstain (1)

2

Lithuania ECR

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1

Finland ECR

For (1)

2

Denmark ECR

2
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
43

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
43

France Verts/ALE

3

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Italy Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
27

United Kingdom ENF

Abstain (1)

1

Italy ENF

2

Poland ENF

Against (1)

1

Romania ENF

1

Netherlands ENF

4

Austria ENF

3
icon: NI NI
15

Germany NI

2

France NI

2

United Kingdom NI

Against (1)

3

Poland NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

2
icon: EFDD EFDD
37

Germany EFDD

Against (1)

1

France EFDD

3

Poland EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Sweden EFDD

2

Lithuania EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

A8-0056/2019 - Tadeusz Zwiefka - Vote unique 14/03/2019 12:23:44.000

2019/03/14 Outcome: +: 553, 0: 38, -: 7
DE FR ES GB PL IT SE NL BE RO PT HU AT CZ BG DK EL SK FI HR IE LV LT SI LU EE MT CY
Total
82
63
47
53
45
54
18
23
17
17
17
17
15
15
12
11
13
11
10
9
9
8
7
7
5
5
5
2
icon: PPE PPE
161

United Kingdom PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Greece PPE

For (1)

1

Finland PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

2

Cyprus PPE

1
icon: S&D S&D
159

Netherlands S&D

3

Czechia S&D

2

Bulgaria S&D

2
3

Croatia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

Abstain (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Cyprus S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
57

Germany ALDE

3

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Romania ALDE

3

Portugal ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2
icon: ECR ECR
59

Sweden ECR

2

Netherlands ECR

2

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

1

Greece ECR

For (1)

1

Finland ECR

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
46

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
40

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Italy GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Czechia GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
30

Germany ENF

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom ENF

3

Poland ENF

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

Belgium ENF

For (1)

1

Austria ENF

2
icon: NI NI
15

Germany NI

1

France NI

For (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Poland NI

Abstain (1)

2

Italy NI

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark NI

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
30

Germany EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

A8-0056/2019 - Tadeusz Zwiefka - Vote unique

2019/03/14 Outcome: +: 553, 0: 38, -: 7
DE FR ES GB PL IT SE NL BE RO PT HU AT CZ BG DK EL SK FI HR IE LV LT SI LU EE MT CY
Total
82
63
48
53
45
54
18
23
17
17
17
17
15
15
12
11
13
11
10
9
9
8
7
7
5
5
5
2
icon: PPE PPE
161

United Kingdom PPE

2

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Greece PPE

For (1)

1

Finland PPE

2

Luxembourg PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Malta PPE

2

Cyprus PPE

1
icon: S&D S&D
159

Netherlands S&D

3

Czechia S&D

2

Bulgaria S&D

2
3

Croatia S&D

2

Ireland S&D

For (1)

1

Latvia S&D

Abstain (1)

1

Slovenia S&D

For (1)

1

Luxembourg S&D

For (1)

1

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1

Malta S&D

3

Cyprus S&D

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
58

Germany ALDE

3

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Romania ALDE

3

Portugal ALDE

1

Austria ALDE

For (1)

1

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

1

Croatia ALDE

2

Latvia ALDE

1

Lithuania ALDE

1

Slovenia ALDE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1

Estonia ALDE

2
icon: ECR ECR
59

Sweden ECR

2

Netherlands ECR

2

Romania ECR

For (1)

1

Czechia ECR

2

Bulgaria ECR

1

Greece ECR

For (1)

1

Finland ECR

1

Croatia ECR

For (1)

1

Latvia ECR

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
46

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

4

Sweden Verts/ALE

3

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
40

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Italy GUE/NGL

2

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Netherlands GUE/NGL

3

Czechia GUE/NGL

1

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1
icon: ENF ENF
30

Germany ENF

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom ENF

3

Poland ENF

Against (1)

1

Netherlands ENF

3

Belgium ENF

For (1)

1

Austria ENF

2
icon: NI NI
15

Germany NI

1

France NI

For (1)

1

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Against (1)

2

Poland NI

Abstain (1)

2

Italy NI

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark NI

1
icon: EFDD EFDD
30

Germany EFDD

Abstain (1)

1

Poland EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

Abstain (1)

1
AmendmentsDossier
218 2016/0190(CNS)
2017/03/10 PETI 52 amendments...
source: 601.144
2017/06/26 JURI 166 amendments...
source: 606.308

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

events/17
date
2019-07-02T00:00:00
type
Final act published in Official Journal
docs
procedure/final
title
Regulation 2019/1111
url
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=32019R1111
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal
New
Procedure completed
activities
  • date: 2016-06-30T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2016/0411/COM_COM(2016)0411_EN.pdf title: COM(2016)0411 type: Legislative proposal published celexid: CELEX:52016PC0411:EN body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/justice-and-consumers_en title: Justice and Consumers Commissioner: JOUROVÁ Věra type: Legislative proposal published
  • date: 2016-09-12T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Women’s Rights and Gender Equality committee: FEMM body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: GEBHARDT Evelyne group: ECR name: DZHAMBAZKI Angel group: ALDE name: CAVADA Jean-Marie group: GUE/NGL name: CHRYSOGONOS Kostas responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2016-07-11T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: EPP name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz body: EP responsible: None committee: JURI date: 2017-01-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: ENF name: BOUTONNET Marie-Christine body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs committee: LIBE body: EP responsible: False committee: PETI date: 2016-11-16T00:00:00 committee_full: Petitions rapporteur: group: S&D name: CABEZÓN RUIZ Soledad
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 3546 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3546*&MEET_DATE=08/06/2017 type: Debate in Council title: 3546 council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) date: 2017-06-08T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 2017-11-21T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Women’s Rights and Gender Equality committee: FEMM body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: GEBHARDT Evelyne group: ECR name: DZHAMBAZKI Angel group: ALDE name: CAVADA Jean-Marie group: GUE/NGL name: CHRYSOGONOS Kostas responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2016-07-11T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: EPP name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz body: EP responsible: None committee: JURI date: 2017-01-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: ENF name: BOUTONNET Marie-Christine body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs committee: LIBE body: EP responsible: False committee: PETI date: 2016-11-16T00:00:00 committee_full: Petitions rapporteur: group: S&D name: CABEZÓN RUIZ Soledad
  • body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0388&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title: A8-0388/2017 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Women’s Rights and Gender Equality committee: FEMM body: EP shadows: group: S&D name: GEBHARDT Evelyne group: ECR name: DZHAMBAZKI Angel group: ALDE name: CAVADA Jean-Marie group: GUE/NGL name: CHRYSOGONOS Kostas responsible: True committee: JURI date: 2016-07-11T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: EPP name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz body: EP responsible: None committee: JURI date: 2017-01-24T00:00:00 committee_full: Legal Affairs rapporteur: group: ENF name: BOUTONNET Marie-Christine body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs committee: LIBE body: EP responsible: False committee: PETI date: 2016-11-16T00:00:00 committee_full: Petitions rapporteur: group: S&D name: CABEZÓN RUIZ Soledad date: 2017-12-01T00:00:00
  • body: CSL meeting_id: 3584 docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3584*&MEET_DATE=08/12/2017 type: Debate in Council title: 3584 council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) date: 2017-12-08T00:00:00 type: Council Meeting
  • date: 2018-01-17T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20180117&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2018-01-18T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=30506&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2018-0017 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0017/2018 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
commission
  • body: EC dg: Justice and Consumers commissioner: JOUROVÁ Věra
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2019-01-21T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/0
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Women’s Rights and Gender Equality
committee
FEMM
committees/1
type
Former Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2016-07-11T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz group: European People's Party (Christian Democrats) abbr: PPE
committees/1
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
JURI
date
2016-07-11T00:00:00
committee_full
Legal Affairs
rapporteur
group: EPP name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz
committees/2
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
opinion
False
committees/2
body
EP
responsible
None
committee
JURI
date
2017-01-24T00:00:00
committee_full
Legal Affairs
rapporteur
group: ENF name: BOUTONNET Marie-Christine
committees/3
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Womens Rights and Gender Equality
committee
FEMM
opinion
False
committees/3
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
committees/4
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Petitions
committee
PETI
opinion
False
committees/4
body
EP
responsible
False
committee
PETI
date
2016-11-16T00:00:00
committee_full
Petitions
rapporteur
group: S&D name: CABEZÓN RUIZ Soledad
committees/5
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs
committee
LIBE
opinion
False
committees/6
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Womens Rights and Gender Equality
committee
FEMM
opinion
False
committees/7
type
Former Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Petitions
committee
PETI
date
2016-11-16T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: CABEZÓN RUIZ Soledad group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
committees/8
type
Fromer Committee Recast Technique Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Legal Affairs
committee
JURI
date
2017-01-24T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: BOUTONNET Marie-Christine group: Europe of Nations and Freedom abbr: ENF
council
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) meeting_id: 3584 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3584*&MEET_DATE=08/12/2017 date: 2017-12-08T00:00:00
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) meeting_id: 3546 url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3546*&MEET_DATE=08/06/2017 date: 2017-06-08T00:00:00
docs
  • date: 2016-06-30T00:00:00 docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2016:0207:FIN:EN:PDF title: EUR-Lex title: SWD(2016)0207 type: Document attached to the procedure body: EC
  • date: 2016-06-30T00:00:00 docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=SWD:2016:0208:FIN:EN:PDF title: EUR-Lex title: SWD(2016)0208 type: Document attached to the procedure body: EC
  • date: 2017-01-25T00:00:00 docs: url: https://dm.eesc.europa.eu/EESCDocumentSearch/Pages/redresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:5280)(documentyear:2016)(documentlanguage:EN) title: CES5280/2016 type: Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report body: ESC
  • date: 2017-05-09T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE602.839 title: PE602.839 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2017-05-15T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE597.699&secondRef=03 title: PE597.699 committee: PETI type: Committee opinion body: EP
  • date: 2017-06-26T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE606.308 title: PE606.308 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2018-02-14T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=30506&j=0&l=en title: SP(2018)83 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
  • date: 2018-02-15T00:00:00 docs: url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:C:2018:120:TOC title: OJ C 120 06.04.2018, p. 0018 title: N8-0014/2019 summary: OPINION of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) on the proposal to recast the Brussels IIa Regulation. The EDPS opinion focuses on specific recommendations to strengthen the lawfulness of the processing operation provided for in Articles 63 and 64 of the proposal. It also contains recommendations on specific safeguards to protect the fundamental rights and interests of the persons concerned. Lawfulness of the processing Since children are among the data subjects affected by the proposal, the EDPS recommends including in the Regulation specific clauses in relation to the purpose of processing and the types of data subject to the processing. In particular, it recommends clarifying whether the cooperation framework set up under Chapter V of the proposal covers only parental responsibility cases or whether it also includes international child abduction. Considering that Chapter V appears to include the two areas of cooperation, and in order to ensure greater legal certainty and to meet the requirements of the purpose limitation principle, the EDPS considers that Article 63(3) could be amended to limit the purposes to 'cooperation in specific cases relating to parental responsibility and international child abduction', thus excluding 'matrimonial cases', which is the other main area covered by the Regulation. The EDPS also recommends introducing an explicit reference to the principles of data quality and data minimisation. Protection of the fundamental rights and interests of the data subject The EDPS recommends: - specifying that the reference to the national law of the requested Member State under Article 63(4) does not allow further limitations on the right to information to be introduced at national level, so that the specific measure envisaged to ensure fairness of the processing enshrined in this provision be consistently applied across the Union; - establishing in the Regulation, as a principle, the right of access of data subjects to the information transmitted to the requesting authority of a Member State; - supplementing the proposal with a clear and specific provision laying down ‘the scope of the restrictions’, in accordance with the GDPR to the extent restrictions to the rights of access and rectification are considered necessary in the particular context of the proposal. type: Document attached to the procedure body: EDPS
  • date: 2016-10-10T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.connefof.europarl.europa.eu/connefof/app/exp/COM(2016)0411 title: COM(2016)0411 type: Contribution body: PT_PARLIAMENT
events
  • date: 2016-06-30T00:00:00 type: Legislative proposal published body: EC docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2016/0411/COM_COM(2016)0411_EN.pdf title: COM(2016)0411 url: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!DocNumber&lg=EN&type_doc=COMfinal&an_doc=2016&nu_doc=0411 title: EUR-Lex summary: PURPOSE: to improve EU rules that protect children in the context of cross-border parental responsibility disputes related to custody, access rights and child abduction. PROPOSED ACT: Council Regulation. ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the Council adopts the act after consulting the European Parliament but without being obliged to follow its opinion. BACKGROUND: Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 ( the Brussels IIa Regulation ) is the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in family matters in the European Union. It establishes uniform jurisdiction rules for divorce, separation and the annulment of marriage as well as for disputes about parental responsibility in cross-border situations. It facilitates the free circulation of judgments, authentic instruments and agreements in the Union by laying down provisions on their recognition and enforcement in other Member States. It applies since 1 March 2005 to all Member States except Denmark. The Commission has assessed the operation of the Regulation in practice and considered necessary amendments to the instrument in its application report adopted in April 2014. The evaluation showed that between the two major areas covered by the Regulation, the matrimonial and parental responsibility matters, the latter were identified to have caused acute problems . The overall efficiency of certain aspects of the child-related proceedings has been called into question: in matters concerning parental child abduction, cross-border placement of children, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation between (central and other) national authorities there are excessive and undue delays arising from the way the existing procedures are formulated or applied. This has had a negative impact on parent-child relationships and the best interests of children; the requirement of exequatur generated average delays per case of several months and costs reaching up to EUR 4 000 Euro for citizens; the vague description of the cooperation between Central Authorities has often led to delays of several months or even to the non-fulfilment of requests – which is detrimental to children's welfare; the enforcement of decisions given in another Member State was identified as problematic; decisions are often not enforced or only with significant delays. In addition, the work of specialised lawyers generates costs for parents between EUR 1 000 and 4 000 per case; difficulties arise due to the fact that Member States have diverging rules governing the hearing of the child. The objective of the recast of the Brussels IIa Regulation is to further develop the European area of Justice and Fundamental Rights based on Mutual Trust by removing the remaining obstacles to the free movement of judicial decisions in line with the principle of mutual recognition and to better protect the best interests of the child by simplifying the procedures and enhancing their efficiency. IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the policy options and their impact assessment were dealt with separately for each of the issues identified as problematic in the evaluation of the Regulation. For all issues a baseline scenario and alternative options were developed. For matrimonial and parental responsibility matters, policy options with different degrees of intervention were considered. The preferred package of policy options for parental responsibility matters would meet the simplification objectives by reducing delays relating to the return of the child, the placement decisions, and cooperation between the Central Authorities, and eliminate unnecessary delays and costs related to the exequatur requirement. At the same time it would also respond to the urgency of remedying the problems currently faced in this area, where it is of outmost importance to act and set the scene for changes keeping in mind the situation of children, families and their best interests. CONTENT: this proposal is a recast of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (the Brussels IIa Regulation) concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000. The main elements of the proposal are as follows: More efficient proceedings : several substantial modifications are proposed with the aim of improving the efficiency of the return of an abducted child and the problems relating to the complexity of the "overriding mechanism" under the Regulation. More specifically, the proposal: clarifies the time limit for issuing an enforceable return order : the deadlines applied to different stages of the child return procedure will be limited to a maximum period of 18 weeks (maximum six weeks for the receiving Central Authority to process the application, six weeks for the first instance court, and six weeks for the appellate court) instead of average proceedings taking up to 165 days nowadays; includes an obligation for Member States to concentrate jurisdiction for child abduction cases in a limited number of courts while respecting the structure of the legal system concerned; limits the number of possibilities to appeal a decision on return to one and explicitly invites a judge to consider whether a decision ordering return should be provisionally enforceable; obliges the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention to conduct a thorough examination of the best interests of the child before a final custody decision, possibly implying return of the child, is given. Decision to place a child : for placement decisions an autonomous consent procedure shall be established to be applied to all cross-border placements, flanked by a time limit for the requested Member State to respond to the request which is now 8 weeks instead of the current 6 months or more. Rapid enforcement of decisions in other Member States : under the new rules, the exequatur procedure is abolished for all decisions covered by the Regulation's scope. The abolition of exequatur will be accompanied by procedural safeguards which ensure that the defendant's right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair trial. The defendant parent could make an application to challenge recognition and/or enforcement in the Member State of enforcement in one and the same procedure. The proposal includes uniform rules to define in which situations not only cross-border enforceability but also enforcement as such could be opposed. Ensuring the child is heard : the proposal leaves Member States' rules and practices on how to hear a child untouched, but requires mutual recognition between the legal systems. This means that an obligation to give the child who is capable of forming his or her own views an opportunity to express these views would be made explicit in the Regulation. Improving the efficiency of actual enforcement : in this respect, the proposal: foresees an indicative time limit for the actual enforcement of a decision . In case the enforcement has not occurred after the lapse of 6 weeks from the moment the enforcement proceedings were initiated, the court of the Member State of enforcement would have to inform the requesting Central Authority in the Member State of origin (or the applicant, if the proceedings were conducted without Central Authority assistance) about this fact and the reasons for the lack of timely enforcement; provides that the court of origin could declare a decision provisionally enforceable even if this possibility does not exist in its national law. Clarification of the Central Authorities' and other requested authorities’ tasks : the new rules proposed shall promote better cooperation between Central Authorities. Member States shall ensure that Central Authorities have adequate financial and human resources to enable them to carry out the obligations assigned to them under this Regulation. Moreover, courts and child welfare authorities may request the assistance of Central Authorities. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: according to the Commission, the proposal triggers relatively modest compliance costs. The abolition of exequatur and the concentration of jurisdiction would require Member States to incur costs for training to familiarise the legal profession with the new procedures envisaged. Training is however already necessary today.
  • date: 2016-09-12T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2017-06-08T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3546*&MEET_DATE=08/06/2017 title: 3546
  • date: 2017-11-21T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2017-12-01T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0388&language=EN title: A8-0388/2017 summary: The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted the report by Tadeusz ZWIEFKA (EPP, PL) on the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast). The committee recommended the European Parliament to approve the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission and as amended below: General objectives of the recast : Members pointed out that the amendments introduced by the recast of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 shall help to strengthen legal certainty and increase flexibility, help to ensure that access to court proceedings is improved, and that such proceedings are made more efficient. At the same time, the changes to this Regulation will help to ensure that Member States retain full sovereignty with regard to substantive law on parental responsibility. The non-discriminatory nature of the procedures and practices used by the competent authorities of the Member States to protect the best interests of the child and the related fundamental rights shall be ensured. This Regulation shall fully respect the rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union , and especially the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, as well as the right to respect for private and family life, and the rights of the child. Jurisdiction rules : jurisdiction rules shall also be applicable to all children who are present on Union territory and whose habitual residence cannot be established with certainty. Members proposed extending the scope of such rules in particular to cover refugee children and children who have been internationally displaced. Jurisdiction over parental responsibility : the Regulation shall prevent a child from being taken to another country in order to avoid a potentially unfavourable decision of the authorities. Pending proceedings relating to custody and access rights shall be concluded by means of a final decision so that persons entitled to custody do not remove a child to another country in order thereby to avoid an unfavourable decision by an authority, unless the parties agree that the pending proceedings should be brought to an end. The designated judges shall be practicing and experienced family judges , in particular with experience in matters having a cross-border jurisdictional dimension. That authority shall ensure the equal treatment of the parents involved in the proceedings, and shall ensure that they are thoroughly informed without delay about all the measures in question, in a language they fully understand. The best interests of the child shall always be taken into account. Right of the child to express an opinion : this right shall be exercised in accordance with the national procedural rules, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The hearing of a child shall be conducted by a judge or by a specially trained expert , without any pressure, in particular parental pressure, in a child-friendly setting appropriate for his or her age in terms of language and content and shall provide all the guarantees that allow the emotional integrity and the best interests of the child to be protected. It shall not be conducted in the presence of the parties to the proceedings or their legal representatives, but shall be recorded. Mediation : the judicial and administrative authorities shall provide assistance to the parties before and during the court proceedings with regard to the selection of mediators or the organisation of mediation. The parties shall be provided with financial assistance to carry out the mediation at least to the extent to which they have been granted or would have been granted legal aid. Procedure for the return of a child : Members pointed out that when a judicial authority has ordered the return of the child, it shall notify the central authority of the Member State of the habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful removal of such decision and the date upon which it takes effect. Cooperation in cases concerning parental responsibility : the central authorities should take all appropriate measures to inform the holders of parental responsibility about legal aid and assistance , such as assistance provided by specialised bilingual lawyers, in order to prevent holders of parental responsibility from giving their consent without having understood the scope of that consent. Where matters of parental responsibility are under scrutiny, the central authority of the Member State where the child is habitually resident shall inform, without undue delay, the central authority of the Member State of which the child or one of the child’s parents is a national on the existence of proceedings. Placement of the child in another Member State : where an authority of a Member State considers the placement of a child with family members, in a foster family or in an institution in another Member State, it shall obtain the consent of the competent authority of the Member State in which the child should be placed before ordering the placement. Member States shall guarantee parents right of regular access , except where this would jeopardise the wellbeing of the child. If the competent authority intends to send social workers to another Member State in order to determine whether a placement or adoption there is compatible with the well-being of the child, it shall inform the Member State concerned accordingly. Lastly, Members stressed the need to enhance judicial training , especially in cross-border family law, to improve judicial cooperation in civil matters with cross-border implications.
  • date: 2017-12-08T00:00:00 type: Debate in Council body: CSL docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3584*&MEET_DATE=08/12/2017 title: 3584
  • date: 2018-01-17T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20180117&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2018-01-18T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=30506&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
  • date: 2018-01-18T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2018-0017 title: T8-0017/2018 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 562 votes to 16, with 43 abstentions, in line with the consultation procedure, a legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast). The European Parliament approved the Commission proposal as adapted to the recommendations of the Consultative Working Party of the legal services of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission subject to the following amendments: General objectives of the recast : Parliament pointed out that the amendments introduced by the recast of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 shall: help to strengthen legal certainty and increase flexibility, help to ensure that access to court proceedings is improved, and that such proceedings are made more efficient; enable Member States to retain full sovereignty with regard to substantive law on parental responsibility; ensure the non-discriminatory nature of the procedures and practices used by the competent authorities of the Member States to protect the best interests of the child and the related fundamental rights; guarantee the respect for the rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union , and especially the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, as well as the right to respect for private and family life, and the rights of the child. Members stressed the need to ensure that court judgments handed down in one Member State are recognised in another Member State and that they be recognised throughout the European Union, especially in the interests of children. Jurisdiction rules : jurisdiction rules shall also be applicable to all children who are present on Union territory and whose habitual residence cannot be established with certainty. Parliament proposed extending the scope of such rules in particular to cover refugee children and children who have been internationally displaced. Jurisdiction over parental responsibility : the Regulation shall prevent a child from being taken to another country in order to avoid a potentially unfavourable decision of the authorities. Pending proceedings relating to custody and access rights shall be concluded by means of a final decision so that persons entitled to custody do not remove a child to another country in order thereby to avoid an unfavourable decision by an authority, unless the parties agree that the pending proceedings should be brought to an end. The designated judges shall be practicing and experienced family judges , in particular with experience in matters having a cross-border jurisdictional dimension. That authority shall ensure the equal treatment of the parents involved in the proceedings, and shall ensure that they are thoroughly informed without delay about all the measures in question, in a language they fully understand. The best interests of the child shall always be taken into account. Right of the child to express an opinion : this right shall be exercised in accordance with the national procedural rules, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The hearing of a child shall be conducted by a judge or by a specially trained expert , without any pressure, in particular parental pressure, in a child-friendly setting appropriate for his or her age in terms of language and content and shall provide all the guarantees that allow the emotional integrity and the best interests of the child to be protected. It shall not be conducted in the presence of the parties to the proceedings or their legal representatives, but shall be recorded. Mediation : the amended text emphasised that, as a result of the recent migration inflows, mediation has often proven to be the only legal means to help families reach an amicable and prompt solution on family disputes. In this context, the judicial and administrative authorities shall provide assistance to the parties before and during the court proceedings with regard to the selection of mediators or the organisation of mediation. The parties shall be provided with financial assistance to carry out the mediation at least to the extent to which they have been granted or would have been granted legal aid. Procedure for the return of a child : Members pointed out that when a judicial authority has ordered the return of the child, it shall notify the central authority of the Member State of the habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful removal of such decision and the date upon which it takes effect. Cooperation in cases concerning parental responsibility : the central authorities should take all appropriate measures to inform the holders of parental responsibility about legal aid and assistance, such as assistance provided by specialised bilingual lawyers, in order to prevent holders of parental responsibility from giving their consent without having understood the scope of that consent. Where matters of parental responsibility are under scrutiny, the central authority of the Member State where the child is habitually resident shall inform, without undue delay, the central authority of the Member State of which the child or one of the child’s parents is a national on the existence of proceedings. Placement of the child in another Member State : where an authority of a Member State considers the placement of a child with family members, in a foster family or in an institution in another Member State, it shall obtain the consent of the competent authority of the Member State in which the child should be placed before ordering the placement. Member States shall guarantee parents right of regular access, except where this would jeopardise the wellbeing of the child. If the competent authority intends to send social workers to another Member State in order to determine whether a placement or adoption there is compatible with the well-being of the child, it shall inform the Member State concerned accordingly. Training : Parliament stressed the need to enhance judicial training, especially in cross-border family law, to improve judicial cooperation in civil matters with cross-border implications. Training activities, such as seminars and exchanges, are required at both Union and national level, in order to raise awareness of this Regulation, its content and consequences, as well as to build mutual trust among Member States as regards their judicial systems.
  • date: 2018-12-12T00:00:00 type: Amended legislative proposal for reconsultation published body: EC docs: url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=ADV&RESULTSET=1&DOC_ID=15401%2F18&DOC_LANCD=EN&ROWSPP=25&NRROWS=500&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC title: 15401/2018 summary: PURPOSE: to improve EU rules to protect children in the context of cross-border parental responsibility disputes concerning custody, access and abduction of children. PROPOSED ACT: Council Regulation. ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the Council adopts the act after consulting the European Parliament but without being obliged to follow its opinion. BACKGROUND: the Council adopted its position on the revision of so called Brussels IIa regulation which sets out rules on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, as well as on intra-EU child abduction. The proposal was presented by the Commission on 30 June 2016. It aims at improving the current legal EU rules that protect children in the context of cross-border parental responsibility disputes related to custody, access rights and child abduction. A key objective of the new rules is to ensure faster general procedures, given the need to move quickly to protect the best interests of the child in the context of cross-border parental responsibility disputes. The European Parliament delivered its opinion on the initial proposal on 18 January 2018. It is consulted again on this amended legislative proposal. CONTENT: the draft Council Regulation aims to facilitate and accelerate the cross-border enforcement of decisions on parental responsibility and international child abduction. It shall apply in civil matters of: (a) divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment ; (b) the attribution, exercise, delegation, restriction or termination of parental responsibility . The matters may, in particular, include: (i) rights of custody and rights of access; (ii) guardianship, curatorship and similar institutions; (iii) the designation and functions of any person or body having charge of the person or property of the child, representing or assisting the child; (iv) the placement of the child in institutional or foster care; (v) measures for the protection of the child relating to the administration, conservation or disposal of the property of the child. The new rules amend the existing Brussels IIa regulation on a number aspects and foresee in particular: - enhanced and clearer rules on intra-EU child abduction cases with the introduction, for example, of clear deadlines to ensure these cases are treated in the most expeditious manner; - clearer rules on the opportunity for the child to express his/her views with the introduction of an obligation to give the child a genuine and effective opportunity to express his/her views either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body; - the complete abolition of exequatur for all decisions in matters of parental responsibility. This will save time and money for citizens whenever a decision needs to circulate from one member state to another. This abolition of exequatur is associated with a number of safeguards; - clearer provisions on the placement of a child in another Member State, including the need to obtain consent for all placements, except where a child is to be placed with a parent. The best interests of the child should remain the primary consideration; - the harmonisation of certain rules for the enforcement procedure. While the enforcement procedure remains governed by the law of the member state of enforcement, the regulation includes some harmonised grounds for suspending or refusing enforcement, thereby giving more legal certainty to parents and children; - clearer rules on the circulation of extra judicial agreements. The text foresees that these agreements, for example on divorce or legal separation, will be allowed to circulate only if they are accompanied by a special certificate; - as early as possible and at any stage of the proceedings, the court either directly or, where appropriate, with the assistance of the Central Authorities, shall invite the parties to consider whether they are willing to engage in mediation or other means of alternative dispute resolution, unless this is against the best interests of the child, it is not appropriate in the particular case or would unduly delay the proceedings.
  • date: 2018-12-19T00:00:00 type: Formal reconsultation of Parliament body: EP/CSL
  • date: 2019-01-23T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2019-01-31T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, reconsultation body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2019-0056&language=EN title: A8-0056/2019 summary: The Committee on Legal Affairs adopted, following a special legislative procedure (consultation), the report by Tadeusz ZWIEFKA (EPP, PL) on the draft 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). The European Parliament being consulted again on the draft Council Regulation aimed to facilitate and accelerate the cross-border enforcement of decisions on parental responsibility and international child abduction. It shall apply in civil matters of: (i) divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment; (ii) the attribution, exercise, delegation, restriction or termination of parental responsibility. The committee responsible recommended that the European Parliament approve the Council's draft as amended.
  • date: 2019-03-13T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20190313&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2019-03-14T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2019-0206 title: T8-0206/2019 summary: The European Parliament adopted, by 553 votes to 7 with 38 abstentions, following a special legislative procedure (repeated consultation of the Parliament), a legislative resolution on the draft Council Regulation on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast). The European Parliament approved the Council's draft concerning the revision of the Brussels II bis Regulation (Regulation on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction). The proposed Regulation would aim to facilitate and accelerate the cross-border enforcement of decisions on parental responsibility and international child abduction. It shall apply in civil matters of: (i) divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment; (ii) the attribution, exercise, delegation, restriction or termination of parental responsibility.
  • date: 2019-06-25T00:00:00 type: Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament body: EP/CSL
  • date: 2019-06-25T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: CSL type: Council Meeting council: Former Council configuration
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/justice-and-consumers_en title: Justice and Consumers commissioner: JOUROVÁ Věra
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
JURI/8/06998
New
  • JURI/8/06998
  • JURI/8/15284
procedure/instrument
Old
Regulation
New
  • Regulation
  • Repealing Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 2000/0818(CNS) Repealing Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 2002/0110(CNS)
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting final decision
New
Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal
procedure/subject
Old
  • 4.10.02 Family policy, family law, parental leave
  • 4.10.03 Child protection, children's rights
  • 7.40.02 Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters
New
4.10.02
Family policy, family law, parental leave
4.10.03
Child protection, children's rights
7.40.02
Judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters
procedure/summary
  • Repealing Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
  • Repealing Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
activities/4/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0388&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading title: A8-0388/2017
activities/5
body
CSL
meeting_id
3584
docs
url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3584*&MEET_DATE=08/12/2017 type: Debate in Council title: 3584
council
Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)
date
2017-12-08T00:00:00
type
Council Meeting
activities/6/date
Old
2018-01-15T00:00:00
New
2018-01-17T00:00:00
activities/6/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20180117&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament
activities/6/type
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
New
Debate in Parliament
activities/7
date
2018-01-18T00:00:00
docs
body
EP
type
Results of vote in Parliament
other/0
body
CSL
type
Council Meeting
council
Former Council configuration
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
New
Awaiting final decision
activities/4
date
2017-12-01T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading
committees
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting committee decision
New
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
activities/3
date
2017-11-21T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
committees
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
activities/3
date
2018-01-15T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
activities/2
body
CSL
meeting_id
3546
docs
url: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/content/out?lang=EN&typ=SET&i=SMPL&ROWSPP=25&RESULTSET=1&NRROWS=500&DOC_LANCD=EN&ORDERBY=DOC_DATE+DESC&CONTENTS=3546*&MEET_DATE=08/06/2017 type: Debate in Council title: 3546
council
Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)
date
2017-06-08T00:00:00
type
Council Meeting
activities/0/commission/0/DG
Old
Justice
New
url
http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/justice-and-consumers_en
title
Justice and Consumers
other/0/dg
Old
Justice
New
url
http://ec.europa.eu/info/departments/justice-and-consumers_en
title
Justice and Consumers
activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52016PC0411:EN
activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52016PC0411:EN
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/2/mepref
Old
4f1adc99b819f207b3000128
New
4f1ac716b819f25efd000066
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/2/name
Old
WIKSTRÖM Cecilia
New
CAVADA Jean-Marie
committees/1/shadows/2/mepref
Old
4f1adc99b819f207b3000128
New
4f1ac716b819f25efd000066
committees/1/shadows/2/name
Old
WIKSTRÖM Cecilia
New
CAVADA Jean-Marie
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/3
group
GUE/NGL
name
CHRYSOGONOS Kostas
committees/1/shadows/3
group
GUE/NGL
name
CHRYSOGONOS Kostas
activities/0/commission/0/DG
Old
url
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/
title
Justice
New
Justice
other/0/dg
Old
url
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/
title
Justice
New
Justice
activities/1/committees/4/date
2016-11-16T00:00:00
activities/1/committees/4/rapporteur
  • group: S&D name: CABEZÓN RUIZ Soledad
committees/4/date
2016-11-16T00:00:00
committees/4/rapporteur
  • group: S&D name: CABEZÓN RUIZ Soledad
activities/1/committees/2/date
2017-01-24T00:00:00
activities/1/committees/2/rapporteur
  • group: ENF name: BOUTONNET Marie-Christine
committees/2/date
2017-01-24T00:00:00
committees/2/rapporteur
  • group: ENF name: BOUTONNET Marie-Christine
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/1
group
ECR
name
DZHAMBAZKI Angel
committees/1/shadows/1
group
ECR
name
DZHAMBAZKI Angel
activities/1/committees/1/shadows
  • group: S&D name: GEBHARDT Evelyne
  • group: ALDE name: WIKSTRÖM Cecilia
committees/1/shadows
  • group: S&D name: GEBHARDT Evelyne
  • group: ALDE name: WIKSTRÖM Cecilia
activities/1
date
2016-09-12T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
committees
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
JURI/8/06998
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Preparatory phase in Parliament
New
Awaiting committee decision
committees/4
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Petitions
committee
PETI
activities/0/docs/0/text
  • PURPOSE: to improve EU rules that protect children in the context of cross-border parental responsibility disputes related to custody, access rights and child abduction.

    PROPOSED ACT: Council Regulation.

    ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: the Council adopts the act after consulting the European Parliament but without being obliged to follow its opinion.

    BACKGROUND: Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (the Brussels IIa Regulation) is the cornerstone of judicial cooperation in family matters in the European Union. It establishes uniform jurisdiction rules for divorce, separation and the annulment of marriage as well as for disputes about parental responsibility in cross-border situations.

    It facilitates the free circulation of judgments, authentic instruments and agreements in the Union by laying down provisions on their recognition and enforcement in other Member States. It applies since 1 March 2005 to all Member States except Denmark.

    The Commission has assessed the operation of the Regulation in practice and considered necessary amendments to the instrument in its application report adopted in April 2014.

    The evaluation showed that between the two major areas covered by the Regulation, the matrimonial and parental responsibility matters, the latter were identified to have caused acute problems. The overall efficiency of certain aspects of the child-related proceedings has been called into question:

    • in matters concerning parental child abduction, cross-border placement of children, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation between (central and other) national authorities there are excessive and undue delays arising from the way the existing procedures are formulated or applied. This has had a negative impact on parent-child relationships and the best interests of children;
    • the requirement of exequatur generated average delays per case of several months and costs reaching up to EUR 4 000 Euro for citizens;
    • the vague description of the cooperation between Central Authorities has often led to delays of several months or even to the non-fulfilment of requests – which is detrimental to children's welfare;
    • the enforcement of decisions given in another Member State was identified as problematic; decisions are often not enforced or only with significant delays. In addition, the work of specialised lawyers generates costs for parents between EUR 1 000 and 4 000 per case;
    • difficulties arise due to the fact that Member States have diverging rules governing the hearing of the child.

    The objective of the recast of the Brussels IIa Regulation is to further develop the European area of Justice and Fundamental Rights based on Mutual Trust by removing the remaining obstacles to the free movement of judicial decisions in line with the principle of mutual recognition and to better protect the best interests of the child by simplifying the procedures and enhancing their efficiency.

    IMPACT ASSESSMENT: the policy options and their impact assessment were dealt with separately for each of the issues identified as problematic in the evaluation of the Regulation. For all issues a baseline scenario and alternative options were developed.

    For matrimonial and parental responsibility matters, policy options with different degrees of intervention were considered. The preferred package of policy options for parental responsibility matters would meet the simplification objectives by reducing delays relating to the return of the child, the placement decisions, and cooperation between the Central Authorities, and eliminate unnecessary delays and costs related to the exequatur requirement. At the same time it would also respond to the urgency of remedying the problems currently faced in this area, where it is of outmost importance to act and set the scene for changes keeping in mind the situation of children, families and their best interests.

    CONTENT: this proposal is a recast of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (the Brussels IIa Regulation) concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000. The main elements of the proposal are as follows:

    More efficient proceedings: several substantial modifications are proposed with the aim of improving the efficiency of the return of an abducted child and the problems relating to the complexity of the "overriding mechanism" under the Regulation. More specifically, the proposal:

    • clarifies the time limit for issuing an enforceable return order: the deadlines applied to different stages of the child return procedure will be limited to a maximum period of 18 weeks (maximum six weeks for the receiving Central Authority to process the application, six weeks for the first instance court, and six weeks for the appellate court) instead of average proceedings taking up to 165 days nowadays;
    • includes an obligation for Member States to concentrate jurisdiction for child abduction cases in a limited number of courts while respecting the structure of the legal system concerned;
    • limits the number of possibilities to appeal a decision on return to one and explicitly invites a judge to consider whether a decision ordering return should be provisionally enforceable;
    • obliges the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention to conduct a thorough examination of the best interests of the child before a final custody decision, possibly implying return of the child, is given.

    Decision to place a child: for placement decisions an autonomous consent procedure shall be established to be applied to all cross-border placements, flanked by a time limit for the requested Member State to respond to the request which is now 8 weeks instead of the current 6 months or more.

    Rapid enforcement of decisions in other Member States: under the new rules, the exequatur procedure is abolished for all decisions covered by the Regulation's scope. The abolition of exequatur will be accompanied by procedural safeguards which ensure that the defendant's right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair trial.

    The defendant parent could make an application to challenge recognition and/or enforcement in the Member State of enforcement in one and the same procedure.

    The proposal includes uniform rules to define in which situations not only cross-border enforceability but also enforcement as such could be opposed.

    Ensuring the child is heard: the proposal leaves Member States' rules and practices on how to hear a child untouched, but requires mutual recognition between the legal systems. This means that an obligation to give the child who is capable of forming his or her own views an opportunity to express these views would be made explicit in the Regulation.

    Improving the efficiency of actual enforcement: in this respect, the proposal:

    • foresees an indicative time limit for the actual enforcement of a decision. In case the enforcement has not occurred after the lapse of 6 weeks from the moment the enforcement proceedings were initiated, the court of the Member State of enforcement would have to inform the requesting Central Authority in the Member State of origin (or the applicant, if the proceedings were conducted without Central Authority assistance) about this fact and the reasons for the lack of timely enforcement;
    • provides that the court of origin could declare a decision provisionally enforceable even if this possibility does not exist in its national law.

    Clarification of the Central Authorities' and other requested authorities’ tasks: the new rules proposed shall promote better cooperation between Central Authorities. Member States shall ensure that Central Authorities have adequate financial and human resources to enable them to carry out the obligations assigned to them under this Regulation. Moreover, courts and child welfare authorities may request the assistance of Central Authorities.

    BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS: according to the Commission, the proposal triggers relatively modest compliance costs. The abolition of exequatur and the concentration of jurisdiction would require Member States to incur costs for training to familiarise the legal profession with the new procedures envisaged. Training is however already necessary today.

activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52016PC0411:EN
activities/0/docs/0/celexid
CELEX:52016PC0411:EN
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
True
committee
JURI
date
2016-07-11T00:00:00
committee_full
Legal Affairs
rapporteur
group: EPP name: ZWIEFKA Tadeusz
committees/2/responsible
True
activities
  • date: 2016-06-30T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2016/0411/COM_COM(2016)0411_EN.pdf celexid: CELEX:52016PC0411:EN type: Legislative proposal published title: COM(2016)0411 body: EC commission: DG: url: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ title: Justice Commissioner: JOUROVÁ Věra type: Legislative proposal published
committees
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Women’s Rights and Gender Equality committee: FEMM
  • body: EP responsible: True committee_full: Legal Affairs committee: JURI
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs committee: LIBE
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/ title: Justice commissioner: JOUROVÁ Věra
procedure
reference
2016/0190(CNS)
instrument
Regulation
legal_basis
Treaty on the Functioning of the EU TFEU 081-p3
stage_reached
Preparatory phase in Parliament
summary
subtype
Recast
title
Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility; international child abduction. Recast
type
CNS - Consultation procedure
subject