Next event: Final act published in Official Journal 2019/07/02 more...
- Act adopted by Council after consultation of Parliament 2019/06/25
- End of procedure in Parliament 2019/06/25
- Results of vote in Parliament 2019/03/14
- Decision by Parliament 2019/03/14
- Debate in Parliament 2019/03/13
- Committee report tabled for plenary, reconsultation 2019/01/31
- Vote in committee 2019/01/23
- ZWIEFKA Tadeusz (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in JURI 2019/01/21
- Formal reconsultation of Parliament 2018/12/19
- Amended legislative proposal for reconsultation published 2018/12/12
- Document attached to the procedure 2018/02/15
- Decision by Parliament 2018/01/18
- Debate in Parliament 2018/01/17
- Debate in Council 2017/12/08
- Council Meeting 2017/12/08
- Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading 2017/12/01
- Vote in committee 2017/11/21
- Amendments tabled in committee 2017/06/26
Progress: Procedure completed
Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
---|---|---|---|
Lead | JURI | ZWIEFKA Tadeusz ( PPE) | |
Former Responsible Committee | JURI | ZWIEFKA Tadeusz ( PPE) | |
Committee Opinion | FEMM | ||
Committee Opinion | PETI | ||
Committee Opinion | LIBE | ||
Former Committee Opinion | LIBE | ||
Former Committee Opinion | FEMM | ||
Former Committee Opinion | PETI | CABEZÓN RUIZ Soledad ( S&D) | Notis MARIAS ( ECR) |
Fromer Committee Recast Technique Opinion | JURI | BOUTONNET Marie-Christine ( ENF) |
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
TFEU 081-p3
Legal Basis:
TFEU 081-p3Subjects
Events
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.
LEGISLATIVE ACT: Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction.
CONTENT: this Regulation consists of a revision of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 , known as "Brussels IIa", with a view to strengthening the current legal rules protecting children in cross-border parental responsibility disputes concerning, for example, custody, access and child abduction.
A key objective of the new rules is to ensure more rapid 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 new Regulation complements the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. It applies to decisions ordering the return of a child to another Member State under the Hague Convention which must be enforced in a Member State other than the one in which the decision was given.
The Council Regulation shall apply in civil matters of:
divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment; 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 II bis Regulation in a number of respects and provide in particular for:
- uniform rules of jurisdiction in matters of divorce, legal separation and marriage annulment, as well as rules on parental responsibility disputes with an international element;
- speeding up the return procedure in cases of child abduction by introducing clear deadlines so that cases can be settled quickly; courts will have to give their decisions within 6 weeks. The use of mediation shall be promoted;
- the extension of the right of the child to express his or her views, with the introduction of an obligation to give the child a genuine and effective opportunity to express his or 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;
- more effective implementation of decisions. 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;
- the simplified transmission of decisions, authentic instruments and certain agreements within the Union by laying down provisions concerning their recognition and enforcement in other Member States. The Regulation provides that the transmission of agreements on divorce, legal separation or parental responsibility shall be authorised if they are accompanied by the relevant certificate;
- better collaboration between the central authorities of the different Member States and between the courts, while respecting the procedural rights of the parties to the proceedings and the confidentiality of information.
ENTRY INTO FORCE: 22.7.2019.
APPLICATION: from 1.8.2022 (with the exception of certain provisions which apply from 22.7.2019).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
- Final act published in Official Journal: Regulation 2019/1111
- Final act published in Official Journal: OJ L 178 02.07.2019, p. 0001
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T8-0206/2019
- Committee report tabled for plenary, reconsultation: A8-0056/2019
- Amended legislative proposal for reconsultation published: 15401/2018
- Document attached to the procedure: OJ C 120 06.04.2018, p. 0018
- Document attached to the procedure: N8-0014/2019
- Decision by Parliament: T8-0017/2018
- Debate in Council: 3584
- Committee report tabled for plenary, 1st reading/single reading: A8-0388/2017
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE606.308
- Debate in Council: 3546
- Committee opinion: PE597.699
- Committee draft report: PE602.839
- Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report: CES5280/2016
- Contribution: COM(2016)0411
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: SWD(2016)0207
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: SWD(2016)0208
- Legislative proposal published: COM(2016)0411
- Legislative proposal published: EUR-Lex
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex SWD(2016)0207
- Document attached to the procedure: EUR-Lex SWD(2016)0208
- Economic and Social Committee: opinion, report: CES5280/2016
- Committee draft report: PE602.839
- Committee opinion: PE597.699
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE606.308
- Document attached to the procedure: OJ C 120 06.04.2018, p. 0018 N8-0014/2019
- Contribution: COM(2016)0411
Activities
- Tadeusz ZWIEFKA
Plenary Speeches (3)
- 2016/11/22 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, and international child abduction (debate) PL
- 2016/11/22 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, and international child abduction (debate) PL
- 2016/11/22 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, and international child abduction (debate) PL
- Notis MARIAS
Plenary Speeches (2)
- 2016/11/22 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, and international child abduction (debate) EL
- 2016/11/22 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, and international child abduction (debate) EL
- Anna ZÁBORSKÁ
Plenary Speeches (2)
- 2016/11/22 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, and international child abduction (A8-0388/2017 - Tadeusz Zwiefka) SK
- 2016/11/22 Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, and international child abduction (debate) SK
- Sergio Gaetano COFFERATI
- Anna Maria CORAZZA BILDT
- Arne GERICKE
- Lidia Joanna GERINGER DE OEDENBERG
- Monica MACOVEI
- Andrejs MAMIKINS
- Jiří MAŠTÁLKA
- Marijana PETIR
- Julia PITERA
- Branislav ŠKRIPEK
- Pavel SVOBODA
- Eleftherios SYNADINOS
- Francis ZAMMIT DIMECH
Amendments | Dossier |
52 |
2016/0190(CNS)
2017/03/10
PETI
52 amendments...
Amendment 12 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 (3) The smooth and correct functioning of a Union area of justice with respect for the Member States' different legal systems and traditions is vital for the Union. In that regard, mutual trust in one another's justice systems should be further enhanced. The Union has set itself the objective of creating, maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons and access to justice are ensured. With a view to implementing those objectives, the rights of persons, notably children, in legal proceedings should be reinforced in order to facilitate the cooperation of judicial and administrative authorities and the enforcement of decisions in family law matters with cross-border implications. The mutual recognition of decisions in civil matters should be enhanced, access to justice should be simplified and exchanges of information between the authorities of the Member States should be improved upon, by ensuring an accurate check on the non-discriminatory nature of the procedures and practices used in practice by the competent authorities of the Member States to protect the best interests of the child and the other related fundamental rights.
Amendment 13 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 (3) The smooth and correct functioning of a Union area of justice with respect for the Member States' different legal systems and traditions is vital for the Union. In that regard, mutual trust in one another's justice systems should be further enhanced. The Union has set itself the objective of creating, maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons and access to justice are ensured. With a view to implementing those objectives, it is essential that the rights of persons, notably children, in legal proceedings
Amendment 14 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 7 (7) Since the application of the rules on parental responsibility often arises in the context of matrimonial proceedings,
Amendment 15 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 (8) As regards decisions on divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment, this Regulation should apply simply and only to the dissolution of matrimonial ties and should not deal with issues such as the grounds for divorce, property consequences of the marriage or any other ancillary measures.
Amendment 16 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 9 (9) As regards the property of the child, this Regulation should apply only to measures for the protection of the child, namely the designation and functions of a person
Amendment 17 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 12 (12) This Regulation should apply to all children up to the age of 1
Amendment 18 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 13 (13) The grounds of jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility
Amendment 19 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 13 (13) The grounds of jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility are shaped in the light of the best interests of the child and should be applied in accordance with them. Any reference to the best interests of the child should be interpreted in light of Article 7, 14, 22 and 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989.
Amendment 20 #
(15) Where the child's habitual residence changes following a lawful relocation, jurisdiction should follow the child in order to maintain the proximity. This should apply where no proceedings are yet pending, and also in pending proceedings. In pending proceedings,
Amendment 21 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 16 (16)
Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 (17) This Regulation should not prevent the authorities of a Member State not having jurisdiction over the substance of the matter from taking provisional, including protective measures, in urgent cases, with regard to the person or property of a child present in that Member State. Those measures should be recognised and enforced in all other Member States including the Member States having jurisdiction under this Regulation until a competent authority of such a Member State has taken the measures it considers appropriate. Measures taken by a court in one Member State should however only be amended or replaced by measures also taken by a court in the Member State having jurisdiction over the substance of the matter. An authority only having jurisdiction for provisional, including protective measures should, if seized with an application concerning the substance of the matter, declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction. Insofar as the protection of the best interests of the child so requires, the authority should inform, directly or through the Central Authority, the authority of the Member State having
Amendment 23 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 (17) This Regulation should not prevent the authorities of a Member State not having jurisdiction over the substance of the matter from taking provisional, including protective measures, in urgent cases, with regard to the person or property of a child present in that Member State or in cases of domestic or gender violence. Those measures should be recognised and enforced in all other Member States including the Member States having jurisdiction under this Regulation until a competent authority of such a Member State has taken the measures it considers appropriate. Measures taken by a court in one Member State should however only be amended or replaced by measures also taken by a court in the Member State having jurisdiction over the substance of the matter. An authority only having jurisdiction for provisional, including protective measures should, if seized with an application concerning the substance of the matter, declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction. Insofar as the protection of the best interests of the child so requires, the authority should inform, directly or through the Central Authority, the authority of the Member State having jurisdiction over the substance of the matter under this Regulation about the
Amendment 24 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 17 (
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 18 (18)
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 18 (18) In exceptional cases, such as in cases of domestic or gender violence, the authorities of the Member State of habitual residence of the child may not be the most appropriate authorities to deal with the case. In the best interests of the child, as an exception and under certain conditions, the authority having jurisdiction may transfer
Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 18 (18)
Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 23 (23) Proceedings in matters of parental responsibility under this Regulation as well
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 23 (23) Proceedings in matters of parental responsibility under this Regulation as well as return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention should respect the child’s right to express his or her views freely, and when assessing the child’s best interests, due weight should be given to those views. The hearing of the child in accordance with Article 24(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child plays an important role in the application of this Regulation. This Regulation is however not intended to set out how to hear the child, for instance, whether the child is heard by the judge in person or by a specially trained expert reporting to the court afterwards, or whether the child is heard in the courtroom or in another place. The hearing of the child must provide all the guarantees that help preserve the emotional integrity and the best interest of the child and, for this reason, must be attended by professional mediators, psychologists and interpreters. This would also facilitate cooperation between the child's parents and the relationship between them and the child at a later stage.
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 23 (23) Proceedings in matters of parental responsibility under this Regulation as well as return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention should respect the child’s right to express his or her views freely, and when assessing the child’s best interests, due weight should be given to those views. The hearing of the child in accordance with Article 24(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child plays an important role in the application of this Regulation. This Regulation is
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 26 (26) In order to conclude the return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention as quickly as possible, Member States should concentrate jurisdiction for those proceedings upon one or more courts, taking into account their internal structures for the administration of justice as appropriate. The concentration of jurisdiction upon a limited number of courts within a Member State is an essential and effective tool for speeding up the handling of child abduction cases in several Member States because the judges hearing a larger number of these cases develop particular expertise. Depending on
Amendment 32 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 26 (26) In order to conclude the return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention as quickly as possible, Member States should concentrate jurisdiction for those proceedings upon one or more courts, taking into account their internal structures for the administration of justice as appropriate. The concentration of jurisdiction upon a limited number of courts within a Member State is an essential and effective tool for speeding up the handling of child abduction cases in
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 27 (
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 28 (28) In all cases concerning children, and in particular in cases of international child abduction, judicial and administrative authorities should consider the possibility of achieving amicable solutions through mediation and other appropriate means
Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 28 (28) In all cases concerning children, and in particular in cases of international child abduction, judicial and administrative authorities should consider the possibility of achieving amicable solutions through mediation and other appropriate means, assisted, where appropriate, by existing networks and support structures for mediation in cross-border parental responsibility disputes. Such efforts should not, however, unduly prolong the return
Amendment 36 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 30 (30) Where the court of the Member State to or in which the child has been wrongfully removed or retained decides to refuse the child's return under the 1980 Hague Convention, in its decision it should refer explicitly to the relevant articles of the 1980 Hague Convention on which the refusal was based and state the grounds therefor. Such a decision may be replaced, however, by a subsequent decision, given in custody proceedings after a thorough examination of the child's best interests, by the court of the Member State of habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful removal or retention. Should that decision entail the return of the child, the return should take place without any special procedure being required for the recognition and enforcement of that decision in the Member State to or in which the child has been removed or retained.
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 33 (33) In addition, the aim of making cross-border litigation concerning children less time consuming and costly justifies the abolition of the declaration of enforceability prior to enforcement in the Member State of enforcement for all decisions on parental responsibility matters. While Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 only abolished this requirement for decisions granting access and certain decisions ordering the return of a child, this Regulation now provides for a single procedure for the cross-border enforcement of all decisions in matters of parental responsibility. As a result, subject to the provisions of this Regulation, a decision given by the authorities of a Member State should be treated as if it had been given in the Member State of enforcement.
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 35 Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 38 (38) In order to inform the person against whom enforcement is sought of the enforcement of a decision given in another Member State, the certificate established under this Regulation should be served on that person
Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 42 (42) In specific cases in matters of parental responsibility which fall within the scope of this Regulation, Central Authorities should cooperate with each other in providing assistance to national authorities as well as to holders of parental responsibility. Such assistance should in particular include locating the child, either directly or through other competent authorities, where this is necessary for carrying out a request under this Regulation, and providing child-related information required for the purpose of proceedings. In cases where the jurisdiction is in a Member State which is other than the Member State of which the child is a national, central authorities of the Member State with jurisdiction shall inform, without undue delay, the central authorities of the Member State of which the child is a national.
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 46 (46)
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 46 (46) An authority of a Member State contemplating a decision on parental responsibility should be entitled to request the communication of information relevant to the protection of the child from the authorities of another Member State if the best interests of the child so require. Depending on the circumstances, this may include information on proceedings and decisions concerning a parent (particularly in cases of gender violence) or siblings of the child, or on the capacity of a parent to care for a child or to have access to the child.
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 46 (46)
Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new) (1a) In order to simplify questions of competence, Member States shall designate a court at national level which shall negotiate all cross-border cases involving children.
Amendment 45 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b (b) the jurisdiction has been accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by the spouses and by the holders of parental responsibility, at the latest at the time the court is seized
Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 3 – point b (b) the jurisdiction has been accepted expressly or otherwise in an unequivocal manner by all the parties to the proceedings at the latest at the time the court is seized
Amendment 47 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 In urgent cases, the authorities of a Member State where the child or property belonging to the child is present shall have jurisdiction to take provisional, including protective, measures in respect of that child or property. These measures should not unduly delay the whole process and the final decision on the rights of custody and of access.
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 In so far as the protection of the best interests of the child so requires, the authority having taken the protective measures shall inform the authority of the Member State having jurisdiction under this Regulation as to the substance of the matter, either directly or through the Central Authority designated pursuant to Article 60. This authority must ensure that the parents involved in the proceedings are fully informed without delay of all these measures in the mother tongue of the parent.
Amendment 49 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 In so far as the protection of the best interests of the child so requires, the authority having taken the protective measures shall inform the authority of the Member State having jurisdiction under this Regulation as to the substance of the matter, either directly or through the Central Authority designated pursuant to Article 60. This authority must ensure that the parents involved in the proceedings are fully informed without delay about all the measures in question, in a language they fully understand, whereby it shall be strictly forbidden to charge the costs of translation to the parent of the Member State whose authorities have jurisdiction over the substance of the matter under this Regulation.
Amendment 50 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 When exercising their jurisdiction under Section 2 of this Chapter, the authorities of the Member States shall ensure that a child
Amendment 51 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 When exercising their jurisdiction under Section 2 of this Chapter, the authorities of the Member States shall ensure that a child who is capable of forming his or her own views is given the genuine and effective opportunity to express those views freely during the proceedings and record the hearing of the child, distributing it to all parties involved.
Amendment 52 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 2 The authority shall give due weight to the child's views in accordance with his or her age and maturity
Amendment 53 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 21 – paragraph 1 Where a person, institution or other body alleging a breach of rights of custody applies to the court in a Member State for a decision on the basis of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ( ‘the 1980 Hague Convention’), ordering the return of a child that has been wrongfully removed or retained in a Member State other than the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention, Articles 22 to 26 shall apply. Calls for a support platform for EU citizens who are seeking the return of a child before courts in other Member States. In addition, EU citizens residing in other Member States where they are seeking the return of a child should be assisted by their respective representations.
Amendment 54 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 2. As early as possible during the proceedings, the court shall
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 4 4. Only one appeal shall be possible against the decision ordering or refusing the return of the child.
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 1 1. The procedure for the enforcement of decisions given in another Member State shall, in so far as it is not covered by this Regulation, be governed by the law of the Member State of enforcement.
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 2 2. The court
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 63 – paragraph 1 – point e a (new) (ea) They shall inform the holders of parental responsibility about legal aid and assistance, for example about specialised bilingual lawyers, in order to prevent holders of parental responsibility giving their consent without having understood the scope of their consent.
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Where a decision on matters of parental responsibility is contemplated, 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 is a national on the existence of proceedings.
Amendment 60 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 1 a (new) (1a) Social workers and other staff of authorities dealing with the cross-border placement of children in homes or with foster families shall receive training to raise their awareness of the issues involved.
Amendment 61 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 1 b (new) (1b) Member States shall guarantee the parents regular right of access, except where this would jeopardise the well- being of the child.
Amendment 62 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 4 a (new) Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 79 – paragraph 2 – point b (b) with regard to applications for enforcement pursuant to Article 32, the number of cases where enforcement has been suspended, and for how long and the number of cases in which enforcement has not occurred within six weeks from the moment the enforcement proceedings were initiated;
source: 601.144
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
https://dm.eesc.europa.eu/EESCDocumentSearch/Pages/redresults.aspx?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:5280)(documentyear:2016)(documentlanguage:EN)New
https://dmsearch.eesc.europa.eu/search/public?k=(documenttype:AC)(documentnumber:5280)(documentyear:2016)(documentlanguage:EN) |
docs/3/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE602.839New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-PR-602839_EN.html |
docs/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE597.699&secondRef=03New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/PETI-AD-597699_EN.html |
docs/5/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE606.308New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/JURI-AM-606308_EN.html |
docs/6 |
|
events/1/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
events/3/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
events/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0388_EN.htmlNew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0388_EN.html |
events/6/docs |
|
events/7 |
|
events/7 |
|
events/8 |
|
events/10 |
|
events/10/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
events/11 |
|
events/11 |
|
events/11/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2019-0056_EN.htmlNew
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2019-0056_EN.html |
events/12 |
|
events/12 |
|
events/13 |
|
events/13 |
|
events/13/docs |
|
events/14 |
|
events/14 |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
procedure/Other legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/7 |
|
committees/7 |
|
committees/8 |
|
committees/8 |
|
docs/6/body |
EC
|
events/4/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2017-0388&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0388_EN.html |
events/8/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2018-0017New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2018-0017_EN.html |
events/12/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A8-2019-0056&language=ENNew
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2019-0056_EN.html |
events/14/docs/0/url |
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2019-0206New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2019-0206_EN.html |
events/17/summary |
|
events/17 |
|
procedure/final |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official JournalNew
Procedure completed |
activities |
|
commission |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/0 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/2 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/3 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/4 |
|
committees/5 |
|
committees/6 |
|
committees/7 |
|
committees/8 |
|
council |
|
docs |
|
events |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 159 |
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
Old
JURI/8/06998New
|
procedure/instrument |
Old
RegulationNew
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting final decisionNew
Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official Journal |
procedure/subject |
Old
New
|
procedure/summary |
|
activities/4/docs |
|
activities/5 |
|
activities/6/date |
Old
2018-01-15T00:00:00New
2018-01-17T00:00:00 |
activities/6/docs |
|
activities/6/type |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Debate in Parliament |
activities/7 |
|
other/0 |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150New
Rules of Procedure EP 150 |
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stageNew
Awaiting final decision |
activities/4 |
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
activities/3 |
|
procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
|
activities/3 |
|
activities/2 |
|
activities/0/commission/0/DG |
Old
JusticeNew
|
other/0/dg |
Old
JusticeNew
|
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52016PC0411:EN
|
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52016PC0411:EN
|
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/2/mepref |
Old
4f1adc99b819f207b3000128New
4f1ac716b819f25efd000066 |
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/2/name |
Old
WIKSTRÖM CeciliaNew
CAVADA Jean-Marie |
committees/1/shadows/2/mepref |
Old
4f1adc99b819f207b3000128New
4f1ac716b819f25efd000066 |
committees/1/shadows/2/name |
Old
WIKSTRÖM CeciliaNew
CAVADA Jean-Marie |
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/3 |
|
committees/1/shadows/3 |
|
activities/0/commission/0/DG |
Old
New
Justice |
other/0/dg |
Old
New
Justice |
activities/1/committees/4/date |
2016-11-16T00:00:00
|
activities/1/committees/4/rapporteur |
|
committees/4/date |
2016-11-16T00:00:00
|
committees/4/rapporteur |
|
activities/1/committees/2/date |
2017-01-24T00:00:00
|
activities/1/committees/2/rapporteur |
|
committees/2/date |
2017-01-24T00:00:00
|
committees/2/rapporteur |
|
activities/1/committees/1/shadows/1 |
|
committees/1/shadows/1 |
|
activities/1/committees/1/shadows |
|
committees/1/shadows |
|
activities/1 |
|
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
JURI/8/06998
|
procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |
committees/4 |
|
activities/0/docs/0/text |
|
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52016PC0411:EN
|
activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52016PC0411:EN
|
committees/1 |
|
committees/2/responsible |
True
|
activities |
|
committees |
|
links |
|
other |
|
procedure |
|