Case C‑111/17 PPU
OL
v
PQ
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Monomeles Protodikeio Athinon)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling— Judicial cooperation in civil matters— Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility— International child abduction— Hague Convention of 25October 1980— Regulation (EC) No2201/2003— Article11— Application for return— Concept of ‘habitual residence’ of an infant— Child born, as agreed by her parents, in a Member State other than that where they were habitually resident— Child continuing to reside for the first months of her life in the Member State of her birth— Mother’s decision not to return to the Member State where the couple had been habitually resident)
Summary— Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 8June 2017
1.Judicial cooperation in civil matters— Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility— Regulation No2201/2003— Concept of ‘habitual residence’ of a child— Criteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No2201/2003, Recital12 and Arts 8, 10 and 11(1))
2.Judicial cooperation in civil matters— Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility— Regulation No2201/2003— Application for return of a child— Return procedure –Expedited procedure— Application to be based on information that is quickly and readily verifiable and, so far as possible, unequivocal
(Council Regulation No2201/2003, Recital17 and Art.11)
3.Judicial cooperation in civil matters— Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility— Regulation No2201/2003— Application for return of a child— Return procedure— Objectives
(Council Regulation No2201/2003, Art.11)
4.Judicial cooperation in civil matters— Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility— Regulation No2201/2003— Application for return of a child— Concept of ‘habitual residence’ of a child— Child born and residing continuously for several months with her mother, in accordance with the joint wishes of her parents, in a Member State other than that where the parents were habitually resident before the child’s birth— Parents’ initial intention that the mother should return, with the child, to that Member State— No significance with respect to determining where that child is habitually resident— Concept of wrongful removal or retention of a child— Mother’s decision not to return to that Member State with the child— Not included
(Council Regulation No2201/2003, Art.11(1))
1.See the text of the judgment.
(see paras39-50)
2.See the text of the judgment.
(see paras57, 58)
3.See the text of the judgment.
(see paras61, 63)
4.Article11(1) of Regulation (EC) No2201/2003 of 27November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No1347/2000, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation, such as that in the main proceedings, where a child has been born and has lived continuously with her mother for several months, in accordance with the joint wishes of her parents, in a Member State other than that where those parents were habitually resident before her birth, the initial intention of the parents with respect to the return of the mother, together with the child, to the latter Member State cannot allow the conclusion that that child was ‘habitually resident’ there, within the meaning of that regulation.
Consequently, in such a situation, the refusal of the mother to return to the latter Member State together with the child cannot be considered to be a ‘wrongful removal or retention’ of the child, within the meaning of Article11(1).
(see para. 70, operative part)