16 Amendments of Eleonora EVI related to 2016/0190(CNS)
Amendment 12 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 3
Recital 3
(3) The smooth and correct functioning of a Union area of justice with respect for the Member States' different legal systems and traditions is vital for the Union. In that regard, mutual trust in one another's justice systems should be further enhanced. The Union has set itself the objective of creating, maintaining and developing an area of freedom, security and justice, in which the free movement of persons and access to justice are ensured. With a view to implementing those objectives, 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 17 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 12
Recital 12
(12) This Regulation should apply to all children up to the age of 18 years like the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children ('the 1996 Hague Convention'). This should avoid an overlap with the scope of the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults which applies from the age of 18 years onwards. The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ('the 1980 Hague Convention'), and consequently also Chapter III of this Regulation which governs the application of the 1980 Hague Convention in relations between Member States, should continue to apply to children up to the age of 16 years6 years like the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction ('the 1980 Hague Convention').
Amendment 22 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 17
Recital 17
(17) This Regulation should not prevent the authorities of a Member State not having jurisdiction over the substance of the matter from taking provisional, including protective measures, in urgent cases, with regard to the person or property of a child present in that Member State. Those measures should be recognised and enforced in all other Member States including the Member States having jurisdiction under this Regulation until a competent authority of such a Member State has taken the measures it considers appropriate. Measures taken by a court in one Member State should however only be amended or replaced by measures also taken by a court in the Member State having jurisdiction over the substance of the matter. An authority only having jurisdiction for provisional, including protective measures should, if seized with an application concerning the substance of the matter, declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction. Insofar as the protection of the best interests of the child so requires, the authority should inform, directly or through the Central Authority, the authority of the Member State having jurisdiction over the substance of the matter under this Regulation about the measures taken. The failure to inform the authority of another Member State should however not as such be a ground for the non-recognition of the measure.
Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 23
Recital 23
(23) Proceedings in matters of parental responsibility under this Regulation as well as return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention should respect the child’s right to express his or her views freely, and when assessing the child’s best interests, due weight should be given to those views. The hearing of the child in accordance with Article 24(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child plays an important role in the application of this Regulation. This Regulation is however not intended to set out how to hear the child, for instance, whether the child is heard by the judge in person or by a specially trained expert reporting to the court afterwards, or whether the child is heard in the courtroom or in another place, but in order to protect the fundamental rights at stake provision should be made in any case for the hearing of the child to be recorded and distributed to all the parties involved. The hearing of the child must do everything possible to preserve the emotional integrity and the best interests of the child and, for that reason, must be conducted with the support of professional mediators, together with psychologists and / or social workers. This would also facilitate cooperation between parents and their relationship to the child at a later stage. The Member State whose authorities are competent under this Regulation over the substance of the matter, after taking a final decision providing for the return of the child, shall ensure verification of type of relations that the child has with both parents in order to protect the best interests of the child.
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 28
Recital 28
(28) In all cases concerning children, and in particular in cases of international child abduction, judicial and administrative authorities should consider the possibility of achieving amicable solutions through mediation and other appropriate means, assisted, where appropriate, by existing networks and support structures for me to ensure the full protection of the rights of the child and addiation in cross-border parental responsibility disputeal related fundamental rights. Such efforts should not, however, unduly prolong the return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention.
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 33
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
Recital 35
Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 38
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 in reasonable timepromptly and before the first enforcement measure and if necessary, accompanied by the decision. In that context, the first enforcement measure should mean the first enforcement measure after such service.
Amendment 45 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 1 – point b
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 or, where the law of that Member State so provides, during those proceedings; and
Amendment 46 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 10 – paragraph 3 – point b
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 or, where the law of that Member State so provides, during those proceedings; and
Amendment 49 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
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 51 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 20 – paragraph 1
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 55 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 25 – paragraph 4
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
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. Without prejudice to Article 40, a decision given in a Member State which is enforceable in the Member State of enforcement shall be enforced there under the same conditions as a decision given in the Member State of enforcement.
Amendment 57 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 34 – paragraph 2
Article 34 – paragraph 2
2. The court may, where necessary,shall require the applicant to provide, in accordance with Article 69, a translation or a transliteration of the relevant content of the certificate which specifies the obligation to be enforced.
Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 79 – paragraph 2 – point b
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;