2016/0190(CNS) Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility; international child abduction. Recast
Lead committee dossier:
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
2019/07/02
Final act published in Official Journal
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.
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).
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 - Results of vote in Parliament
Documents
2019/03/14
EP - Decision by Parliament
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
Documents
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
2019/01/21
EP - ZWIEFKA Tadeusz (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2018/12/19
EP/CSL - Formal reconsultation of Parliament
2018/12/12
CSL - Amended legislative proposal for reconsultation
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
2018/12/11
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.
Documents
2018/01/18
EP - Decision by Parliament
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
Documents
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
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 - BOUTONNET Marie-Christine (ENF) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2016/11/16
EP - CABEZÓN RUIZ Soledad (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in PETI
2016/10/09
PT_PARLIAMENT - Contribution
Documents
2016/09/12
EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2016/07/11
EP - ZWIEFKA Tadeusz (PPE) appointed as rapporteur in JURI
2016/06/30
EC - Document attached to the procedure
Documents
2016/06/30
EC - Document attached to the procedure
Documents
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
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
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary, reconsultation: A8-0056/2019
- Amended legislative proposal for reconsultation: 15401/2018
- 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 Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- 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
- Amended legislative proposal for reconsultation: 15401/2018
- 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
Votes
A8-0388/2017 - Tadeusz Zwiefka - Vote unique 18/01/2018 12:10:23.000 #
2018/01/18 Outcome: +: 562, 0: 43, -: 16
ALDE
GUE/NGL
Verts/ALE
NI
EFDDA8-0056/2019 - Tadeusz Zwiefka - Vote unique 14/03/2019 12:23:44.000 #
2019/03/14 Outcome: +: 553, 0: 38, -: 7
A8-0056/2019 - Tadeusz Zwiefka - Vote unique #
2019/03/14 Outcome: +: 553, 0: 38, -: 7
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 218 |
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
2017/06/26
JURI
166 amendments...
Amendment 100 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 3 3. ‘Member State’ means all Member States of the European Union with the exception of Denmark;
Amendment 101 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 4 4. 'decision' means a decree, order
Amendment 102 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 a (new) 6a. A child’s ‘habitual residence’, in accordance with Article 8, means the place where it is integrated into the social and family environment, taking into account the child 's age, length of residence, regularity of residence, the circumstances and reasons of residence, the geographical and family background and family and social conditions in the Member State concerned.
Amendment 103 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 6 b (new) 6b. ‘Habitual residence’ means, in accordance with Article 3, a person’s normal place of residence.
Amendment 104 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – introductory part (1) In matters relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment and the separation or abrogation of registered partnerships, provided that the Member State of the competent court recognises this legal form, jurisdiction shall lie with the
Amendment 105 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a – indent 2 – the spouses were last habitually resident, insofar as one of them still resides there, or, failing that,
Amendment 106 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a – indent 3 – the respondent is habitually resident, or failing that,
Amendment 107 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a – indent 4 – in the event of a joint application, either of the spouses is habitually resident, or, failing that,
Amendment 108 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 3 – paragraph 1 – point a – indent 5 – the applicant is habitually resident if he or she resided there for at least a year immediately before the application was made, or, failing that,
Amendment 109 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 1. The authorities of a Member State shall have jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility over a child who is habitually resident in that Member State. Where a child moves lawfully from one Member State to another and acquires a new habitual residence there, the authorities of the Member State of the new habitual residence shall have jurisdiction, unless the parties agree before the move that jurisdiction should continue to lie with the authority of the Member State where the child has hitherto been habitually resident.
Amendment 110 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 1. The authorities of a Member State shall have jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility over a child who is habitually resident in that Member State . Where a child moves lawfully from one Member State to another and acquires a new habitual residence there, the authorities of the Member State of the new habitual residence shall have jurisdiction, unless proceedings are already pending in the Member State in which the child previously resided.
Amendment 111 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new) (1a) If proceedings are pending in the Member State in which the child previously resided, the competent authority that was initially seised shall seise the competent authority of the Member State to which the child has lawfully moved, with a view to declining jurisdiction.
Amendment 112 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Where custody and access proceedings are pending, the authority of the Member State of origin shall retain jurisdiction until the proceedings have concluded, unless the parties agree that the proceedings should be terminated.
Amendment 113 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 7 – paragraph 2 Amendment 114 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1 1. Where a child moves lawfully from one Member State to another and acquires a new habitual residence there, the authorities of the Member State of the child's former habitual residence shall retain jurisdiction , for three months following the move, to modify a decision or equivalent ruling on access rights given or issued in that Member State before the child moved if the person granted access rights by the decision or equivalent ruling continues to have his or her habitual residence in the Member State of the child's former habitual residence.
Amendment 115 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 1 1. Where a child moves lawfully from one Member State to another and acquires a new habitual residence there, the authorities of the Member State of the child’s former habitual residence shall retain jurisdiction, for
Amendment 116 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 8 – paragraph 2 2. Paragraph 1 shall not apply if the holder of access rights referred to in paragraph 1, having been informed by those authorities of the legal implications, has accepted the jurisdiction of
Amendment 117 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b – point i (i) within one year after the holder of rights of custody has had or should have had knowledge of the whereabouts of the child,
Amendment 118 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 9 – paragraph 1 – point b – point v (v) a decision or equivalent ruling on custody that does not entail the return of the child has been given or issued by the authorities of the Member State where the child was habitually resident
Amendment 119 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 3 – point а (a) the child has a substantial connection with that Member State, in particular by virtue of the fact that one of the holders of parental responsibility
Amendment 120 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 10 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 a (new) The designated judges shall be practicing, experienced and internationally oriented family judges.
Amendment 121 #
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 shall ensure the equal treatment of the parents involved in the proceedings, including that they are thoroughly informed without delay about all the measures in question, in a language they fully understand.
Amendment 122 #
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 well as other competent authorities in this matter, as to the substance of the matter, either directly or through the Central Authority designated pursuant to Article 60.
Amendment 123 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new) In so far as the protection of the best interests of the child so requires, the authority having taken the protective measures shall inform the authority of the Member State having jurisdiction under this Regulation as to the substance of the matter, either directly or through the Central Authority designated pursuant to Article 60. This authority must ensure that the parents involved in the proceedings are thoroughly informed without delay about all the measures in question, in a language they understand.
Amendment 124 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 12 – paragraph 2 2. The measures taken pursuant to paragraph 1 shall cease to apply as soon as the authority of the Member State having jurisdiction under this Regulation as to the substance of the matter has taken the measures it considers appropriate and accordingly notified the Member State in which the precautionary measures have been taken.
Amendment 125 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 14 – paragraph 3 – point d (d) is the habitual residence of a holder of parental responsibility or of a close relative with whom the child is in continuous contact; or
Amendment 126 #
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, in accordance with the relevant national procedural rules and with the provisions of Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Amendment 127 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 1 When exercising their jurisdiction under Section 2 of this Chapter, the authorities of
Amendment 128 #
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
Amendment 129 #
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 130 #
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 and document its considerations in the decision. Where a child is to exercise the right to express his or her views, the following criteria at least shall be observed:
Amendment 131 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – subparagraph 2 – point a (new) (a) Where there is no danger that a child will be mentally harmed by exercising his or her right to express his or her views, he or she must be heard during the proceedings if he or she is sufficiently mature. A child shall be assumed to be sufficiently mature from age 12.
Amendment 132 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – subparagraph 2 – point b (new) (b) The hearing of a child exercising his or her right to express his or her views shall, in terms of language and content, be appropriate to the child’s age.
Amendment 133 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – subparagraph 2 – point c (new) (c) A child exercising his or her right to express his or her views may be heard only by a judge or by a properly trained person with proven expertise in the hearing of children.
Amendment 134 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – subparagraph 2 – point d (new) (d) A child exercising his or her right to express his or her views shall not be heard in a courtroom, but in a child- friendly setting appropriate for his or her age.
Amendment 135 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – subparagraph 2 – point e (new) (e) The hearing of a child exercising his or her right to express his or her views shall be conducted in the language of which the child has the best command.
Amendment 136 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – subparagraph 2 – point f (new) (f) A child exercising his or her right to express his or her views shall not be heard in the presence of the parties to the proceedings or their legal representatives.
Amendment 137 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – subparagraph 2 – point g (new) (g) After a child exercising his or her right to express his or her views has been heard, a record of the hearing shall be drawn up without delay and made available to the parties to the proceedings.
Amendment 138 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 20 – paragraph 2 a (new) In all proceedings falling under the scope of this Regulation, authorities shall examine whether mediation would be a viable option for the parties involved.
Amendment 139 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 Without prejudice to the first subparagraph, each instance shall give its decision no later than six weeks after the application or appeal is lodged with it, except where exceptional circumstances make this impossible
Amendment 140 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 2. As early as possible during the proceedings, the court shall examine whether the parties are willing to engage in mediation to find, in the best interests of the child, an agreed solution, provided that this does not unduly delay the proceedings. The court, if it regards mediation as appropriate, shall invite the parties to have recourse thereto.
Amendment 141 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 2. As early as possible during the proceedings, the court shall examine whether the parties are willing to engage in mediation to find, in the best interests of the child, an agreed solution, provided that this does not unduly delay the proceedings. In that event the court shall call upon the parties to make use of mediation.
Amendment 142 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 a (new) As a potential key referrer to mediation, judges should be assisted in familiarising themselves with mediation. Judges should also be familiar with the ways of how to integrate mediation into the set timeframe of Hague Convention Child Abduction proceedings.
Amendment 143 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 23 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. The authorities shall assist the parties in the selection of appropriate mediators and in the organisation of the mediation.
Amendment 144 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 24 – paragraph 1 When applying Articles 12 and 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention, the court shall ensure that the child is given the opportunity to express his or her views in
Amendment 145 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 3 3. The court may declare the decision ordering the return of the child provisionally enforceable notwithstanding any appeal, even if national law does not provide for such provisional enforceability, provided that provisional enforceability does not unduly affect the best interests of the child.
Amendment 146 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 25 – paragraph 4 4. Only one appeal to a higher court shall be possible against the decision ordering or refusing the return of the child.
Amendment 147 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 1 1. A decision given in a Member State or equivalent ruling delivered by a Member State authority with jurisdiction in the field covered by this Regulation shall be recognised in the other Member States without any procedure being required.
Amendment 148 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 27 – paragraph 2 2. In particular, and without prejudice to paragraph 3, no procedure shall be required for updating the civil-status records of a Member State on the basis of a decision or equivalent ruling relating to divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment given in another Member State, and against which no further appeal lies under the law of that Member State.
Amendment 149 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1. A party who wishes to invoke in a Member State a decision given in another Member State or an equivalent ruling delivered by the relevant authority of another Member State shall submit the following:
Amendment 150 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 1 – point a (a) a copy of the decision or equivalent ruling which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity; and
Amendment 151 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 The authority before which a decision given or equivalent ruling delivered in another Member State is invoked may, where necessary, require the party invoking it to provide, in accordance with Article 69, a translation or a transliteration of the relevant content of the certificate referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1.
Amendment 152 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 28 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 The authority may require the party to provide a translation of the decision or equivalent ruling instead of a translation of the relevant content of the certificate only if it is unable to proceed without such a translation.
Amendment 153 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 1 – introductory part The authority before which a decision given or equivalent ruling delivered in another Member State is invoked may stay the proceedings
Amendment 154 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point a (a) the decision or equivalent ruling is challenged in the Member State of origin;
Amendment 155 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 29 – paragraph 1 – point c (c) in case of a decision or equivalent ruling on parental responsibility, proceedings to modify the decision or
Amendment 156 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 30 – paragraph 1 1. A decision or equivalent ruling on matters of parental responsibility in respect of a child given in a Member State which is enforceable in that Member State shall be enforceable in the other Member States without any declaration of enforceability being required.
Amendment 157 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 1 1. The procedure for the enforcement of decisions given or equivalent rulings delivered 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 or equivalent ruling delivered 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 or equivalent ruling delivered in the Member State of enforcement.
Amendment 158 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 31 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 The party seeking the enforcement of a decision given or equivalent ruling delivered in another Member State shall not be required to have a postal address in the Member State of enforcement.
Amendment 159 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1. A party who applies for enforcement in a Member State of a decision given or equivalent ruling delivered in another Member State shall submit the following:
Amendment 160 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 1 – point a (a) a copy of the decision or equivalent ruling which satisfies the conditions necessary to establish its authenticity; and
Amendment 161 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 34 – paragraph 3 3. The court may require the applicant to provide a translation of the decision or equivalent ruling only if it is unable to proceed without such a translation.
Amendment 162 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1 – introductory part On the application of any interested party, the recognition of a decision or equivalent ruling relating to a divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment shall be refused :
Amendment 163 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 37 – paragraph 1 – point a (a) if such recognition is manifestly contrary to the public policy of the Member State in which recognition is sought, though refusal may not result in any form of discrimination prohibited by Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union; or
Amendment 164 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 38 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1. On the application of any interested party, the recognition of a decision or equivalent ruling relating to parental responsibility shall be refused
Amendment 165 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 38 – paragraph 1 – point c (c) on the request of any person claiming that the
Amendment 166 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1 The enforcement of a decision or equivalent ruling shall be refused upon the application of the person against whom enforcement is sought where one of the grounds of non-recognition referred to in Article 38(1) is found to exist.
Amendment 167 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 2 – introductory part 2. The enforcement of a decision or equivalent ruling may
Amendment 168 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 40 – paragraph 2 – point b (b) other circumstances have changed to such an extent since the decision was given or equivalent ruling delivered, that its enforcement would now be manifestly incompatible with the best interests of the child.
Amendment 169 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 42 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1 The applicant shall provide the court with a copy of the decision or equivalent ruling and, where necessary, a translation of the decision or equivalent ruling in accordance with Article 69 or a transliteration of it.
Amendment 170 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 51 – paragraph 1 The recognition of a decision or equivalent ruling in matrimonial matters may not be refused because the law of the Member State in which such recognition is sought would not allow divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment on the same facts.
Amendment 171 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 55 – paragraph 1 Documents which have been formally drawn up or registered as authentic instruments and are enforceable in one Member State and also agreements between the parties that are enforceable in the Member State in which they were concluded shall be
Amendment 172 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 58 An applicant who, in the Member State of origin, has benefited from complete or partial legal aid, aid to cover costs incurred in mediation, or exemption from costs or expenses shall be entitled, in the procedures provided for in Article 27(3)
Amendment 173 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 60 – paragraph 1 (1) Each Member State shall designate one or more Central Authorities to assist with the application of this Regulation in matters of parental responsibility and shall specify the geographical or functional jurisdiction of each. Where a Member State has designated more than one Central Authority, communications shall normally be sent direct to the relevant Central Authority with jurisdiction. Where a communication is sent to a Central Authority without jurisdiction, the latter shall be responsible for forwarding it to the Central Authority with jurisdiction and informing the sender accordingly. (2) On the basis of notifications by the Member States, the Commission shall establish a list of central authorities with jurisdiction under this Regulation. (3) The Member States shall notify the Commission of any subsequent alterations to that list. The Commission shall amend the list accordingly. (4) The Commission shall publish the list and any subsequent amendments in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Amendment 174 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 63 – paragraph 1 – point g (g) ensure that where they initiate or facilitate the institution of court proceedings for the return of children under the 1980 Hague Convention, the file prepared in view of such proceedings, save where exceptional circumstances make this impossible, is complete and submitted to the court or other competent authority within six weeks.
Amendment 175 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 2 2. Where the pronouncement or issuing of a decision in matters of parental responsibility or the reaching of agreement between parties with parental authority is contemplated, an authority of a Member State, if the situation of the child so requires, may request any authority of another Member State which has information relevant to the protection of the child to communicate such information.
Amendment 176 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 2 2. Where a decision in matters of parental responsibility is contemplated, an authority of a Member State, if the situation of the child so requires, m
Amendment 177 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 2 a (new) 2а. Where matters of parental responsibility are under scrutiny, the central authority of the Member State where the child is habitually resident must 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.
Amendment 178 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 3 3. An authority of a Member State m
Amendment 179 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 5 5. The authorities of a Member State where the child is not habitually resident shall, upon request of a p
Amendment 180 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. An authority of a Member State may request the Central Authority of another Member State to provide information on the national law of that Member State with regard to issues that fall within the scope of this Regulation and are relevant for the examination of a case under this Regulation. The authority of the Member State to which a request is submitted shall respond as soon as possible.
Amendment 181 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 6 a (new) (6a) The authorities of the Member State of the child's habitual residence, or of the Member State where a measure of protection has been taken, may deliver to the person having parental rights and responsibility or to the person entrusted with protection of the child's person or property, at his or her request or at the request of the authority concerned, a certificate indicating the capacity in which that person is entitled to act and the powers conferred upon him or her.
Amendment 182 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 6 b (new) (6b) The capacity and powers indicated in the certificate are presumed to be vested in that person, in the absence of proof to the contrary.
Amendment 183 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 6 c (new) (6c) Each Member State shall designate the authorities empowered to issue the certificate referred to paragraph (6b).
Amendment 184 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 64 – paragraph 6 d (new) (6d) On the basis of notifications by the Member States, the Commission shall establish a list of central authorities empowered to issue the certificate in question.
Amendment 185 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 1 1. Where an authority having jurisdiction under this Regulation contemplates the placement of a child in the care of a family member, in secure institutional care or with a foster family in another Member State, it shall first obtain the consent of the competent authority in that other Member State
Amendment 186 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 1 1. Where an authority having jurisdiction under this Regulation contemplates the placement of a child with family members, in institutional care or with a foster family in another Member State, it shall first obtain the consent of the competent authority in that other Member State. To that effect it shall, through the Central Authority of its own Member State, transmit to the Central Authority of the Member State where the child is to be placed a request for consent which includes a report on the child together with the reasons for the proposed placement or provision of care.
Amendment 187 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 1 a (new) 1а. Member States shall guarantee the parents and relatives of the child, regardless of their place of residence, right of regular access, except where this would jeopardise the well-being of the child.
Amendment 188 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 65 – paragraph 4 – subparagraph 1 a (new) If the competent authority intends to send social workers to another Member State in order to determine whether a placement there is compatible with the well-being of the child, it shall inform the Member State concerned accordingly.
Amendment 189 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 79 – paragraph 1 By [
Amendment 190 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 79 – paragraph 2 – point a a (new) (aa) the number of cases and decisions in mediation procedures in matters of parental responsibility;
Amendment 25 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/200334 has been substantially amended35. Since further indispensable amendments are to be made, that Regulation should be recast in the interests of clarity. The reform of the Regulation will help to strengthen legal certainty, increase flexibility, ensuring access to court and efficient proceedings, whilst Member States retain full sovereignty with regard to the substantive laws on parental responsibility. __________________ 34 Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, p. 1). 35 See Annex V.
Amendment 26 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 1 Amendment 27 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 (2) This Regulation establishes uniform jurisdiction rules for divorce, separation and the annulment of marriage as well as rules for disputes about parental responsibility with an international element. It facilitates the free circulation of decisions in the Union, and of any other equivalent rulings issued by an authority of a Member State, by laying down provisions on their recognition and enforcement in other Member States.
Amendment 28 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 2 a (new) (2a) By registering a partnership with a public authority, the partners also establish a stable, legally recognised relationship. Accordingly, most Member States that recognise the legal institution of the registered partnership accord it the same status, as far as possible, as marriage. In order to ensure that such an equivalence is also achieved in the field of the jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions under Article 1 (1) of this Regulation, the scope of the Regulation should be extended; however, Member States that do not recognise the legal institution of registered partnership should be exempted from this extension.
Amendment 29 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 3 (3) The smooth and correct functioning of a Union area of justice and fundamental rights 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
Amendment 30 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 (4) To this end, the Union is to adopt, among others, measures in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross-border implications, particularly when necessary for the free movement of persons and for the proper functioning of the internal market.
Amendment 31 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 4 a (new) (4a) In order to enhance judicial cooperation in civil matters having cross- border implications, judicial training, especially in cross border family law, is needed. 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 in each other's national judicial systems.
Amendment 32 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 5 (5) In order to attain the objective of free circulation of decisions or any equivalent rulings issued by an authority of a Member State in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, it is necessary and appropriate that the rules governing jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of decisions be governed by a legal instrument of the Union which is binding and directly applicable.
Amendment 33 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 (6) In order to ensure equality for all children, this Regulation should cover all decisions on parental responsibility, including measures for the protection of children, independent of any link with a matrimonial proceeding
Amendment 34 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 6 a (new) (6a) Within the meaning of Article 11 of this Regulation, jurisdiction rules are also applicable to all children who are present on Union territory and whose habitual residence cannot be established with certainty. The scope thereof extends in particular to refugee children and children who have been internationally displaced either for socioeconomic reasons or because of disturbances occurring in their country.
Amendment 35 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 (8) As regards decisions or any equivalent rulings issued by an authority of a Member State on divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment, this Regulation should apply 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 36 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 a (new) (8a) This Regulation does not define 'marriage', which is defined by the national laws of the Member States.
Amendment 37 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 a (new) (8a) This Regulation leaves it to the discretion of the Member States to define marriage.
Amendment 38 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 b (new) (8b) This Regulation leaves it to the discretion of the Member States to define marriages between persons of the same sex.
Amendment 39 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 8 c (new) (8c) The recognition and enforcement of a decision in matters covered by the present Regulation cannot be considered as a recognition of the marriage which gave rise to the decision.
Amendment 40 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 10 (10) This Regulation should not apply to the establishment of parenthood, since this is a different matter from the attribution of parental responsibility, nor to other questions linked to the status of persons. In addition, this Regulation is not intended to apply to matters relating to social security, public measures of a general nature in matters of education or health or to decisions on the right of asylum and on immigration.
Amendment 41 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 12 a (new) (12a) This Regulation should fully respect all the rights set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ('the Charter'), and especially the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial (Article 47 of the Charter), as well as the right to the respect for private and family life (Article 7 of the Charter) and the rights of the child (Article 24 of the Charter).
Amendment 42 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 13 a (new) (13a) In order to achieve greater legal certainty with regard to the general jurisdiction of the courts in the case of divorce, separation, suspension and annulment, the competent courts referred to above should be subject to a hierarchy.
Amendment 43 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 14 a (new) (14a) The meaning of the term 'habitual residence' is to be examined on the basis of the definitions by the authorities on a case-by-case basis, in the light of the actual circumstances.
Amendment 44 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 15 (15) Where the child's habitual residence changes following a lawful relocation, jurisdiction should follow the child in order to maintain the proximity.
Amendment 45 #
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 enforce
Amendment 46 #
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.
Amendment 47 #
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, for instance in cases of domestic or gender-specific violence, 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
Amendment 48 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 18 (18) In exceptional cases, the authorities of the Member State of habitual residence of the child may not be the most appropriate authorities to deal with the case. In the best interests of the child, as an exception and under certain conditions, the authority having jurisdiction may transfer its jurisdiction in a specific case to an authority of another Member State if this authority is better placed to hear the case. However, in this case the agreement of the second authority should
Amendment 49 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 18 (18) In exceptional cases, the authorities of the Member State of habitual residence of the child may not be the most appropriate authorities to deal with the case.
Amendment 50 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 18 (18)
Amendment 51 #
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
Amendment 52 #
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, taking account of the child’s age and maturity. 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
Amendment 53 #
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.
Amendment 54 #
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
Amendment 55 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 23 a (new) (23a) This Regulation is however not intended to set out how to hear the child, for instance, whether the child is heard by the judge in person or by a specially trained expert reporting to the court afterwards, or whether the child is heard in the courtroom or in another place, but in order to protect the fundamental rights at stake, provision should be made in any case for the hearing of the child to be recorded. The hearing of the child must provide all the guarantees that allow to preserve the emotional integrity and the best interest of the child. Both holders of parental responsibility and their legal advisors must have the opportunity to see the hearing recorded.
Amendment 56 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 26 (26) In order to conclude the return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention as quickly as possible, Member States should concentrate jurisdiction for those proceedings upon one or more courts, taking into account their internal structures for the administration of justice as appropriate. The concentration of jurisdiction upon a limited number of courts within a Member State is an essential and effective tool for speeding up the handling of child abduction cases in several Member States because the judges hearing a larger number of these cases develop particular expertise. Depending on the structure of the legal system, jurisdiction for child abduction cases could be concentrated in one single court for the whole country or in a limited number of courts, using, for example, the number of appellate courts as point of departure and concentrating jurisdiction for international child abduction cases upon one court of first instance within each district of a court of appeal. Every instance should give its decision no later than six weeks after the application or appeal has been lodged with it. Member States should limit the number of appeals possible against a decision granting or refusing the return of a child under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention to one. Measures should also be taken to ensure that court judgments handed down in one Member State are recognised in another Member State. When a court judgment has been handed down, it must also be recognised throughout the European Union, especially in the interests of children.
Amendment 57 #
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
Amendment 58 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 27 a (new) (27a) The role of mediation should be increased, especially in relation to the hearing of the child, with a view to resuming basic forms of communication between the child's caregivers involved in the dispute. Also in view of an increase in cross-border custody disputes across the European Union, where no international framework is available, as a result of the recent migration inflows, mediation is often proven the only legal means to help families reach a sustainable solution on family disputes.
Amendment 59 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 27 b (new) (27b) In order to offer an effective alternative to court proceedings in national or international matters of family disputes, the mediators involved need to have undergone appropriate specialised training; the training should cover, in particular the legal framework of cross- border family disputes, intercultural competence and tools to manage high conflict situations, always having regard to the best interest of the child. Training for judges in the Member States should also address how to encourage parties to engage in mediation an early as possible and how to incorporate mediation into court proceedings without causing unnecessary delay.
Amendment 60 #
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. In the event of a positive outcome, the judicial and administrative authorities should urge the parties to engage in mediation. Such efforts should not, however, unduly prolong the return proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention.
Amendment 61 #
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, as well as other authorities in the Member States with jurisdiction in the matters falling within the scope of this Regulation, should consider the possibility of achieving amicable solutions through
Amendment 62 #
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 proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention. In addition, the expertise of ombudsmen should be better used and implemented.
Amendment 63 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 28 (28) In all cases concerning children, and in particular in cases of international child abduction, before or after referral to judicial and administrative authorities
Amendment 64 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 28 a (new) (28a) The use of mediation can play a very important role in ending conflicts, especially in the case of cross-border, parental conflicts about the custody of and right of access to a child. In order to promote mediation in these cases, the authorities should therefore assist the parties in choosing mediators and in the organisational planning. It is also recommended that the parties should be provided with financial assistance to carry out the mediation at least to the extent to which they have also granted or would have granted legal aid.
Amendment 65 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 32 (32) The recognition of a decision or equivalent ruling issued by an authority of a Member State should be refused only if one or more of the grounds for refusal of recognition provided for in Articles 37 and 38 are present. The grounds mentioned in points (a) to (c) of Article 38(1), however, may not be invoked against decisions or equivalent rulings on rights of access and the decisions on return pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 26(4) which have been certified in the Member State of origin in accordance with this Regulation, as this was already the case under Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003.
Amendment 66 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 33 (33) In addition, the aim of making cross-border litigation concerning children efficient, less time consuming and less costly justifies the abolition of the declaration of enforceability prior to enforcement in the Member State of enforcement for all decisions or equivalent rulings issued by an authority of a Member State on parental responsibility matters. While Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 only abolished this requirement for decisions or equivalent rulings granting access and certain decisions ordering the return of a child, this Regulation now provides for a single procedure for the cross-border
Amendment 67 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 33 (33) In addition, the aim of
Amendment 68 #
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
Amendment 69 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 34 (34) Authentic instruments and
Amendment 70 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 34 (34) Authentic instruments and agreements between parties that are enforceable in one Member State should be treated as equivalent to 'decisions' for the purpose of the application of the rules on
Amendment 71 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 36 (36) The direct enforcement in a Member State of a decision
Amendment 72 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 37 (37) A party challenging the enforcement of a decision
Amendment 73 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 37 a (new) (37a) Any refusal to recognise a decision as defined in this Regulation on the ground that recognition would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of the Member State concerned must be in accordance with Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Amendment 74 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 38 (38) In order to inform the person against whom enforcement is sought of the enforcement of a decision
Amendment 75 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 39 (39) The certificate issued to facilitate enforcement of the decision or equivalent ruling issued by an authority of a Member State should not be subject to appeal. It should be rectified only where there is a material error, namely where it does not correctly reflect the decision . It should be withdrawn where it was clearly wrongly granted, having regard to the requirements laid down in this Regulation.
Amendment 76 #
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 other than the Member State of which the child is a national, the 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 77 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 44 (44) Without prejudice to any requirements under its national procedural law, a requesting authority should have the discretion to choose freely between the different channels available to it for obtaining the necessary information, for example, in case of courts by applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001, by using the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters, in particular the Central Authorities established under this Regulation, Network judges and contact points, or in case of judicial and administrative authorities by requesting information through a specialised non- governmental organisation in this field. International judicial cooperation and communication should be initiated and/or facilitated by specially designated Network or Liaison judges in each Member State. The role of the European Judicial Network should be differentiated from that of Central Authorities.
Amendment 78 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 44 (44) Without prejudice to any requirements under its national procedural law, a requesting authority should have the discretion to choose freely between the different channels available to it for obtaining the necessary information, for example, in case of courts by applying Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001, by using the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters, in particular the Central Authorities established under this Regulation, Network judges and contact points, or in case of judicial and administrative authorities and in case of other authorities in the Member States with jurisdiction in the matters falling within the scope of this Regulation, by requesting information through a specialised non-
Amendment 79 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 45 (45) Where a request with supporting reasons for a report on the situation of the child, on any ongoing procedures or on decisions
Amendment 80 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 46 (46) An authority of a Member State contemplating a decision on parental responsibility should be
Amendment 81 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 46 (46) An authority of a Member State contemplating a decision or equivalent ruling on parental responsibility should be entitled to request the communication of information relevant
Amendment 82 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 46 (46)
Amendment 83 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 46 a (new) (46a) Communication between judges, public authorities, central authorities, professionals assisting the parents and between the parents themselves should be promoted by all means, taking into account, among others, that a decision that the child should not return may violate the basic rights of the child to the same extent as a decision to return it.
Amendment 84 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 47 (47) Where a person having
Amendment 85 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 48 a (new) (48a) Where the interests of the child so require, judges should communicate directly with Central Authorities or competent courts in other Member States.
Amendment 86 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 49 (49) Where an authority of a Member State has already given
Amendment 87 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 49 (49) Where an authority of a Member State has already given a decision in matters of parental responsibility or is contemplating such a decision and the implementation is to take place in another Member State, the authority m
Amendment 88 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 50 (50) Where an authority of a Member State considers the placement of a child with family members or in a foster family or in an institution in
Amendment 89 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 50 (50) 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, a consultation procedure through the Central Authorities of both Member States concerned should be carried out prior to the placement. The authority considering the placement should obtain the consent of the competent authority of the Member State in which the child should be placed before ordering the placement. As the placements are most often urgent measures required to remove a child from a situation which puts his or her
Amendment 90 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 51 (51) Any long-term placement of a child abroad should be in accordance with Article 24(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (right to maintain personal contact with parents) and with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, notably Articles 8, 9 and 20. In particular, when considering solutions, due regard should be paid to the desirability of continuity in a child’s upbringing and to the child’s ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background. In the case, in particular, of long-term placement, which is to say placement lasting more than three months, of a child abroad, the relevant authorities should always first consider the possibility of placing the child with relatives living in another country, if the child has established a relationship with those members of the family and if this is in the child’s best interests.
Amendment 91 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 51 (51) Any long-term placement of a child abroad should be in accordance with Article 24(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (right to maintain personal contact with parents) and with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, notably Articles 8, 9 and 20. In particular, when considering solutions, due regard should be paid to the possibility of placing siblings in the same host family or in the same establishment, to the desirability of continuity in a child's upbringing and to the child's ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background.
Amendment 92 #
Proposal for a regulation Recital 57 a (new) (57a) This Regulation should be applied by the courts and other competent authorities of the Member States in compliance, in particular, with Article 9 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
Amendment 93 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – introductory part 1. This Regulation applies, whatever the nature of the judicial or administrative authority or other authority with jurisdiction in the matters falling within the scope of this Regulation, in civil matters relating to:
Amendment 94 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point a (a) divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment
Amendment 95 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point d (d) the placement of the child with family members, in a foster family or in secure institutional care;
Amendment 96 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point d (d) the placement of the child with family members, in a foster family or in institutional care;
Amendment 97 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 1 a (new) Article 1a Competence in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility within the Member States This Regulation shall not affect the competence of the Member States to deal with matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility.
Amendment 98 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 1. 'authority' means any judicial or administrative authority, and any other authority in the Member States with jurisdiction in the matters falling within the scope of this Regulation ;
Amendment 99 #
Proposal for a regulation Article 2 – paragraph 1 – point 1 1. 'authority' means any judicial or administrative authority or court in the Member States with jurisdiction in the matters falling within the scope of this Regulation
source: 606.308
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2023-08-03Show (6) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/7 |
|
| docs/7 |
|
| docs/8 |
|
| events/6/docs |
|
| events/8/date |
Old
2018-12-12T00:00:00New
2018-12-11T00:00:00 |
| events/12/docs |
|
2021-12-18Show (26) Changes | Timetravel
| 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
|
2020-01-19Show (14) Changes | Timetravel
| 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 |
|
2019-07-19Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| events/17 |
|
| procedure/final |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Procedure completed, awaiting publication in Official JournalNew
Procedure completed |
2019-07-06Show (27) Changes | Timetravel
| 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 |
|
2018-09-12Show (9) Changes | Timetravel
| 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 |
2017-12-03Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/4 |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage |
2017-11-25Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/3 |
|
| procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
|
2017-11-15Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/3 |
|
2017-06-17Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/2 |
|
2017-03-20Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/commission/0/DG |
Old
JusticeNew
|
| other/0/dg |
Old
JusticeNew
|
2017-03-13Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52016PC0411:EN
|
2017-03-12Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52016PC0411:EN
|
2017-03-02Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| 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 |
2017-03-01Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/3 |
|
| committees/1/shadows/3 |
|
2017-01-28Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/commission/0/DG |
Old
New
Justice |
| other/0/dg |
Old
New
Justice |
2017-01-27Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| 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 |
|
2017-01-26Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| 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 |
|
2016-12-08Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows/1 |
|
| committees/1/shadows/1 |
|
2016-11-22Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1/committees/1/shadows |
|
| committees/1/shadows |
|
2016-09-15Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/1 |
|
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
JURI/8/06998
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |
2016-09-09Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/4 |
|
2016-07-23Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/docs/0/text |
|
2016-07-17Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52016PC0411:EN
|
2016-07-17Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| activities/0/docs/0/celexid |
CELEX:52016PC0411:EN
|
2016-07-16Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/1 |
|
| committees/2/responsible |
True
|
2016-07-12Show (5) Changes
| activities |
|
| committees |
|
| links |
|
| other |
|
| procedure |
|