Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Family Private International Law Issues Before the European Court of Human Rights: Lessons to Be Learned from Povse v. Austria in Revising the Brussels IIa Regulation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Fundamental Rights in International and European Law

  • 1581 Accesses

Abstract

This contribution analyses the manner in which the 1980 Child Abduction Convention has been applied within the legislative framework of the Regulation Brussels IIa in the light of the decision Povse v. Austria. This factually and legally complex case reached both the CJEU and the ECtHR. It illustrates shortcomings and difficulties in applying and interpreting the existing procedural framework on international child abduction in the European Union. Possible solutions are suggested in the present paper on how to shape a legislative framework which would more appropriately accommodate the needs of actors in cross-border child abduction litigation in the best interest of the child.

Dr. Vesna Lazić is a Senior Researcher Private International Law and International Commercial Arbitration at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut in The Hague, Associate Professor at Utrecht University and Professor of Civil Procedure at the University of Rijeka.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Rome, 4 November 1950 (hereafter: Convention). See the overview of the case law of the ECtHR concerning Article 8 of the Convention in Mowbray 2012, pp. 488–597.

  2. 2.

    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 (hereinafter: Regulation Brussels IIa or Regulation).

  3. 3.

    ECtHR Judgment of 18 June 2013, decision on admissibility, appl. no. 3890/11 (Sofia and Doris Povse v. Austria).

  4. 4.

    Case C-211/10 PPU Povse v Alpago [2010] ECR I-6673.

  5. 5.

    See e.g., van Iterson 2013; Cuniberti 2014; Hazelhorst 2014; Van Loon 2014, pp. 9–29; H. Muir Wat, Muir Wat on Abolition of Exequatur and Human Rights, Online symposium, 9 October 2013. http://conflictoflaws.net/2013/muir-watt-on-povse/. Accessed 13 July 2015. M. Requejo, Requejo on Povse, Online symposium, 9 October 2013. http://conflictoflaws.net/2013/requejo-on-povse/; R.A. García, Povse v. Austria: taking direct effect seriously?, Online symposium, 9 October 2013. http://conflictoflaws.net/2013/povse-v-austria-taking-direct-effect-seriously/. Accessed 13 July 2015. On the analysis of earlier case law of the ECtHR, see Vlaardingerbroek 2014, pp. 12–20.

  6. 6.

    The enforcement regime of judgments on return of the child under Article 42 is explained in a greater detail, see Sect. 8.3.2.

  7. 7.

    Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereinafter: 1980 Hague Convention). The text and related materials are available on the website of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. www.hcch.net. Accessed 13 July 2015.

  8. 8.

    Case C-211/10 PPU Povse v. Alpago [2010] ECR I-6673.

  9. 9.

    Article 9 provides under which conditions the courts of the child’s former habitual residence retain jurisdiction in cases when the child lawfully moves to another Member State (perpetuatio fori). Accordingly, the courts in the country of the child’s former habitual residence remain competent during a three-month period for the purpose of modifying a judgment on access right issued in that EU Member State, provided that the person entitled to exercise access right has habitual residence in that jurisdiction. The only exception is in the case of tacit prorogation, i.e., if the holder of the access rights participated in the proceedings before the courts in the Member State of child’s new habitual residence without raising the objection of lack of jurisdiction. This provision is not further discussed as it was not the subject of ruling in the CJEU Povse-judgment.

  10. 10.

    In the present case, Article 41 is of no relevance as it concerns judgments on access rights, which were not at stake in the case at hand. Yet, the reasoning of the CJEU on the return orders in the case at hand may analogously be applied to judgments which concern rights of access. This is so because in judgments rendered both in cases of access rights, as well as return orders fall under the same favourable regime for enforcement provided in Article 47 of the Regulation.

  11. 11.

    Practice Guide for the application of the new Brussels II Regulation (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, up-dated version 1 June 2005, p. 28. http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/divorce/parental_resp_ec_vdm_en.pdf (hereinafter: Practice Guide).

  12. 12.

    Article 2(11) of the Regulation.

  13. 13.

    Practice Guide, p. 28.

  14. 14.

    CJEU Povse-judgment, para 46.

  15. 15.

    Idem, para 47.

  16. 16.

    Article 60(e) of the Regulation Brussels IIa.

  17. 17.

    Article 11(1) of the Regulation Brussels IIa.

  18. 18.

    There are 93 contracting states to the 1980 Hague Convention (statues per 10 April 2014). www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=24. Accessed 13 July 2015. Recently, the Council of the European Union adopted decisions on 15 June 2015 authorising certain Member States to accept, in the interest of the European Union, the accession of Andorra and Singapore to the Convention. When interpreting certain provisions of the Brussels IIa Regulation, the CJEU in its Opinion 1/13 of 14 October 2014 asserted that the declarations of acceptance under the 1980 Hague Convention were within the exclusive external competence of the EU. Since a number of the EU Member States had accepted the ratifications of Singapore and Andorra before the Opinion 1/13, the relevant decisions of the Council are addressed only to the EU Member States that have not already accepted the ratifications of the two states.

  19. 19.

    Article 11(2) of the Regulation Brussels IIa.

  20. 20.

    Article 11(4) of the Regulation Brussels IIa.

  21. 21.

    For a detailed overview of the modifications and alterations in the application of the relevant provisions, see the sheet in the Practice Guide on p. 35.

  22. 22.

    Article 11(6) of the Regulation Brussels IIa.

  23. 23.

    Article 11(7) of the Regulation Brussels IIa.

  24. 24.

    According to the 1980 Hague Convention they are competent to decide upon requests for a return of the child.

  25. 25.

    Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 7 December 2000, Nice, OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

  26. 26.

    See e.g., Povse-judgment, para 64 and ECJ judgment of 23 December 2009, Case C-403/09 PPU Detiček [2009] ECR I-12193, para 54.

  27. 27.

    See e.g., CJEU judgment of 11 July 2008, Case C-195/08 PPU (Rinau) [2008] ECR I-5271, paras 63 and 64.

  28. 28.

    Article 42(1) of the Regulation Brussels IIa.

  29. 29.

    Article 47(2).

  30. 30.

    Idem., ruling 3.

  31. 31.

    CJEU Povse-judgment, para 78.

  32. 32.

    See also, Beaumont 2008, p. 93.

  33. 33.

    CJEU judgment of 22 December 2010, C-491/10 PPU (Joseba Andoni Aguirre Zarraga v. Simone Pelz), holding, inter alia, that the allegation of violation of fundamental rights was not to prevent the free circulation of judgments under the Brussels IIa Regulation.

  34. 34.

    Muir Watt on Abolition of Exequatur and Human Rights, p. 6. http://conflictoflaws.net. Accessed 13 July 2015.

  35. 35.

    CJEU Povse-judgment, para 40.

  36. 36.

    On the basis of the decision rendered in May 2008, the child lawfully stayed in Austria for more than a year.

  37. 37.

    ECtHR Povse-judgment, pp. 20 and 21.

  38. 38.

    ECtHR Povse-judgment, paras 70–71.

  39. 39.

    Idem., para 72.

  40. 40.

    Idem., para 73.

  41. 41.

    ECtHR 30 June 2005, appl. no. 45036/98, Bosphorus Airways v. Ireland.

  42. 42.

    Already in ECtHR 6 March 2013, appl. no. 12323/11, Michaud v. France, where a state had transferred a part of their sovereignty to an international organisation, that state would be in compliance with obligations under the Convention where the relevant organisation protects fundamental rights in manner ‘that it to say not identical but ‘comparable’ to that for which is protected by the Convention. Michaud-judgment, para 102.

  43. 43.

    Idem., para 77.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., as determined in Michaud v. France, above n. 43.

  45. 45.

    Idem., paras 80–81.

  46. 46.

    ECtHR of 12 July 2011, appl. no. 14737/09 (Sneersone and Kampanella v. Italy).

  47. 47.

    Muir Watt 2013, p. 5. For a more extensive criticism on the application of Bosphorus-test, see Requejo 2013, pp. 6–8.

  48. 48.

    Opinion 2/3 delivered on 18 December 2014, ECHR, EU:C:2014:2454.

  49. 49.

    Editorial Comments 2015. For the comments on the Opinion, see also, Peers 2015, pp. 213–222.

  50. 50.

    ECtHR of 12 July 2011, appl. no. 14737/09 (Sneersone and Kampanella v. Italy).

  51. 51.

    See ECtHR judgment of 6 December 2007, appl. no. 39388/05 (Maumousseau and Washington v. France), para 62.

  52. 52.

    ECtHR judgment of 19 September 2000, appl. no. 40031/98 (Case of Gnahoré v. France).

  53. 53.

    ECtHR no. 25735/94, § 50, ECHR 2000-VIII (Elsholz v. Germany [GC]); ECtHR 4 April 2006, no. 8153/04, para (Maršálek v. the Czech Republic).

  54. 54.

    ECtHR judgment of 12 July 2011, appl. no. 14737/09 (Sneersone and Kampanella v. Italy).

  55. 55.

    See e.g., ECrHR judgment of 26 November 2013, appl. no. 27853/09 (X v. Latvia), where the ECtHR in circumstances comparable to the Povse-case reasoned that the return orders were not to be issued when the best interest of the child is at stake.

  56. 56.

    See e.g., the debate on abolishing the exequatur when the Regulation Brussels I was discussed: Dickinson 2010, pp. 247–309; Cuniberti and Rueda 2011, pp. 286–316; Nielsen 2013, pp. 503–528.

  57. 57.

    Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, OJ 2001 L 12 (all Member States, including Denmark),Council Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No. 1347/2000, OJ 2003 L 338 (divorce and parental responsibility, except decisions concerning return of child orders and decisions in the right of access/contacts) and Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession, OJ 2012 L 201 (Denmark and the United Kingdom are not bound by it).

  58. 58.

    Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), OJ L 351, as amended by Regulation No. 542/2014 applicable as of 10 January 2015.

  59. 59.

    Council Regulation (EC) No. 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings.

  60. 60.

    Regulation (EC) No. 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims Official Journal L 143, 30.04.2004 P. 0015-0039; Regulation (EC) No. 861/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure; Regulation (EC) No. 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating an European order for payment procedure OJ L 399, 30.12.2006, pp. 1–32; Council Regulation (EC) No. 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations for judgments rendered in those Member States that have ratified the 2007 Hague Protocol.

  61. 61.

    On the diversity of regimes of enforcement, as well as unclear line of reasoning in protecting interests of ‘weak’ parties and inconsistency among various PIL EU instruments , see Lazić 2014, pp. 115–116.

  62. 62.

    The Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the Application of 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 (Brussels, 15.4.2014 COM(2014) 225 final).

  63. 63.

    See also, the questionnaire thereto attached for the purposes of public consultations in questions no. 20 (relating to abolishing exequatur in the enforcement of judgments on placement of a child in institutional care or a foster family) and 21 (concerning maintaining certain main safeguards such as public policy, proper service of documents, right of parties (the child) to be heard, irreconcilable judgments).

References

  • Beaumont PR (2008) The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice on the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. Recueil des cours 335:9–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuniberti G (2014) Abolition de l’‘exequatur’ et présomption de protection des droits fondamentaux: à propos de l’affaire ‘Povse c/ Autriche’. Revue critique de droit international privé 103:303–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Cuniberti G, Rueda I (2011) Abolition of exequatur: addressing the Commission’s concerns. RabelsZ 75:286–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson A (2010) The revision of the Brussels I regulation. Surveying the proposed Brussels I BIs regulation—solid foundations but renovation needed. Yearb Private Int Law 12:247–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Editorial Comments (2015) Editorial Comments: The EU’s accession to the ECHR—a ‘NO’ from the ECJ. Common Mark Law Rev 52:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • García RA (2013) ‘Povse v. Austria: taking direct effect seriously? Online symposium. http://conflictoflaws.net/2013/povse-v-austria-taking-direct-effect-seriously/. Accessed 13 July 2015

  • Hazelhorst M (2014) The ECtHR’s decision in ‘Povse’: guidance for the future abolition of exequatur for civil judgments in the European Union: European Court of Human Rights 18 June 2013, Decision on Admissibility, appl. no. 3890/11 (Povse v. Austria). Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 32:27–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazić V (2014) Procedural justice for weaker parties in cross-border litigation under the EU regulatory scheme. Utrecht Law Rev 10(4):100–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowbray AR (2012) Cases, material and commentary on the European Convention on Human Rights, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Muir Watt H (2013) Muir Watt on Abolition of Exequatur and Human Rights, Online symposium. http://conflictoflaws.net/2013/muir-watt-on-povse/. Accessed 13 July 2015

  • Nielsen PA (2013) The new Brussels I regulation. Common Mark Law Rev 50:503–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Peers S (2015) The EU’s accession to the ECHR: the dream becomes a nightmare. Ger Law J 16:213–222. http://www.germanlawjournal.com/index.php?pageID=11&artID=1673. Accessed 15 July 2015

  • Requejo M (2013) Requejo op Povse. Online symposium. http://conflictoflaws.net/2013/requejo-on-povse. Accessed 15 July 2015

  • van Iterson D (2013) The ECJ and ECHR judgments of Povse and human rights—a legislative perspective. http://conflictoflaws.net/2013/the-ecj-and-echr-judgmentson-povse-and-human-rights-alegislative-perspective/. Accessed 13 July 2015

  • van Loon H (2014) Kinderontvoering en mensenrechten, In: Boele-Woelki K (ed.), Actuele ontwikkelingen in het familierecht – achtste UCERF symposium. UCERF REEKS, vol 8. Ars Aequi Libri, Nijmegen, pp 9–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Vlaardingerbroek P (2014) Internationale kinderontvoering en het EVRM. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 32:12–20

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Vesna Lazić

Authors
  1. Vesna Lazić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vesna Lazić .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Hague, The Netherlands

    Christophe Paulussen

  2. Research Department, Law of the European Union, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Tamara Takacs

  3. Research Department, Private International Law, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Vesna Lazić

  4. The Hague, The Netherlands

    Ben Van Rompuy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lazić, V. (2016). Family Private International Law Issues Before the European Court of Human Rights: Lessons to Be Learned from Povse v. Austria in Revising the Brussels IIa Regulation. In: Paulussen, C., Takacs, T., Lazić, V., Van Rompuy, B. (eds) Fundamental Rights in International and European Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-088-6_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-088-6_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-086-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-088-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation