Family Law Hub

Council Regulation No 1347/2000 (Brussels II)

International regs, published: 29/05/2000


Items referring to this

  • Tim Scott QC from 29 Bedford Row explains the rationale behind the 1996 Hague Convention, which came into force last November, describes the structure and contents of the Convention and provides an explanation of the relevant articles. Article, 23/10/2013, members only
  • The issue here was whether the UK court had jurisdiction to entertain a s.8 application in respect of a child. The court held that, since the provisions of Brussels II Revised applied to the mother's application for the s.8 order, the court was not entitled to then go on to consider issues of residual jurisdiction as provided by s.2(1)(b) and 2A of the Family Law Act 1986. Judgment, 19/01/2017, free
  • Application by father for summary return of child to France and involving issues of settlement. Application granted as none of the defences under the 1980 Hague Convention were satisfied. Judgment, 17/07/2015, free
  • Appeal concerning enforcement of Romanian custody order under BIIR. Struck out as the Court decided on a preliminary issue that it has no jurisdiction to hear it. Judgment, 22/06/2016, free
  • A public children law case in which the President was dealing with three main issues in relation to the care of a 12 year old boy who, despite being born, and living his whole life, in England, was also a citizen of Slovakia. The issues addressed were Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, Articles 36 and 37 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the jurisprudence on reporting restriction orders. Judgment, 15/01/2014, free
  • A complex case involving proceedings in three jurisdictions (England and Wales, Italy and Finland) and questions of interpretation of the governing European Regulation, decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union, and domestic decisions. The parties were both Italian nationals and the questions that had to be decided were: 1) whether an order granting the M temporary leave to remove the child was a "final order" or a "provisional order" for the purposes of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 and 2) whether the Italian court had jurisdiction. The UK proceedings were stayed. Judgment, 24/01/2014, free
  • Judgment, 22/06/2012, free
  • Timothy Scott QC rounds up all the latest developments in international family law touching on case law and policy developments such as how the Maintenance Regulation is operating 2 years on, an update on BIIR cases and staying proceedings and Hemain injunctions. Webcast, 09/10/2013, members only
  • Judgment, 26/08/2012, free
  • Judgment, 10/02/2006, free
  • Judgment, 30/06/2004, free
  • In brief: A summary return order was made returning the child to Israel in circumstances where the mother (“M”) had not made out that the child would be at grave risk of psychological harm if returned and appropriate undertakings were given by the father (“F”) meaning that the child would remain in M’s care until the Family Court of Jerusalem had dealt with matters. Judgment, 14/06/2018, free
  • A Hague Convention case where the English mother, who was granted custody of the child with permission for him to live in England with her, was allowed to take the child from Spain to England having made an undertaking to obey any order of the appeal court and return him if required to do so. The Moroccan father's appeal was successful but the mother did not comply with the order. The English court ordered that the child be returned to Spain. Judgment, 19/03/2014, free
  • Precedent, 08/03/2012, members only
  • Precedent, 08/03/2012, members only
  • Precedent, 08/03/2012, members only
  • Judgment, 16/09/2011, free
  • Case note, 28/04/2014, free
  • The court ruled that even though the wife had served the divorce petition on the husband 4 months and one day after issue, the UK court was the court first seised. Judgment, 22/10/2016, free
  • Judgment, 29/01/2013, free

Published: 29/05/2000


Copyright in the original legal material published on the Family Law Hub is vested in Mills & Reeve LLP (as per date of publication shown on screen) unless indicated otherwise.


The Family Law Hub website relates to the legal position in England Wales and all of the material within it has been prepared with the aim of providing key information only and does not constitute legal advice in relation to any particular situation. While Mills & Reeve LLP aims to ensure that the information is correct at the date on which it is added to the website, the legal position can change frequently, and content will not always be updated following any relevant changes. You therefore acknowledge and agree that Mills & Reeve LLP and its members and employees accept no liability whatsoever in contract, tort or otherwise for any loss or damage caused by or arising directly or indirectly in connection with any use or reliance on the contents of our website except to the extent that such liability cannot be excluded by law.

Bookmark this item