Family Law Hub

Brussels II Revised

Latest updates

  • Technical notice covering civil legal cases that involve EU countries says UK will fall back on rules that it adopts with non-EU countries News, 14/09/2018, free
  • In brief: The High Court ordered a child's return to England under BIIR following a non-return order being made summarily under the Hague Convention on civil aspects of international child abduction. The case highlights how a review under BIIR can lead to the reversal of a non-return order made summarily under different legislation and clarifies the framework within which the court determines applications in these circumstances. Judgment, 06/08/2018, free
  • The specific issues in this case were whether the court has the power to make a return order summarily at the outset of proceedings in England and, if it has, whether it should do so or should wait before exercising its substantive jurisdiction under BIIa until the determination of proceedings under the 1980 Convention in the other Member State. Judgment, 29/05/2018, free
  • The Supreme Court of Cassation, Bulgaria, requested a preliminary ruling from the ECJ regarding whether "rights of access" in Article 1(2)(a) and Article 2(10) of Brussels II Revised (BIIR) include the rights of access of grandparents to their grandchildren. Although the ultimate decision is still awaited, Advocate General Szpunar has recommended that the ECJ should rule that rights of access under BIIR extend to individuals other than parents, if those individuals have family ties to the child based on law or fact (in this case a grandmother). His opinion emphasises that the best interests of the child is the primary principle underpinning BIIR and should guide analysis of its interpretation. Judgment, 15/05/2018, free
  • The court had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to hear an application under the Children Act 1989 in respect of two children. The father, the applicant, contended that the court had jurisdiction on one of two grounds: (1) that at the date on which proceedings were started the children were habitually resident in England and Wales and that, as a result, this court had jurisdiction under Article 8 of BIIA, or alternatively (2) that the children were wrongfully removed from England and Wales to Latvia at a point when they were habitually resident here, that the father had neither consented to nor acquiesced in their removal, and that as a result this court had jurisdiction under Article 10 of BIIA. Judgment, 08/02/2017, free

Latest know-how

  • In a tweet: Habitual residence at time court is seised is key to jurisdiction, not where child will be living Case note, 12/01/2017, members only
  • In a tweet: High Court dismisses father's appeal against recognition and enforcement of French residence order Case note, 07/11/2016, members only
  • In a tweet: No jurisdiction under BIIR to hear appeal against refusal to enforce Romanian custody order Case note, 20/09/2016, members only
  • In a tweet: Where BIIR and Hague 1980 both apply, follow Hague 1980 complemented by Art 11(1)-(5) BIIR Case note, 20/09/2016, members only
  • The same principles are applied for habitual residence and transfer under 1996 Hague Convention as under BIIR. Case note, 09/09/2016, members only

Latest training

Latest sources

Copyright 

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.

Disclaimer

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