Jurisdiction in cases of child abduction: analysis of CJEU judgment C-603/20

The recent judgment C-603/20 delivered by the Court of Justice of the European Union on March 24, 2021, offers significant insights into jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility, especially in situations of child abduction to third countries. This ruling falls within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, a fundamental piece of legislation for judicial cooperation in civil matters within the European Union.

Context of the judgment

The case in question, originating from the High Court of Justice of the United Kingdom, involved an Indian father and mother, both residing in the UK, in a dispute concerning the return of their daughter, who had been unlawfully transferred to India by the mother. The central question posed to the Court was whether Article 10 of Regulation No 2201/2003, which establishes jurisdiction for cases of child abduction, could apply in a conflict of jurisdiction between a Member State and a third country.

The Court clarified that Article 10 does not apply in cases where a child has acquired habitual residence in a third country as a result of an abduction.

Analysis of the judgment

The Court ruled that Article 10 applies solely to conflicts of jurisdiction between Member States, explicitly excluding situations where a child is unlawfully transferred to a third country. This is particularly relevant, as it implies that, in such cases, the judicial authorities of the Member State where the child had habitual residence before the abduction cannot indefinitely retain their jurisdiction.

According to the Court, jurisdiction must be determined based on applicable international conventions or, in their absence, according to the national rules of the country where the application is filed. This approach aims to ensure that justice is administered in the best interests of the child, promoting proximity and integration into the new social and family environment.

Implications of the decision

• The judgment underscores the importance of effective cooperation between Member States and respect for international conventions, such as the Hague Convention of 1980 and the Convention of 1996.
• It reinforces the need to preserve the superior interests of the child, preventing unlawful transfers from altering jurisdictional competences in a way that favors the perpetrator of the abduction.
• It calls for reflection on national regulations and their relationship with European and international ones, to ensure adequate protection for children involved in abduction situations.

Conclusions

In summary, judgment C-603/20 represents a significant step in defining jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility in cases of child abduction. It clarifies that the judicial authorities of a Member State cannot indefinitely retain their jurisdiction when a child has been abducted to a third country, emphasizing the need to refer to international conventions and national rules. This approach promotes more effective protection of children's rights, ensuring that decisions are made in the most appropriate context for their well-being.