The principle of the best interests of the child and the principle of mutual trust in the justice systems of EU Member States - Return of a child in cross-border cases within the EU in the light of EU Council Regulation 2019/1111 and the situation in Poland

Abstract

The suspension of the enforcement of a return order under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and EU law, as well as the admissibility of modifying such an order, remains one of the most sensitive matters in cross-border family disputes. The article analyses EU Council Regulations 2201/2003 (Brussels IIa) and 2019/1111 (Brussels IIb) in terms of the objectives set by the EU legislator: strengthening the protection of the interests of the child and mutual trust of Member States in their justice systems. The text also refers to Polish law as an example of the evolution of the approach to the analysed issues. It presents its development, highlights the solutions concerning the competences of the Ombudsman for Children, and provides an assessment of the current legal situation in the context of Brussels IIb.

Keywords:

• international child abduction
• the Hague Child Abduction Convention
• EU Regulation 2201/2003 (Brussels IIa Regulation), EU Regulation 2019/1111 (Brussels IIb Regulation)
• Ombudsman for Children
• return order
• suspension of enforcement

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 The Child Abduction Convention entered into force on December 1, 1983. More on: https://www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/specialised-sections/child-abduction.

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 [2003] OJ L338/1 (The Council Regulation (EU) 2201/2003, Brussels IIa). In the first Council Regulation (EU) 1347/2000 the Hague 1980 Abduction Convention issues were not connected to problems with the enforcement of a return judgment.

3 Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast) [2019] OJ L178/1 (Regulation 2019/1111 or Brussels IIb).

4 See A Schulz, Enforcement of Orders Made under the 1980 Convention - A Comparative Legal Study Prel. Doc. No 6, October 2006. https://assets.hcch.net/upload/wop/abd_pd06e2006.pdf; N Lowe, M Everall, M Nichols, International movement of children. Law, Practice, Procedure, (Lexis Nexis, 2nd edn, 2016) 786-8.

5 See Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a 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), {SWD(2016) 207 final}, {SWD(2016) 208 final}, Brussels, 30.6.2016, COM(2016) 411 final, 2016/0190 (CNS), p. 5; T.M.C. Asser Institute, Comparative study on enforcement procedures of family rights, [2007], JLS/C4/2005/06 Synthesis Report, (Hague, 19.12.2007), http://www.jafbase.fr/docUE/study_family_rights_synthesis_report_en.pdf; [accessed: 20.05.2022].

6 Schulz (n 4); Guide to Good Practice under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Part IV – Enforcement, (Hague, 2010); https://www.hcch.net/en/publications-and-studies/details4/?pid=5208 [accessed: 19.09.2021].

7 Sylvester v Austria, Application nos. 36812/97 and 40104/98, the ECHR judgment of 24.04.2003.; Neulinger and Shuruk v Switzerland, Application 41615/07, the ECHR Grand Chamber judgment of 6.07.2010; Raw and the others v France, Application no 10131/11, the ECHR judgment of 7.03.2013; PP v Poland, Application no 8677/03, the ECHR judgment of 8.01.2008; Serghides v Poland, Application no 31515/04, the ECHR judgment of 2.11.2010; L Silberman and M Lipton, “A Brief Comment on Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland (2010), European Court of Human Rights” (Spring-Summer 2012) XVIII The Judges’ Newsletter on International Child Protection 18-19; N Lowe, ‘A supra-national approach to interpreting the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention – a tale of two European Courts: Part 2: the substantive impact of the two European Courts’ rulings upon the application of the 1980 Convention’, (2012) International Family Law 170-179.

8 C-491/10 PPU, Joseba Andonii Aguirre Zarraga v Simone Pelz, EU:C:2010:82; C-195/08 PPU, Inga Rinau, EU:C:2008:406; C-296/10 PPU, Bianca Purrucker v Guillermo Vallés Pérez, EU:C:2010:437.

9 C-638/22 PPU, T.C. and Others EU:C:2023:21.

10 Art 3(1) UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20.11.1989. https://www.ohchr.org/of the en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child.

11 See General comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (Art 3, para 1), adopted by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child at its sixty-second session 29.05.2013, CRC/C/GC/14, 3.

12 See ibid, or General comment No. 20 (2016) on the implementation of the rights of the child during adolescence, UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, CRC/C/GC/20, 7; General comment No. 14 (2013) on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration (Art 3, para 1) the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, CRC/C/GC/14.

13 See X v. Latvia, 27853/09, the ECHR Grand Chamber judgment of 26.11.2013 [37]-[39]; and Maumousseau and Washington v. France, no. 39388/05, the ECHR judgment of 6.12.2007, [44], Neulinger, supra n 7, [49]-[55]. Among the abundant bibliography on ECtHR case law in this area see P McEleavy, “The European Court of Human Rights and the Hague Child Abduction Convention: Prioritising Return or Reflection?” (2015) 62 Netherland International Law Review 365–405; PR Beaumont, “The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice on the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction” (2009) 335 Hague Collected Courses 8; TE Kvisberg, “Child Abduction Cases in the European Court of Human Rights – Changing Views on the Child’s Best Interests” (2019) 6 Oslo Law Review 90–106; JP Costa, “The best interests of the child in recent case-law of the European Court of Human Rights”, Franco-British-Irish Colloque on family law, Dublin, 14 May 2012, https://www.echr.coe.int/d/speech_20110514_costa_dublin_fra; [accessed:21.06.2021].

14 Art 22bis sentence 4 of the Belgian Constitution (Moniteur belge of 30 March 2021); Art 1 in fine of the Federal Constitutional Act on the Rights of Children in Austria (BGBI. 4.2011).

15 The Preamble to the Hague Abduction Convention, sentence 1.

16 Recitals 12–13 of Brussels IIa and Recital 19 of Brussels IIb.

17 Pérez- Vera, “Explanatory Report”, Acts and Documents of the Fourteenth Session (1980), tome III, Child abduction (Hague Conference on Private International Law, 1981) [20]-[24]; T Kruger, International Child Abduction. The Inadequacies of the Law, (Hart Publishing, 2011) 34-5; K Lenaerts, “The Best Interests of the Child Always Come First: The Brussels II Bis Regulation and the European Court of Justice” (2013) 20 Jurisprudence 1302–28; J Chamberland, ‘Whither the ‘best interest of the child’ in the 1980 Child Abduction Convention?’ (2012) International Family Law 27-30.

18 Recital 19 to Brussels IIb.

19 See Decision of the Supreme Court of 1.12.2000, V CKN 1747/00, LEX no 52467; Judgment of the Supreme Court of 8.06.2000, V CKN 1237/00, LEX no 52389; Resolution of seven judges of the Supreme Court of 12.06.1992, III CZP 48/92, Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego, 1992, No 10, item 179; Decision of the Supreme Court of 8.03.2006, III CZP 98/05, Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego 2006, No 10 item 158; Decision of the Supreme Court of 31.03.1999, I CKN 23/99, Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego 1999, No 11, item 188; Decision of the Supreme Court of 7.07.2000, III CKN 796/00, LEX no 51888; Decision of the Supreme Court of 12.12.2000, V CKN 1805/00, LEX no 52400; Decision of the Supreme Court of 16.01.1998, II CKN 855/97 Orzecznictwo Sądu Najwyższego 1998, No 9, item 142.

20 Act on the Ombudsman for the Rights of the Child of January 6, 2000, consolidated text Journal of Law 2017, Item 922 as amended.

21 See the State responses on their Country Profiles, https://www.hcch.net/en/publications-and-studies/details4/?pid=6993&dtid=42 [accessed: 1.05.2023].

22 Ex officio enforcement may be carried out in Austria, Finland, Germany or the Netherlands but it needs an additional application in Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic or Slovenia. See the Country Profiles on https://www.hcch.net/en/publications-and-studies/details4/?pid=6993&dtid=42; [accessed: 1.05.2023].

23 https://www.hcch.net/en/publications-and-studies/details4/?pid=6993&dtid=42 [accessed: 1.05.2023].

24 T.C and Others … , supra n 9.

25 Arts 11(8), 40(1)(b) and 42 of Brussels IIa. See T Kruger and L Samyn, “Brussels IIbis: Successes and suggested improvements” (2016) 12 Journal of Private International Law 132-68; U Magnus and P Mankowski (eds), Brussels IIbis Regulation (Sellier, 2012) 343-77; N Lowe, ‘The Enforcement of Custody and Access Decision under the Revised Brussels II Regulation’ (2011) International Family Law 21-30.

26 Recital 24 of the preamble to Brussels lla.

27 See S Prechal, “Mutual Trust Before the Court of Justice of the European Union”, (2017) 2 European Papers 75-92; C Ladenburger, ‘The Principle of Mutual Trust between Member States in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ (2020) 23 Zeitschrift für europarechtliche Studien 373-84; S Bartolini, “Mutual trust through the looking glass: The protection of children’s fundamental rights in EU return proceedings”, Oñati Socio-Legal Series Forthcoming: Child Abduction In Transnational Context, https://doi.org/10.35295/OSLS.IISL/0000-0000-0000-1349.

28 Recital 21 and Art 26 of Brussels IIa; in Rinau, supra n 8, [50]; Purrucker, supra n 8, [71]-[75] and Opinion of Advocate General Eleanor Sharpston in C-256/09 Purrucker EU:C:2010:437, [92]-[94].

29 C-211/10 PPU, Povse EU:C:2010:400,[59].

30 Aguirre Zarraga, supra n 8, [75].

31 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Accompanying the document Proposal for a 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), {COM(2016) 411 final} - {SWD(2016) 208 final}, (Brussels, 11.2.2021) SWD (2016) 207 final/4, 37-45; P Beaumont, L Walker, J Holliday, “Conflicts of EU courts on child abduction: the reality of Article 11(6)-(8) Brussels IIa proceedings across the EU” (2016) 12 Journal of Private International Law 211-260.

32 See A Frąckowiak - Adamska, “No Deal Better than a Bad Deal - Child Abduction and the Brussels IIa Regulation” in P Beaumont, M Danov, K Trimmings, B Yüksel (eds), Cross-Border Litigation in Europe (Hart Publishing, 2017) 755, 769-70.

33 Arts 29(6), 42, 45 and 47 of Brussels IIb.

34 Recitals 48 and 58 and Art 34(1) of Brussels IIb.

35 Recital 69 and Art 56 of Brussels IIb.

36 Recital 22 and Art 10(1)(b) Brussels IIb.

37 Art 24 Brussels IIa and Art 69 Brussels IIb, respectively.

38 Art 28 Brussels IIa and Art 71 Brussels IIb, respectively.

39 Art 11(8) Brussels IIa and Art 29(6) Brussels IIb, respectively.

40 Art 42(2)(a) - (b) Brussels IIa and Art 47(3) Brussels IIb, respectively.

41 Art 42(2)(c) Brussels IIa and Art 47(4) Brussels IIb, respectively.

42 Art 43(2) Brussels IIa.

43 Art 47(6) and Art 48 Brussels IIb.

44 Arts 27 and 35 Brussels IIa.

45 Art 56(2)(a-b) Brussels IIb.

46 Art 56(d) in conjunction with Art 48 Brussels IIb.

47 Art 56(c) in conjunction with Arts 41, 50 and 57 Brussels IIb.

48 Art 56(4) Brussels IIb.

49 Recital 69 and Art 56(5) Brussels IIb.

50 Art 47(2) in fine Brussels IIa.

51 Art 39(1)(d) in conjunction with Art 41 Brussels IIb.

52 Art 39(1)(e) in conjunction with Art 41 Brussels IIb.

53 Art 39(1)(a) in conjunction with Art 41 Brussels IIb.

54 Art 39(1)(b) in conjunction with Art 41 Brussels IIb.

55 Art 39(1)(c) in conjunction with Art 41 Brussels IIb.

56 Art 39(2) in conjunction with Art 41 Brussels IIb.

57 Art 39(2)(a-b) in conjunction with Article 41 Brussels IIb.

58 See N Lowe and V Stephens, The Seventh Meeting of the Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention and the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention, October 2017, 8-9, https://www.hcch.net/en/publications-and-studies/details4/?pid=6545&dtid=57. [accessed: 25.03.2023].

59 Art 39(1)(f) in conjunction with Art 41 Brussels IIb.

60 Art 56(6) Brussels IIb.

61 Recital 69 Brussels IIb.

62 Recitals 72 and 76–80 and Arts 23 and 73–84 Brussels IIb.

63 Recitals 43 and 45–46 and Arts 86–97 Brussels IIb.

64 Recital 25 and Arts 56 and 58 Brussels IIa.

65 Recitals 65 and 69 Brussels IIb.

66 See for more details J Pawliczak, “Reformed Polish court proceedings for the return of a child under the 1980 Hague Convention in the light of the Brussels IIb Regulation” (2021) 17 Journal of Private International Law 560-86.

67 Art 10(1)(3) of the Act on the Commissioner for the Protection of Children’s Rights of 6.01.2000, Journal of Laws 2000, No 6, item 69 as amended; In other states, in individual cases the Children’s Rights Ombudsperson may act, eg in Cyprus, see Art 4 of the Act on The Commissioner for the Protection of Children’s Rights Law, 2007 and 2014, (English translation and consolidation) http://www.childcom.org.cy/ccr/ccr.nsf/All/FF195C2AAF4BCC0DC2258343002FA829? OpenDocument [accessed: 3.09.2021]. In most States, an ombudsman or another body to monitor the protection of children’s rights has no standing for participation in individual cases; PJ Jaros, Rzecznik Praw Dziecka, Ukształtowanie Rzecznika Praw Dziecka w Polsce jako organu państwowego. Komentarz do ustawy o Rzeczniku Praw Dziecka (Biuro Rzecznika Praw Dziecka, 2013), 123-50.

68 Art 14(4) of the Act on Human Rights Ombudsman of 15 July 1987, consolidated text Journal of Laws 2023, item 1058.

69 Art 598¹–598¹³ of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure (CCP), Act of 17 November 1964, Journal of Laws 2020, item 1575, as amended.

70 Art 598¹–598⁵ CCP.

71 Art 598⁶–598¹⁴ CCP.

72 Serghides v Poland; PP v Poland, supra n 7.

73 See the Polish Supreme Court decision of 13.03.2015, III CZP 3/15 on refusal to pass a resolution on the admissibility of changing the return judgment, issued on the basis of the Hague Child Abduction Convention.

74 M Michalak, Informacja o działalności Rzecznika Praw Dziecka za rok 2017 oraz uwagi o stanie przestrzegania praw dziecka [Report on the activity on the Ombudsman for Children for 2017 and Comments on Observance of the Rights of the Child], 2018, 435. All Annual reports of the Ombudsman for Children are available at: https://brpd.gov.pl/sprawozdania-z-dzialalnosci/. Subsequent volumes will continue to be cited as: Informacja o działalności Rzecznika Praw Dziecka za rok xxxx.

75 Ibid, 430.

76 Resolution on the admissibility of the Supreme Court of 22.11.2017, III CZP 78/17.

77 According to data published from years 2008–2016 on the former internet page of the Polish Ministry of Justice at https://www.arch-bip.ms.gov.pl/pl/ministerstwo/wspolpraca-miedzynarodowa/konwencja-haskadot-uprowadzenia-dziecka [accessed: 12.06.2022]. Post-Brexit data do not include UK-Poland cases, which in the years 2008–2016 was between 17% and 40% (median 30.6%) of all incoming applications, so the average of the intra-EU legal turnover concerning Hague abduction cases (excl. Denmark) is much smaller.

78 Act of 26.1.2018 on the Performance of Certain Activities of a Central Authority in Family Proceedings as part of Legal Cooperation under European Union Law and International Agreements, Journal of Laws 2018, item 416

79 Art 579⁴(6) CCP as amended by the Act of 26.1.2018, ibid.

80 M Michalak, Informacja o działalności Rzecznika Praw Dziecka za rok 2017 … , supra n 74, 365-6.

81 “A State organizational unit subordinate to the Minister of Justice, conducting scientific and research activity in the field of creation, application, axiology and social functioning of law, as well as the phenomena of crime and social pathology”, https://iws.gov.pl/o-instytucie/ [accessed: 1.05.2023].

82 M Białecki, Orzekanie w sprawach o wydanie dziecka w trybie Konwencji dotyczącej cywilnych aspektów uprowadzenia dziecka za granicę sporządzonej w Hadze w dniu 25 października 1980, (Instytut Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości, 2021).

83 Art 598¹²(2) CCP.

84 Art 598¹² CCP, Z Strus and M Strus-Wołos, “Art. 598¹² Sprawy o odebranie osoby podlegającej władzy rodzicielskiej lub pozostającej pod opieką”, in T Wiśniewski (ed) Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz. Tom III. Artykuły 506 – 729, (Wolters Kluwer 2021) 356-7.

85 Art 598⁵(5) CCP; Polish Supreme Court Resolution of 17.03.2021, I CSKP 38/21, [36]-[38].

86 Polish Supreme Court Resolution of 17.03.2021, ibid, [38].

87 Compare Sylvester v Austria; PP v Poland; Serghides v Poland, supra n 7.

88 Supra n 86.

89 Ibid.

90 Polish Supreme Court Resolution of 21.01.2022, III CZP 58/22, [7]-[8].

91 Ibid.

92 M Michalak, Informacja o działalności Rzecznika Praw Dziecka za rok 2013 … , supra n 74, 30.

93 Art 398¹ CCP as amended by the Act on 26.01.2018 on the Performance of Certain Activities of a Central Authority … , supra n 78.

94 Polish Supreme Court Resolution of 17.03.2021, supra n 86, [18]-[19].

95 T Wiśniewski, “Art. 398¹. Dopuszczalność skargi kasacyjnej” and “Art. 398³ Kodeksu Postępowania Cywilnego” in T Wiśniewski (ed.) Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz. Tom. II. Artykuły 367–505³⁹ Kodeksu Postępowania Cywilnego, (Wolters Kluwer 2021) 236-239, 256-284; see Decision of the Polish Supreme Court of 17.12.2020, I CSK 183/20., [29]-[30].

96 Decision of the Polish Supreme Court of 24.07.2020, I CSK 818/19.

97 Justification of the Act of 26.01.2018., Sejm Print No 1827, 27. Decision of the Polish Supreme Court of 24.07.2020, I CSK 818/19.

98 Ibid.

99 M Pawlak, Informacja o działalności Rzecznika Praw Dziecka za rok 2019 … , supra n 74, 138 and 142; Informacja o działalności Rzecznika Praw Dziecka za rok 2020 … , supra n 74, 209 and 214-215; Informacja o działalności Rzecznika Praw Dziecka za rok 2021 … , supra n 74, 200 and 202-203; Informacja o działalności Rzecznika Praw Dziecka za rok 2022 … , supra n 74, 210 and 213-214.

100 M Pawlak, Informacja o działalności Rzecznika Praw Dziecka za rok 2020 … , supra n 74, 214-215.

101 Data given by the Ministry – Member of the Council of Ministers, M Wójcik, during the Senate debate on amendments to the CCP, Senat Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, X kadencja, Sprawozdanie Stenograficzne, 41. posiedzenie Senatu Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej w dniach 27 i 28 kwietnia 2022 r., 21; https://www.senat.gov.pl/prace/posiedzenia/przebieg,575,1,wersja-pdf.html [accessed: 22.06.2022].

102 Art 388¹–388² CCP introduced by the Act of 7.04.2022 amending the Code of Civil Procedure, Journal of Laws 2022, item 1098.

103 Art 388¹ CCP.

104 Art 89 of the Act of 8 December 2017 on the Polish Supreme Court, Journal of Laws 2021, item 1904 and of 2022, item 480.

105 J Gudowski, “Art. 424². Legitymacja Prokuratora Generalnego, Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich i Rzecznika Praw Dziecka”, in T Ereciński (ed) Kodeks postępowania cywilnego. Komentarz. Tom III. Postępowanie rozpoznawcze, (Wolters Kluwer 2016) 480-3.

106 Art 388³ CCP introduced by the Act of 7.04.2022 amending the Code of Civil Procedure, Journal of Laws 2022, item 1098.

107 The Explanatory Memorandum of the Amendment Bill of 7.04.2022 Draft of the Act amending the Code of Civil Procedure with the explanatory memorandum of the Bill, Print no. 2027 on 11.02.2022, Polish Sejm of the 9th term.

108 Ibid.

109 Art 3(1) Act of 26.1.2018 on the Performance of Certain Activities of a Central Authority in Family Proceedings … , supra n 78; Art 1(2) Law of 28 January 2016 on the Public Prosecutor's Office, Journal of Laws 2016, item 177, as amended; Art 519¹(2²) CCP.

110 Recital 47 and Arts 27(6) and 28 Brussels IIb.

111 Recital 41 Brussels IIb.

112 M Pawlak, Informacja o działalności Rzecznika Praw Dziecka za rok 2019 … ; Informacja o działalności Rzecznika Praw Dziecka za rok 2020 … ; Informacja o działalności Rzecznika Praw Dziecka za rok 2021 … ; Informacja o działalności Rzecznika Praw Dziecka za rok 2022 … , supra n 74.

113 T.C. and Others … , supra n 9.

114 Opinion of Advocate General Nicholas Emiliou, on 12 January 2023, Case C-638/22 PPU, T.C. and Others, EU:C:2023:21[93]-[96].

115 T.C. and Others … , supra n 9, [94].

116 For reasons of ratione temporis, the Court limited its ruling to Brussels IIa, despite the fact that the Polish court sought to resolve doubts also in respect of Arts 22, 24, 27(6), and 28(1) and (2) of Brussels IIb.

117 T.C. and Others … , supra n 9, [67]-[68].

118 Ibid, [79]-[82].

119 Ibid, [88]-[89].

120 Ibid, [83]-[85], [89].

121 Ibid, [90]-[92].

122 Formal notice based on Art 258 TFEU of 26.01.2023, INFR(2021)2001, inf_23_142, [4] Justice, Poland, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/EN/inf_23_142 [accessed: 15.10.2023].

123 Notice of the Speaker of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland of 7 July 2023 on the publication of the consolidated text of the Act - Code of Civil Procedure, Journal of Laws 2023, item 1550 on 8 August 2023, as amended.

124 Ibid, 4.

125 Ibid, 5.

126 Ibid, 6.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Polish National Science Centre [grant number UMO-2014/15/B/HS5/03305].