Judgment of the Court; 2 April 2009; A; Case C-523/07
1. Article 1(1) 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, must be interpreted as meaning that a decision ordering that a child be immediately taken into care and placed outside his original home is covered by the term ‘civil matters’, for the purposes of that provision, where that decision was adopted in the context of public law rules relating to child protection.
2. The concept of ‘habitual residence’ under Article 8(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that it corresponds to the place which reflects some degree of integration by the child in a social and family environment. To that end, in particular the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons for the stay on the territory of a Member State and the family’s move to that State, the child’s nationality, the place and conditions of attendance at school, linguistic knowledge and the family and social relationships of the child in that State must be taken into consideration. It is for the national court to establish the habitual residence of the child, taking account of all the circumstances specific to each individual case.
3. A protective measure, such as the taking into care of children, may be decided by a national court under Article 20 of Regulation No 2201/2003 if the following conditions are satisfied:
– the measure must be urgent;
– it must be taken in respect of persons in the Member State concerned, and
– it must be provisional.
4. The taking of the measure and its binding nature are determined in accordance with national law. After the protective measure has been taken, the national court is not required to transfer the case to the court of another Member State having jurisdiction. However, in so far as the protection of the best interests of the child so requires, the national court which has taken provisional or protective measures must inform, directly or through the central authority designated under Article 53 of Regulation No 2201/2003, the court of another Member State having jurisdiction.
5. Where the court of a Member State does not have jurisdiction at all, it must declare of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction, but is not required to transfer the case to another court. However, in so far as the protection of the best interests of the child so requires, the national court which has declared of its own motion that it has no jurisdiction must inform, directly or through the central authority designated under Article 53 of Regulation No 2201/2003, the court of another Member State having jurisdiction.
- Reforma dokaznega prava v digitalni dobi
- Raznolikost izvršilnih naslovov pri čezmejni izterjavi dolgov v EU
- Train to Enforce
- Pravna sredstva v zvezi z izvrševanjem tujih sodnih odločb po Bruselj Ia (prenovitev)
- LAWTrain
- Razvoj in trendi v pravni ureditvi odvetništva v Sloveniji in Nemčiji
- Kontinentalno pravo proti "Common law" - presoja "pravil" dokaznega prava (testiranje dopustnosti elektronskih dokazov v anglosaškem in kontinentalnem pravnem sistemu)
- Razsežnosti dokazovanja v evropskem civilnem postopku
- Poenostavljena izterjava denarnih obveznosti v EU
- Vloga Pravne fakultete
- Konference in ostale aktivnosti
- Rezultati projekta
- Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
- Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000
- Brussels Regulation
- Brussels Convention
- Protocol on the interpretation of the Brussels Convention
- Brussels Convention
- Brussels Regulation
- Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001
- Council regulation (EC) No 1348/2000
- Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003
- Judgment of the Court; 27 November 2007; C; Case C-435/06
- Judgment of the Court; 29 November 2007; Kerstin Sundelind Lopez v Miguel Enrique Lopez Lizazo; Case C-68/07
- Judgment of the Court; 11 July 2008; Inga Rinau; Case C-195/08 PPU
- Judgment of the Court; 2 April 2009; A; Case C-523/07
- Judgment of the Court; 16 July 2009; Laszlo Hadadi (Hadady) v Csilla Marta Mesko, épouse Hadadi (Hadady); Case C-168/08
- Judgment of the Court; 23 December 2009; Jasna Detiček v Maurizio Sgueglia; Case C-403/09 PPU
- Judgment of the Court; 1 July 2010; Doris Povse v Mauro Alpago; Case C-211/10 PPU
- Judgment of the Court; 15 July 2010; Bianca Purrucker v Guillermo Vallés Pérez; Case C-256/09
- Judgment of the Court; 5 October 2010; J. McB. v L. E.; Case C-400/10 PPU
- Judgment of the Court; 9 November 2010; Bianca Purrucker v Guillermo Vallés Pérez; Case C-296/10
- Judgment of the Court; 22 December 2010; Barbara Mercredi v Richard Chaffe; Case C-497/10 PPU
- Judgment of the Court; 22 December 2010; Joseba Andoni Aguirre Zarraga v Simone Pelz; Case C-491/10 PPU
- Council regulation (EC) No 1346/2000
- Evropski izvršilni naslov
- Medicina, pravo in družba
- CRP Vročanje