—

having regard to Article 227 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU),

—

having regard to Article 81(3) of the TFEU,

—

having regard to Article 3(3) of the Treaty on European Union,

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in particular Article 24 thereof,

—

having regard to Articles 8 and 20 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which underline the obligation of governments to protect a child’s identity, including his or her family relations,

—

having regard to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963, in particular Article 37(b) thereof,

—

having regard to the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption,

—

having regard to 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 (Brussels IIa) (1), in particular Articles 8, 10, 15, 16, 21, 41, 55 and 57 thereof,

—

having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (service of documents), and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (2),

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 15 February 2011 on an EU Agenda for the Rights of the Child (COM(2011)0060),

—

having regard to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), notably its rulings of 22 December 2010 in case C-497/10 PPU, Mercredi v Chaffe (3), and of 2 April 2009 in case C-523/07, proceedings brought by A (4),

—

having regard to the mapping of the child protection systems carried out by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights,

—

having regard to the very large number of petitions received on the role of the German Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt) in cross-border family disputes,

—

having regard to the recommendations made in the report on the fact-finding visit to Germany (23-24 November 2011) to investigate petitions concerning the role of the German Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt),

—

having regard to its resolution of 28 April 2016 on safeguarding the best interests of the child across the EU on the basis of petitions addressed to the European Parliament (5),

—

having regard to the recommendations of 3 May 2017 of the Committee on Petitions’ Working Group on Child Welfare Issues,

—

having regard to Rule 123(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.

whereas Parliament’s Committee on Petitions has, for over 10 years, been receiving petitions in which a very large number of non-German parents denounce systematic discrimination and arbitrary measures taken against them by the German Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt) in family disputes with cross-border implications involving children, on matters concerning, inter alia, parental responsibility and child custody;

B.

whereas the Committee on Petitions relies mainly on the subjective report of the petitioner and generally does not have access to judicial decisions that give a full and objective description of the situation, containing testimonies of both the parents, the children and witnesses;

C.

whereas the Jugendamt plays a central role in the German family law system, as it is one of the parties in all family disputes involving children;

D.

whereas in family disputes involving children, the Jugendamt delivers a recommendation to the judges, the nature of which is practically binding, and can adopt temporary measures, such as the ‘Beistandschaft’ (legal advisership), which cannot be challenged;

E.

whereas the Jugendamt is responsible for the implementation of the decisions taken by the German courts; whereas the broad interpretation of these decisions by the Jugendamt has, according to petitioners, often been detrimental to the effective protection of the rights of non-German parents;

F.

whereas the non-recognition and non-enforcement by the competent German authorities of decisions and judgments taken by other EU Member States’ judicial authorities in family disputes having cross-border implications can represent a breach of the principle of mutual recognition and mutual trust among Member States, thus jeopardising the effective protection of the best interests of the child;

G.

whereas petitioners denounced the fact that in family disputes having cross-border implications the protection of the best interests of the child is systematically interpreted by the competent German authorities with the need to ensure that children remain on the German territory, even in cases where abuse and domestic violence against the non-German parent have been reported;

H.

whereas non-German parents denounced in their petitions the insufficient counselling and legal support, or the lack thereof, provided by the national authorities of their country of origin in cases where alleged discriminatory or disadvantageous judicial and administrative procedures were adopted against them by the German authorities, including the Jugendamt, in family disputes involving children;

I.

whereas according to the information provided by the European Court of Human Rights, there have been 17 cases lodged with the Court against Germany by non-German petitioners on parental responsibility or child custody in cross-border family disputes, all of them assessed as inadmissible;

J.

whereas all EU institutions and Member States must fully guarantee the protection of the rights of the child as enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU; whereas the best interests of the child, primarily and best realised within its own family, is a fundamental principle that should be respected as a guiding rule for all decisions related to childcare issues at all levels;

K.

whereas increased mobility within the EU has led to a growing number of cross-border disputes on parental responsibility and child custody; whereas the Commission must step up its efforts to promote in all Member States, including Germany, the consistent and concrete implementation of the principles set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by all EU Member States;

L.

whereas the scope and objectives of the Brussels IIa Regulation are based on the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality between citizens of the Union and on the principle of mutual trust between the Member States’ legal systems;

M.

whereas the provisions of the Brussels IIa Regulation should in no way allow for any abuse of its underlying aims of ensuring mutual respect and recognition, avoiding discrimination on the grounds of nationality and, first and foremost, truly protecting the best interests of the child in an objective manner;

N.

whereas the absence of accurate and detailed checks on the non-discriminatory nature of procedures and practices adopted by the German competent authorities in family disputes having cross-border implications involving children can have detrimental effects on children’s welfare and lead to increased violation of rights for non-German parents;

O.

whereas the subsidiarity principle applies in all matters of substantive family law issues;

P.

whereas the German Federal Constitutional Court ruled that a court can ask to hear a child who is still not quite three years old at the time of the decision; whereas in other EU Member States children of this age are considered too young and not mature enough to be consulted in disputes involving their parents;

Q.

whereas the child’s right to family life should not be threatened by the exercise of a fundamental right such as the freedom of movement and residence;

R.

whereas the case law of the CJEU establishes the autonomous notion in EU law of the ‘habitual residence’ of the child and the plurality of the criteria to be used by the national jurisdictions to determine the habitual residence;

S.

whereas it follows from Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU that, unless contrary to the interests of the child, children have the right to uphold on a regular basis a personal relationship and direct contact with their parents when their parents are exercising their right to free movement;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.