Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62010CN0497

    Case C-497/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 18 October 2010 — Barbara Mercredi v Richard Chaffe

    OJ C 328, 4.12.2010, p. 26–27 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    4.12.2010   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 328/26

    Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 18 October 2010 — Barbara Mercredi v Richard Chaffe

    (Case C-497/10)

    ()

    2010/C 328/45

    Language of the case: English

    Referring court

    Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division)

    Parties to the main proceedings

    Applicant: Barbara Mercredi

    Defendants: Richard Chaffe

    Questions referred

    1.

    Please clarify the appropriate test for determining the habitual residence of a child for the purpose of:

    (a)

    Article 8 of EC Regulation 2201/2003 (1)

    (b)

    Article 10 of EC Regulation 2201/2003

    2.

    Is a Court an ‘institution or other body’ to which rights of custody can be attributed for the purposes of the provisions of EC Regulation 2201/2003?

    3.

    Does Article 10 have a continuing application after the courts of the requested Member State have rejected an application for the return of the child under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention on the basis that Articles 3 and 5 are not made out?

    In particular, how should a conflict between a determination of the requested state that the requirements of Articles 3 and 5 of the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention are not met and a determination of the requesting state that the requirements of Articles 3 and 5 are met be resolved?

    (1)  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

    OJ L 338, p. 1

    Top