This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62017CJ0512
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 June 2018.
Proceedings brought by HR.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 8(1) — Place of habitual residence of the child — Infant — Decisive circumstances for establishing that place of habitual residence.
Case C-512/17.
Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 June 2018.
Proceedings brought by HR.
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 8(1) — Place of habitual residence of the child — Infant — Decisive circumstances for establishing that place of habitual residence.
Case C-512/17.
Court reports – general – 'Information on unpublished decisions' section
Case C‑512/17
Proceedings brought by HR
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy Poznań — Stare Miasto w Poznaniu)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 8(1) — Place of habitual residence of the child — Infant — Decisive circumstances for establishing that place of habitual residence)
Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 28 June 2018
Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation No 2201/2003 — Concept of a child’s ‘place of habitual residence’ — Criteria for assessment
(Council Regulation No 2201/2003, Art. 8(1))
Article 8(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 child’s place of habitual residence for the purpose of that regulation is the place which, in practice, is the centre of that child’s life. It is for the national court to determine, on the basis of a consistent body of evidence, where that centre was located at the time the application concerning parental responsibility over the child was submitted. In that regard, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, having regard to the facts established by that court, the following, taken together, are decisive factors:
|
– |
the fact that, from its birth until its parents’ separation, the child generally lived with those parents in a specific place; |
|
– |
the fact that the parent who, in practice, has had custody of the child since the couple’s separation continues to stay in that place with the child on a daily basis and is employed there under an employment contract of indefinite duration; and |
|
– |
the fact that the child has regular contact there with its other parent, who is still resident in that place. |
By contrast, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, the following cannot be regarded as decisive:
|
– |
the stays which the parent who, in practice, has custody of the child has spent in the past with that child in the territory of that parent’s Member State of origin in the context of leave periods or holidays; |
|
– |
the origins of the parent in question, the cultural ties which the child has with that Member State as a result, and the parent’s relationships with family residing in that Member State; and |
|
– |
any intention the parent has of settling in that Member State with the child in the future. |
(see para. 66, operative part)