Case C‑498/14 PPU

RG

v

SF

(Request for a preliminary ruling
from the cour d’appel de Bruxelles)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility — Child abduction — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 11(7) and (8))

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 9 January 2015

1. Questions referred for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Conditions — Separation and estrangement of a young child from his father — Expeditious answer from the Court to reduce the impact on their future relationship

   (Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice, Arts 107 and 108; Council Regulation No 2201/2003)

2. 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 — Allocation by a Member State to a specialised court of jurisdiction to examine questions of return or custody with respect to a child— Whether permissible

   (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 24; Council Regulation No 2201/2003, Art. 11(6) to (8))

1.  As regards a reference for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation No 1347/2000, the Court may decide that it should be dealt with under the urgent procedure provided for in Article 107 of its Rules of Procedure, where the case concerns a three-year-old child who has been separated from his father for more than a year. The continuation of the separation, an additional feature of which is the significant distance between where the father resides and where the child is living, could seriously harm the child’s future relationship with his father.

   (see paras 36, 38, 39)

2.  Article 11(7) and (8) of Regulation No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation No 1347/2000, must be interpreted as not precluding, as a general rule, a Member State from allocating to a specialised court the jurisdiction to examine questions of return or custody with respect to a child in the context of the procedure set out in those provisions, even where proceedings on the substance of parental responsibility with respect to the child have already, separately, been brought before a court or tribunal.

   The determination of the national court which has jurisdiction to examine questions of return or custody with respect to a child in the context of the procedure set out in Article 11(6) to (8) of that regulation is a matter of choice by the Member States. The fact that a Member State allocates to a specialised court that jurisdiction cannot, as such, impair the effectiveness of that regulation.

   However, it must be ensured that such an allocation of jurisdiction is compatible with the child’s fundamental rights as stated in Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and, in particular, with the objective that procedures should be expeditious. As regards the objective of expedition, when applying the relevant provisions of domestic law, the national court called on to interpret them is bound to do so with due regard to EU law and in particular the Regulation.

   (see paras 49, 51, 54, operative part)