Help us make the FRA website better for you!

Take part in a one-to-one session and help us improve the FRA website. It will take about 30 minutes of your time.

YES, I AM INTERESTED NO, I AM NOT INTERESTED

CJEU - C 211/10 PPU / Judgment

Doris Povse v Mauro Alpago
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
European Court of Justice (Third Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
01/07/2010

Харта на основните права на Европейския съюз

Title III: Equality

Article 24 - The rights of the child

VIEW FULL CASE
  • CJEU - C 211/10 PPU / Judgment
    Key facts of the case:
     
    An unmarried couple had, together with their common daughter, lived in Italy. After separation, the mother took the daughter with her to Austria. While the Italian court finally ordered return of the child to Italy the Austrian Supreme Court referred to CJ whether it was obliged to recognise the Italian decision.
     
    Results (sanctions) and key consequences of the case:
     
    The Court (Third Chamber) hereby rules:
    1. Article 10(b)(iv) 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 provisional measure does not constitute a ‘judgment on custody that does not entail the return of the child’ within the meaning of that provision, and cannot be the basis of a transfer of jurisdiction to the courts of the Member State to which the child has been wrongfully removed.
    2. Article 11(8) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment of the court with jurisdiction ordering the return of the child falls within the scope of that provision, even if it is not preceded by a final judgment of that court relating to rights of custody of the child.
    3. The second subparagraph of Article 47(2) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment delivered subsequently by a court in the Member State of enforcement which awards provisional rights of custody and is deemed to be enforceable under the law of that State cannot preclude enforcement of a certified judgment delivered previously by the court which has jurisdiction in the Member State of origin and ordering the return of the child.
    4. Enforcement of a certified judgment cannot be refused in the Member State of enforcement because, as a result of a subsequent change of circumstances, it might be seriously detrimental to the best interests of the child. Such a change must be pleaded before the court which has jurisdiction in the Member State of origin, which should also hear any application to suspend enforcement of its judgment.