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

Spain / Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court / ATS 10945/2018

Mrs. Olga vs Administration of Justice
Policy area
Justice, freedom and security
Public Health
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
17/10/2018
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI: ES:TS:2018:10945A

Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union européenne

Title III: Equality

Article 24 - The rights of the child

VIEW FULL CASE
  • Spain / Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court / ATS 10945/2018

    Key facts of the case:

     

    Extraordinary appeal for procedural violation and appeals through cassation against the ruling issued in foreign enforcement proceedings legal title given by the High Court of England and Wales under 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. Specifically, the purpose of these  enforcement proceedings comes from the enforcement of the Resolution issued by the English Court of 27 August 2014 and which involves the return of the child to England, to be placed under the care of the County Council of Surrey. Against this resolution two appeals were filed, but the two appeals were not admitted.

    Key legal question raised by the Court:

    The current ruling is in response to the extraordinary appeal for procedural infraction and cassation filed against the Decision of 16 March 2016 issued by the Provincial Court of Malaga (Audiencia Provincial de Málaga).

    In this regard the appellant alleges:

    • First, the nullity of the actions due to the fact that the procedure for the restitution of a minor was used for transfer or illegal retention due to an international abduction that was not correct. According to Mrs. Olga, the proceedings that had been followed are that of an execution envisaged in Procedural Law, since it is the execution of a Resolution of 27 August 2014 issued by the English High Court of Justice (Family Division). Within this context, the  appellant alleges also that the enforcement of the decision of the English Court  is not applicable due to the pending divorce proceedings in Spain as well as other protective  measures in relation the minor, requested by the appellant in the Spanish courts under  Article 158 of the Civil Code and Article 24 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, specifically the danger to the minor of remaining under the care of her father.
    • Second, the appellant a alleges the violation 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; the Civil Code, the Law of Civil Procedure, and also Article 24 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights as well as the Law on Minors.

    Outcome of the case:

    The Supreme Court dismisses all appeals against the Decision of 16 March 2016 issued by the Provincial Court of Malaga (Audiencia Provincial de Málaga) arising from the execution trial of the foreign judicial procedure No. 1049/2014 of the Marbella Court of First Instance No. 5. In addition, the appellant is also ordered to pay the legal costs.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    “In the third claim of the appeal, the appellant points out that the execution of the resolution issued by the English Court is inadmissible for having been in violation of Article 47 of Regulation 22/01/2003, and because, by Juliana having residence in Spain, the English Court that has issued the Resolution lacks international jurisdiction, understanding it as a matter of public order. Immediately afterwards, various allegation followed, including the execution of lis pendens, because divorce proceedings were to be processed in Spain, and other protective measures under Article 158 of the Spanish Civil Code, the danger of a minor remaining in the  care of the father, violation of Article 24 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, procedural fraud, and the processing of the proceedings in England without the proper procedural guarantees, which entail that, according to Article 552 of the LEC 1/2000, the execution of the resolution issued by  the English Court cannot be carried out. Such allegations are rejected inasmuch as the Chamber, and in these proceedings, cannot enter into questions of substance, such as those pertaining to the custody of Juliana, visits, or the minor’s place of residence, nor, therefore, may the situation of lis pedens be be observed, nor may it enter into questions of whether the English Court that issued the Resolution does or does not have jurisdiction for the substantive decisions, or to determine and examine the violations of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights, or procedural processing in England lacking in guarantees, because all of them go beyond the procedure before us, whose sole purpose is the enforcement of the Resolution issued by the English Court under Articles  40 and 42 of Regulation 4 2201/203, without prejudice to the fact that the parties can assert these allegations in the different proceedings that each one of them has urged”. Basis of Law 1º.

    “In the eighth claim, the violation of Article 24 of the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights and Article 9 of the Organic Law of Legal Protection of Minors is alleged.” Basis of Law 2º.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    “En la alegación tercera del recurso, señala la parte apelante que es improcedente la ejecución de la resolución dictada por el Tribunal Inglés, por haber sido vulnerado el artículo 47 del Reglamento 2201/2003, y porque, al tener Juliana su residencia en España, el Tribunal Inglés que ha dictado la Resolución carece de competencia internacional, lo que entiende es cuestión de orden público, vertiendo a renglón seguido toda una suerte de alegaciones que incluyen la excepción de litispendencia, por tramitarse en España procedimiento de divorcio y otro de medidas protectoras al amparo del artículo 158 Código Civil, peligro para la menor de permanecer en compañía de su padre, vulneración del artículo 24 de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea, fraude procesal, y tramitación del procedimiento en Inglaterra sin las debidas garantías procesales, que conllevan que, conforme al artículo 552 de la LEC 1/2000, no pueda despacharse la ejecución de la Resolución dictada por el Tribunal Inglés. Tales alegaciones se rechazan por cuanto la Sala, y en este procedimiento, no puede entrar a decidir cuestiones de fondo, como las relativas a la custodia de Juliana , visitas o lugar de residencia de la menor, ni, por tanto, puede apreciar situación de litispendencia, ni puede tampoco entrar a determinar si el Tribunal Inglés que ha dictado la Resolución tiene o no competencia para las decisiones de fondo, o para determinar y examinar vulneraciones de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea, o tramitación procedimental en Inglaterra carente de garantías, porque todas ellas trascienden del ámbito del procedimiento que nos ocupa, cuyo único objeto es la ejecución de la Resolución dictada por el Tribunal Inglés al amparo de los artículos 40 y 42 del Reglamento 4 2201/2003, sin perjuicio de que las partes puedan hacer valer tales alegaciones en los distintos procedimientos que cada una de ellas haya instado”. Fundamento de Derecho 1º

    “En el motivo octavo se alega la infracción del artículo 24 de la Carta de Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea y del artículo 9 de la Ley Orgánica de Protección Jurídica del Menor.” Fundamento de Derecho 2º.