ПРЕДЛОГ ИЗМЕНА УРЕДБЕ БРИСЕЛ IIa: НЕДОСТАЦИ ТЗВ. ПРЕОВЛАЂУЈУЋЕГ ПРАВИЛА
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22190/TEME190228054MKljučne reči:
Уредба Брисел IIa, Предлог Европске комисије за измене Уредбе Брисел IIa (2016), Општи приступ Председништва изменама Уредбе Брисел Брисел IIa (2018), „преовлађујуће правило”, „привилеговане” одлукеApstrakt
Имајући у виду да је у Европској унији у току поступак за измену Уредбе Брисел IIa, у овом раду се разматрају два питања, међусобно повезана тзв. правилом о примату. Први проблем тиче се поступка за повратак незаконито одведеног или задржаног детета који укључује две државе Европске уније – државу уточишта и државу у којој је дете имало уобичајено боравиште непосредно пре отмице. У другом случају, реч је о одредбама Уредбе о поступку мериторног одлучивања о праву на старање (родитељској одговорности) након што је повратак детета одбијен у држави Уније на основу члана 13 Хашке конвенције о грађанскоправним аспектима међународне отмице деце. Најављене измене Уредбе Брисел IIa у знатној мери укључују управо ова питања. С тим у вези, аутор истиче одређене недостатке и недоследности одредаба из Предлога Европске комисије о изменама Уредбе (2016), као и најновијих, компромисних решења, које је Председништво упутило Савету у Општем приступу изменaма Уредбе (2018). Истовремено, у раду се сугеришу два начина на које би се евентуално могао постићи уједначенији однос између принципа међусобног поверења држава ЕУ и принципа најбољег интереса детета. Из угла међународног приватног права Репубике Србије, измене Регулативе Брисел IIa важне су имајући у виду статус наше државе као кандидата за чланство у Европској унији и потребу праћења измена секундарног законодавства ЕУ.
Reference
Beaumont, P., Walker, L., Holliday, J. (2016). Conflict of EU courts on child abduction: the reality of Article 11(6)-(8) Brussels IIa proceedings across the EU. Journal of Private International Law, 12(2), 211-260. doi: 10.1080/17441048.2016.1206708.
Case C-211/10 PPU (Povse v. Alpago) (2010] ECR I-6669.
Case C-491/10 Zarraga v Pelz, (2010) ECR I-14247.
Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Official Gazette of the SFRY- International Treaties. No. 7 (1991).
Convention on the Rights of the Child, Official Gazette of the SFRY - International Treaties. No.15 (1990) and Official Gazette of SRY - International Treaties. No. 4 (1996) and 2(1997).
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(23.12.2003).
Council of the EU. Council agrees on more effective rules to solve cross border parental responsibility issues. 2018. Retrieved from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2018/12/07/council-agrees-on-more-effective-rules-to-solve-cross-border-parental-responsibility-issues/pdf.
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C. 326 (26.10.2012).
Drventić, M. (2017). New Trends in European Family Procedural Law. In: Duić, D., Petrašević, T. (Eds): Jean Monnet International Scientific Conference, EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series, Procedural Aspects of EU Law (424-446). Osijek: Faculty of Law Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek.
Dutta, A. (2016). Cross-border protection measures in the European Union. Journal of Private International Law, 12(1), 169-184. doi: 10.1080/17441048.2016.1143689.
Dutta, A., Schulz, A. (2014). First Cornerstones of the EU Rules on Cross-border Child Cases: the Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Brussels IIa Regulation from C to Health Service Executive. Journal of Private International Law, 10(1), 1-40. doi:10.5235/17441048.10.1.
European Commission. Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast), COM(2016) 411 final 2016/0190 (CNS). 30.6.2016. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-411-EN-F1-1.PDF.
European Commission. Report from the European Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the application of Council Regulation (Ec) No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000. COM (2014) 225 final. 15.4.2014. Retrieved from https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f09ad6d9-c494-11e3-9fe4-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
European Commission. Practice Guide for the Application of the Brussels IIa Regulation. 2014. Retrieved from https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/f7d39509-3f10-4ae2-b993-53ac6b9f93ed.
EU Presidency. Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast) - General approach. 30 November 2018. Retrieved from http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-14784-2018-INIT/en/pdf.
Kruger, Th., Samyn, L. (2016). Brussels II bis: successes and suggested improvements. Journal of Private International Law. 12(1), 132-168. doi:10.1080/17441048.2016.1151150.
Lembrechts, S. (2019). M.K. v. Greece – Implementing children’s rights in legal proceedings following an international parental abduction. Retrieved from https://strasbourgobservers.com/2018/03/22/m-k-v-greece-implementing-childrens-rights-in-legal-proceedings-following-an-international-parental-abduction/.
Lenaerts, K. (2013). The best interest of the child always come first: the Brussels II bis Regulation and the European Court of Justice. Jurisprudence, 20(4), 1302-1328. doi:10.13165/JUR-13-20-4-02.
author, 875-892.
McEleavy, P. (2015). The European Court of Human Rights and the Hague Child Abduction Convention: Prioritising Return or Reflection? Netherland International Law Review, 62, 365-405. doi: 0.1007/s40802-015-0040-z.
McEleavy, P. (2005). The New Child Abduction Regime in the European Community: Symbiotic Relationship or Forced Partnership. Journal of Private International Law, 1(1), 5-34. doi: 10.1080/17536235.2005.11424287.
M.K. v Greece of 1st February 2018 (application 51312/16).
Nyts, A., 2007 Report Study on Residual Jurisdiction, available at http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/civil/studies/doc_civil_studies_en.htm.
Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. Revised draft Guide to Good Practice on Article 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Convention. March 2019. Retrieved from https://assets.hcch.net/docs/1e6f828a-4120-47b7-83ac-a11852f77128.pdf.
Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. Statistical analysis of applications made in 2008 under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction — Part II ― Regional Report. Prel. Doc. No 8 B ― update of November 2011 for the attention of the Special Commission of June 2011. 2011. Retrieved from https://assets.hcch.net/upload/wop/abduct2011pd08be.pdf.
Povse v Austria (application no. 3890/11).
Raw v France (application no. 10131/11).
Shaw v Hungary (application no. 6457/09).
Ubertazzi, B. (2017). The hearing of the child in the Brussels IIa Regulation and its Recast Proposal. Journal of Private International Law, 13(3), 568-601. doi:10.1080/17441048.2017.1386262.
Walker, L., Beaumont, P. (2011). Shifting the Balance Achieved by the Abduction Convention: The Contrasting Approaches of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. Journal of Private International Law, 7(2), 231-249. doi: 10.5235/174410411796868689.
Šneersone and Kampanella v Italy (application No 14737/09).
Župan, M., Poretti, P. (2015). Concentration of jurisdiction in cross-border family matters - child abduction at focus. In: Vinković, M. (Ed.): Jean Monnet Conference, New developments in EU labour, equality and human rights law (pp. 341-359). Osijek: Faculty of Law Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek.
