—

having regard to the Treaty on European Union, in particular Article 3(3) thereof,

—

having regard to the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the ‘Charter’), in particular Article 24 thereof,

—

having regard to Article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

—

having regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,

—

having regard to General Comment No 24 (2019) of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child on children’s rights in the child justice system,

—

having regard to the Commission communication of 24 March 2021 on the EU strategy on the rights of the child (COM(2021)0142),

—

having regard to 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 (1) (Brussels IIa Regulation),

—

having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (2) (Maintenance Regulation),

—

having regard to Directive 2008/52/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008 on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matters (3),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/693 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing the Justice Programme (4),

—

having regard to Regulation (EU) 2021/692 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 April 2021 establishing the Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values Programme (5),

—

having regard to the EU Justice Scoreboard,

—

having regard to the guidelines of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe of 17 November 2010 on child-friendly justice,

—

having regard to Council of Europe Resolution 2079 of 2 October 2015 on equality and shared parental responsibility: the role of fathers,

—

having regard to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-490/20 (6),

—

having regard to the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,

—

having regard to the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption,

—

having regard to its resolution of 2 February 2017 with recommendations to the Commission on cross-border aspects of adoptions (7),

—

having regard to its resolution of 11 March 2021 on children’s rights in view of the EU strategy on the rights of the child (8),

—

having regard to its resolution of 6 October 2021 on the impact of intimate partner violence and custody rights on women and children (9),

—

having regard to Rule 54 of its Rules of Procedure,

—

having regard to the opinion of the Committee on Petitions,

—

having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs (A9-0033/2022),

A.

whereas an increasing number of children and adolescents are coming into contact with the judicial system in civil, administrative and family law proceedings, mainly due to the increase in divorce, separation and adoption; whereas in such proceedings all children should be guaranteed non-discriminatory access to justice including, in particular, access to courts and alternative methods of dispute resolution;

B.

whereas the EU is committed to ensuring that every child’s rights are respected, protected and exercised with a view to building a healthier, more resilient, more equitable and fairer society for all;

C.

whereas children have the right to participate, to be heard and to express their views in accordance with their age, maturity and language skills in any proceedings concerning their well-being and future life arrangements; whereas children’s views should be given due weight, regardless of whether the proceedings are held by a court or any other relevant authority;

D.

whereas participation in court and administrative proceedings should take place in a comfortable and child-friendly environment so as not to cause additional trauma or stress for the child and to minimise the psychological and emotional impact of such circumstances, in particular for the most vulnerable children such as children with disabilities or those from a migrant background;

E.

whereas children’s participation in such proceedings should be supported through a multidisciplinary approach by the relevant authorities;

F.

whereas the Member States are obliged to establish procedural safeguards, guarantees and rules which govern hearings of the child; whereas these provisions differ greatly between the Member States however;

G.

whereas at home and in a family environment, where conflict between the parents exists children may find themselves the victims of ‘witnessed violence’ by experiencing a variety of forms of ill-treatment through acts of physical, verbal, psychological, sexual and economic violence against reference figures or other figures of significance in the household; whereas violence such as this has very serious consequences for the psychological and emotional development of the child; whereas it is therefore essential to pay due attention to such violence when the hearing of the child takes place in family law proceedings in order to ensure that the best interests of the child are the primary consideration;

H.

whereas children have the right to be duly informed in a manner commensurate with their age, maturity and language skills and in a way they can understand at every step of the court and administrative proceedings concerning them;

I.

whereas in civil, administrative and family law proceedings, especially in cross-border cases, children have limited possibilities to be represented by a legal professional or counsel;

J.

whereas in certain cases experience has shown (10) the benefits of having a dedicated and independent person of trust to support and accompany the child throughout the legal proceedings, including in cases of mediation;

K.

whereas courts, administrative bodies and social welfare institutions should make the best interests of the child the primary consideration when taking any decision concerning the child; whereas such decisions should be made on an individual basis, taking into consideration the age, needs and specific circumstances of the child and their family;

L.

whereas the best interests of the child and access to justice for all children cannot be ensured if their participation in civil, administrative and family law proceedings and the use of accompanying support services depends on the financial resources of their parents, not least because the costs of such proceedings and services can be very high;

M.

whereas the EU and its Member States are obliged to promote the rights of the child, including through child-friendly justice, in the implementation of all actions under the Justice Programme;

N.

whereas increased mobility means that the number of children born to families with a cross-border element is also likely to increase;

O.

whereas although substantive civil and family law remains a competence of the Member States, harmonised rules on cross-border civil and family law may be established at EU level;

P.

whereas as parties to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Member States must make the best interests of the child a primary consideration in all public action, including when dealing with cross-border family disputes; whereas in family disputes with cross-border implications, the competent authorities in some Member States often interpret the protection of the best interests of the child as their having to remain on the territory of the state, even in cases where abuse and domestic violence have been reported against the parent residing in that state;

Q.

whereas the principle of mutual recognition, which is based on mutual trust, obliges Member States to give effect to a judgment or decision originating in another Member State;

R.

whereas cross-border proceedings are more complex from a legal perspective and therefore usually more time-consuming and expensive;

S.

whereas the lack of effective procedures for the enforcement of judgments concerning parental responsibility, access rights, parental child abductions or maintenance obligations in cross-border cases is detrimental to the best interests of the child;

T.

whereas children involved in cross-border civil and family law disputes should enjoy the same rights, level of protection, procedural guarantees and minimum standards in all Member States, regardless of the nationality of their parents;

U.

whereas every child has a right to know and be cared for by their parents; whereas in the case of separation, every child has a right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis or, if their parents are unavailable, with their parents’ relatives or, failing that, with a person of their choosing; whereas a child’s personal relations and direct contacts with their parents may be restricted by the competent authority only to protect the best interests of the child;

V.

whereas the 1980 Hague Convention introduces a system of international cooperation between countries to promptly settle cases of international child abduction; whereas the convention has been ratified by 101 countries to date, including all EU Member States;

W.

whereas despite the efforts made to date, the EU does not have sufficient data on judicial proceedings involving children, nor do the specialised courts dealing with them;

X.

whereas the lack of common EU rules on the recognition of judgments on parenthood, particularly in cases involving same-sex parents, may result in a loss of parental rights, may infringe the right of the child to be raised and maintain a relationship with both parents and any rights deriving from parenthood (such as maintenance or succession), and may also encourage forum shopping in the case of cross-border family disputes; whereas the future legislative proposal in this area should help to reduce the number of administrative and judicial proceedings;

Y.

whereas the Court of Justice recently established the following ruling in Case C-490/20: in the case of a child who is a Union citizen and whose birth certificate was issued by the competent authorities of a host Member State and designates that child’s parents as two persons of the same sex, the Member State of which that child is a national is obliged (i) to issue to that child an identity card or a passport without requiring a birth certificate to be drawn up beforehand by its national authorities, and (ii) to recognise, as is any other Member State, the document from the host Member State that permits that child to exercise, with each of those two persons, the child’s right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States;

Z.

whereas in many cases, family mediation has proven to be quicker, cheaper and more child-friendly to resolve the dispute than court proceedings and may therefore help to prevent future parental child abductions;

AA.

whereas the use of alternative dispute resolutions should be encouraged, unless it is contrary to the best interests of the child, notably in the case of domestic violence and sexual abuse;

AB.

whereas the number of domestic and cross-border family mediation proceedings remains low;

AC.

whereas in most Member States there is no legal aid available for mediation for parents who have limited financial means but could at the same time be eligible to receive legal aid for legal proceedings;

AD.

whereas parents may find it difficult to obtain proper and verified information on the possibility of entering into mediation at pre-court stage;

AE.

whereas commercial mediation differs substantially from family mediation;

AF.

whereas cross-border family mediation has the potential to facilitate agreements between parents that serve to uphold the best interests of the child, reducing the emotional and financial burden and legal complexity inherent in judicial proceedings;

AG.

whereas cross-border family mediation is more complex than mediation in domestic family disputes from a legal and logistical perspective and requires additional knowledge and language skills from the mediator;

AH.

whereas both judges and lawyers should be trained to have more knowledge on cross-border family meditation;

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.