EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010CA0400
Case C-400/10 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland)) — J. McB. v L. E. (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Children whose parents are not married — Father’s rights of custody — Interpretation of rights of custody — General principles of law and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
Case C-400/10 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland)) — J. McB. v L. E. (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Children whose parents are not married — Father’s rights of custody — Interpretation of rights of custody — General principles of law and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
Case C-400/10 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland)) — J. McB. v L. E. (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Children whose parents are not married — Father’s rights of custody — Interpretation of rights of custody — General principles of law and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
OJ C 328, 4.12.2010, p. 10–10
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
4.12.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 328/10 |
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court (Ireland)) — J. McB. v L. E.
(Case C-400/10 PPU) (1)
(Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility - The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international child abduction - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Children whose parents are not married - Father’s rights of custody - Interpretation of ‘rights of custody’ - General principles of law and Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)
2010/C 328/15
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Supreme Court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: J. McB.
Defendant: L. E.
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Supreme Court — Interpretation 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 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Child whose parents are not married — Father’s rights of custody — National legislation requiring the father to obtain an order from the court with jurisdiction in order to have rights of custody in respect of the child which render wrongful the child’s removal or retention outside the child’s country of habitual residence.
Operative part of the judgment
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 not precluding a Member State from providing by its law that the acquisition of rights of custody by a child’s father, where he is not married to the child’s mother, is dependent on the father’s obtaining a judgment from a national court with jurisdiction awarding such rights to him, on the basis of which the removal of the child by its mother or the retention of that child may be considered wrongful, within the meaning of Article 2(11) of that regulation