Višje sodišče v Mariboru; 2010-12-05; III Cp 1721/2010
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:SI:VSMB:2010:III.CP.1721.2010
Date: 2010-12-05
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Slovenia

82010SI1205(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case, examined by the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’), concerned the determination of court costs in proceedings for the return of a child to Slovenia.
The Okrožno sodišče v Mariboru (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) had previously considered an application for the return of a child under Article 8 of the Hague Convention (1). In those proceedings, the Court of First Instance identified the Ministrstvo za delo, družino in socialne zadeve (hereinafter ‘the MDDSZ’) (2) as the plaintiff and ordered it to pay the court costs.
The MDDSZ appealed, alleging that it acts only as the central authority for assistance with applications under the new Brussels II Regulation (3). In contrast, the Central Authority under Article 6 of the Hague Convention is the Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve (hereinafter ‘the MNZ’) (4). The MDDSZ further contended that even MNZ cannot have the status of a party in judicial proceedings, as it does not have the competence to initiate proceedings under the Hague Convention.
The Court of Appeal explained that, once an application for the return of a child under Article 8 of the Hague Convention is submitted, it is transmitted to the Central Authority designated by the Contracting State pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Convention. That authority acts solely as a coordinator between the competent bodies of the Contracting States and merely forwards the plaintiff’s request to the national court (Article 7 of the Convention). Both Article 8(1) of the Convention and Article 11 of the new Brussels II Regulation confirm that the Central Authority does not have the status of a plaintiff or a party to the proceedings, since it lacks the power to participate directly in them.
As the Court of Appeal emphasised, the plaintiff in such proceedings is ‘any person, institution or other body’ (Article 8(1) of the Convention) having rights of custody over the child. This plaintiff should bear the costs related to the application, including translation costs, as these are necessary for the examination of the request.
However, pursuant to Article 26(2) of the Hague Convention, ‘Central Authorities and other public services of Contracting States‘, including the courts, ‘shall not impose any charges in relation to applications submitted under this Convention. In particular, they may not require any payment from the applicant towards the costs and expenses of the proceedings’. These costs are to be borne by the Contracting State conducting the proceedings and thus charged to its state budget.
Although Article 26(1) of the Convention provides that ‘each Central Authority shall bear its own costs in applying this Convention’, this provision must be interpreted as referring solely to the costs associated with the Central Authority’s coordinating functions, and not to the judicial proceedings themselves. The Court of First Instance, therefore, had no legal basis to order the MDDSZ to pay the court costs.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance.
(1) Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
(2) Ministry of Labour, Family, and Social Affairs.
(3) 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.
(4) Ministry of the Interior.