Gerechtshof Amsterdam; 2015-09-01; A. t. B.; 200.166.819/01
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2015:3594
Date: 2015-09-01
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Netherlands

82015NL0901(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
Jurisdiction of Dutch courts
The Hof is of the opinion, that the habitual residence of the minor at the time of filing the initiation request was located in the United States and still is there. The Hof does not assess whether the agreement on jurisdiction or acceptance of jurisdiction exists. According to Article 12(3) of the 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 ("New Brussels II Regulation"), in such cases (where jurisdiction was agreed or accepted) the court shall have the jurisdiction only where it is in the best interests of the child. This case does not regard this issue. Under these circumstances, the Hof, contrary to the Rechtbank, is of the opinion that the request of the "man" is not sufficiently related to the Dutch judicial system. The fact that the "man", [child a] and [child b] are all Netherlanders and living in the Netherlands, as well as the [minor] bearing the Dutch nationality, is of secondary importance in this case. Compared to its counterparts in the United States, the Dutch courts are not capable enough to assess the interest of the [minor].