ARCHIVESHISTORIQUES
DELACOMMISSION
COLLECTION RELIEE DES
DOCUMENTS "COM"
COM (80)174
Vol.1980/0053

Disclaimer
Conformément aurèglement (CEE, Euratom) n°354/83 duConseil du1erfévrier 1983
concernant l'ouverture aupublic desarchives historiques delaCommunauté économique
européenne etdelaCommunauté européenne del'énergie atomique (JOL43du15.2.1983,
p.1),telquemodifié par lerèglement (CE, Euratom) n°1700/2003 du22septembre 2003
(JOL243du27.9.2003, p.1),cedossier estouvert aupublic. Lecaséchéant, lesdocuments
classifiés présents dans cedossier ontétédéclassifiés conformément àl'article 5dudit
règlement.
Inaccordance with Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No354/83 of1February 1983
concerning theopening tothepublic ofthehistorical archives oftheEuropean Economic
Community andtheEuropean Atomic Energy Community (OJL43,15.2.1983, p.1),as
amended byRegulation (EC, Euratom) No1700/2003 of22September 2003 (OJL243,
27.9.2003, p.1),this fileisopen tothepublic. Where necessary, classified documents inthis
filehave been declassified inconformity with Article 5oftheaforementioned regulation.
InÜbereinstimmung mitderVerordnung (EWG, Euratom) Nr.354/83 desRates vom 1.
Februar 1983 über die Freigabe der historischen Archive der Europäischen
Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft undderEuropäischen Atomgemeinschaft (ABI. L43vom 15.2.1983,
S.1),geändert durch dieVerordnung (EG, Euratom) Nr.1700/2003 vom 22.September 2003
(ABI. L243vom 27.9.2003, S.1),istdiese Datei derÖffentlichkeit zugänglich. Soweit
erforderlich, wurden dieVerschlusssachen indieser Datei inÜbereinstimmung mitArtikel 5
dergenannten Verordnung freigegeben.

COMMISSION OFTHEEUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
COM(80)174 final
Brussels,15thApril1980
REPORTFROMTHECOMMISSION TOTHECOUNCIL
ONTHEQUESTION OFRECOGNITION OFLEGALDECISIONS
RELATING TOTHECUSTODY OFCHILDREN
/"'.NVl:C:Z
!r~-7V\^\M^r'..Arr–:1 v. Sl
a J
COM(80)174final

-1–
FollowingtheCouncil'sDecisionof9October1978(CouncilDoe.R/3578/78
(JUR188)of22December1978),theCommission submittedtotheCouncilon
21June1979areportontheproblemoftherecognition oflegaldecisions
relatingtocustodyofeh1lelf»n(councilDoc,849^79of27July1979),
ThisreportassessedtheworkinprogressonthesubjectintheCouncil
ofEuropeandattheHagueConference onPrivateInternational Lawand
raisedthequestionofwhetheranadditional oralternative solutionwas
desirableatCommunitylevel.Sinceinsufficient progresshadbeenachieved
intheworkofthesetwoinstitutions ,thereportsubmitted wasmerely
provisional .Inviewofthefactthattheworkhassinceadvanced,the
presentreportmayberegardedasdefinitive .Itwilldealfirstwiththe
workcarriedoutbytheHagueConference,thenwiththatoftheCouncil
ofEurope,followedbyanyworktobeundertaken atCommunitylevel,and
endwithabriefsummaryofthewiderproblemofmutualassistance ofan
administrative andjudicialnatureincivilandcommercial matters.It
shouldbenotedthataCommission representative tookpartasanobserver
intheworkcarriedoutinStrasbourg andattheHague.
TheHagueConference hasproduced apreliminary draftconvention oncivil
aspectsoftheinternational abductionofchildren.Thispreliminary draft
convention wasadoptedbyaspecialcommitteeoftheconference on16
November1979.Itwillbefinalizedduringtheconference sessionwhich
istobeheldfrom6to24October1980.
Thebasicaimofthepreliminary draftconventionistosetupasystem
ofmutualassistanceofanadministrative naturebyprovidingforthe
creationofacentralauthorityineachContracting State.

Thesecentralauthorities wil_l.berequiredtocooperatetoensurethattn
everyContracting Statetherightofcustodyasweltastherightof
accessareeffectively enjoyed -andalsotosecuretheimmediatereturnof
childrenunlawfully removedtoordetainedin,anyContracting State,They
aretobereturnedevenwithouttheneedtoinstitutelegalproceedings in
theStateinwhichthechildrenarelocated ™Thelatterconsideration high­
lightstheimportanceoftheHagueConference'sdraftconvention,whichwill
enableanamicablesettlementtobereachedinnumerouscaseswithouthaving
recoursetolegaloradministrative action.But,ofcourse,suchactionmay
benecessary.Insuchcases,thedraftconventionimposesanobligation on
thecentralauthorityoftheStateinwhichthechildistobefoundtotake
whateverstepsarenecessarytoensurethatthechildisvoluntarily returned
beforeLegalproceedings areinitiated.Wheresuchproceedings subsequently
provenecessary,thedraftconventionprovidesfortheuseofemergency
procedures.Furthermore,wheretherightofcustodyisviolated,the
judicialoradministrative authorities oftheStateinwhichthechild
/islocatedmustorderhisimmediatereturnwhereanapplication hasbeen
submittedwithinsixmonthsoftheimproperremoval.However,thereisan
exceptiontothisprinciplewherebythe.courtoftheStateaddressedmayin
suchcasesdeclinetoorderthechild'simmediatereturnwheretheperson
detainingthechildshowsthattherearegoodreasonsfornotreturning
thechiId.
Thisexceptionhasbeenseverelycriticised bysomedelegations onthe
groundthatincircumstances wherethechildhasbeenunlawfullyabducted
andexpeditiously reclaimed,thereshouldbenodiscretioninthecourt
todeterminethechild'sinterests.Toallowsuchanexceptionistantamount,
intheiropinion,tointroducing adangerouselementofsubjectivity which
isunnecessary inthecircumstances -andhasinnumerouscasesproved
harmfultothechild. /
Inanyevent,wherelegaldecisionsaregivenintheStatefromwhichthe
childwasremoved,thequestionariseswhethertheywillberecognised
andenforcedintheStateinwhichthechildislocated.TheCouncilof
Europehasgivenspecialattentiontothismatter.

-3-
ThedraftconventionoftheCouncilofEuropeprovidesforasystemof
mutualadministrative aidanddealsparticularly withtherecognition .
andenforcement ofdecisionsrelatingtothecustodyofchildrenand
restoration ofcustodyofchildren.Accordingly,itseemsreasonableto
concludethattheStrasbourgdraftconventionisnotincompatible withthe
Hagueconvention (1).WorkontheStrasbourgdrafthasnowbeencompleted.
approvedthedraftConventionTheCommitteeofMinistersoftheCouncilofEurope/on28November1979
anddecidedtoopenitforsignatureattheXIIthConferenceofEuropean
MinistersofJusticewhichistotakeplaceinLuxembourg on20May1980.(2)
4
(1)ItwillbenotedthatthescopeoftheHaguedraftconventiondiffers
\ '-
fromthatoftheStrasbourgdraftconvention.Theformerconcernsthe.
removalacrossinternational frontiersofachildbyitsparentsand,
inparticular,createsasystemofmutualaidofanadministrative
natureasameansofredress.Theseconddraftconventiongoesbeyond
theproblemofabductionandextendstoeverydecisionrelatingto
custody.Moreoverthetwoconventionsdifferintheirterritorial scope.
(2)Itwillberememberedthatanotherdraftconvention/the"draftEuropean
conventionrelatingtoaninternational tribunaltosettleconflicts
inmattersofcustodyofchildren",isatpresentbeingstudiedby
theCouncilofEurope.

Withregardtothecrucialmatteroftherestoration ofcustody,the
draftconventioncoversthethreefollowingmatters:
1.Theprecondition !forthechild'§repatriation havebeenkeptto•mini­
mum,namelythatthetwoparentsandthechildshouldbenationalsofthe
Stateinwhichthedecisionwasgiven,thatthechildshouldhavehis
habitualresidencethereandthattheapplication bemadewithinsixmonths
ofthechild'sremoval.Thechild'srepatriation wouldnotbesubject
toanyotherconditions.
• ,._ ■)
V ~ '
2.Whereoneofthose'three conditionsisnotsatisfied,repatriation is
subjecttoasmallnumberofgroundsforrefusal.
3.Inothercases,thegroundsforrefusalaremorenumerousbecausethe
childmayalreadyhavebeenintegratedintohisnewenvironment ,
Furthermore,withtheaimofmakingtheconventionacceptabletoalarger
numberofStates,itisprovidedthattheContracting Statesmayentera
reservationforthepurposeofextendingthegroundsforrefusalspecified
inparagraph3tothesituationsoutlinedinparagraphs 1and2.Apparently,
somedelegationsintendtoexercisethisrightonthegroundthatthe
courtoftheStateaddressedmustineachcasebeabletotakethechild'sN
interestsintoconsideration and,wherenecessary,refusetoreturnhim.
However,otherdelegations taketheattitude(ashasalreadybeenseenin
connectionwiththeworkoftheHagueConference)
thattherearecertainperfectlyclearcasesinwhichthecourtofthe
Stateaddressedshouldnothavetoconsiderthechild'sinterests,forthecourt
mightveryoftenmakeanerrorofjudgmentandviewtheproblemsolely
inthelightofcriteriaapplicableinitsownState.
Itshouldbeemphasizedthatthiscontroversy hasdividednotonlythe
MemberStatesoftheCouncilofEuropebutalsotheMemberStatesof
theCommunity.Itwouldthereforebehighlydesirablethat,beforethey
signthedraftconventionoftheCouncilofEurope,theMemberStatesof
atheCommunityshouldseektoestablish,bymeansof/coordination meetingat
Councillevel,acommonpositionwithregardtotheproblemofreservations .
Itwouldbeinadvisable insuchavitalmatterfortheMemberStatesofthe
Communitynottobeboundbymutualundertakings .Itisimportanttorecall

inthisconnectionthattheveryfoundations oftheBrusselsConvention
of27September1968onJurisdiction andtheEnforcement ofJudgments
inCivilandCommercialMattersarebasedontheconceptofmutualconfi­
dencebetweentheContractingStates1nthevalidityofthedecisions
givenbyeachother'scourts.
If,however,theMemberStatesoftheCommunityfailtoagreeonacommon
standpoint andenterreservations thatdifferinextent,theCommission
proposesthattheyshouldreachagreementatleasttoensurethatthese
reservations shouldnotapplyasbetweentheMemberStatesoftheEC.„
ThedraftconventionoftheCouncilofEuropelaysdownthateveryState
shallapplyinrespectoftherecognition andenforcement ofachildcustody
orderasimpleandexpeditious procedure.Tothatend,,itistoensure
thatarequestforenforcement maybeLodgedbysimpleapplication .This
typeofprocedureisprovidedforintheBrusselsConvention.Ashas
alreadybeenstatedintheprovisional report,suchaprocedurecouldbe
/ /' >. _
adoptedbythenineMemberStatestosupplementtheCouncilofEurope's
convention.Thiscouldbeanadditionalcontribution fromtheCommunityto
theworkinprogress,whichtheCommissionsupportswholeheartedly .However,
itisimportantnottolosesightofthefactthatinthismatterthelegaldiffersfromthatobtainingundertheBrusselsConvention.Thelatterposition/isadualconventioncomprisingrulesbothonjurisdiction andon
recognition andenforcement .Inthatcase,therulesgoverningenforcement
canbesimplifiedsincethedualconventioncontainsidenticalmeasures
thefortheprotectionofthepartywhofailstoapp^earwhenproceedings are
opened.
Atallevents.Communityactioninthisareawouldbeprematureforthe
timebeing.IftheMemberStatesreservetherighttoinvokedifferent
groundsforresusal,itwouldappeartobedifficulttoadoptacommon
procedureforapplications . -
Moreover,someMemberStateshavebeenextremelyunreceptivetoanyCommunity
initiativeconcerningthecustodyofchildren.However,otherMemberStates
havefavouredthecreationofauniformCommunityenforcement procedure
whichwouldsupplementtheforthcoming ConventionoftheCouncilofEurope.

TheseStatestooktheviewthatthisprocedurecouldbeintroducedonthe
basisofArticte220oftheEECTreaty,whichdoesnotbyanymeansexclude
familylaw.Itwasleftoutofth®BrusselsConventionongroundsofexpe­
diency,primarilywithaviewtoaccelerating theintroduction ofthe
Convention .(1)
Pursuing'anotherlineofthought,theCommissioncouldseekinconjunction
withtheMemberStatesapracticalsolutiontotheproblemofsettingup-
asfarasthisispossible-acentralauthorityineachContractingState,
asproposedbytheFrenchdelegation (2).'Generalpowersshouldbevested
inthiscentralauthoritytodealwithanymattersconnectedwithmutual
assistanceofanadministrative orjudicialnature.
Notonlycouldthismakeiteasier-evenbeforeanyconventionisbrought
intoforce-toresolveproblemsrelatingtothereturnofchildrenbut
itcouldalsobeusefulinmanyotherfieldsofcivilandcommercial
law,therebymakinganinitialcontribution totheattainmentofa
Europeanlawenforcement areaincivilandcommercialmatters.
Mutualassistanceinmattersoflawenforcement could,forexample,make
iteasiertoapplytheBrusselsConventionof27September1968withregard
toserviceandnotification ofinstruments,whetherornotinthecontext
oflegalproceedings,ashasalreadybeenemphasizedintheprovisional
report.Itshould,moreover,benotedthatseveralotherinternational conven
tions,whosesignatories havealwaysincludedanumberofCommunityMember
States,provideforrecoursetocentralauthoritiesforthepurposeof
theirapplication,butthatthesecentralauthoritiesoftendiffer,
dependingonthesubject-matter oftheconventions concerned.Itwould
accordingly bemoreefficacious toplaceallthepowersofthese
differentcentralauthorities inthehandsofasingleauthorityineach
State.Frequently,thereareseveraldifferentaspectstoanygivenmatter.
Itwouldbeintheinterestsofallconcernedforitsdifferentfacetsto
bedealtwithbyasingleauthorityratherthanbyseveral.
(1)P.Jenard
ReportontheConvention onJurisdiction andEnforcement ofJudgments
inCivilandCommercialMatters(OJ.EC.n°C.59/10,5/3/1979).
(2)Therewillbe.a_probl&m,however,.for.MemberStatesconsistingoftwoormoreterritorialunits,eacnwifnitsownlegalsystem.

CONCLUSIONS
1.Acoordination meetingmustbeheldatCouncillevelinordertoreach
onacommonpositionwithregardtoth*problemofanyr«s«rvat1ena
thattheMemberStatesmightenterwhentheCouncilofEuropeConvention
issigned.ItshouldbenotedthatitwillbeopenedforsignatureinMay
next. . -
2.Analternative Communitysolutionshouldnotbecontemplated forthe
timebeing,fortheCouncilofEuropehascompleteditsworkandthe
HagueConferencewilldolikewisethisyear.Ontheotherhand,anadditional
Communitysolutioncouldbeconsideredfollowingtheentryintoforceofthe
CouncilofEurope'sconvention,dependingupontheresultsachieved.
3.Itwouldbedesirableforanefforttobemadeatanearlierdateto
rationalize,simplifyandrendermoreincisiveatinternational
leveltheroleofthevariouscentralauthoritiescurrentlyinexistence
intheMemberStateswithregardtotheapplication ofconventions
incivilandcommercialmatters. "