WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3715/97 by Heidi HAUTALA to the Commission. Kidnapping of children
Date: 1997-11-12
Institutions: European Parliament, HAUTALA
Subjects: European Union, European convention, child, child protection, custody, divorced person, illegal restraint, jurisdiction, national law, third country

C 158/182

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25. 5. 98

The Commission has not received any other complaints concerning similar infringements in Europe, nor does it
have specific statistical studies concerning the economic effects of liberalisation in this sector. Nevertheless, it
would point out that employment in Italian ports has continued to decline (by more than 15 000 units) while the
monopoly of the old dockers(cid:146) companies has been in place. It is also clear that, following the initial measures
liberalising the sector taken by Italy after the Port of Genoa judgment (2), the port has experienced considerable
growth in its activities.

(1)  OJ L 301, 5.11.1997.
(2)  Case C-179/90 Merci Convenzionali Porto di Genova [1991] ECR I-5889.

(98/C 158/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3715/97

by Heidi Hautala (V) to the Commission

(12 November 1997)

Subject: Kidnapping of children

From time to time, as a result of divorce or marriage breakdown, children are snatched in the EU Member States
and taken to countries with different cultures. It is made particularly difficult for a Member State(cid:146)s authorities to
act when a child is taken to a country whose legislation places the power of decision over the child with its father
and his family.

There is little information available about child-snatching, and the EU Member States do not make use of each
others(cid:146)  experience  in  order  to  get  children  back.  What  initiatives  has  the  Commission  taken  to  investigate
instances of child-snatching? How is the Commission monitoring compliance with the Hague convention? How
is the child(cid:146)s interest assessed where it is shown that compliance with the provisions of the Hague convention
will do more harm than good to the child?

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission

(5 December 1997)

Repatriation of children snatched in this way is organised under the 1980 Hague Convention, which has been
ratified  by  a  large  number  of  States,  including  almost  all  Member  States,  and  under  the  1980  Luxembourg
Convention,  also  ratified  by  several  Member  States.  These  Conventions  provide  for  the  appointment  of  the
central authorities responsible, in particular, for examining and settling the individual cases of child snatching or
failure to return children which are submitted to them.

The implementation of the 1980 Hague Convention is monitored by the Hague Conference, which holds regular
meetings  of  the  central  authorities  with  a  view  to  improving  the  practical  operation  of  the  Convention.  The
Commission is involved in Hague Conference deliberations.

Article 13 of the Hague Convention provides that the return of a child may be refused where (cid:145)there is a grave risk
that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an
intolerable situation(cid:146). It is also laid down that the return may be refused if the child objects to it and (cid:145)if the child
has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its view(cid:146). The national
authority, which must take a decision on the request for the return, thus has the sovereign power to determine
whether or not the return should be ordered on the basis of the child(cid:146)s interest.

The Commission is not planning to take special initiatives with regard to the snatching of children by one of the
parents or by a family member on the breakdown of a marriage.