Judgment of the Court of 12 December 2024 in Case E-15/24 – A v B (Article 28 EEA – Article 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC – Relocation to another EEA State with child – Necessity of restriction requiring consent or a court permission – Joint parental responsibility – Sole custody – Best interests of the child)
Date: 2024-12-12
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: European Economic Area, Norway, child, custody, dependant, divorced person, free movement of persons, free movement of workers, freedom of movement








C_202502031EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/2031


3.4.2025







            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
         
of 12 December 2024
         
in Case E-15/24
A v B


(Article 28 EEA – Article 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC – Relocation to another EEA State with child – Necessity of restriction requiring consent or a court permission – Joint parental responsibility – Sole custody – Best interests of the child)


(C/2025/2031)

In Case E-15/24, A v B – REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Borgarting Court of Appeal (Borgarting lagmannsrett), concerning the interpretation of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of the citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC and Article 28 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Bernd Hammermann and Michael Reiertsen (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 12 December 2024, the operative part of which is as follows:
Article 28 EEA and Article 7 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as not precluding, in principle, national rules which make the right of a parent with sole custody who exercises joint parental responsibility over a child to move with that child to reside and work in another EEA State conditional on the custodial parent obtaining consent of the non-custodial parent or issuing proceedings with a view to obtaining permission from a court, where that condition is conceived and applied in a manner that is suitable to achieve the chosen level of protection to safeguard the best interests of the child and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.
For the case-by-case assessment conducted by the referring court not to go beyond what is necessary to ensure the best interests of the child, the referring court must take account of both the custodial parent’s freedom to move within the EEA as well as the best interests of the child and may not rely on a presumption that it is always in the child’s best interests to remain in Norway.


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/2031/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)