CELEX: 62018CA0393
Language: en
Date: 2018-10-17 00:00:00
Title: Case C-393/18 PPU: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) — United Kingdom) — UD v XB (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Article 8(1) — Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility — Concept of ‘habitual residence of the child’ — Requirement of physical presence — Detention of the mother and child in a third country against the will of the mother — Infringement of the fundamental rights of the mother and child)

17.12.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 455/18
            
         
      Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales) — United Kingdom) — UD v XB
      (Case C-393/18 PPU) (1)
      
      ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Article 8(1) - Jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility - Concept of ‘habitual residence of the child’ - Requirement of physical presence - Detention of the mother and child in a third country against the will of the mother - Infringement of the fundamental rights of the mother and child))
      (2018/C 455/26)
      Language of the case: English
      
         Referring court
      
      High Court of Justice, Family Division (England and Wales)
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Applicant: UD
      
         Defendant: XB
      
         Operative part of the judgment
      
      Article 8(1) of 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, must be interpreted to the effect that a child must have been physically present in a Member State in order to be regarded as habitually resident in that Member State, for the purposes of that provision. Circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, assuming that they are proven, that is to say, first, the fact that the father’s coercion of the mother had the effect of her giving birth to their child in a third country where she has resided with that child ever since, and, secondly, the breach of the mother’s or the child’s rights, do not have any bearing in that regard.
      
         (1)  OJ C 276, 6.8.2018.