mizuumi1/LegalViz huggingface dataset:
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Spanish

El 20 de marzo de 2018, la madre presentó una demanda ante el órgano jurisdiccional remitente solicitando que la menor fuera colocada bajo la tutela judicial de este y que se ordenara el retorno de ambas al Reino Unido con el fin de participar en el procedimiento sustanciado ante dicho órgano jurisdiccional. La madre sostiene que ese órgano jurisdiccional es competente para resolver sobre el litigio principal. Aduce, a este respecto, en particular, que en la fecha en la que presentó su demanda ante el órgano jurisdiccional remitente la menor residía habitualmente en el Reino Unido. Por su parte, el padre niega la competencia de dicho órgano jurisdiccional para dictar resoluciones relativas a la menor.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "la madre"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "el padre"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "el órgano jurisdiccional remitente"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "la madre"->"el padre"[dir=none style=bold];
  "la madre"->"presentó una demanda 20/03/2018";
  "presentó una demanda 20/03/2018"->"el órgano jurisdiccional remitente";
  "el padre"->"el órgano jurisdiccional remitente"[label="el padre niega la competencia de dicho órgano jurisdiccional para dictar resoluciones relativas a la menor."];
  "presentó una demanda 20/03/2018"->"solicitando que la menor fuera colocada bajo la tutela judicial de este y que se ordenara el retorno de ambas al Reino Unido"[dir=none];
  "presentó una demanda 20/03/2018"->"la menor residía habitualmente en el Reino Unido."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Czech

Dne 20. března 2018 podala matka návrh k předkládajícímu soudu, aby určil, že je opatrovnickým soudem dítěte a nařídil návrat jí samotné a dítěte do Spojeného království, aby se mohly zúčastnit řízení u předkládajícího soudu. Matka tvrdí, že předkládající soud je příslušný rozhodnout spor v původním řízení. V tomto ohledu matka zejména tvrdí, že dítě mělo ke dni podání návrhu k předkládajícímu soudu obvyklé bydliště ve Spojeném království. Otec zpochybňuje příslušnost předkládajícího soudu k vydání rozhodnutí týkajícího se dítěte.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "matka"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Otec"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "předkládající soud"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "matka"->"Otec"[dir=none style=bold];
  "matka"->"podala matka návrh k předkládajícímu soudu 20/03/2018";
  "podala matka návrh k předkládajícímu soudu 20/03/2018"->"předkládající soud";
  "Otec"->"předkládající soud"[label="Otec zpochybňuje příslušnost předkládajícího soudu k vydání rozhodnutí týkajícího se dítěte."];
  "podala matka návrh k předkládajícímu soudu 20/03/2018"->"aby určil, že je opatrovnickým soudem dítěte a nařídil návrat jí samotné a dítěte do Spojeného království"[dir=none];
  "podala matka návrh k předkládajícímu soudu 20/03/2018"->"Dítě mělo ke dni podání návrhu k předkládajícímu soudu obvyklé bydliště ve Spojeném království."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Danish

Den 20. marts 2018 anlagde moderen sag ved den forelæggende ret med henblik på, at barnet kommer under denne rets værgemål, og at der træffes afgørelse om, at såvel hun som barnet skal vende tilbage til Det Forenede Kongerige med henblik på at deltage i sagen for den nævnte ret. Moderen har gjort gældende, at den forelæggende ret har kompetence til at afgøre tvisten i hovedsagen. I denne henseende har hun bl.a. gjort gældende, at barnet på det tidspunkt, hvor moderen anlagde sag ved den forelæggende ret, havde sit sædvanlige opholdssted i Det Forenede Kongerige. Faderen har derimod bestridt, at den nævnte ret har kompetence til at træffe nogen afgørelse med hensyn til barnet.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Moderen"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Faderen"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "den forelæggende ret"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Moderen"->"Faderen"[dir=none style=bold];
  "Moderen"->"anlagde sag 20/03/2018";
  "anlagde sag 20/03/2018"->"den forelæggende ret";
  "Faderen"->"den forelæggende ret"[label="Faderen har derimod bestridt, at den nævnte ret har kompetence til at træffe nogen afgørelse med hensyn til barnet."];
  "anlagde sag 20/03/2018"->"At barnet kommer under denne rets værgemål, og at der træffes afgørelse om, at såvel hun som barnet skal vende tilbage til Det Forenede Kongerige"[dir=none];
  "anlagde sag 20/03/2018"->"barnet havde sit sædvanlige opholdssted i Det Forenede Kongerige."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: German

Am 20. März 2018 erhob die Mutter beim vorlegenden Gericht Klage mit dem Antrag, das Kind unter die Vormundschaft des vorlegenden Gerichts zu stellen sowie anzuordnen, dass sie und das Kind in das Vereinigte Königreich zurückkehren können, um an dem Verfahren vor dem vorlegenden Gericht teilnehmen zu können. Ihrer Ansicht nach ist das vorlegende Gericht für die Entscheidung des Ausgangsrechtsstreits zuständig. Sie macht insoweit u. a. geltend, dass das Kind zu dem Zeitpunkt, zu dem sie das vorlegende Gericht angerufen habe, seinen gewöhnlichen Aufenthalt im Vereinigten Königreich gehabt habe. Der Vater hingegen bestreitet, dass das vorlegende Gericht für irgendeine Entscheidung in Bezug auf das Kind zuständig sei.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "die Mutter"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Der Vater"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "das vorlegende Gericht"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "die Mutter"->"Der Vater"[dir=none style=bold];
  "die Mutter"->"erhob die Mutter beim vorlegenden Gericht Klage 20/03/2018";
  "erhob die Mutter beim vorlegenden Gericht Klage 20/03/2018"->"das vorlegende Gericht";
  "Der Vater"->"das vorlegende Gericht"[label="Der Vater hingegen bestreitet, dass das vorlegende Gericht für irgendeine Entscheidung in Bezug auf das Kind zuständig sei."];
  "erhob die Mutter beim vorlegenden Gericht Klage 20/03/2018"->"Mit dem Antrag, das Kind unter die Vormundschaft des vorlegenden Gerichts zu stellen sowie anzuordnen, dass sie und das Kind in das Vereinigte Königreich zurückkehren können."[dir=none];
  "erhob die Mutter beim vorlegenden Gericht Klage 20/03/2018"->"dass das Kind zu dem Zeitpunkt, zu dem sie das vorlegende Gericht angerufen habe, seinen gewöhnlichen Aufenthalt im Vereinigten Königreich gehabt habe."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Estonian

Ema esitas 20. märtsil 2018 eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohtule hagi nõudega, et laps võetaks selle kohtu kaitse alla ning antaks korraldus lasta temal ja lapsel Ühendkuningriiki naasta, et nad saaksid nimetatud kohtu menetluses osaleda. Ema väidab, et põhikohtuasi kuulub selle kohtu alluvusse. Ema kinnitab sellega seoses eelkõige, et kuupäeval, mil ta pöördus eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohtusse, oli lapse harilik viibimiskoht Ühendkuningriigis. Isa omakorda seab kahtluse alla, kas lapse suhtes otsuste tegemine kuulub selle kohtu alluvusse.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Ema"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Isa"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohus"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Ema"->"Isa"[dir=none style=bold];
  "Ema"->"Ema esitas 20. märtsil 2018 eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohtule hagi 20/03/2018";
  "Ema esitas 20. märtsil 2018 eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohtule hagi 20/03/2018"->"eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohus";
  "Isa"->"eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohus"[label="Isa omakorda seab kahtluse alla, kas lapse suhtes otsuste tegemine kuulub selle kohtu alluvusse."];
  "Ema esitas 20. märtsil 2018 eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohtule hagi 20/03/2018"->"et laps võetaks selle kohtu kaitse alla ning antaks korraldus lasta temal ja lapsel Ühendkuningriiki naasta"[dir=none];
  "Ema esitas 20. märtsil 2018 eelotsusetaotluse esitanud kohtule hagi 20/03/2018"->"lapse harilik viibimiskoht Ühendkuningriigis."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Greek

Στις 20 Μαρτίου 2018, η μητέρα άσκησε αγωγή ενώπιον του αιτούντος δικαστηρίου με αίτημα να τεθεί το παιδί υπό την προστασία του δικαστηρίου αυτού και να διαταχθεί η επιστροφή της, καθώς και η επιστροφή του παιδιού, στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο προκειμένου να μετάσχουν στη δίκη ενώπιον του εν λόγω δικαστηρίου. Η μητέρα υποστηρίζει ότι το δικαστήριο αυτό έχει διεθνή δικαιοδοσία να εκδικάσει τη διαφορά της κύριας δίκης. Συναφώς, η μητέρα διατείνεται, ειδικότερα, ότι, κατά την ημερομηνία που άσκησε αγωγή ενώπιον του αιτούντος δικαστηρίου, το παιδί είχε συνήθη διαμονή στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο. Από την πλευρά του, ο πατέρας αμφισβητεί ότι το εν λόγω δικαστήριο έχει διεθνή δικαιοδοσία να εκδώσει οιαδήποτε απόφαση σε σχέση με το παιδί.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "ο αιτούντας"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "ο πατέρας"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "του αιτούντος δικαστηρίου"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "ο αιτούντας"->"ο πατέρας"[dir=none style=bold];
  "ο αιτούντας"->"άσκησε αγωγή 20/03/2018";
  "άσκησε αγωγή 20/03/2018"->"του αιτούντος δικαστηρίου";
  "ο πατέρας"->"του αιτούντος δικαστηρίου"[label="ο πατέρας αμφισβητεί ότι το εν λόγω δικαστήριο έχει διεθνή δικαιοδοσία να εκδώσει οιαδήποτε απόφαση σε σχέση με το παιδί."];
  "άσκησε αγωγή 20/03/2018"->"με αίτημα να τεθεί το παιδί υπό την προστασία του δικαστηρίου αυτού και να διαταχθεί η επιστροφή της, καθώς και η επιστροφή του παιδιού, στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο"[dir=none];
  "άσκησε αγωγή 20/03/2018"->"το παιδί είχε συνήθη διαμονή στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο"[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: French

Le 20 mars 2018, la mère a introduit un recours devant la juridiction de renvoi afin que l’enfant soit placée sous la protection de cette juridiction et que soit ordonné son retour au Royaume-Uni ainsi que celui de l’enfant en vue de participer à la procédure devant ladite juridiction. La mère soutient que cette juridiction est compétente pour trancher le litige au principal. À cet égard, la mère fait valoir, notamment, que, à la date à laquelle elle a saisi la juridiction de renvoi, l’enfant résidait de manière habituelle au Royaume-Uni. Pour sa part, le père conteste la compétence de ladite juridiction pour rendre toute décision à l’égard de l’enfant.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "la mère"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "le père"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "la juridiction de renvoi"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "la mère"->"le père"[dir=none style=bold];
  "la mère"->"a introduit un recours 20/03/2018";
  "a introduit un recours 20/03/2018"->"la juridiction de renvoi";
  "le père"->"la juridiction de renvoi"[label="le père conteste la compétence de ladite juridiction pour rendre toute décision à l’égard de l’enfant."];
  "a introduit un recours 20/03/2018"->"afin que l’enfant soit placée sous la protection de cette juridiction et que soit ordonné son retour au Royaume-Uni ainsi que celui de l’enfant"[dir=none];
  "a introduit un recours 20/03/2018"->"l’enfant résidait de manière habituelle au Royaume-Uni."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Croatian

Majka je 20. ožujka 2018. podnijela tužbu sudu koji je uputio zahtjev kako bi se dijete stavilo pod skrbništvo tog suda i naložio njezin povratak i povratak djeteta u Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu radi sudjelovanja u postupku pred navedenim sudom. Majka tvrdi da je taj sud nadležan za rješavanje spora u glavnom postupku. Glede toga majka ističe, među ostalim, da je na dan na koji je pokrenula postupak pred sudom koji je uputio zahtjev, dijete imalo uobičajeno boravište u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini. Otac pak osporava nadležnost navedenog suda za donošenje bilo kakve odluke u odnosu na dijete.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Majka"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Otac"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "sud koji je uputio zahtjev"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Majka"->"Otac"[dir=none style=bold];
  "Majka"->"pokrenula postupak 20/03/2018";
  "pokrenula postupak 20/03/2018"->"sud koji je uputio zahtjev";
  "Otac"->"sud koji je uputio zahtjev"[label="Otac pak osporava nadležnost navedenog suda za donošenje bilo kakve odluke u odnosu na dijete."];
  "pokrenula postupak 20/03/2018"->"Zahtjev kako bi se dijete stavilo pod skrbništvo tog suda i naložio njezin povratak i povratak djeteta u Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu"[dir=none];
  "pokrenula postupak 20/03/2018"->"Dijete imalo uobičajeno boravište u Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Italian

Il 20 marzo 2018 la madre ha proposto un ricorso dinanzi al giudice del rinvio affinché la minore venga posta sotto la protezione di tale giudice e affinché venga ordinato il ritorno di essa ricorrente nel Regno Unito nonché quello della minore al fine di partecipare al procedimento dinanzi a questo stesso giudice. La madre sostiene che tale giudice è competente a risolvere la controversia di cui al procedimento principale. A questo proposito la madre fa valere, in particolare, che, alla data in cui essa ha adito il giudice del rinvio, la minore risiedeva in maniera abituale nel Regno Unito. Per parte sua, il padre contesta la competenza di detto giudice ad emettere qualsiasi decisione nei confronti della minore.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "La ricorrente"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "il padre"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "il giudice del rinvio"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "La ricorrente"->"il padre"[dir=none style=bold];
  "La ricorrente"->"ha proposto un ricorso 20/03/2018";
  "ha proposto un ricorso 20/03/2018"->"il giudice del rinvio";
  "il padre"->"il giudice del rinvio"[label="il padre contesta la competenza di detto giudice ad emettere qualsiasi decisione nei confronti della minore."];
  "ha proposto un ricorso 20/03/2018"->"affinché la minore venga posta sotto la protezione di tale giudice e affinché venga ordinato il ritorno di essa ricorrente nel Regno Unito nonché quello della minore"[dir=none];
  "ha proposto un ricorso 20/03/2018"->"la minore risiedeva in maniera abituale nel Regno Unito"[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Latvian

2018. gada 20. martā māte cēla prasību iesniedzējtiesā, lai panāktu, ka bērns tiek nodots šīs tiesas aizsardzībā un ka tiek izdots rīkojums par mātes un bērna atgriešanos Apvienotajā Karalistē, lai viņi varētu piedalīties tiesvedībā šajā tiesā. Māte apgalvo, ka pamatlietas iztiesāšana ir šīs tiesas jurisdikcijā. Šajā ziņā māte it īpaši norāda, ka datumā, kurā viņa ir cēlusi prasību iesniedzējtiesā, bērna pastāvīgā dzīvesvieta bija Apvienotajā Karalistē. Tēvs savukārt iebilst pret šīs tiesas jurisdikciju pieņemt jebkādu lēmumu attiecībā uz bērnu.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "iesniedzējtiesā"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Tēvs"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "iesniedzējtiesā"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "iesniedzējtiesā"->"Tēvs"[dir=none style=bold];
  "iesniedzējtiesā"->"cēla prasību 20/03/2018";
  "cēla prasību 20/03/2018"->"iesniedzējtiesā";
  "Tēvs"->"iesniedzējtiesā"[label="Tēvs savukārt iebilst pret šīs tiesas jurisdikciju pieņemt jebkādu lēmumu attiecībā uz bērnu."];
  "cēla prasību 20/03/2018"->"lai panāktu, ka bērns tiek nodots šīs tiesas aizsardzībā un ka tiek izdots rīkojums par mātes un bērna atgriešanos Apvienotajā Karalistē"[dir=none];
  "cēla prasību 20/03/2018"->"bērna pastāvīgā dzīvesvieta bija Apvienotajā Karalistē."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Lithuanian

2018 m. kovo 20 d. motina pareiškė ieškinį prašymą priimti prejudicinį sprendimą pateikusiame teisme, juo prašė suteikti vaikui to teismo apsaugą ir nutarti dėl jos ir vaiko grįžimo į Jungtinę Karalystę, kad jie galėtų dalyvauti teismo procese minėtame teisme. Motina tvirtina, kad tas teismas turi jurisdikciją nagrinėti ginčą pagrindinėje byloje. Šiuo klausimu motina visų pirma teigia, kad tuo metu, kai ji kreipėsi į prašymą priimti prejudicinį sprendimą pateikusį teismą, vaiko nuolatinė gyvenamoji vieta buvo Jungtinėje Karalystėje. Savo ruožtu tėvas ginčija minėto teismo jurisdikciją priimti bet kokį sprendimą dėl vaiko.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Motina"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "tėvas"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "prašymą priimti prejudicinį sprendimą pateikusį teismą"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Motina"->"tėvas"[dir=none style=bold];
  "Motina"->"pareiškė ieškinį 20/03/2018";
  "pareiškė ieškinį 20/03/2018"->"prašymą priimti prejudicinį sprendimą pateikusį teismą";
  "tėvas"->"prašymą priimti prejudicinį sprendimą pateikusį teismą"[label="Tėvas ginčija minėto teismo jurisdikciją priimti bet kokį sprendimą dėl vaiko."];
  "pareiškė ieškinį 20/03/2018"->"juo prašė suteikti vaikui to teismo apsaugą ir nutarti dėl jos ir vaiko grįžimo į Jungtinę Karalystę"[dir=none];
  "pareiškė ieškinį 20/03/2018"->"vaiko nuolatinė gyvenamoji vieta buvo Jungtinėje Karalystėje."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Hungarian

2018. március 20‑án az anya arra irányuló keresetet nyújtott be a kérdést előterjesztő bírósághoz, hogy a gyermeket helyezze e bíróság védelme alá, és rendelje el az ő és a gyermek Egyesült Királyságba való visszatérését, hogy részt vehessenek az említett bíróság előtti eljárásban. Az anya azt állítja, hogy e bíróság rendelkezik joghatósággal az alapügy elbírálására. E tekintetben az anya többek között arra hivatkozik, hogy a kérdést előterjesztő bírósághoz való fordulása időpontjában a gyermek szokásos tartózkodási helye az Egyesült Királyságban volt. Az apa ezzel szemben vitatja az említett bíróság arra vonatkozó joghatóságát, hogy a gyermeket illetően bármilyen határozatot hozzon.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Az anya"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Az apa"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "a kérdést előterjesztő bíróság"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Az anya"->"Az apa"[dir=none style=bold];
  "Az anya"->"arra irányuló keresetet nyújtott be 20/03/2018";
  "arra irányuló keresetet nyújtott be 20/03/2018"->"a kérdést előterjesztő bíróság";
  "Az apa"->"a kérdést előterjesztő bíróság"[label="Az apa ezzel szemben vitatja az említett bíróság arra vonatkozó joghatóságát, hogy a gyermeket illetően bármilyen határozatot hozzon."];
  "arra irányuló keresetet nyújtott be 20/03/2018"->"hogy a gyermeket helyezze e bíróság védelme alá, és rendelje el az ő és a gyermek Egyesült Királyságba való visszatérését"[dir=none];
  "arra irányuló keresetet nyújtott be 20/03/2018"->"A gyermek szokásos tartózkodási helye az Egyesült Királyságban volt."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Maltese

Fl-20 ta’ Marzu 2018, l-omm ressqet rikors quddiem il-qorti tar-rinviju bil-għan li l-wild jitqiegħed taħt il-protezzjoni ta’ din il-qorti u li jiġi ordnat ir-ritorn tagħha kif ukoll tal-wild fir-Renju Unit sabiex ikunu parti fil-proċedura quddiem l-imsemmija qorti. L-omm issostni li din il-qorti għandha l-ġurisdizzjoni sabiex taqta’ l-kawża prinċipali. F’dan ir-rigward, l-omm issostni, b’mod partikolari, li, fid-data li fiha hija adixxiet il-qorti tar-rinviju, il-wild kien jirrisjedi abitwalment fir-Renju Unit. Min-naħa tiegħu, il-missier jikkontesta l-ġurisdizzjoni ta’ din il-qorti sabiex tagħti kwalunkwe deċiżjoni fir-rigward tal-wild.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "l-omm ressqet rikors"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "il-missier"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "il-qorti tar-rinviju"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "l-omm ressqet rikors"->"il-missier"[dir=none style=bold];
  "l-omm ressqet rikors"->"ressqet rikors 20/03/2018";
  "ressqet rikors 20/03/2018"->"il-qorti tar-rinviju";
  "il-missier"->"il-qorti tar-rinviju"[label="il-missier jikkontesta l-ġurisdizzjoni ta’ din il-qorti sabiex tagħti kwalunkwe deċiżjoni fir-rigward tal-wild."];
  "ressqet rikors 20/03/2018"->"Fl-20 ta’ Marzu 2018, l-omm ressqet rikors quddiem il-qorti tar-rinviju bil-għan li l-wild jitqiegħed taħt il-protezzjoni ta’ din il-qorti u li jiġi ordnat ir-ritorn tagħha kif ukoll tal-wild fir-Renju Unit"[dir=none];
  "ressqet rikors 20/03/2018"->"il-wild kien jirrisjedi abitwalment fir-Renju Unit"[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Dutch

Op 20 maart 2018 heeft de moeder een procedure ingeleid bij de verwijzende rechter opdat het kind onder beschermend toezicht van deze rechterlijke instantie wordt geplaatst en dat wordt gelast dat zij en het kind terugkeren naar het Verenigd Koninkrijk om deel te nemen aan de procedure voor deze rechter. De moeder betoogt dat deze rechter bevoegd is om het hoofdgeding te beslechten. Zij voert in dit verband met name aan dat het kind op de datum waarop de zaak bij de verwijzende rechter aanhangig werd gemaakt, zijn gewone verblijfplaats in het Verenigd Koninkrijk had. De vader betwist de bevoegdheid van die rechter om ten aanzien van het kind een beslissing te nemen.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "De moeder"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "De vader"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "de verwijzende rechter"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "De moeder"->"De vader"[dir=none style=bold];
  "De moeder"->"een procedure ingeleid 20/03/2018";
  "een procedure ingeleid 20/03/2018"->"de verwijzende rechter";
  "De vader"->"de verwijzende rechter"[label="De vader betwist de bevoegdheid van die rechter om ten aanzien van het kind een beslissing te nemen."];
  "een procedure ingeleid 20/03/2018"->"Opdat het kind onder beschermend toezicht van deze rechterlijke instantie wordt geplaatst en dat wordt gelast dat zij en het kind terugkeren naar het Verenigd Koninkrijk"[dir=none];
  "een procedure ingeleid 20/03/2018"->"het kind op de datum waarop de zaak bij de verwijzende rechter aanhangig werd gemaakt, zijn gewone verblijfplaats in het Verenigd Koninkrijk had."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Polish

W dniu 20 marca 2018 r. matka wszczęła postępowanie przed sądem odsyłającym, żądając nakazania, aby dziecko zostało objęte opieką tego sądu, oraz nakazania powrotu jej i dziecka do Zjednoczonego Królestwa, tak aby umożliwić im udział w postępowaniu. Matka twierdzi, że sąd ten ma jurysdykcję do rozstrzygnięcia sporu w postępowaniu głównym. W tym względzie matka utrzymuje w szczególności, że na dzień wszczęcia przez nią postępowania przed sądem odsyłającym miejscem zwykłego pobytu dziecka było Zjednoczone Królestwo. Natomiast ojciec zakwestionował jurysdykcję tego sądu do wydania jakiegokolwiek orzeczenia w odniesieniu do dziecka.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Matka"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "ojciec"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "sąd odsyłający"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Matka"->"ojciec"[dir=none style=bold];
  "Matka"->"wszczęła postępowanie 20/03/2018";
  "wszczęła postępowanie 20/03/2018"->"sąd odsyłający";
  "ojciec"->"sąd odsyłający"[label="ojciec zakwestionował jurysdykcję tego sądu do wydania jakiegokolwiek orzeczenia w odniesieniu do dziecka."];
  "wszczęła postępowanie 20/03/2018"->"Żądając nakazania, aby dziecko zostało objęte opieką tego sądu, oraz nakazania powrotu jej i dziecka do Zjednoczonego Królestwa"[dir=none];
  "wszczęła postępowanie 20/03/2018"->"miejscem zwykłego pobytu dziecka było Zjednoczone Królestwo."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Portuguese

Em 20 de março de 2018, a mãe intentou no órgão jurisdicional de reenvio uma ação na qual requeria que a criança fosse colocada sob a proteção desse órgão jurisdicional e que fosse ordenado o seu regresso ao Reino Unido, bem como o da criança, a fim de participar no processo no referido órgão jurisdicional. A mãe sustenta que esse órgão jurisdicional tem competência para decidir do litígio no processo principal. A este propósito, a mãe alega, designadamente, que, à data em que intentou a ação no órgão jurisdicional de reenvio, a criança residia de modo habitual no Reino Unido. Por seu lado, o pai contesta a competência do referido órgão jurisdicional para proferir qualquer decisão a respeito da criança.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "A mãe"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "o pai"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "órgão jurisdicional de reenvio"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "A mãe"->"o pai"[dir=none style=bold];
  "A mãe"->"intentou no órgão jurisdicional de reenvio uma ação 20/03/2018";
  "intentou no órgão jurisdicional de reenvio uma ação 20/03/2018"->"órgão jurisdicional de reenvio";
  "o pai"->"órgão jurisdicional de reenvio"[label="o pai contesta a competência do referido órgão jurisdicional para proferir qualquer decisão a respeito da criança."];
  "intentou no órgão jurisdicional de reenvio uma ação 20/03/2018"->"que a criança fosse colocada sob a proteção desse órgão jurisdicional e que fosse ordenado o seu regresso ao Reino Unido, bem como o da criança"[dir=none];
  "intentou no órgão jurisdicional de reenvio uma ação 20/03/2018"->"a criança residia de modo habitual no Reino Unido."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Romanian

La 20 martie 2018, mama a formulat o acțiune în fața instanței de trimitere pentru ca copilul să fie plasat sub tutela acestei instanțe și să fie dispusă înapoierea sa în Regatul Unit, precum și cea a copilului, în scopul de a participa la procedura în fața instanței menționate. Mama susține că această instanță este competentă să soluționeze litigiul principal. În această privință, mama susține, printre altele, că, la data la care a sesizat instanța de trimitere, copilul locuia în mod obișnuit în Regatul Unit. La rândul său, tatăl contestă competența instanței menționate de a pronunța orice decizie în privința copilului.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "mama"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "tatăl"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "instanța de trimitere"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "mama"->"tatăl"[dir=none style=bold];
  "mama"->"a formulat o acțiune 20/03/2018";
  "a formulat o acțiune 20/03/2018"->"instanța de trimitere";
  "tatăl"->"instanța de trimitere"[label="tatăl contestă competența instanței menționate de a pronunța orice decizie în privința copilului."];
  "a formulat o acțiune 20/03/2018"->"Pentru ca copilul să fie plasat sub tutela acestei instanțe și să fie dispusă înapoierea sa în Regatul Unit, precum și cea a copilului."[dir=none];
  "a formulat o acțiune 20/03/2018"->"copilul locuia în mod obișnuit în Regatul Unit."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Slovak

Dňa 20. marca 2018 podala matka na vnútroštátny súd návrh, aby bolo dieťa umiestnené pod ochranu tohto súdu a aby bol nariadený jej návrat do Spojeného kráľovstva, rovnako ako aj návrat dieťaťa s cieľom zúčastniť sa na konaní pred uvedeným súdom. Matka tvrdí, že tento súd má právomoc na rozhodnutie sporu vo veci samej. V tejto súvislosti matka najmä tvrdí, že dieťa malo v deň začatia konania pred vnútroštátnym súdom obvyklý pobyt v Spojenom kráľovstve. Otec právomoc uvedeného súdu na vydanie akéhokoľvek rozhodnutia týkajúceho sa dieťaťa spochybňuje.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Matka"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Otec"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "vnútroštátny súd"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Matka"->"Otec"[dir=none style=bold];
  "Matka"->"začatia konania 20/03/2018";
  "začatia konania 20/03/2018"->"vnútroštátny súd";
  "Otec"->"vnútroštátny súd"[label="Otec právomoc uvedeného súdu na vydanie akéhokoľvek rozhodnutia týkajúceho sa dieťaťa spochybňuje."];
  "začatia konania 20/03/2018"->"aby bolo dieťa umiestnené pod ochranu tohto súdu a aby bol nariadený jej návrat do Spojeného kráľovstva, rovnako ako aj návrat dieťaťa"[dir=none];
  "začatia konania 20/03/2018"->"dieťa malo v deň začatia konania pred vnútroštátnym súdom obvyklý pobyt v Spojenom kráľovstve."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Slovenian

Mati je 20. marca 2018 pri predložitvenem sodišču začela postopek, v katerem je predlagala, naj je deklica postavljena pod skrbništvo tega sodišča in naj je odrejena njuna vrnitev v Združeno kraljestvo, da bosta sodelovali v postopku pred navedenim sodiščem. Mati trdi, da je to sodišče pristojno za odločanje o sporu o glavni stvari. V zvezi s tem mati zlasti zatrjuje, da je na datum, ko je začela postopek pred predložitvenim sodiščem, deklica običajno prebivala v Združenem kraljestvu. Po drugi strani pa oče izpodbija pristojnost navedenega sodišča, da sprejme kakršno koli odločitev v zvezi z deklico.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Mati"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "oče"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "predložitvenem sodišču"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Mati"->"oče"[dir=none style=bold];
  "Mati"->"začela postopek 20/03/2018";
  "začela postopek 20/03/2018"->"predložitvenem sodišču";
  "oče"->"predložitvenem sodišču"[label="Oče izpodbija pristojnost navedenega sodišča, da sprejme kakršno koli odločitev v zvezi z deklico."];
  "začela postopek 20/03/2018"->"Naj je deklica postavljena pod skrbništvo tega sodišča in naj je odrejena njuna vrnitev v Združeno kraljestvo"[dir=none];
  "začela postopek 20/03/2018"->"deklica običajno prebivala v Združenem kraljestvu."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Finnish

Äiti nosti 20.3.2018 kanteen ennakkoratkaisua pyytäneessä tuomioistuimessa, jotta kyseinen tuomioistuin määräisi lapsen valtion holhottavaksi ja huollettavaksi ja jotta hänet ja lapsi määrättäisiin palaamaan Yhdistyneeseen kuningaskuntaan, jotta he voivat osallistua asian käsittelyyn mainitussa tuomioistuimessa. Äiti väittää, että kyseisellä tuomioistuimella on toimivalta ratkaista pääasia. Äiti katsoo tältä osin erityisesti, että ajankohtana, jolloin hän saattoi asian ennakkoratkaisua pyytäneen tuomioistuimen käsiteltäväksi, lapsi asui Yhdistyneessä kuningaskunnassa. Isä kiistää puolestaan mainitun tuomioistuimen toimivallan antaa mitään ratkaisuja lapsen osalta.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Äiti"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Isä"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "ennakkoratkaisua pyytäneessä tuomioistuimessa"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Äiti"->"Isä"[dir=none style=bold];
  "Äiti"->"Nosti kanteen 20/03/2018";
  "Nosti kanteen 20/03/2018"->"ennakkoratkaisua pyytäneessä tuomioistuimessa";
  "Isä"->"ennakkoratkaisua pyytäneessä tuomioistuimessa"[label="Isä kiistää puolestaan mainitun tuomioistuimen toimivallan antaa mitään ratkaisuja lapsen osalta."];
  "Nosti kanteen 20/03/2018"->"Jotta kyseinen tuomioistuin määräisi lapsen valtion holhottavaksi ja huollettavaksi ja jotta hänet ja lapsi määrättäisiin palaamaan Yhdistyneeseen kuningaskuntaan"[dir=none];
  "Nosti kanteen 20/03/2018"->"lapsi asui Yhdistyneessä kuningaskunnassa."[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: Swedish

Den 20 mars 2018 inkom modern med en ansökan till den hänskjutande domstolen där hon yrkade att barnet skulle placeras under den domstolens förmyndarskap och att domstolen skulle förordna om att hon själv och barnet skulle återvända till Förenade kungariket för att delta i målet vid den domstolen. Modern anförde att denna domstol var behörig att avgöra målet, och gjorde till stöd för detta bland annat gällande att barnet hade hemvist i Förenade kungariket vid den tidpunkt då hon väckte talan vid den hänskjutande domstolen. Fadern bestred å sin sida domstolens behörighet för att fatta några som helst beslut beträffande barnet.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
  "Modern"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "Fadern"[shape=doubleoctagon];
  "den hänskjutande domstolen"[shape=doubleoctagon];
    
  "Modern"->"Fadern"[dir=none style=bold];
  "Modern"->"väckte talan 20/03/2018";
  "väckte talan 20/03/2018"->"den hänskjutande domstolen";
  "Fadern"->"den hänskjutande domstolen"[label="Fadern bestred å sin sida domstolens behörighet för att fatta några som helst beslut beträffande barnet."];
  "väckte talan 20/03/2018"->"Modern yrkade att barnet skulle placeras under den domstolens förmyndarskap och att domstolen skulle förordna om att hon själv och barnet skulle återvända till Förenade kungariket"[dir=none];
  "väckte talan 20/03/2018"->"Barnet hade hemvist i Förenade kungariket"[dir=none];
    
    
}
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 October 2018.
UD v XB.
Request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Family Division.
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.
Case C-393/18 PPU. (2018)
Language: English

On 20 March 2018, the mother commenced proceedings in the referring court for an order that the child be made a ward of that court and an order that the mother and the child return to the United Kingdom in order to participate in the proceedings before that court. The mother submits that the referring court has jurisdiction to determine the dispute in the main proceedings. In that regard the mother claims, in particular, that, on the date she brought the matter before the referring court, the child was habitually resident in the United Kingdom. For his part, the father contests the jurisdiction of that court to make any decision with regard to the child.
The referring court states that it has not made any findings of fact in the main proceedings, since it considers it necessary first of all to resolve the issue of its jurisdiction to make a decision concerning the child. As regards that issue, the referring court is of the opinion that it must assess initially whether the child’s habitual residence is, for the purposes of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003, in the United Kingdom. Only as a second step, if necessary, would that court examine whether it has another basis of jurisdiction to hear the dispute in the main proceedings.

Legal relationship diagram (Graphviz):
digraph {
    rankdir=LR;
    node [shape=box];
    
   "The applicant"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The father"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The referring court"[shape=doubleoctagon];
   "The purposes of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003"[shape=trapezium];
    
   "The applicant"->"The father"[dir=none style=bold];
   "The applicant"->"Commenced proceedings 20/03/2018";
   "Commenced proceedings 20/03/2018"->"The referring court";
   "The father"->"The referring court"[label="Contests the jurisdiction of that court to make any decision with regard to the child"];
   "Commenced proceedings 20/03/2018"->"For an order that the child be made a ward of that court and an order that the mother and the child return to the United Kingdom"[dir=none];
   "Commenced proceedings 20/03/2018"->"The child was habitually resident in the United Kingdom"[dir=none];
   "The applicant"->"It must assess initially whether the child’s habitual residence is in the United Kingdom"[dir=none];
   "It must assess initially whether the child’s habitual residence is in the United Kingdom"->"The purposes of Article 8(1) of Regulation No 2201/2003"[dir=none];
    
    
}