Advanced

International unlawful parental child abduction. Comparative study: Lithuania, Sweden, and Russia.

Rimkuté, Jurate LU (2011) JURM01 20111
Department of Law
Abstract
Globalisation has made its impact not the least on peoples’ private relations. The increased migration has made chances of people settling down and starting family outside their home countries rather high. The thesis has shown that parents from international families commit more than half of international parental abductions or retentions to/in their home states. The remaining group of parents simply choose to move for another country and take children along. Irrespective of the cause, the removal or retention of children without consent of the other parent is to be considered unlawful in states that are parties to the Hague Abduction Convention from 1980. The main aim of the instrument is to avoid the harmful effects of the unlawful child... (More)
Globalisation has made its impact not the least on peoples’ private relations. The increased migration has made chances of people settling down and starting family outside their home countries rather high. The thesis has shown that parents from international families commit more than half of international parental abductions or retentions to/in their home states. The remaining group of parents simply choose to move for another country and take children along. Irrespective of the cause, the removal or retention of children without consent of the other parent is to be considered unlawful in states that are parties to the Hague Abduction Convention from 1980. The main aim of the instrument is to avoid the harmful effects of the unlawful child removals/ retentions, which means that as a main rule the child shall return to the country of its habitual residence as speedily as possible.
Even though the Hague Abduction Convention is also applicable for the EU Member States (excluding Denmark) it is however inferior in several aspects in relation to the Brussels II bis Regulation. The second version of the instrument introduced new return rules that are more effective in comparison to the Hague Abduction Convention. The key provision in the context is Article 11 (8) which says that the child has to be returned to its habitual residence even though the non-return order under the Article 13 of the Hague Abduction Convention has been issued, if the requesting state has issued a subsequent certified return order in accordance with the Section IV of the Brussels II Regulation.
Convention countries Lithuania and Sweden have expressed their concerns about the future relationship of the above-mentioned provisions. The Article 13 of the Hague Abduction Convention, which inter alia protects best interests of the child, is to give way to the Article 11(8) of the Brussels II Regulation when the latter is of relevance. The ECJ, however, in its case law has established that the interests of the child could be approached in the courts of origin after the child’s return to its habitual residence. However, there is another approach inspired by the Hague Abduction Convention, which says that sometimes it is better for the child not to return to its habitual residence.
The Russian Federation is on its path to sign the Abduction Convention. However, even now there exist international instruments that legally bind the country in the matter. The most important is the European Convention on Human Rights, which Article 8, on rights to private and family life, imposes both positive and negative obligations upon its State Parties. Another relevant instrument in the matter is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which contains several provisions on protection of the best interests of the child, applicable to unlawful abductions. According to a well-known Russian family law expert Khazova, even if Russia has no domestic rules combating international parental abductions, the state is nevertheless bound by the above-mentioned instruments even though it is not a contracting party to the Hague Abduction Convention. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Globaliseringen har haft en stor inverkan på människors privata relationer. Den ökade migrationen har avsevärt ökat chanserna för att människor slår sig ner och startar familj utanför sina hemländer. Detta arbete visar att föräldrar från internationella familjer begår mer än hälften av alla olovliga internationella barnbortföranden eller kvarhållanden till/i sina hemstater. Övriga fall svarar de föräldrar för, som väljer att flytta till ett annat land och tar barnen med sig. Oavsett orsaken, anses bortförande av barn utan samtycke från den andra föräldern olagligt i stater som är parter i Haag-Bortförandekonventionen från 1980. Huvudsyftet med instrumentet ifråga är att undvika skadliga effekter av olagliga barnbortföranden/ kvarhållanden,... (More)
Globaliseringen har haft en stor inverkan på människors privata relationer. Den ökade migrationen har avsevärt ökat chanserna för att människor slår sig ner och startar familj utanför sina hemländer. Detta arbete visar att föräldrar från internationella familjer begår mer än hälften av alla olovliga internationella barnbortföranden eller kvarhållanden till/i sina hemstater. Övriga fall svarar de föräldrar för, som väljer att flytta till ett annat land och tar barnen med sig. Oavsett orsaken, anses bortförande av barn utan samtycke från den andra föräldern olagligt i stater som är parter i Haag-Bortförandekonventionen från 1980. Huvudsyftet med instrumentet ifråga är att undvika skadliga effekter av olagliga barnbortföranden/ kvarhållanden, vilket innebär att som huvudregel ska barnet återlämnas till sin hemviststat så snabbt som möjligt.
Även om Haag Bortförandekonventionen är tillämplig för EU: s medlemsstater (förutom Danmark), är den dock underordnad Bryssel II bis Förordningen i flera avseende. I den andra versionen av instrumentet infördes nya återföringsregler som är mer effektiva än Bortförandekonventionens bestämmelser. Den centrala bestämmelsen i sammanhanget är Artikel 11 (8) som säger att barnet ska återlämnas till sin hemviststat, även då ett beslut om icke-återlämnande av barnet enligt Artikel 13 i Haag-Bortförandekonventionen har utfärdats, om den ansökande staten har utfärdat ett efterföljande certifierat beslut om återlämnande i enlighet med avsnitt IV i Bryssel II bis Förordningen.
Konventionsstaterna Litauen och Sverige har uttryckt sin oro över de framtida konsekvenserna av de ovan nämnda bestämmelserna. Artikel 13 i Bortförandekonventionen, som bland annat värnar om barnets bästa, ger vika för Artikel 11 (8) i Bryssel II-Förordningen när denna är av relevans. EG-domstolen har dock i sin rättspraxis fastställt att barnets intresse kan prövas i domstolar av ursprungslandet efter att barnet har återlämnats till sin hemvistort. Det finns dock ett alternativt synsätt, vilket inspirerats av Haag-Bortförandekonventionen, som säger att det ibland är bättre för barnet att inte återvända till sin hemviststat.
Ryssland är på väg att underteckna Haag-Bortförandekonventionen. Emellertid, finns det redan nu internationella instrument med rättsligt bindande verkan för landet i fråga. Det viktigaste är den Europeiska konventionen om skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna, vars Artikel 8, om rätten till privat-och familjeliv, uppställer både positiva och negativa skyldigheter på konventionsstaterna. Ett annat relevant instrument är FN: s Konvention om barnets rättigheter, som innehåller flera bestämmelser om skydd av barnets bästa i händelse av olovligt barnbortförande av vårdnadshavare. Enligt en erkänd rysk familjerättsexpert, Khazova, är Ryssland bundet av de ovan nämnda instrumenten, trots att inhemska regler om bekämpning av barnbortförande saknas, samt att man ännu inte är konventionsstat i Haag- Bortförandekonventionen. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Rimkuté, Jurate LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM01 20111
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
comparative law, EU law, Private international law, family law.
language
English
id
1977667
date added to LUP
2011-06-21 14:19:26
date last changed
2011-06-21 14:19:26
@misc{1977667,
  abstract     = {Globalisation has made its impact not the least on peoples’ private relations. The increased migration has made chances of people settling down and starting family outside their home countries rather high. The thesis has shown that parents from international families commit more than half of international parental abductions or retentions to/in their home states. The remaining group of parents simply choose to move for another country and take children along. Irrespective of the cause, the removal or retention of children without consent of the other parent is to be considered unlawful in states that are parties to the Hague Abduction Convention from 1980. The main aim of the instrument is to avoid the harmful effects of the unlawful child removals/ retentions, which means that as a main rule the child shall return to the country of its habitual residence as speedily as possible. 
     Even though the Hague Abduction Convention is also applicable for the EU Member States (excluding Denmark) it is however inferior in several aspects in relation to the Brussels II bis Regulation. The second version of the instrument introduced new return rules that are more effective in comparison to the Hague Abduction Convention. The key provision in the context is Article 11 (8) which says that the child has to be returned to its habitual residence even though the non-return order under the Article 13 of the Hague Abduction Convention has been issued, if the requesting state has issued a subsequent certified return order in accordance with the Section IV of the Brussels II Regulation. 
   Convention countries Lithuania and Sweden have expressed their concerns about the future relationship of the above-mentioned provisions. The Article 13 of the Hague Abduction Convention, which inter alia protects best interests of the child, is to give way to the Article 11(8) of the Brussels II Regulation when the latter is of relevance. The ECJ, however, in its case law has established that the interests of the child could be approached in the courts of origin after the child’s return to its habitual residence. However, there is another approach inspired by the Hague Abduction Convention, which says that sometimes it is better for the child not to return to its habitual residence. 
     The Russian Federation is on its path to sign the Abduction Convention. However, even now there exist international instruments that legally bind the country in the matter. The most important is the European Convention on Human Rights, which Article 8, on rights to private and family life, imposes both positive and negative obligations upon its State Parties. Another relevant instrument in the matter is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which contains several provisions on protection of the best interests of the child, applicable to unlawful abductions. According to a well-known Russian family law expert Khazova, even if Russia has no domestic rules combating international parental abductions, the state is nevertheless bound by the above-mentioned instruments even though it is not a contracting party to the Hague Abduction Convention.},
  author       = {Rimkuté, Jurate},
  keyword      = {comparative law,EU law,Private international law,family law.},
  language     = {eng},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {International unlawful parental child abduction. Comparative study: Lithuania, Sweden, and Russia.},
  year         = {2011},
}