Mutual trust through the looking glass: The protection of children’s fundamental rights in EU return proceedings

Authors

  • Silvia Bartolini Université Saint Louis Bruxelles

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1349

Keywords:

Area of freedom, security and justice, Brussels IIa bis, mutual trust, best interests of the child, EU fundamental rights, Área de libertad, seguridad y justicia, Bruselas IIa bis, confianza mutua, interés superior del menor, derechos fundamentales de la UE

Abstract

The principle of mutual trust underpins EU proceedings for the return of the child following abduction. On such a basis, the courts of the Member State of refuge shall trust the courts of the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the abduction being willing and capable to protect the EU fundamental rights of the child concerned. Therefore, they should not refrain from enforcing a certified judgment requiring the immediate return of the child, even in situations where there is a clear risk that the return is contrary to that child’s best interests. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate that there is a necessity – in the field of EU proceedings for the return of the child following abduction – to move beyond absolute trust, in order to ensure adequate protection of the children concerned.

El principio de confianza mutua sustenta los procedimientos de la UE para la restitución del menor tras la sustracción. Sobre esta base, los órganos jurisdiccionales del Estado miembro de refugio deben confiar en que los órganos jurisdiccionales del Estado miembro en el que el menor tenía su residencia habitual inmediatamente antes de la sustracción están dispuestos y son capaces de proteger los derechos fundamentales de la UE del menor en cuestión. Por lo tanto, no deben abstenerse de ejecutar una resolución certificada que exija la restitución inmediata del menor, incluso en situaciones en las que exista un riesgo claro de que la restitución sea contraria al interés superior de ese menor. El objetivo de este artículo es demostrar que es necesario –en el ámbito de los procedimientos de la UE para la restitución del menor tras una sustracción– ir más allá de la confianza absoluta, con el fin de garantizar una protección adecuada de los menores afectados.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

        Metrics

Views 216
Downloads:
14(1)_Bartolini_OSLS 56
XML_14(1)_Bartolini_OSLS 2


Author Biography

Silvia Bartolini, Université Saint Louis Bruxelles

Dr Silvia Bartolini, Research Associate Université Saint Louis Bruxelles
Email: silvia.bartolini@usaintlouis.be

References

Bartolini, S., 2018. The Urgent Preliminary Ruling Procedure: Ten Years On. European Public Law Review, 24(2), pp. 213–226.

Bartolini, S., 2019. In the Name of the Best Interests of the Child: The Principle of Mutual Trust in Child Abduction Cases. Common Market Law Review, 56(1), pp. 91–119.

Bay Larsen L., 2012. Some Reflections on Mutual Recognition in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. In: P. Cardonnel, A. Rosas and N. Wahl, eds., Constitutionalising the EU Judicial System: Essays in Honour of Pernilla Lindh. Oxford: Hart, pp. 139–152.

Beaumont, P., Walker, L., and Holliday, J., 2016. Conflicts of EU courts on child abduction: The reality of Article 11(6)-(8) Brussels IIa proceedings across the EU. Journal of Private International Law, 12(2), pp. 211–260.

Brouwer, E., 2013. Mutual Trust and the Dublin Regulation: Protection of Fundamental Rights in the EU and the Burden of Proof. Utrecht Law Review [online], 9(1), pp. 135–147. Available at: http://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.218

Deruiter, R., and Vermeulen, G., 2016. Balancing Between Human Rights Assumptions and Actual Fundamental Human Rights Safeguards in Building an Area of Freedom, Security and Justice: A Cosmopolitan Perspective. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22(4), pp. 731–749.

Devers, A., 2004. Les Enlèvements Internationaux d’Enfants et le Règlement Bruxelles II bis. In : H. Fulchiron, ed., Les Enlèvements Internationaux d’Enfants à Travers les Frontières. Brussels: Bruylant, pp. 33–49.

Govaere, I., 2015. Setting the International Scene: EU External Competence and Procedures Post-Lisbon Revisited in the Light of ECJ Opinion 1/13. Common Market Law Review, 52(5), pp. 1277–1308.

Guild, E., 2004. Seeking Asylum: Storm Clouds between International Commitments and EU Legislative Measures. European Law Review, vol. 29, pp. 198–218.

Kruger, T., and Samyn, L., 2016. Brussels II Bis: Successes and Suggested Improvements. Journal of Private International Law, 12(1), pp. 132–168.

Lazic, V., 2016. Family Private International Law Issues before the European Court of Human Rights: Lessons to be Learned from Povse v. Austria in Revising the Brussels IIa Regulation and its Relevance for Future Abolition of Exequatur in the European Union. In: C. Paulussen et al., eds., Fundamental Rights in International and European Law – Public and Private Perspectives. The Hague: Asser Press, pp. 161–185.

Lenaerts, K., 2013. The Best Interests of the Child Always Come First: The Brussels II bis Regulation and the European Court of Justice. Jurisprudence Research Journal, 20(4), pp. 1302–1328.

Lenaerts, K., 2017. La vie après l’avis: Exploring the Principle of Mutual (Yet Not Blind) Trust. Common Market Law Review, 54(3), pp. 805–840.

Mancano, L., 2019. Storming the Bastille: Detention Conditions, the Right to Liberty and the Case for Approximation in EU law. Common Market Law Review, 56(1), pp. 61–90.

McEleavy, P., 2015. The European Court of Human Rights and the Hague Convention: Prioritizing Return or Reflection. Netherlands International Law Review [online], 62, pp. 365–405. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40802-015-0040-z

Mitsilegas, V., 2019. Joined Cases C-404/15 and C-659/15 PPU – Pál Aranyosi and Robert Căldăraru v Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Bremen – Resetting the Parameters of Mutual Trust: From Aranyosi to LM. In: V. Mitsilegas, A. di Martino and L. Mancano, eds., The Court of Justice and European Criminal Law Leading Cases in a Contextual Analysis. Oxford: Hart, pp. 421–436.

Musseva, B., 2020. The recast of the Brussels IIa Regulation: the sweet and sour fruits of unanimity. ERA Forum [online], 21. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-019-00595-5

Niblock, R., 2016. Mutual Recognition, Mutual Trust? Detention Conditions and Deferring an EAW. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 7(2), pp. 250.

Rizcallah, C., 2019. The challenges to trust‐based governance in the European Union: Assessing the use of mutual trust as a driver of EU integration. European Law Journal, 25(1), pp. 37–56.

Wendel, M., 2019. Mutual Trust, Essence and Federalism – Between Consolidating and Fragmenting the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice after LM. European Constitutional Law Review, 15(1), pp. 17–47.

Willems, A., 2019. The Court of Justice of the European Union’s Mutual Trust Journey in EU Criminal Law: From a Presumption to (Room for) Rebuttal. German Law Journal [online], 20(4), pp. 468–495. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2019.32

Xanthopoulou, E., 2018. Mutual trust and rights in EU criminal and asylum law: Three phases of evolution and the uncharted territory beyond blind trust. Common Market law Review, 55(2), pp. 489–510.

Published

01-02-2024

How to Cite

Bartolini, S. (2024) “Mutual trust through the looking glass: The protection of children’s fundamental rights in EU return proceedings”, Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 14(1), pp. 230–256. doi: 10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1349.