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

Silvia Bartolini

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

Autores/as

Silvia Bartolini Université Saint Louis Bruxelles

DOI:

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

Palabras clave:

área de libertad, seguridad y justicia, Bruselas IIa bis, confianza mutua, interés superior del menor, derechos fundamentales de la UE

Resumen

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.

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Metrics

Estadísticas globales

460 Visualizaciones	437 Descargas
897 Total

Descargas por formato:

14(1)_Bartolini_OSLS (English) 318 XML_14(1)_Bartolini_OSLS (English) 119

Biografía del autor/a

Silvia Bartolini, Université Saint Louis Bruxelles

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

Citas

Bartolini, S., 2018. The Urgent Preliminary Ruling Procedure: Ten Years On. European Public Law Review, 24(2), pp. 213–226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/EURO2018013

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2019005

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2016.1206708

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 DOI: https://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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9305-2

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2015104

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17441048.2016.1151150

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-088-6_8

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.13165/JUR-13-20-4-02

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2017061

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2019004

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 DOI: https://doi.org/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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509911196.ch-015

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 DOI: 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/203228441600700211

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eulj.12303

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019619000063

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 DOI: 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54648/COLA2018034