Summary
The mother, filed an application of deprivation of parental authority against the child’s father. The mother had moved on a temporary basis, with her child to the UK, but emphasised that the centre of their lives was in a Polish city. She pointed out that she and the father are Polish citizens and the child is not integrated into UK society. The Polish court stated that – contrary to the claims of the applicant – the child is habitually resident in the United Kingdom and thus it has no jurisdiction under Article 8 par. 1 of the Brussels II bis Regulation. The court stated that Article 12 par. 3 of the Brussels II bis Regulation cannot be applied because the condition laid down in Article 12 par. 3 letter b had not been fulfilled – the jurisdiction of the Polish court had not been accepted by all the parties to the proceedings at the time the court was seised.
The applicant appealed against the decision of the court of the first instance. The court of the second instance stated that Article 8 par. 1 of the Brussels II bis Regulation does not contain the explicit reference to the national laws of Member States according to which the term ‘habitual residence’ shall be interpreted. The court pointed out that, according to the judgement of the Court of 2 April 2009 (C-523/07), the concept of ‘habitual residence’ under Article 8(1) of Regulation No. 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that it corresponds to the place which reflects some degree of integration by the child in a social and family environment. To that end, in particular the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons for the stay on the territory of a Member State and the family’s move to that State, the child’s nationality, the place and conditions of attendance at school, linguistic knowledge and the family and social relationships of the child in that State must be taken into consideration. Therefore, the court found that the child’s habitual residence was in the united Kingdom.