PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

C-435/06 C (Grand Chamber) [2007] ECR I-10141

Parties

C (Ms C, the mother of the children A and B, against the decision of the Administrative Court of Oulu, Finland)

Referring court and Member State

Finland, Second Instance, Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Articles referred to by the CJEU

Date of the judgement

27 November 2007

Summary

In February 2005, a Swedish welfare authority decided that two children living in Sweden with their Finnish mother should be taken into care immediately, in order to place them with a foster family. Under Swedish law, however, the decision could not be implemented without judicial confirmation. On 1 March 2005 the mother took the children to Finland. The decision of the Swedish welfare authority was confirmed by a judgment of a Swedish court on 3 March 2005. The mother appealed and the Finnish Supreme Administrative Court stayed its proceedings and sought a preliminary ruling from the CJEU as to the interpretation of the Brussels IIa Regulation. The main question was whether a public law decision related to child welfare, such as taking children into care and placing them with a foster family, fell within the definition of ‘civil matters’ in the Brussels IIa Regulation. The Court held that the Regulation applied to the enforcement of a decision ordering a child to be taken into care and placed in a foster family. Such a decision, although adopted in the context of public law rules relating to child protection, is covered by the term ‘civil matters’ in the Regulation. Although taking a child into care does not feature expressly amongst the matters listed as relating to parental responsibility, it is clear from Recital 5 that the Regulation covers all decisions on parental responsibility, including measures for the protection of the child. ‘Civil matters’ as used in the Regulation is an autonomous concept which must be interpreted purposively in accordance with the objectives of the Regulation. Consequently, the term ‘civil matters’ must be interpreted as covering measures that are classified as public law by the legal system of a particular Member State. Otherwise, the purpose of mutual recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of parental responsibility would be compromised. The national court also asked whether the Regulation was to be interpreted as applying ratione temporis in a case such as that in the main proceedings. The CJEU held that by Articles 64(1) and 72, the Regulation applied only to legal proceedings instituted after 1 March 2005. However, Article 64(2) provides for the recognition and enforcement of judgments given after 1 March 2005 in proceedings instituted before that date but after the entry into force of the original Brussels II Regulation (Regulation 1347/2000), if jurisdiction was founded on rules which accorded with those contained in Chapter II of the Brussels IIa Regulation or in the Brussels II Regulation or in a convention concluded between the two Member States concerned if that convention was in force when the proceedings were instituted. In this case, the decision the enforcement of which was at issue was given on 3 March 2005, i.e. after the date on which the Brussels IIa Regulation came into force. The proceedings in Sweden were initiated in autumn 2004, i.e. before Brussels IIa applied but after the entry into force of Brussels II (1 March 2001). Finally, the jurisdiction of the Swedish courts was exercised on the basis of national law (i.e. residence of the children in Sweden when care proceedings were initiated) and these jurisdictional rules accorded with those provided for by the Brussels IIa Regulation. Consequently, all three conditions contained in Article 64(2) were fulfilled. The Court therefore held that, subject to factual assessment (which is a matter for the national court alone), the Regulation was to be interpreted as applying ratione temporis in this case. This is an important decision as it determines that the Brussels IIa Regulation applies in cases where children subject to care orders are moved from one Member State to another. Hence, in respect of matters related to parental responsibility, the Regulation is not restricted to private law proceedings but covers also public law decisions relating to child protection.