PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

T.S. v. J.G. and J.G. v. T.S. - 333/2002 and 208/2007 - Rb. Gent, 17 December 2007

Details of the court

Belgium, First Instance

Articles referred to by the court

Date of the judgement

16 December 2007

Appeal history

CJEU's case law cited by the court

Summary

The parties have one child. They were never married, but the father recognised the child. After the relationship between the parents was terminated, there was a conflict about the parental authority over the child. Both parties requested a social investigation. In the present case, two proceedings were joined. The first procedure was initiated on 30 August 2002 by the mother to obtain exclusive parental authority over the child and a maintenance contribution from the father. In an interim judgment of 2 December 2002, the court provisionally granted the mother’s claims and set a new hearing date. The parties did not show up at the hearing. The case wasn’t continued so that the interim judgment of 2 December 2002 remains valid. On 17 April 2007, the father, on his part, also filed an application for exclusive parental authority and a maintenance contribution to be paid by the mother. The mother had moved to the UK a few months previous, in November 2006. She files a counterclaim to ask for the right to stay in England with the child. The father also filed an identical claim in summary proceedings with the president of the Court of First Instance of Ghent. The judge presiding over summary proceedings can only grant provisional measures. On 9 July 2007, the judge awarded the father’s claim. This judge did not know about the previous judicial decision of 2002. The proceedings were unilateral. Mrs. S. didn’t take part in them since she had been removed from the population register on 10 May 2007 and she wasn’t informed of the proceedings. Mr. G. then addressed the Belgian Central Authority on the basis of that provisional decision of 9 July 2007 to obtain the return of the child on the basis of Art. 11 Brussels IIa. Return proceedings are pending in the UK, the outcome of which is not known. The English Court has to determine whether the transfer of the child to the United Kingdom was wrongful and therefore can be qualified as child abduction (cf. Art. 10 Brussels IIa). For this reason, The Belgian court has to stay the proceedings until the English court has come to a final decision.