PIL instrument(s)
Brussels IIa
Case number and/or case name
In the Matter of E (A Child) [2014] EWHC 6 (Fam)
Details of the court
England and Wales, First Instance
Articles referred to by the court
Brussels IIa
Article 8
Paragraph 1
Article 12
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph c
Paragraph 3 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 3 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 4
Article 13
Paragraph 1
Article 14
Article 15
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 1 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 2 SubParagraph c
Paragraph 3 SubParagraph a
Paragraph 3 SubParagraph b
Paragraph 3 SubParagraph c
Paragraph 3 SubParagraph d
Paragraph 3 SubParagraph e
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 6
Article 17
Article 20
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Article 55
Paragraph a SubParagraph i
Paragraph a SubParagraph ii
Paragraph a SubParagraph iii
Paragraph b
Paragraph c
Paragraph d
Paragraph e
Date of the judgement
14 January 2014
Appeal history
None
CJEU's case law cited by the court
None
Summary
The care proceedings were in respect of a child, E. The child was born in England in 2001, and was living in England since then. Both parents were Slovakian nationals. As a result, Slovakian Central Authority got involved. The case received significant media attention in Slovakia. Sir James Munby held that the English court should assume jurisdiction, and approved the LA’s care plan. In this context, it was noted: “33 In the present case E was and is habitually resident in England and Wales. Although he is a citizen of the Slovak Republic he has lived here all his life. No-one has suggested, indeed it could not sensibly be asserted, that the English court does not have jurisdiction in accordance with Article 8(1) of BIIR. And although, within the meaning of Article 15(3) , E has a particular connection with Slovakia, it did not seem to me that the other requirements of Article 15 were met, so as to justify making a request to the Slovakian courts. Nor, as will be appreciated, was any Article 15 request received from the Slovakian courts. On the contrary, the Slovakian Central Authority formally notified this court that it did not dispute the jurisdiction of the English court and fully accepted its competence. The Article 55 mechanism worked smoothly and effectively, facilitating in the particular case the inter-State cooperation and assistance which is so desirable in every case.” [33]

This website is written and maintained by the University of Aberdeen's Research Applications and Data Management Team