PIL instrument(s)

Case number and/or case name

C-92/12 PPU Health Service Executive v S.C. and A.C. (Second Chamber)

Parties

Health Service Executive v S.C. and A.C.

Referring court and Member State

Ireland, First Instance, High Court

Articles referred to by the CJEU

Date of the judgement

26 April 2012

Summary

A vulnerable child with exceptional protection needs was resident in Ireland where she had been in public care for 12 years. The girl had been placed in foster care and in open or secure care institutions in Ireland. She had absconded on several occasions and engaged in risk-taking, violence, aggression and self-harm. Clinical professionals, for her own protection, wanted the girl to remain in a secure placement to receive appropriate therapy. However, it appeared that there was no appropriate institution in Ireland where the child’s specific needs could be met. The Health Service Executive (HSE) of Ireland therefore requested that the High Court in Ireland order the child’s placement at an appropriate secure institution in England. The order was then issued by the High Court and the child was transferred to the placement in England which involved compulsory detention (known in Irish law as ‘secure care’). In the judgment, the High Court noted that the consent required by Article 56(2) of the Brussels IIa Regulation had been given by the Central Authority for England and Wales and was not incompatible with either the Regulation or the law. At the time of transfer, proceedings for recognition and enforcement of the order in the United Kingdom had not been issued. The High Court was, however, uncertain whether the placement in the secure care institution situated in England should be continued and therefore stayed the proceedings and referred the following issues for clarification to the CJEU. First, does a judgment which deprives a child of her liberty by providing for the detention of the child for a specified time in another Member State in an institution providing therapeutic and educational care come within the material scope of the Brussels IIa Regulation?’ The CJEU held that ‘placement in institutional care’ (Art 1(2)(d)) had to be interpreted as covering placement in a secure care institution. Consequently, the judgment was within the material scope of the Regulation. Otherwise, vulnerable children would not be able to benefit from the Regulation which would be contrary to its purpose of ensuring equality for all children (Recital 5). The CJEU noted that only ‘measures taken as a result of criminal offences committed by children’ (Art 1(3)(d)) were expressly excluded from the scope of the Regulation and this did not apply as the detention of the child was not for committing a criminal offence. Second, does a judgment like the present one have any legal effect in the Member State where the child is to be placed prior to the grant of a declaration of enforceability upon the completion of the proceedings seeking such a declaration? The Court held that the Regulation had to be interpreted as meaning that a judgment of a court of a Member State providing for the compulsory placement of a child in a secure care institution situated in another Member State must, before its enforcement in the requested Member State, be declared to be enforceable in that Member State. The Court, however, pointed out that the decision of the court of the requested State had to be made with particular expedition and appeals against such a decision must not have suspensive effect. Finally, where a judgment providing for the placement of a child for a specified time in residential care in another Member State is renewed for a further specified time, must the Article 56 consent of the other Member State be obtained upon the occasion of each renewal, and must the judgment be declared enforceable in that other Member State upon the occasion of each renewal? The Court held that where consent to placement under Art 56(2) had been given for a specified period of time it did not apply to orders extending the duration of the placement. A judgment on placement made in a Member State, declared to be enforceable in another Member State, could be enforced in that other Member State only for the period stated in the judgment on placement.