Unification of Judicial Practice Concerning Parental Responsibility in the European Union – Challenges Applying Regulation Brussels II Bis

Open access


The article briefly describes international legislation in parental responsibility matters and focuses on the Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (in practice called Brussels II a or Brussels II bis). The essay reveals and analyses the difficulties which occur while hearing parental responsibility cases within the European Union. Particular attention is given to special cases which were difficult to resolve for the national courts of the Republic of Lithuania. Also, the practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union is examined. The guidelines on how to avoid the problems of establishing jurisdiction are given. The relations of 1980 Hague Convention on international child abduction and Regulations Brussels II bis are revealed and the reasons for adoption of the Regulation are highlighted. The article also proposes improvements for Article 15 of the Regulation and the effective application of a modified forum non conveniens doctrine in parental responsibility cases.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1. Beaumont Paul. R. and Lara Walker. “Shifting the Balance Achieved by the Abduction Convention: the Contrasting Approaches of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice.” Journal of Private International Law Vol. 7 No. 2 (August 2011): 231-249.

  • 2. Beaumont Paul R. and Peter E. McEleavy. The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction. Oxford University Press 2004.

  • 3. Boele-Woelki Katharina and Cristina Gonzalez Beilfuss. Brussels II bis: Its Impact and Application in Member States. Antwerpen - Oxford: Intersentia 2007.

  • 4. Fiorini A. “Rome III Choice of Law in Divorce: is the Europeanization of Family Law Going Too Far?” International Journal of Law Policy and the Family No. 22 (2008): 178-205.

  • 5. Francq Stéphanie. “Parental Responsibility under ‘Brussels II’.” ERA Forum Volume 4 Issue 1 (2003): 54-72.

  • 6. Jarukaitis Irmantas. Europos Sąjunga ir Lietuvos Respublika: konstituciniai narystės pagrindai (European Union and the Republic of Lithuania: constitutional elements of the membership). Vilnius: Justitia 2011.

  • 7. Kruger Thalia. Civil Jurisdiction Rules of the European Union and their Impact on Third States. Oxford University Press 2008.

  • 8. Magnus Ulrich et al. Brussels II bis Regulation. Munich: Sellier European Law Publishers 2012.

  • 9. Martiny Dieter. “Hague Conventions in Private International Law and on International Civil Procedure”: 682-683. In: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Vol. 4. Oxford University Press 2012.

  • 10. McEleavy Peter. “Brussels II bis: Matrimonial Matters Parental Responsibility Child Abduction and Mutual Recognition.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly Vol. 53 Issue 2 (April 2004): 503-512.

  • 11. Official information of the State Child Rights Protection and Adoption Service under the Ministry of Social Security and Labour // http://www.vaikoteises.lt (accessed May 29 2014).

  • 12. Rauscher Thomas. Europäisches Zivilprozeßrecht. Kommentar. 2. Auflage. Band 1. München: Sellier European Law Publishers GmbH 2006.

  • 13. Ripley Peter. “A Defence of the Established Approach to the Grave Risk Exception in the Hague Child Abduction Convention.” Journal of Private International Law Vol. 4 No. 3 (December 2008): 443-477.

  • 14. Trimmings Katarina. Children Abduction Within the European Union. Studies in Private International Law. Hart Publishing 2013.

  • 15. Župan Mirela. “EU Enforcement Mechanisms Serving the Best Interest of a Child.” Presentation in the conference “Enforcement of courts decisions as a condition for an effective judicial protection” which was held on 24‒25 of October 2013 in the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania.

Journal information
Impact Factor

CiteScore 2018: 0.42

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.138
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.281

Target audience: researchers and scholars in the fields of law and politics, with an acute interest in the cross-pollinations of disciplines, comparative approaches to regional issues, and active dialogue on pressing contemporary issues of theoretical and practical import.
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 183 47 5
PDF Downloads 133 57 6