Judgment of the Court Fifth Chamber of 24 March 2021, MCP, Case C-603/20 PPU

• Date: 24 March 2021
• Year: 2021

48

XIV. JUDICIAL COOPERATION IN CIVIL MATTERS – JUDGMENTS IN

MATRIMONIAL MATTERS AND THE MATTERS OF PARENTAL

RESPONSIBILITY

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 24 March 2021, MCP, Case C-603/20 PPU

Link to the complete text of the judgment

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Urgent preliminary ruling procedure – Area of freedom, security and

justice – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 – Article 10 – Jurisdiction in

matters of parental responsibility – Abduction of a child – Jurisdiction of the courts of a Member State –

Territorial scope – Removal of a child to a third State – Habitual residence acquired in that third State

SS and MCP, two Indian citizens who both have leave to remain in the United Kingdom, are parents

of P, a citizen of the United Kingdom who was born in 2017. In October 2018, the mother went to

India with the child, who has since lived there with her maternal grandmother and, therefore, no

longer has her habitual residence in the United Kingdom. It is on that ground that the mother has

challenged the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales, called upon to give a decision on the

application of the father, who seeks the return of the child to the United Kingdom and, in the

alternative, rights of access in the context of an action brought before the High Court of Justice

(England & Wales), Family Division (United Kingdom).

The referring court considers that it is necessary to determine wh ether it has jurisdiction on the basis

of the Brussels II bis Regulation.

101

In that regard, it in dicates that, at the time when it was seised by

the father, the child was habitually resident in India and was fully integrated into an Indian social and

family environment, her concrete factual connections with the United Kingdom being non-existent,

apart from citizenship.

The High Court of Justice notes that Article 10 of the Brussels II bis Regulation establishes the grounds

of jurisdiction in cases of wrongful removal or retention of a child, while specifying that it harbours

doubts, in particular, as to whether that provision can apply to a conflict of jurisdiction between the

courts of a Member State and the courts of a third State. It, therefore, asks the Court of Justice

whether that provision must be interpreted as meaning that, where a child has acquired his or her

habitual residence in a third State following abduction to that State, the courts of the Member State

where the child was habitually resident immediately before his or her abduction retain their

jurisdiction indefinitely. This case thus enables the Court to give a ruling on the territorial scope of

that provision.

Findings of the Court

The Court states, first, that, regarding jurisdiction in the event of child abduction, Article 10 of the

Brussels II bis Regulation provides criteria relating to a situation which is confined to the territory of

the Member States. The fact that that article uses the expression ‘Member State’ and not the words

‘State’ or ‘third State’ implies that it deals solely with jurisdiction in cases of child abductions from one

Member State to another.

101

Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recogn ition and enforcement of judgments in

matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1; ‘the Brussels II

bis Regulation’).