A v B [2021] EUECJ C-262/21_PPU (2 August 2021)

A v B [2021] EUECJ C-262/21_PPU (2 August 2021)

A parent complying with a binding Dublin III transfer decision, resulting in the removal of a child to another Member State, does not commit a wrongful removal or retention under Article 2(11) of Brussels II bis, even if the transfer decision is later annulled and the original state does not order the child's return or authorize their stay.

Citation
[2021] EUECJ C-262/21_PPU
Parties
Applicant: A; Respondent: B
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
02 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Reference / Judgment on Preliminary Questions
Outcome
Preliminary ruling: Article 2(11) of Brussels II bis does not cover removals or retentions resulting from compliance with a Dublin III transfer decision, even if later annulled and no return or authorization is ordered by the original state.
Legal Topics
Parental Responsibility, Child Abduction, Brussels II Bis Regulation, Dublin III Regulation, Hague Convention on Child Abduction, Interpretation of EU Law
European Union Law Family Law Private International Law Parental Responsibility Child Abduction Brussels II Bis Regulation Dublin III Regulation Hague Convention on Child Abduction +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Applicant

B

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Reference / Judgment on Preliminary Questions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the removal or non-return of a child under a Dublin III transfer constitutes 'wrongful removal or retention' under Article 2(11) of Brussels II bis Regulation
  2. 2 Whether compliance with a Dublin III transfer decision can be considered illicit under Brussels II bis
  3. 3 Whether the annulment of a transfer decision affects the legality of the child's continued presence in the receiving state

Ratio Decidendi

A parent complying with a binding Dublin III transfer decision, resulting in the removal of a child to another Member State, does not commit a wrongful removal or retention under Article 2(11) of Brussels II bis, even if the transfer decision is later annulled and the original state does not order the child's return or authorize their stay.

Court Disposition

Preliminary ruling: Article 2(11) of Brussels II bis does not cover removals or retentions resulting from compliance with a Dublin III transfer decision, even if later annulled and no return or authorization is ordered by the original state.