(AGENPARL) – gio 16 febbraio 2023 Dear All,
Please find attached press release in respect of Case C-638/22:
EU law precludes national authorities being able, without needing to provide justification, to obtain the suspension of a final decision requiring the return of a child
The need for efficiency and speed which governs the adoption of a decision requiring the return of a child also applies in connection with the enforcement of such a decision
Kind regards,
Anna Rizzardi
Trainee
Press & Information Unit
Rue du Fort Niedergrünewald
L-2925 Luxembourg
[curia.europa.eu](https://www.curia.europa.eu/)

Testo Allegato:
Communications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

PRESS RELEASE No 31
/23

Luxembourg, 16

February 2023

Judgment of the Court in Case C
–
638/22

PPU | Rzecznik Praw Dziecka
and Others

(Suspension
of the
)

EU law precludes national authorities being able
,

without needing to
provide justifica
tion,
to obtain the suspension of a final decision requiring

The need for efficiency and speed

which governs the adoption of a decision

requiring the return of a child also
applies in connection with the enforcement of such a decision

Since

2022,
the Polish Code of Civil Procedure enables the Public Prosecutor General
,
the Commissioner for
Childrenâ??s Rights

and the Ombudsman to obtain suspension of the enforcement of a final judicial decision

ordering
the return of children handed down

on the basis of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child
Abduction
.
Those authorities are not required to provide reasons for their request for suspension
.
That request
entails suspension of
the
enforcement
of the decision
for a tw
o
–
month period
.

In addition, if the authorities referred
until the conclusion of the proceedings before the Supreme Court. Furthermore, eve
n if that appeal
were to be

dismissed, suspension
could

once again be obtained in connection with an extraordinary appeal
.

Two minor children, born in Ireland to Polish parents
,
have been resident in Ireland since their birth
.
During the
summer of 2021, th
e children and their mother went on holiday to Poland, with their fatherâ??s consent. In September

2021,
their mother informed their father that she would remain permanently in Poland with her children
.
Their
father
,
who had not consented to a permanent relo
cation o
f this kind, applied to the Pol
his children
.
those two children to Ireland
.

became enforc
eable, the Commissioner for Children’s Rights
and the Public Prosecutor General each requested
suspension of the enforcement of that decision
.

requirem
ent of expedition laid down by the Brussels IIa Regulation concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility
.

1

In addition, given
that suspension may be requested by
authorities which are not courts and that the exercise of that power is not
subject to judicial review
,
compatible with the fundamental right to an effective remedy ensh
rined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union
.

In its judgment, delivered today, the Court recalls that, pursuant to the Brussels IIa Regulation,

the courts of the
Member States having jurisdiction are required to adopt a decision requir
ing the return of the child
concerned within a particularly short and strict time limit
.

In principle, such a decision must be made

no later
than six weeks from the date on which the application is lodged, using the most expeditious procedures available in

1

Council Regulation (EC) No

22
01/2003 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
(OJ

2003 L

338, p.

1).

Commu
nications Directorate

Press and Information Unit

curia.europa.eu

Stay Connected
!

national law. It is only in
specific and exceptional, duly justified cases that the return of a child who has been
wrongfully removed may not be ordered.
The Court emphasises, in that regard, that
the Brussels IIa Regulation

comp
lements and clarifies the
1980 Hague Convention
.

Those two texts form a unitary body of rules which

The Court indicates that

the need for efficiency and speed which governs
also applies to national authorities in connection with the enforcement of such a decision.
The enforcement
without delay

of a decision enabling a child to be returned promptly is also intended to ensure respect for the
fu
ndamental rights guaranteed by the Charter of Fundamental Rights
,

in particular the fundamental rights of the
child.

According to the Court
,

the solution adopted by the Polish legislature

may undermine the effectiveness
of the
Brussels IIa Regulation
.

The
Court emphasises that an initial two
–
month suspension in itself exceeds the time limit
.
Moreover, given that the authorities
empowered to request suspension are not required to p
rovide reasons for their request and that the exercise of
that power is not subject to any judicial review whatsoever,
the legislation in question does not guarantee that
place of habitual residence may not be suspende
d except in specific and
exceptional, duly justified cases
.

The Court also rejects the argument that that legislation

enables the authorities to bring an appeal on a point of law
and to avoid the children concerned suffering
irreparable harm
.

In that regar
d, the Court finds that the judicial
protection of a child against such a risk is, in principle, already guaranteed by the existence of a remedy before a
judicial body. The Court considers that
EU law does not require Member States to provide an additional

level of
has been

adopted in a procedure which
already provides two levels of judicial review and that procedure enables account to be taken of the
existence of risks in the event of the
A fortiori, EU law does not permit Member
States to
couple proceedings brought against such a decision with an automatic suspensory effect, such as that
provided for by

the Polish legislation in question
.

NOTE:

A reference fo
r a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which
Union law or the validity of a European Union act.

The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the
national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Courtâ??s decision, which is similarly binding on
other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue

is raised.

Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice.

The
full text

of the judgment is published on the CURIA website on the day of
delivery.

Press

contact: Jacques René Zammit
â??

(+352) 4
303

335
5

Pictures of the delivery of the judgment are available from
â??
Europe by Satellite
â??
â??

(+32)
2

296
4106