Child Abduction and Court Jurisdiction

In cases of child abduction, jurisdiction in matters related to parental responsibility for children, such as determining the child's place of residence or limiting parental authority, belongs to the courts of the member state where the child had their habitual residence immediately before the unlawful abduction or retention. The court retains its jurisdiction until another member state becomes the child's habitual residence. However, for the court's jurisdiction to change, it is essential for the child to acquire habitual residence in the new member state, and for the parents with custody rights to accept the unlawful abduction or retention. The child must obtain habitual residence in the new member state and reside there for at least one year after one of the parents with parental responsibility learned about or could have learned about the child's whereabouts. It is necessary to determine whether the child has integrated into their new environment during this period and whether other conditions are met.

According to the provisions of the new Regulation on Jurisdiction, Recognition, and Enforcement of Decisions in Matrimonial Matters, Parental Responsibility, and International Child Abduction, which has been in force since August 2, 2022, in cases of unlawful abduction or retention of a child, the courts of the member state of the child's habitual residence should maintain their jurisdiction until a new habitual residence is established in another member state, subject to meeting other conditions, of course. Member states that have acquired jurisdiction should consider allowing the court to which a return application has been submitted based on the 1980 Hague Convention to also exercise jurisdiction agreed upon or recognized by the parties if they reach an agreement during the return proceedings. Such an agreement should cover the child's return, and if a decision is made not to return the child, and the child remains in the new habitual residence state, jurisdiction for all future child custody proceedings shall be determined based on the new habitual residence of the child.

 In a significant ruling, specifically in the decision dated August 31, 2017, under case number V CSK 303/17, the Supreme Court recognized that "in the absence of specific grounds set forth in Article 12 of Regulation No. 2201/2003, in every case concerning parental responsibility, including cases combined with divorce, separation, or annulment of marriage, it is necessary to examine whether domestic jurisdiction regarding parental responsibility claims does not arise from Article 8(1) of Regulation No. 2201/2003. However, this examination must also consider Article 9 and 10 of Regulation No. 2201/2003, and in the event of finding unlawful abduction or retention of a child (Article 2, point 11 [...]), domestic jurisdiction over parental responsibility matters belongs pursuant to Article 10 ab initio of Regulation No. 2201/2003 to the state in which the child had their habitual residence immediately before the incident, unless the child acquires habitual residence in another state, and one of the alternative conditions provided in the subsequent part of this provision is met (Article 10, points a and b [...]). Circumstances indicating possible unlawful abduction or retention of a child within the meaning of Article 10 ab initio of Regulation No. 2201/2003 and the related maintenance of domestic jurisdiction in the state where the child had their habitual residence immediately before the incident should be explained each time within the scope of the decision on the admissibility of the substantive consideration of the case."