- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-497/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division) (United Kingdom) made on 18 October 2010 — Barbara Mercredi v Richard Chaffe
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010CN0497
62010CN0497
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 328/26
(Case C-497/10)
()
2010/C 328/45
Language of the case: English
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Barbara Mercredi
Defendants: Richard Chaffe
Questions referred
1.Please clarify the appropriate test for determining the habitual residence of a child for the purpose of:
(a)Article 8 of EC Regulation 2201/2003 (1)
(b)Article 10 of EC Regulation 2201/2003
2.Is a Court an ‘institution or other body’ to which rights of custody can be attributed for the purposes of the provisions of EC Regulation 2201/2003?
3.Does Article 10 have a continuing application after the courts of the requested Member State have rejected an application for the return of the child under the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention on the basis that Articles 3 and 5 are not made out?
In particular, how should a conflict between a determination of the requested state that the requirements of Articles 3 and 5 of the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention are not met and a determination of the requesting state that the requirements of Articles 3 and 5 are met be resolved?
(1) 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
OJ L 338, p. 1