Prel. Doc. No 8 of October 2006
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ENLÈVEMENT INTERNATIONAL D’ENFANTS INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION Doc. prél. No 8 Prel. Doc. No 8 octobre / October 2006 RAPPORT RELATIF AUX COMMUNICATIONS ENTRE JUGES CONCERNANT LA PROTECTION INTERNATIONALE DE L’ENFANT établi par Philippe Lortie, Premier secrétaire * * * REPORT ON JUDICIAL COMMUNICATIONS IN RELATION TO INTERNATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION drawn up by Philippe Lortie, First Secretary Document préliminaire No 8 d’octobre 2006 à l’intention de la Cinquième réunion de la Commission spéciale sur le fonctionnement de la Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980 sur les aspects civils de l’enlèvement international d’enfants (La Haye, 30 octobre – 9 novembre 2006) Preliminary Document No 8 of October 2006 for the attention of the Fifth meeting of the Special Commission to review the operation of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (The Hague, 30 October – 9 November 2006) Permanent Bureau | Bureau Permanent 6, Scheveningseweg 2517 KT The Hague | La Haye The Netherlands | Pays-Bas telephone | téléphone +31 (70) 363 3303 fax | télécopieur +31 (70) 360 4867 e-mail | courriel [email protected] website | site internet http://www.hcch.net RAPPORT RELATIF AUX COMMUNICATIONS ENTRE JUGES CONCERNANT LA PROTECTION INTERNATIONALE DE L’ENFANT établi par Philippe Lortie, Premier secrétaire * * * REPORT ON JUDICIAL COMMUNICATIONS IN RELATION TO INTERNATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION drawn up by Philippe Lortie, First Secretary TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 5 1. Background.......................................................................................... 5 2. The March 2001 Fourth Meeting of the Special Commission......................... 6 3. Work of the Permanent Bureau between 2001 and 2002............................. 7 4. The Special Commission of September / October 2002 ............................... 7 5. Work of the Permanent Bureau since 2002 ............................................... 8 I – FEASIBILITY AND / OR DESIRABILITY OF THE APPOINTMENT OF A LIAISON JUDGE .......................................................................................... 9 1. Responses from countries where a liaison judge is in place ......................... 9 2. Responses from countries where a liaison judge is not in place .................... 9 3. Possible Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................... 12 II – ADMINISTRATIVE ASPECTS SURROUNDING JUDICIAL COMMUNICATIONS ................................................................................... 13 1. Procedure used in making the appointment ............................................ 13 A. Responses from countries where a liaison judge is in place................ 13 B. Responses from countries where a liaison judge is not in place .......... 13 C. Possible Conclusions and Recommendations.................................... 14 2. Roles and Functions attributed to the liaison judge .................................. 14 A. Responses from countries where a liaison judge is in place................ 14 B. Responses from countries where a liaison judge is not in place .......... 15 3. Relationship of the liaison judge with the Central Authority in carrying out his / her functions............................................................................... 16 A. Responses from countries where a liaison judge is in place................ 16 B. Responses from countries where a liaison judge is not in place .......... 16 C. Possible Conclusions and Recommendations.................................... 16 4. Arrangements with respect to possible language difficulties....................... 17 A. Responses from countries where a liaison judge is in place................ 17 B. Responses from countries where a liaison judge is not in place .......... 17 III - PRACTICAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS .............................................................. 18 1. Examples of case specific communications regarding child protection ......... 18 A. Under the 1961 Hague Convention on the Protection of Minors .......... 18 B. Under the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction ... 18 C. Under the 1996 Hague Convention on Child Protection ..................... 21 D. The Brussels II bis Regulation ....................................................... 22 E. The Pakistan Protocol and Cairo Declaration (Non-Hague Convention) ............................................................................... 22 F. The French System of Magistrats abroad ........................................ 23 G. United States legislation dealing with direct judicial communications .. 23 2. Examples of general non-case specific communications ............................ 24 A. The London Convention of 7 June 1968 .......................................... 24 B. Seminars and conferences............................................................ 24 C. The Judges’ Newsletter ................................................................ 24 3. The emergence of networks.................................................................. 24 A. European Community Network ...................................................... 24 B. Other networks in Europe............................................................. 25 C. Iber-RED ................................................................................... 25 D. Possible Conclusions and Recommendations.................................... 26 4. Procedural and legal safeguards surrounding communications at the international level between judges or between a judge and another authority in the context of cases involving child abduction or access / contact.................................................................................. 26 A. Limits on the subject-matter of communications.............................. 26 B. Requirements concerning advance notification to parties, the presence of parties or their legal representatives, record keeping and confirmation in writing of the substance of the communication .... 27 IV – MOVING THE NETWORK FORWARD ........................................................... 29 1. Development of an international network of judges.................................. 29 2. Development of an international network of liaison judges ........................ 29 3. Supporting the holding of judicial and other seminars, both national and international ...................................................................................... 30 V – POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE WORK .. 31 5 INTRODUCTION 1. Background 1. The creation of the International Network of Liaison Judges was first proposed at the 1998 De Ruwenberg Seminar for Judges on the international protection of children by Lord Justice Mathew Thorpe (Judge of the Court of Appeal, England and Wales). It was recommended that relevant authorities (e.g. court presidents or other officials, as appropriate within the different legal cultures) in the different jurisdictions designate one or more members of the judiciary to act as a channel of communication and liaison with their national Central Authorities, with other judges within their own jurisdictions and with judges in other Contracting States, in respect, at least initially, of issues relevant to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereinafter the “1980 Hague Convention”). It was felt that the development of such a network would facilitate at the international level communications and co-operation between judges and would assist in ensuring the effective operation of the 1980 Hague Convention. 2. The idea of an international network of liaison judges received further support at the two International Judicial Conferences held at De Ruwenberg in June 2000 and October 2001, and at the Common Law Judicial Conference on International Parental Child Abduction, hosted by the United States Department of State at Washington, D.C. in September 2000. Since its inception, a number of judicial conferences have supported the expansion of the International Network of Liaison Judges.1 The Network currently includes 20 judges from 18 jurisdictions.2 In the course of the last four years the Network has more than doubled. 3. The idea of direct international judicial communications has also received support from those seminars and conferences. In certain cases these connections can be very useful to resolve some of the practical issues surrounding return. Furthermore, they may result in immediate decisions or settlements between the parents before the court in the requested State. In particular, courts could suggest and produce settlements between the parents to facilitate the return process, to remove practical obstacles to return, to help to ensure that the prompt return may be effected in safe and secure conditions for the child (and sometimes for an accompanying custodial parent), and to pave the way for any proceedings on the custody issues which are to take place in the country to which the child is returned. Direct international judicial communications may reduce the number of decision refusing return. For example, some courts may refuse an application for return based on Article 13 b) of the 1980 Hague Convention because the mother who looks after the child is not allowed to enter the country to which the child is to be returned. In such cases, the concerned judges, through direct communications