Published Results: BXLIIA

Export

Reset

For performance reasons you can only set a maximum of 3 filters

1. Please indicate your role for the purposes of this consultation([ID1])	Please explain([ID6])	2. Please indicate the country where you are located([ID7])	Please indicate your country([ID10])	3. Have you had practical experience with the Regulation? ([ID3])	If so, in what capacity?([ID11])	Which capacity?([ID14])	4. Please provide your contact information: name, institution, address, e-mail address([ID8])	5. Do you think that the Regulation is a helpful tool for spouses involved in cross-border divorce/legal separation/marriage annulment?([ID12])	Please explain([ID16])	6. Do you think that the Regulation is a helpful tool in cross-border cases concerning custody over a child?([ID13])	Please explain([ID20])	7. Do you think that the Regulation is a helpful tool in cross-border cases concerning access rights to children?([ID15])	Please explain([ID21])	8. Do you think that the Regulation is a helpful and efficient tool in cases of cross-border parental child abduction?([ID22])	Please explain([ID25])	9. Do you think that the ways of identifying the responsible court in matrimonial matters should be revised so as to better reduce the risk of a "rush to court"?([ID18])	In which way?([ID27])	Please specify([ID30])	10. Should there be a possibility for spouses to choose the responsible court by a common agreement?([ID24])	If "yes", should the spouses' choice be limited to courts of an EU country with which one or both spouses have a substantial connection? Please specify, if one or more of the following criteria should apply:([ID29])	Please specify([ID26])	11. Should the formal requirements of such agreement draw inspiration from other EU instruments such as:([ID28])	Please specify([ID34])	12. Do you think that the conditions for the application of these provisions should be improved?([ID37])	In which way?([ID40])	13. Do you think that the cooperation mechanism aimed at ensuring a smooth functioning of the transfer should be improved?([ID33])	In which way?([ID41])	14. Do you think that the existing rules have helped effectively in preventing parallel proceedings?([ID39])	How should these rules be improved?([ID45])	Please explain([ID109])	15. Do you think that the Regulation should address parallel proceedings brought before the court of an EU country and those brought before the court of a non-EU country?([ID43])	Please explain([ID110])	16. Do you think that the existing rules function well?([ID49])	How should they be improved?([ID52])	17. Would it be useful to address the lack of a uniform rule so as to allow in all situations the identification of the responsible court?([ID47])	Please explain([ID112])	18. Do you think that the Regulation should ensure access to justice in cases where the responsible courts outside the EU cannot exercise their jurisdiction?([ID50])	Please explain([ID111])	19. Do you think that the Regulation has ensured the immediate return of the child within the EU?([ID57])	How should the procedure be improved?([ID60])	20. Do you consider that all judgments, authentic instruments and agreements concerning parental responsibility should circulate freely between EU countries without exequatur?([ID62])	If "no", do you consider that, in particular, judgments concerning the placement of a child in institutional care or with a foster family in another EU country should circulate freely between EU countries without exequatur?([ID65])	21. If abolition of exequatur should be expanded, do you consider that maintaining safeguards is required in relation to:([ID68])	Please specify([ID51])	22. Do you think that common minimum standards for the hearing of a child could help in avoiding the refusal of recognition, enforceability and/or enforcement of a judgment from another EU country?([ID58])	If yes, which are the main divergences which give rise to problems that could be addressed by setting common minimum standards?([ID64])	23. Do you think that it is important to improve the actual enforcement of decisions concerning parental responsibility given in another EU country?([ID63])	If yes, how can enforcement of decisions taken in another EU country be improved?([ID69])	24. Do you think that it is important to improve the actual enforcement of return orders?([ID70])	If yes, how can the enforcement of return orders be improved?([ID73])	25. In general, do you think that the cooperation between the Central Authorities functions well?([ID67])	If "no", what are the main problems that you have encountered?([ID74])	26. Could the cooperation between the Central Authorities be improved through the mandatory use of forms translated into all EU languages to facilitate the exchange of information between Central Authorities?([ID76])	27. Do you think that it would be useful for the Regulation to provide for additional provisions so as to enhance the use of mediation?([ID80])	If yes, in which way?([ID71])	28. Do you think that this provision should be improved?([ID77])	If yes, in which way?([ID82])	29. Do you think that the cooperation between Central Authorities and the local child welfare system in cross-border situations works as well as it should in order to ensure the smooth operation of the Regulation?([ID78])	Please explain([ID113])	30. Is there a need to adapt the cooperation between a Central Authority and the local child welfare authorities to better take account of cross-border cases?([ID85])	If yes, in which way?([ID88])	31. Do you think that the rules in the Regulation governing the placement of a child in another EU country function in a satisfactory manner?([ID81])	If no, which solutions would you suggest?([ID87])	32. Do you think that the certificates annexed to the Regulation function in a satisfactory manner?([ID86])	If no, which solutions would you suggest?([ID92])	33. Do you think that the rules governing the relations between the Regulation and the 1980 Hague Convention work satisfactorily?([ID91])	If no, which other solution would you suggest?([ID95])	34. Do you think that the rules governing the relations between the Regulation and the 1996 Hague Convention work satisfactorily?([ID97])	If no, which other solution would you suggest?([ID100])	35. Are there any other provisions of the Regulation which, in your view, would need to be improved?([ID94])	36. Are there any other comments that you wish to make?([ID98])	If you wish, you can upload a separate document with your additionnal comments.([ID99])
All Values Apply Filter Private individual Judge Court staff member Prosecutor Lawyer Bailiff Notary Other legal practitioner Central authority staff member Academic Member State Other Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom Other Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Judge Lawyer Notary Other legal practitioner Prosecutor Bailiff Court's staff member Central authority staff member Spouse Parent Other Reset filter	Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter By establishing an order of priority of ways to identify the responsible court that should hear the case By requiring the other spouse's agreement when the responsible court has been identified based on the habitual residence of the applicant Other Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter At the time the agreement is concluded, the EU country whose courts have been chosen by the spouses is the country where the spouses have had their habitual residence for at least a certain period of time, provided that this residence period did not end more than a certain period of time before the court is seised At the time the agreement is concluded, one of the spouses has the nationality of that EU country At the time the court is seised, the courts of that EU country have responsibility to hear the case under the main jurisdiction provisions of the Regulation Other Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter The Maintenance Regulation Article 4(2) Other Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Public policy reasons Proper service of documents Right of the parties to be heard Right of the child to be heard Irreconciliable judgments Compliance with the procedure relating to the placement of a child in another EU country Other Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	All Values Apply Filter Yes No Reset filter	Reset filter	Reset filter	Reset filter

No contribution to display no data

Rows per Page

1. Please indicate your role for the purposes of this consultation
Please explain
2. Please indicate the country where you are located
Please indicate your country
3. Have you had practical experience with the Regulation?
If so, in what capacity?
Which capacity?
4. Please provide your contact information: name, institution, address, e-mail address
5. Do you think that the Regulation is a helpful tool for spouses involved in cross-border divorce/legal separation/marriage annulment?
Please explain
6. Do you think that the Regulation is a helpful tool in cross-border cases concerning custody over a child?
Please explain
7. Do you think that the Regulation is a helpful tool in cross-border cases concerning access rights to children?
Please explain
8. Do you think that the Regulation is a helpful and efficient tool in cases of cross-border parental child abduction?
Please explain
9. Do you think that the ways of identifying the responsible court in matrimonial matters should be revised so as to better reduce the risk of a "rush to court"?
In which way?
Please specify
10. Should there be a possibility for spouses to choose the responsible court by a common agreement?
If "yes", should the spouses' choice be limited to courts of an EU country with which one or both spouses have a substantial connection? Please specify, if one or more of the following criteria should apply:
Please specify
11. Should the formal requirements of such agreement draw inspiration from other EU instruments such as:
Please specify
12. Do you think that the conditions for the application of these provisions should be improved?
In which way?
13. Do you think that the cooperation mechanism aimed at ensuring a smooth functioning of the transfer should be improved?
In which way?
14. Do you think that the existing rules have helped effectively in preventing parallel proceedings?
How should these rules be improved?
Please explain
15. Do you think that the Regulation should address parallel proceedings brought before the court of an EU country and those brought before the court of a non-EU country?
Please explain
16. Do you think that the existing rules function well?
How should they be improved?
17. Would it be useful to address the lack of a uniform rule so as to allow in all situations the identification of the responsible court?
Please explain
18. Do you think that the Regulation should ensure access to justice in cases where the responsible courts outside the EU cannot exercise their jurisdiction?
Please explain
19. Do you think that the Regulation has ensured the immediate return of the child within the EU?
How should the procedure be improved?
20. Do you consider that all judgments, authentic instruments and agreements concerning parental responsibility should circulate freely between EU countries without exequatur?
If "no", do you consider that, in particular, judgments concerning the placement of a child in institutional care or with a foster family in another EU country should circulate freely between EU countries without exequatur?
21. If abolition of exequatur should be expanded, do you consider that maintaining safeguards is required in relation to:
Please specify
22. Do you think that common minimum standards for the hearing of a child could help in avoiding the refusal of recognition, enforceability and/or enforcement of a judgment from another EU country?
If yes, which are the main divergences which give rise to problems that could be addressed by setting common minimum standards?
23. Do you think that it is important to improve the actual enforcement of decisions concerning parental responsibility given in another EU country?
If yes, how can enforcement of decisions taken in another EU country be improved?
24. Do you think that it is important to improve the actual enforcement of return orders?
If yes, how can the enforcement of return orders be improved?
25. In general, do you think that the cooperation between the Central Authorities functions well?
If "no", what are the main problems that you have encountered?
26. Could the cooperation between the Central Authorities be improved through the mandatory use of forms translated into all EU languages to facilitate the exchange of information between Central Authorities?
27. Do you think that it would be useful for the Regulation to provide for additional provisions so as to enhance the use of mediation?
If yes, in which way?
28. Do you think that this provision should be improved?
If yes, in which way?
29. Do you think that the cooperation between Central Authorities and the local child welfare system in cross-border situations works as well as it should in order to ensure the smooth operation of the Regulation?
Please explain
30. Is there a need to adapt the cooperation between a Central Authority and the local child welfare authorities to better take account of cross-border cases?
If yes, in which way?
31. Do you think that the rules in the Regulation governing the placement of a child in another EU country function in a satisfactory manner?
If no, which solutions would you suggest?
32. Do you think that the certificates annexed to the Regulation function in a satisfactory manner?
If no, which solutions would you suggest?
33. Do you think that the rules governing the relations between the Regulation and the 1980 Hague Convention work satisfactorily?
If no, which other solution would you suggest?
34. Do you think that the rules governing the relations between the Regulation and the 1996 Hague Convention work satisfactorily?
If no, which other solution would you suggest?
35. Are there any other provisions of the Regulation which, in your view, would need to be improved?
36. Are there any other comments that you wish to make?
If you wish, you can upload a separate document with your additionnal comments.

Export

Load Statistics

1. Please indicate your role for the purposes of this consultation([ID1])

		Answers	Ratio
Private individual([ID2])
Judge([ID3])
Court staff member()
Prosecutor()
Lawyer()
Bailiff()
Notary()
Other legal practitioner()
Central authority staff member()
Academic()
Member State()
Other()
No Answer

Statistics

2. Please indicate the country where you are located([ID7])

		Answers	Ratio
Austria([ID8])
Belgium([ID9])
Bulgaria()
Croatia()
Cyprus()
Czech Republic()
Denmark()
Estonia()
Finland()
France()
Germany()
Greece()
Hungary()
Ireland()
Italy()
Latvia()
Lithuania()
Luxembourg()
Malta()
Netherlands()
Poland()
Portugal()
Romania()
Slovakia()
Slovenia()
Spain()
Sweden()
United Kingdom()
Other()
No Answer

Statistics

3. Have you had practical experience with the Regulation? ([ID3])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID8])
No([ID9])
No Answer

Statistics

If so, in what capacity?([ID11])

		Answers	Ratio
Judge([ID12])
Lawyer([ID13])
Notary()
Other legal practitioner()
Prosecutor()
Bailiff()
Court's staff member()
Central authority staff member()
Spouse()
Parent()
Other()
No Answer

Statistics

5. Do you think that the Regulation is a helpful tool for spouses involved in cross-border divorce/legal separation/marriage annulment?([ID12])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID13])
No([ID15])
No Answer

Statistics

6. Do you think that the Regulation is a helpful tool in cross-border cases concerning custody over a child?([ID13])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID15])
No([ID17])
No Answer

Statistics

7. Do you think that the Regulation is a helpful tool in cross-border cases concerning access rights to children?([ID15])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID17])
No([ID19])
No Answer

Statistics

8. Do you think that the Regulation is a helpful and efficient tool in cases of cross-border parental child abduction?([ID22])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID23])
No([ID24])
No Answer

Statistics

9. Do you think that the ways of identifying the responsible court in matrimonial matters should be revised so as to better reduce the risk of a "rush to court"?([ID18])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID24])
No([ID26])
No Answer

Statistics

In which way?([ID27])

		Answers	Ratio
By establishing an order of priority of ways to identify the responsible court that should hear the case([ID28])
By requiring the other spouse's agreement when the responsible court has been identified based on the habitual residence of the applicant([ID29])
Other()
No Answer

Statistics

10. Should there be a possibility for spouses to choose the responsible court by a common agreement?([ID24])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID26])
No([ID28])
No Answer

Statistics

If "yes", should the spouses' choice be limited to courts of an EU country with which one or both spouses have a substantial connection? Please specify, if one or more of the following criteria should apply:([ID29])

		Answers	Ratio
At the time the agreement is concluded, the EU country whose courts have been chosen by the spouses is the country where the spouses have had their habitual residence for at least a certain period of time, provided that this residence period did not end more than a certain period of time before the court is seised([ID32])
At the time the agreement is concluded, one of the spouses has the nationality of that EU country([ID33])
At the time the court is seised, the courts of that EU country have responsibility to hear the case under the main jurisdiction provisions of the Regulation()
Other()
No Answer

Statistics

11. Should the formal requirements of such agreement draw inspiration from other EU instruments such as:([ID28])

		Answers	Ratio
The Maintenance Regulation Article 4(2)([ID32])
Other([ID33])
No Answer

Statistics

12. Do you think that the conditions for the application of these provisions should be improved?([ID37])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID38])
No([ID39])
No Answer

Statistics

13. Do you think that the cooperation mechanism aimed at ensuring a smooth functioning of the transfer should be improved?([ID33])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID38])
No([ID39])
No Answer

Statistics

14. Do you think that the existing rules have helped effectively in preventing parallel proceedings?([ID39])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID43])
No([ID44])
No Answer

Statistics

15. Do you think that the Regulation should address parallel proceedings brought before the court of an EU country and those brought before the court of a non-EU country?([ID43])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID44])
No([ID47])
No Answer

Statistics

16. Do you think that the existing rules function well?([ID49])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID50])
No([ID51])
No Answer

Statistics

17. Would it be useful to address the lack of a uniform rule so as to allow in all situations the identification of the responsible court?([ID47])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID50])
No([ID51])
No Answer

Statistics

18. Do you think that the Regulation should ensure access to justice in cases where the responsible courts outside the EU cannot exercise their jurisdiction?([ID50])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID51])
No([ID54])
No Answer

Statistics

19. Do you think that the Regulation has ensured the immediate return of the child within the EU?([ID57])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID58])
No([ID59])
No Answer

Statistics

20. Do you consider that all judgments, authentic instruments and agreements concerning parental responsibility should circulate freely between EU countries without exequatur?([ID62])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID63])
No([ID64])
No Answer

Statistics

If "no", do you consider that, in particular, judgments concerning the placement of a child in institutional care or with a foster family in another EU country should circulate freely between EU countries without exequatur?([ID65])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID66])
No([ID67])
No Answer

Statistics

21. If abolition of exequatur should be expanded, do you consider that maintaining safeguards is required in relation to:([ID68])

		Answers	Ratio
Public policy reasons([ID69])
Proper service of documents([ID70])
Right of the parties to be heard()
Right of the child to be heard()
Irreconciliable judgments()
Compliance with the procedure relating to the placement of a child in another EU country()
Other()
No Answer

Statistics

22. Do you think that common minimum standards for the hearing of a child could help in avoiding the refusal of recognition, enforceability and/or enforcement of a judgment from another EU country?([ID58])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID59])
No([ID63])
No Answer

Statistics

23. Do you think that it is important to improve the actual enforcement of decisions concerning parental responsibility given in another EU country?([ID63])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID66])
No([ID67])
No Answer

Statistics

24. Do you think that it is important to improve the actual enforcement of return orders?([ID70])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID71])
No([ID72])
No Answer

Statistics

25. In general, do you think that the cooperation between the Central Authorities functions well?([ID67])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID71])
No([ID72])
No Answer

Statistics

26. Could the cooperation between the Central Authorities be improved through the mandatory use of forms translated into all EU languages to facilitate the exchange of information between Central Authorities?([ID76])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID77])
No([ID78])
No Answer

Statistics

27. Do you think that it would be useful for the Regulation to provide for additional provisions so as to enhance the use of mediation?([ID80])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID81])
No([ID82])
No Answer

Statistics

28. Do you think that this provision should be improved?([ID77])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID78])
No([ID81])
No Answer

Statistics

29. Do you think that the cooperation between Central Authorities and the local child welfare system in cross-border situations works as well as it should in order to ensure the smooth operation of the Regulation?([ID78])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID81])
No([ID84])
No Answer

Statistics

30. Is there a need to adapt the cooperation between a Central Authority and the local child welfare authorities to better take account of cross-border cases?([ID85])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID86])
No([ID87])
No Answer

Statistics

31. Do you think that the rules in the Regulation governing the placement of a child in another EU country function in a satisfactory manner?([ID81])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID84])
No([ID86])
No Answer

Statistics

32. Do you think that the certificates annexed to the Regulation function in a satisfactory manner?([ID86])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID90])
No([ID91])
No Answer

Statistics

33. Do you think that the rules governing the relations between the Regulation and the 1980 Hague Convention work satisfactorily?([ID91])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID93])
No([ID94])
No Answer

Statistics

34. Do you think that the rules governing the relations between the Regulation and the 1996 Hague Convention work satisfactorily?([ID97])

		Answers	Ratio
Yes([ID98])
No([ID99])
No Answer

Statistics