Agrégateur de flux

Par un arrêt du 26 mars 2020, la grande chambre de la Cour de justice a rejeté comme irrecevables des questions préjudicielles provenant de juridictions polonaises qui craignaient que le nouveau régime disciplinaire polonais ne soit employé par le gouvernement afin d’exercer des pressions politiques à leur encontre. D’une portée limitée, cet arrêt ne signifie ni que de telles réformes sont compatibles avec le droit de l’Union, ni qu’un futur renvoi à leur sujet ne soit déclaré recevable.

en lire plus

En application des articles 15, § 5, et 16, § 5, du règlement Bruxelles I bis, la clause attributive de juridiction prévue dans un contrat d’assurance couvrant un « grand risque », conclu par le preneur d’assurance et l’assureur, ne peut être opposée à la personne assurée, qui n’est pas un professionnel du secteur des assurances, qui n’a pas consenti à cette clause et qui est domiciliée dans un État membre autre que celui du domicile du preneur d’assurance et de l’assureur.

en lire plus

A quick note on [2020] EWHC 893 (Fam) I and L (children), in which Mostyn J berates and effectively disciplines a father’s abuse forum and process shopping.

At 11:

‘I pause at this point to reflect on the actions taken by the father. Not only did he act in bad faith, as I have explained, but he also was guilty not only of blatant forum shopping but also of process shopping. If the father had genuinely developed misgivings about the wisdom and merits of the parenting agreement signed by him on 5 August 2019 then the appropriate place to raise those misgivings was the court in South Africa [the habitual residence of the children, GAVC]. Instead, by a ruse de guerre he lured the mother and children to this jurisdiction where he immediately started proceedings in the forum which he considered to be most favourable to him. By striking pre-emptively he also selected the process which he considered most favourable to him. Had he merely retained the children on 3 January 2020 and awaited the mother to take steps in response she would, unquestionably, have raised a case under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction. In such a process the welfare of the children, while being an important consideration, would not have been the paramount consideration. Instead, the court would have started with the position that the children should be returned to the place of their habitual residence unless the father could demonstrate a defence.’

In the end he held that under the Children Act, in which the welfare of the children is the paramount criterion, a return to their habitual residence (to be effected as fast as possible following the end of Covid-19 lock-down) is in their best interest, thus torpedoing the abuse. Clearly like in QD, the English courts do not appreciate cloak and dagger manipulation of forum or process.

Geert.

The Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry is issuing ‘force majeure certificates’, like some of their homologues in other countries, as discussed earlier in this blog. Although this practice has existed in Russia since 1993, the number of requests for the certificates has recently increased. The requests come not only from Russian companies but also from foreign entities. While the increase is understandable in these times of the coronavirus pandemic, under Russian law, the ‘force majeure certificate’ can (only) form a part of evidence in possible future disputes, as its impact on the outcome of the dispute is ultimately defined by the (Russian or foreign) courts or arbitration tribunals.

The Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI) is issuing ‘force majeure certificates’, like some of their homologues in other countries. Although this practice exists in Russia since 1993, the CCI has recently noticed an increase in the number of requests for the certificates, due to the coronavirus pandemic. The requests come not only from Russian companies but also from foreign entities. What could be the practical value of the certificate in a contractual dispute relating to the consequences of the pandemic?

The legal basis for the CCI’s competence to issue the ‘force majeure certificates’ is laid down in the law ‘On the chambers of commerce and industry in the Russian Federation’ of 7 July 1993. Article 1 of the law defines the CCI as a non-state non-governmental organisation created to foster business and international trade. Along with other competences, the CCI may act as an ‘independent expert’ (art. 12) and may provide information services (art. 2) in matters relating to international trade. One of the services is the issuing of ‘force majeure certificates’. The Rules for issuing the certificates are defined by the CCI’s governing council. These Rules entrust the CCI’s legal department with assessing requests and advising whether the certificate should be issued. The advice is given on the basis of the documents that a party submits to substantiate their request, following the Rules.

Notably, the list of documents includes (a copy of) the contract, ‘which contains a clause on force majeure’ (point 3.3.2 of the Rules). This requirement is not accidental; it has to do with the non-mandatory character of the legal provision on force majeure. Article 401(3) of the Russian Civil Code provides for exoneration of liability for a failure to execute a contractual obligation due to the force majeure. This provision applies by default, if ‘the law or the contract does not provide otherwise’ (art. 401(3)). The parties may provide otherwise by including a clause about unforeseen circumstances, hardship, frustration, force majeure, or similar circumstances in the contract. This is, at least, the way Russian courts have applied art. 401(3) up to the present time. The Russian CCI does not appear to deviate from this approach.  More than 95% of the requests submitted to the Russian CCI for ‘force majeure certificates’ have so far been rejected, according to the head of the Russian CCI (even though some decrees deliberately label the COVID-19 pandemic ‘force majeure’ as, for example, the Decree of 14 March 2020 does, this decree is adopted by the municipality of Moscow to prevent the spread of the virus by various measures of social distancing).

Thus, the legal basis of the CCI’s competence to issue a ‘force majeure certificate’ implies that the certificate is the result of a service provided by a non-state non-governmental organisation. The application of Article 401(3) implies the need to interpret the contract, more specifically, the provision on force majeure it possibly includes. If the parties disagree on the interpretation, a dispute may arise. The competence to resolve the dispute lies with the courts or arbitration tribunals. In this way, the ICC’s decision (taken upon the advice of the CCI’s legal department) to confirm by issuing a certificate that a particular event represents a force majeure in the context of the execution of a specific contract can have persuasive authority in the context of the application of Art. 401 (3). However, it remains the competence of the courts or arbitration tribunals to apply art. 401(3) to the possible dispute and to establish the ultimate impact of the relevant events on the outcome of the dispute. Under Russian law, one would treat the ‘force majeure certificates’ issued by the CCI (and possibly a refusal to issue the certificate) as a part of evidence in possible future disputes. A (Russian or foreign) court or arbitration tribunal considering this evidence is free to make a different conclusion than that of the Russian CCI or may consider other evidence.

Your articles on private (and public) aspects of European and International Law may now be submitted for publication in Balkan Yearbook of European and International Law. The BYEIL also welcomes comments, book reviews and notes on recent case law.

The currently open call for papers welcomes submissions falling within the above description, as well as ones related to the CISG marking the 40th anniversary of the convention. The call, with the contact details, is available BYEIL call for papers 2020.

Blanchiment

Yesterday the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) announced the publication of the Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-Link under the 1970 Evidence Convention. It is available in both English and French.

Needless to say that this publication comes in very handy in times of COVID-19 as borders are closed and travel is hampered. Hopefully, it will encourage Contracting States and everyone involved in cross-border litigation to make further use of videoconference in the taking of evidence abroad.

See our previous post here for some quick thoughts on the Guide. And in this regard, see pages 46 to 49 of the Guide. See also its Glossary; I include two main concepts below:

Direct taking of evidence

“The procedure of taking of evidence whereby the authority in the Requesting State before which proceedings are pending conducts the witness / expert examination directly.”

Indirect taking of evidence

“The procedure of taking of evidence whereby an authority in the Requested State in whose territory the witness / expert is located conducts the witness / expert examination.”

It is the direct taking of evidence that video-link is usually meant to facilitate but of course it can also assist in the indirect taking of evidence (e.g. the parties and representatives may be present by video-link).

The HCCH news item is available here.

On 2 April 2020, the conclusions of Advocate General Sánchez-Bordona in Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen (Case C-343/19) were published. They add a new piece to the puzzle of locating purely economic loss – a much-discussed issue which was recently considered in this blog.

The case concerned a request by the Landesgericht Klagenfurt (Regional Court in Austria) for a preliminary ruling.  Austrian residents had purchased VW cars in their home country. Thereafter, it became known that the manufacturer had fitted the vehicles with illicit software which enabled them to flout emissions tests. Cars fitted with the software consequently dropped in market value. The buyers assigned their rights arising out of their losses to the Verein für Konsumenteninformation (VKI), an Austrian consumer protection association. VKI subsequently sued VW in Austria for damages. VW contested the jurisdiction of the Landesgericht Klagenfurt.

The request by the Landesgericht Klagenfurt for a preliminary ruling concerns the question of whether the Austrian courts have jurisdiction over VKI’s claim under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. In cases of tort or delict, Article 7(2) confers special (meaning optional) jurisdiction on  the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred. The CJEU interprets “the place where the harmful event occurred“ as giving the tort victim a choice to sue either: (i) at the place of the event giving rise to the damage; or (ii) at the place where the damage occured. In the present case, the Austrian courts could only have jurisdiction under the second option.   Therefore, the crucial question was: where, on the present facts, did the damage ‘occur’ within the meaning of under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

Advocate General Sánchez-Bordona took the view that the damage occurred in Austria and that, consequently, the courts there had jurisdiction over the case under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

The Advocate General pointed to three well known precedents for determining the location of purely financial loss: Kolassa, Universal Music and Löber. In his view, these three CJEU judgments establish that the actual place where the damage occurred is only the starting point for determining the competent court. Thereafter, other specific circumstances of the dispute, taken as a whole would have to be considered (paragraph 56).

The Advocate General considered that such ‘other specific circumstances’ could include “1. factors relevant to the proper administration of justice and the effective conduct of proceedings; and 2. factors which may have served to form the parties’ views about where to bring proceedings or where they might be sued as a result of their actions.” (paragraph 67).

Further, the Advocate General pointed to the dual principles of proximity and foreseeability of the competent court, between which a reasonable balance must be struck (paragraphs 63-64).

Applying these standards to the present case, the Advocate General opined that, in general, the location of the cars as tangible objects was irrelevant because it is unforeseeable (paragraphs 71-73). He instead considered the correct starting point for locating the loss to be the act through which the product became part of the victims’ patrimony, thereby causing the damage (paragraph 74). Hence, he identified the place of loss to be the place where the transaction for the purchase of the car was concluded (id.).

The Advocate General further viewed this location to be unaffected by the other specific circumstances of the case. In particular, the jurisdiction of the Austrian courts would have been foreseeable for the Defendant (paragraph 80).

The result reached by the Advocate General is certainly agreeable. The purchasers of rigged cars should not be forced to start legal proceedings at the seat of the manufacturer. Rather, they should have the ability to sue the tortfeasor closer to their homes. The same place should also be used to identify the applicable law to their claims under Article 4 of the Rome II Regulation.

It may, however, be a little too simplistic to identify the place of loss as the place of the relevant sales transactions. This place is notoriously uncertain, fortuitous, and vulnerable to manipulation. The purchasers could, for instance, have met the vendor at a car fair, or they could have bought the cars in another country for tax reasons. Should this really determine the location of their loss? Moreover, ‘locating’ a sales transaction can be very tricky; for instance, in the case of purchases on the internet. For these reasons, the law of the place where the contract was concluded (lex loci solucionis) was largely ousted from the conflicts rules for contractual obligations. It would be paradoxical if it made a comeback through non-contractual obligations.

The other circumstances of the case should be taken more seriously. These other factors could, for instance, include the purchasers’ domicile and the place where they mostly use the cars. It is indeed a combination of factors that must be used in cases like the present one to determine the place where the damage occurred.

A late post (I am slowly trying to mop up my back issues; none of them thankfully going back quite as far as this one) on Roberts v The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen And Families Association & Anor [2019] EWHC 1104 (QB) in which Soole J had to hold on whether the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (the 1978 Act) has mandatory/ overriding effect and applies automatically to all proceedings for contribution brought in England and Wales, without reference to any choice of law rules. A tortious and residual private international law (as opposed to Rome I or II) take therefore on similar issues as in the contracts case of Lamesa Investments.

Claimant was born at the Hospital in Viersen, North-Rhine Westphalia, Germany on 14 June 2000. The Hospital provided medical services to UK Armed Forces stationed in Germany, with whom the Claimant’s father was serving, and their families. His claim is that he sustained an acute profound hypoxic brain injury as a result of negligence in the course of his delivery by a British midwife supplied by the First Defendant charity (SSAFA). On his behalf it is alleged that SSAFA and/or the Second Defendant (MOD) are vicariously liable for her acts or omissions.

The Hospital contends that the application of the 1978 Act is subject to choice of law rules, whose effect is to apply German law to a claim for contribution. By the combined effect of the German law of limitation and s.1 Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 the contribution claim is time-barred; and therefore must fail. SSAFA/MOD accept that, if choice of law rules prevail, the relevant law is German and the claim time-barred. However they contend that the 1978 Act has overriding effect. Since the limitation period under the 1978 Act expires 2 years from the date of judgment award or settlement (s.10 Limitation Act 1980), the claim can proceed.

Rome II is not engaged ratione tempore (it may have varied the outcome).

Soole J first summarises at lenghth the submissions of the parties, including their scholarly references. He then, at 81, reminds us of the common law approach to characterisation (one which we successfully pleaded in a continental court in a trust case recently): ‘the first question in such a dispute is the characterisation (or classification) of the claim or issue in question. Such classification should not be constrained by particular notions or distinctions of the domestic law of the lex fori, or that of the competing system of law, which may have no counterpart in the other’s system; and should be taken in a broad internationalist spirit in accordance with the principles of conflict of laws of the forum’.

He then holds that the questions of lois de police do not justify cutting corners in conflict of laws analysis: one does not jump straight to application of a local act. Rather, one dutifully follows conflicts analysis and then applies the local act only if and to the extent the foreign law impedes it. Then follows at 92 his classification of the act as lois de police indeed (the terminology used here also includes ‘extraterritorial application’ which however suggests a disconnect from the usual conflicts exercise): ‘In my judgment it is implicit from the provisions of the 1978 Act that the statute does have overriding effect; and that the presumption to the contrary is accordingly rebutted. And at 93: ‘I consider that the express references in the 1978 Act to private international law (ss.1(6), 2(3)(c)) support this implication. Parliament having chosen to identify specific circumstances in which choice of law rules are to apply (and the extent of that application) in a claim under the statute, the natural implication is that the availability of this statutory cause of action was not itself to be subject to choice of law rules.’

Most interesting judgment.

Geert.

Dans plusieurs communications du 24 mars, 7 et 9 avril 2020, les institutions du Conseil de l’Europe rappellent aux États que la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme continue à s’appliquer dans le cadre des mesures adoptées pour faire face à la pandémie de coronavirus, même lorsqu’ils entendent bénéficier de la clause de dérogation inscrite à l’article 15.

en lire plus

Il résulte de l’article 33 de la Convention de Genève du 28 juillet 1951 relative au statut de réfugié et des articles L. 721-2 et L. 511-1 du code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile, que l’autorité administrative ne peut obliger un étranger à quitter le territoire français lorsqu’il a obtenu la qualité de réfugié.

en lire plus

By Nadia Rusinova

Currently large increases in COVID-19 cases and deaths continue to be reported from the EU/EEA countries and the UK. In addition, in recent weeks, the European all-cause mortality monitoring system showed increases above the expected rate in Belgium, France, Italy, Malta, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

It is not unreasonable to predict that COVID-19 will be used increasingly as a justification in law for issuing non-return order by the Court in international child abduction proceedings, return being seen as a “grave risk” for the child and raised as an assertion under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention.

What would be the correct response to these challenging circumstances, when the best interest of the child in child abduction proceedings calls for restoration of status quo ante under the Hague convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereinafter: the Convention)? This post will focus on the recent judgment [2020] EWHC 834 (Fam), issued on 31 March 2020 by the High Court of England and Wales (Family Division) seen in the light of the ECtHR case law on the child abduction, providing brief analysis and suggesting answer to the question if the return of the child to the state of its habitual residence in the outbreak of COVID-19 can constitute grave risk for the child under Article 13(b) of the Convention, and how the practitioners and the Court should approach these assertions in the present pandemic situation.

The facts of Re PT [2020] EWHC 834 (Fam)

PT (the abducted child) and both of her parents are all Spanish nationals. PT was born in 2008 and had lived all of her life in Spain, until she was brought to England by her mother, HH, in February 2020. She is the only child of the parents’ relationship. They separated in 2009. Following the parents’ separation, legal proceedings were brought in Spain by the mother concerning PT’s welfare. A judgment was issued in these proceedings by the Spanish Courts on 25 May 2012, providing for the mother to have custody and for parental responsibility for the child to be shared by both parties. The order provided for the father to have contact with PT on alternate weekends from after school on Friday until Sunday evening. In addition, she was to spend half of each school holiday with each parent. The order also required that the parents should inform each other of any change in address thirty days in advance.

On or about 13 February 2020, the mother travelled to England with PT. The mother’s partner (with whom she is expecting a child the following month) lives in the South East of England, and they have moved in with him. The evidence on behalf of the father is that the child was removed from Spain by the mother without his knowledge or consent.

The father asked the mother to return PT to Spain, but she refused to do so. The father travelled to the UK and met with the mother and PT at a shopping centre. However, the mother again refused to permit the child to return to Spain. She did however permit PT (and S) to spend a night with the father at his hotel in England.

The case first came before the Court on 10 March 2020 on a “without notice” basis. At that hearing the mother attended in person, and indicated that she would be seeking to defend the application on the basis of (1) the father’s consent and / or acquiescence and (2) Article 13(b) of the Hague convention – claiming existence of a grave risk that a return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.

On that occasion PT was, as directed by the judge, present in the Court vicinity to be interviewed by the CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) Officer. She told CAFCASS that she had not wanted to come to England, and that she wanted to be with her father, although she did not want to be separated from her mother either. PT’s clear wish was that she wanted to return to Spain with her father rather than stay in England.

The judgment

The Court is entirely satisfied on the evidence that PT is habitually resident in Spain as she had lived there all of her life until she was recently brought to the UK. In this case the Court ruled that PT has been wrongfully removed from Spain within the terms of Article 3 of the Convention and that none of the Article 13 defences have been made out. Therefore, return order for the summary return of PT to Spain has been made.

Comments

First of all, in such cases the Court should unavoidably take the challenge to identify the risks for the child in case of return in the context of the pandemic situation. Indeed, in the present case the formulation is rather simplified. Therefore and due to the lack of case law on this issue, and in order to be able to answer the question if the return of the child would pose a grave risk, we should take a look also at the recently published Guide to Good Practice on Article 13(1)(b) (hereinafter: the Guide) by the Hague Conference On Private International Law (HCCH) and the concept of “grave risk” in child abduction proceedings in general, as set by the ECtHR in its case law.

In general, the grave risk exception in child abduction cases is based on “the primary interest of any person in not being exposed to physical or psychological danger or being placed in an intolerable situation”, as stated in the § 29 of the Explanatory report to the Hague Convention. The general assumption that a prompt return is in the best interests of the child can therefore be rebutted in the individual case where an exception is established. It is important to note that the exception provided for in Article 13(b) concerns only situations which go beyond what a child might reasonably be expected to bear (Ushakov v. Russia § 97, X v. Latvia § 116, Maumousseau and Washington v. France §§ 69 and 73, K.J. v. Poland §§ 64 and 67)

In § 46-48 of the discussed judgment the Court points final argument relates to the risk of physical harm that is presented by the current coronavirus pandemic in the following way:

“…This risk presents itself in two ways:

(1) The pandemic is more advanced in Spain than in the UK. As at the date of the preparation of this judgment (29 March) the official death toll stood at 1,228 in the UK and 6,528 in Spain. It could therefore be argued that PT would be at greater risk of contracting the virus in Spain than in the UK.

(2) The increased risk of infection that is posed by international travel at this time.”

Did the Court explore all possible harm that the return order can bring, and since it is recognized that the risk is present, what specific kind of risk the return of the child would constitute in the context of the pandemic situation – physical or psychological danger, or being placed in an intolerable situation?

The way the Court approached this issue is a very basic attempt to identify the risks that a return order in the outbreak of COVID-19 can bring to the child. As the Guide points in § 31, although separate, the three types of risk are often employed together, and Courts have not always clearly distinguished among them in their decisions. It is clear that the return could bring physical danger of contamination with COVID-19 together with all possible complications, despite the fact that child is not in the at-risk groups as are the elderly or other chronically ill people. But we should not underestimate the psychological aspect of the pandemic situation. As the coronavirus pandemic rapidly sweeps across the world, the World Health Organisation has already, a month earlier, stated that it is inducing a considerable degree of fear, worry, and concern in the population. It is therefore out-of-the-question that for a relatively mature child (in this case of 12 years old), whether the  ability to watch, read or listen to news about COVID-19 can make the child feel anxious or distressed and therefore can, and most likely will, bring also psychological harm to it. In this sense the potential psychological harm is inevitable and whilst the physical harm can or cannot happen, and indeed the contamination cannot be foreseen, in any case with the return order (especially to a state with significant risk of increasing community transmission of COVID-19) the psychological integrity of the child will be put at immediate risk.

In order to explore how this risk can be adequately assessed in child abduction proceedings in the context of the COVID-19, we should look at § 62 of the Guide, where HCCH explicitly discusses risks associated with the child’s health, stating that “In cases involving assertions associated with the child’s health, the grave risk analysis must focus on the availability of treatment in the State of habitual residence, and not on a comparison between the relative quality of care in each State”. How is this applicable to the pandemic situation, if at all? It seems like the only adequate response in these fast-changing unprecedented circumstances would be that the Court should indeed not compare the situations in both states, but still having in mind the nature of the COVID-19, to try to foresee the developments, relying on the general and country-specific health organizations reports, accessible nowadays online in a relatively easy way.

As a first step the Court should consider whether the assertions are of such a nature, with sufficient detail and substance that they could constitute a grave risk, as overly broad or general assertions are unlikely to be sufficient. In this situation, without precedent in the history of the Convention’s application, holding that “Although the course of the pandemic is clearly more advanced in Spain than in the UK, I do not have any evidence from which I can draw a conclusion that either country is any more or less safe than the other… I am simply not in a possession to make any findings as to the relative likelihood of contracting the virus in each country. On the material before me, all that I can conclude is that there is a genuine risk that PT could contract the virus whether she remains in England or returns to Spain.” does not fulfil the obligation of the Court to assess the risk in full, in all its possible implications. The Court is obliged to conduct the step-by-step analysis, prescribed by and explained in the Guide, and to examine the types of risk for the child, assessing it separately and in the context of their deep interrelation in these specific circumstances.

Secondly, the wording of Article 13(b) also indicates that the exception is “forward-looking” in that it focuses on the circumstances of the child upon return and on whether those circumstances would expose the child to a grave risk. Therefore, ECtHR is clear that in any case (regardless the context and for sure not only in cases with history of domestic violence), where such assertions have been raised, the Courts should satisfy themselves that adequate safeguards and tangible measures are available in the country of return  (Andersena v. Latvia §118, Blaga v. Romania §71).

In addition, as the Guide points in § 53, Article 13(b) analysis should be always be highly factually specific. Each Court determination as to the application or non-application of the exception is therefore unique, based on the particular circumstances of the case. A careful step-by-step analysis of an asserted grave risk is therefore always required, in accordance with the legal framework of the Hague convention, including the exception as explained in the Guide. When we discuss this issue, not only the Convention, but also Article 11(4) of Brussels IIa applies in answering the question of, what in the case of COVID-19 are “adequate safeguards”. This is, without a doubt, a question difficult to answer to with certainty, as the case law of the ECtHR and the Guides do not contain any directions or good practices on the behaviour of the domestic authorities in times of pandemic.

In the present case the judge estimated as “tangible safeguards” the following “number of undertakings”, offered by the father, effective until the matter could be brought before the Spanish Court, and intended to support PT’s return to Spain. They include: (1) Lodging the final order in Spain; (2) Not pursuing any criminal charges against the mother for her wrongful removal of PT from Spain to England; (3) Seeking to mediate with the mother on PT’s return in relation to the mother’s access; (4) Agreeing to unrestricted indirect contact between PT and her maternal family (especially with the mother and S):(5) Agreeing to direct contact for PT with her mother in Spain and England, to the extent that is possible or appropriate from a public health perspective given the current global pandemic;(6) Meeting with the mother only at neutral and/or public places when picking or dropping PT off;(7) To pay PT’s maintenance and school fees pending any further determination about maintenance by the Spanish Courts; and (8) To pay all the travelling costs (flights) for PT of travelling to and from England for the purposes of contact with the mother.”

It looks like the Court is indeed satisfied with the undertakings, but unfortunately, these examples are far from adequate protective measures when we consider the grave risk induced by return in the current pandemic situation. None are directed to prevention of the grave risk as raised by the mother, and none are related to the child’s health. Better examples remain to be seen from the upcoming case law of the Courts, but in the current situation, a strong focus should remain on comprehensive testing and surveillance strategies (including contact tracing), community measures (including physical distancing), strengthening of healthcare systems and informing the public and health community. Therefore, following the Guide, such measures should at the minimum include rapid risk assessment upon arrival at the state of habitual residence, application of different types of available COVID-19 Rapid Tests, ensuring social distance and exploring online education possibilities, providing guarantees that the child will be isolated and distanced from potentially infected people (through evidence for appropriate living conditions upon return), etc. Strong focus should also be put on the possibilities for mental support for the child, bearing in mind the extremely stressful situation, related not only the COVID-19 but also to additional factors such as the separation from the other parent and the mental consequences from the forced social isolation which, as pointed above, would inevitably affect the mental wellbeing of the child.

The next question is who should prove the risk, and its gravity in this specific situation?  Following the ECtHR case law, the burden of proof traditionally lies with the party opposing the child’s return  (Ushakov v. Russia, § 97). In this case the abducting parent indeed shall prove the grave risk, but it is true that the COVID-19 situation itself and the wide-spread precautions and information contribute a lot to proving this risk. Yet, what in the current pandemic circumstances is still to be proved by the abducting parent?

According to § 49 of the Guide, even if a Court ex officio gathers information or evidence (in accordance with domestic procedures), or if the person or body which has lodged the return application is not actively involved in the proceedings, the Court must be satisfied that the burden of proof to establish the exception has been met by the party objecting to return. However, in these specific circumstances, the national and international situation is developing at such speed that any evidence that could be gathered would be likely to be immediately outdated. Something very convenient for the abducting parent, it would be almost enough if the Court ex officio conducts check on the actual COVID-19 information regarding the state of habitual residence of the child, ensuring it is current when issuing the return or non-return order. However, this does not relieve the opposing party from the procedural obligation to present evidence as accurately as possible, and it remains important that arrangements regarding the “tangible safeguards”, discussed above, are offered and supported by evidence by the party which claims the return order.

There is a further discretionary ground in the Convention which permits a refusal of a return in certain circumstances where the child objects. According to Article 12 UNCRC, the child has the right to express its views freely, these views to be given due weight in accordance with age and maturity, and the Court should carefully examine them together with the other evidence (and not to provide stereotyped reasoning). The COVID-19 limitations raise the question should the child still be heard in this context and, if yes, how this should happen such that the risk for is minimised? Obviously, this right cannot and should not be waived in times when many procedural actions can take place online. It is worth to note that next to the existing legislation, Brussels IIa recast (Regulation 1111/2019, in force as of August 2022) pays special attention to the strengthening of the right of the child to express his or her view, reinforcing it with special provision – Article 26 in Chapter III “International child abduction”, in compliance with a detailed Recital 39. No minimum age is prescribed, but also no rules who can conduct the hearing of the child, how it must happen and where it should be conducted are set. Therefore, the hearing of the child should take place following the general conditions, and while the personal impression will indeed be reduced, and the possibilities to manipulate the child could potentially increase, the unlimited online tools to conduct the hearing eliminate the risk of contamination and offers acceptable solution for this emergency situation.

To get back to the discussed case – Re PT [2020] EWHC 834 (Fam), the Court is satisfied that the Art 13(b) defence has not been made out in this case. Many more comments could be made on the Courts assessment – the best interest of the child is not touched upon, the domestic violence is not discussed at all as an additional assertion, etc. One positive conclusion from procedural point of view is that the urgency has been taken into account, and that the Court made full use of the opportunities to conduct the proceedings online. Of course we cannot say that the return of a child during the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a grave risk in all child abduction cases– but we can at least begin to build the good practices in this unprecedented time, when the “lockdown” will bring brand new meaning to the notion of “grave risk” under the Convention.

Nadia Rusinova is an attorney-at-law and lecturer in International and European private law at The Hague University, Netherlands. Next to her teaching and research activities, she is a regular ERA speaker and judicial trainer in children’s rights and international family law, delivering multidisciplinary trainings for legal professionals on international child abduction, children’s rights, ECtHR case law in family matters, LGBTQ rights, gender-inclusive language and trafficking of children. She is appointed as an expert in these areas of law in various projects, involving countries of broad geographic range. Originally Bulgarian, she holds an LL.M. degree from Sofia University, and for more than 15 years she has been successfully managing a specialized international family law office in Sofia, Bulgaria.