2022年5月12日,欧洲法院在“W.J.案”的判决中确定了《扶养义务法律适用议定书》第三条惯常居所地的认定标准。该案指出,为了确定被父母一方带往某成员国领土的未成年子女的扶养费用请求的适用法律,该成员国法院在单独的诉讼程序中命令...2022年5月12日,欧洲法院在“W.J.案”的判决中确定了《扶养义务法律适用议定书》第三条惯常居所地的认定标准。该案指出,为了确定被父母一方带往某成员国领土的未成年子女的扶养费用请求的适用法律,该成员国法院在单独的诉讼程序中命令将该儿童返还给被非法滞留之前的惯常居所地所在国家,这一事实不足以阻止该儿童在成员国领土上获得新的惯常居所。该案充分展现了欧洲法院的释法功能,同时对儿童非法诱拐领域内的扶养义务诉讼法律适用标准作出了进一步的分析论证,对其他同类案件具有重要意义。On May 12, 2022, the European Court of Justice determined the criteria for identifying the habitual residence in Article 3 of the Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations in the judgment of the “W.J. case”. The case pointed out that, in order to determine the applicable law for the claim for maintenance expenses of a minor child who was taken to the territory of a Member State by one of the parents, the court of that Member State, in a separate litigation procedure, ordering the return of the child to the country where the child’s habitual residence was before being wrongfully removal, is not sufficient to prevent the child from obtaining a new habitual residence in the territory of the Member State. This case fully demonstrates the interpretative function of the European Court of Justice and makes further analysis and demonstration of the legal application standards for maintenance obligation litigation in the field of the wrongful removal or retention of children, which is of great significance for other similar cases.展开更多
文摘2022年5月12日,欧洲法院在“W.J.案”的判决中确定了《扶养义务法律适用议定书》第三条惯常居所地的认定标准。该案指出,为了确定被父母一方带往某成员国领土的未成年子女的扶养费用请求的适用法律,该成员国法院在单独的诉讼程序中命令将该儿童返还给被非法滞留之前的惯常居所地所在国家,这一事实不足以阻止该儿童在成员国领土上获得新的惯常居所。该案充分展现了欧洲法院的释法功能,同时对儿童非法诱拐领域内的扶养义务诉讼法律适用标准作出了进一步的分析论证,对其他同类案件具有重要意义。On May 12, 2022, the European Court of Justice determined the criteria for identifying the habitual residence in Article 3 of the Protocol on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations in the judgment of the “W.J. case”. The case pointed out that, in order to determine the applicable law for the claim for maintenance expenses of a minor child who was taken to the territory of a Member State by one of the parents, the court of that Member State, in a separate litigation procedure, ordering the return of the child to the country where the child’s habitual residence was before being wrongfully removal, is not sufficient to prevent the child from obtaining a new habitual residence in the territory of the Member State. This case fully demonstrates the interpretative function of the European Court of Justice and makes further analysis and demonstration of the legal application standards for maintenance obligation litigation in the field of the wrongful removal or retention of children, which is of great significance for other similar cases.
