Fundamental Rights and Best Interests of the Child in Transnational Families

(1)

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD IN TRANSNATIONAL FAMILIES

(2)

IT-EPPJMO-MODULE; and of the Research project PRID on ‘ Continuit à transfrontaliera dello status fi liationis e tutela dell ’ interesse superiore del minore ’ , fi nanced by the Department of Legal Sciences of the University of Udine, Italy.

(3)

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD

IN TRANSNATIONAL FAMILIES

Edited by

Elisabetta Bergamini Chiara Ragni in collaboration with

Francesco Deana

Cambridge – Antwerp – Chicago

(4)

Wellington Street | Cambridge CB1 1HW | United Kingdom Tel.: +44 1223 736 170 Email: mail@intersentia.co.uk

www.intersentia.com | www.intersentia.co.uk

Distribution for the UK and Ireland:

NBN International

Airport Business Centre, 10 Th ornbury Road Plymouth, PL6 7PP

United Kingdom

Tel.: +44 1752 202 301 | Fax: +44 1752 202 331 Email: orders@nbninternational.com Distribution for Europe and all other countries:

Intersentia Publishing nv Groenstraat 31 2640 Mortsel Belgium

Tel.: +32 3 680 15 50 | Fax: +32 3 658 71 21 Email: mail@intersentia.be

Distribution for the USA and Canada:

Independent Publishers Group Order Department

814 North Franklin Street Chicago, IL 60610 USA

Tel.: +1 800 888 4741 (toll free) | Fax: +1 312 337 5985 Email: orders@ipgbook.com

Fundamental Rights and Best Interests of the Child in Transnational Families © Th e editors and contributors severally 2019

Th e editors and contributors have asserted the right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, to be identifi ed as authors of this work.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means, without prior written permission from Intersentia, or as expressly permitted by law or under the terms agreed with the appropriate reprographic rights organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction which may not be covered by the above should be addressed to Intersentia at the address above.

Artwork on cover: New York through the eyes of children (2019)

ISBN 978-1-78068-665-3 D/2019/7849/123 NUR 828

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

(5)

To Caterina, Costanza, Davide, Luca and Nicola, who not only give colour to our lives but have also given it to the cover of this book

(6)

(7)

Intersentia vii

PREFACE

Th e idea of devoting this book to the relationship between the fundamental rights of the child and European family law stems from the Jean Monnet Modules on European Family Law, funded by the European Commission, in the years 2013/2016 and 2014/2017 at our respective Universities (University of Milano and University of Udine).

During the lectures and seminars that we organised in the framework of these modules, as coordinators, we realised that even though family law is currently considered a hot topic and is subject to intensive research in the academic world, one of the most relevant issues in the European context, that still has not been thoroughly explored, was the one related to the need to protect the rights of children both in the framework of the free movement of citizens and migration law and in the context of international private law. Th irty years have passed since the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted:

the aim of this book is also to assess how and to what extent its provisions have been implemented in family-related matters, with special regard to the European context.

Notwithstanding the lack of any EU competence on family matters that fall into the exclusive jurisdiction of national law, the protection of families and family ties within EU Member States should actually be guaranteed as a means of protecting fundamental rights, and this becomes even more relevant when dealing with minors. Th e right to family life is indeed included in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the EU Charter) and in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), both of which, according to the EU Treaty, impose legal duties on Member States. Specifi c norms regarding the rights of children can be found both in the Charter (at Article 24), and in the case law of the ECtHR, which state, in accordance with the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, that minors (being EU citizens or third country nationals) have the right to protection and care as is necessary for their well-being. In accordance with both international and European law, minors ’ views must be taken into account and their best interests must be a primary consideration when taking any action relating to them.

As the analysis of the jurisprudence of both the domestic and the European courts clearly suggests, the protection of minors ’ rights may prove to be a challenging issue when judges are called to strike a balance between fundamental public values and the individual rights specifi cally concerned,

(8)

Intersentia

viii

or between the abstract and the particular dimension of the best interests of the child, in cases where diff erent conclusions may be reached depending on the perspective adopted.

Th e impact of human rights on EU legislation dealing with matters which are strictly connected with children and family issues (like for example Directives on family reunifi cation, or private international law rules on child abduction and on parental rights) has already been questioned before the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights; their case law confi rms the need for interpretative tools aimed at coordinating and reconciling European rules with national public concerns and with the need for human rights protection.

Th erefore, we decided to involve academics coming from diff erent countries in the making of this book, in order to assess, de iure condito and de iure condendo , what legal options, among those suggested by both practitioners and scholars, seem to be most eff ective for the purpose of balancing the diff erent interests that come into play, notably in situations related to migration (within the EU and from outside the EU), and in cross-border circumstances where private international law issues may arise.

Th e book addresses the matter from two perspectives: on the one hand it examines how the obligations deriving from Article 8 of the ECHR and from Article 7 of the EU Charter can be coordinated with migration policies and rules, especially in the case where these lead to results which are inconsistent with the protection of the children ’ s family ties; on the other hand, it focuses on the impact of human rights values on the recognition of a parent-child relationship formed abroad, on the content of the public policy exception and fi nally on the implementation of some EU controversial confl ict of law rules, such as those regarding child abduction.

Moreover, beyond the sectoral challenges in diff erent areas of European family law, the book aims at off ering a contribution to the defi nition of the content and of the nature of the general principle of the best interests of the child as related not only to the need to have his/her interests prevail over those of the other members of the family and, in some cases, over the public interest in strictly regulating migration fl ows, but also to the need to strike a balance between the diff erent needs and interests of the single child whose case is being evaluated. Th ese issues are in fact still controversial, as the practice and the existing literature on these matters confi rm; this uncertainty has resulted in practical diffi culties for those trying to apply it. Th erefore, we wanted to off er academics and practitioners not only a solid reconstruction of the existing legal framework and evolution of the supranational and national case law on these issues, but also perspectives on their possible future evolution through a critical analysis of each connected aspect, taking into account all the possible dimensions of the best interests of the child (see General Comment no. 14/2003, where the

(9)

Intersentia ix

Preface

Committee on the Rights of the Child underlines that the best interests of the child should be understood as a right, a principle and a rule of procedure).

In the fi rst part of the book, the introductory chapter (Elisabetta Bergamini) analyses the main supranational principles in the fi eld of children ’ s rights and assesses the global impact of such principles on domestic family law in EU Member States, notably on children, in cases related to EU free movement and migration law. Th e analysis mainly focuses on the CRC (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989), due to the specifi city of its provisions on the best interests of the child, the ECHR and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU, in order to evaluate whether cross-border situations (stemming from free movement of EU citizens and their families or from migration situations) aff ect the diff erent national legal frameworks leading towards a higher-level of protection of children ’ s rights as well as a more satisfying and comprehensive application of the international instruments meant to protect human (or more specifi cally children ’ s) rights. Th e specifi c issues evaluated (the case of children born out of wedlock, the right of the child to maintain a relationship with an extended family, the right of the child to be heard and the prohibition of inhuman treatment) leads the author to remark that children ’ s rights that are more closely linked to cross-border situations appear to be headed for a higher level of protection based on the international framework, while more general rights that are not strictly linked to free movement, such as the right of the child to be heard, still need to be fully implemented.

Th e following chapters deal with selective topics concerning the protection of children within EU Member States, mainly chosen due to their particular relevance, sensitiveness and timeliness. Sexual orientation (Alina Tryfonidou), integration of family patterns based on diff erent religions (Alessandra Lang), protection of family identity as a fundamental right (Francesco Deana), derogation from State sovereignty on migration law (Maura Marchegiani and Peter Rodrigues), domestic violence (Sara De Vido), are those that we selected for the above-mentioned reasons.

All the chapters take into consideration EU substantive law and consider situations in which the still existing diff erences in domestic family law that are felt to be the expression of the States ’ social, cultural and legal identity, might deprive children from benefi ting from their best interests and their family unity protections within the EU. However, the authors had to adopt diff erent kind of approach to each specifi c topic. Th us, some authors (Tryfonidou and Lang, respectively dealing with rainbow families and kafala ) consider the analysis of domestic praxis that could breach human rights principles where it rigidly implements EU legislation (thus suggesting a human-rights-oriented interpretation of EU law that advocates the necessity for the EU to clarify that all EU Member States are required by EU law to recognise the exact legal ties among the members of a family when EU law on free movement of persons

(10)

Intersentia

x

is applied). Consequently, this approach clearly takes into consideration the reforming pressure on Member States to establish new rules in order not to discriminate under national law in purely internal situations (in the case of rainbow families) and examines the diffi cult balance between the need to protect the child ’ s best interests and to avoid circumvention of national and EU rules on migration (in the case of kafala ).

Other authors, specifi cally Deana, Marchegiani and Rodrigues, start from a case law approach on transnational family situations and assess how best interests and human rights are/must be taken into account in order to grant children the highest level of protection through an expanded implementation of the existing EU rules of international protection of child migrants, even though it runs counter to the States ’ prerogatives in migration policies. In this framework they specifi cally analyse the centrality of EU citizenship as the key to protect the identity of children (Deana), the need to protect children through a human rights-oriented application of family reunifi cation (Rodrigues) and the impact of the best interests principle in cases of peculiar vulnerability such as in the case of asylum-seeking and refugee children (Marchegiani). Even more detailed is the analysis set in the chapter in which Sara De Vido considers the need to protect children, especially girls, from child marriages and violence, suggesting the need to reform the Directive on family reunifi cation in order to respect the Council of Europe Istanbul Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence.

What emerges from all the chapters included in the fi rst part of this book is the clear need to grant a higher level of protection to children in cross- border situations. Furthermore, the development of an EU human rights- oriented approach to these situations – also thanks to the infl uence of ECtHR case-law – could grant an increased level of protection to children in internal situations too.

Th e second part of the book is devoted to the analysis of the impact of human rights law on confl ict of laws rules. It is introduced by two chapters (Pietro Franzina and Marcella Di Stefano) that address this matter focusing both on the EU and on the domestic perspective. While in fact both national and European private international law rules should be read in the light of a human rights-oriented approach, the means of achieving this result may be diff erent, according to the goals pursued.

In the context of the EU the harmonisation of confl ict of law rules is aimed at creating an area of freedom, security and justice in order to promote the free movement of persons, and is also a means of ensuring the cross-border recognition of a person ’ s rights and status. In addition, as far as family and child- related matters are concerned, the protection of the fundamental rights of the persons involved, with specifi c regard to the child ’ s best interests, are among the considerations underlying how the rules are formulated and how the choice of the appropriate connecting factor is made.

(11)

Intersentia xi

Preface

If one considers for example the Brussels II bis Regulation, which is the main topic of the last four chapters of Part II, the choice of the habitual residence of the child as a connecting factor was properly guided by the idea that the court, identifi ed on that ground, is presumably the one better placed to conduct a proper and reliable assessment of the child ’ s actual situation and interests.

At the same time, the Regulation includes norms on the return procedure in cases of abduction (Ruth Lamont), that are aimed on the one hand at ensuring the right of the child to maintain personal relations with both parents (which is prescribed by both the New York Convention, Article 9 and by the EU Charter, Article 24) and on the other, at granting the possibility of assessing whether the return corresponds to the best interests of the child. To this end the Regulation provides: specifi c exceptions to the return (in this respect it should be pointed out that one of the most debated issues – as shown in the chapter written by Costanza Honorati – specifi cally regards the possibility to conceive, also in the light of the 1980 Hague Convention, a general human rights exception to the return); the right of the child to be heard; and the power for the competent judicial authorities to order provisional measures aimed at ensuring protection of the returned child in cases where his/her well- being may be at risk (Lidia Sandrini). Since all these issues were discussed on the occasion of the Recast, chapters dealing with the matter broadly take into account not only the rules included in the Brussels II bis Regulation but also the changes introduced with the Recast, the latter mostly being the result of considerations related to the protection of the child ’ s best interests (Laura Carpaneto).

As regards the impact of human rights on the functioning of domestic confl ict of law rules in family matters, a question arises as to whether and to what extent the protection of the child ’ s best interests binds states to recognise a parent-child relationship established abroad, notwithstanding that the strict application of private international law rules would lead to the opposite result. Th e second and third chapters (Marcella Distefano and Roberto Baratta), which adopt a comprehensive and inclusive perspective on the matter, both consider whether private international law could be interpreted and applied consistently with the rights to private and family life, the respect of which may entail the cross-border recognition of personal and family status. Th ey explore diff erent options at stake like the use of interpretative tools that for example allow the inclusion of considerations on human rights among public policy grounds or the adoption of rules that are aimed at achieving specifi c material results (for example rules that make a choice among diff erent alternative connecting factors contingent upon the establishment of valid a parent-child relationship). Th e same questions are addressed in the fourth and fi ft h chapters, with regard to specifi c topics, namely the cross-border recognition of the status fi lii arising from the recourse to surrogacy agreements

(12)

Intersentia

xii

(Katarina Trimmings) and the eff ects that foreign adoption are likely to produce in countries where, under recurring circumstances, the adoption of minors would not be allowed (Chiara Ragni). In all these situations, as clarifi ed by the ECtHR, States are not under an obligation to automatically recognise the status acquired abroad, but rather to ensure that decisions in this regard are the result of a proper balancing of all the interests involved, with particular regard to those of the child (in this perspective see also the Advisory Opinion which the Court delivered in April 2019 upon the request of the French Court of Cassation). Th ese interests shall prevail over any other consideration and should be taken into account both in the collective and in the individual dimension, especially in the case where these do not coincide.

Elisabetta Bergamini and Chiara Ragni June 2019

(13)

Intersentia xiii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to thank all the authors for agreeing to be involved in this project, for sharing their passion and knowledge with us and for their patience in the length of the diff erent phases of the project. We are deeply grateful to them, but we are even more greatly indebted to Francesco Deana, who not only wrote a chapter for this book, but also collaborated with us in all the background activities necessary to coordinate and edit the contributions, providing us excellent support in all the diff erent phases of this project. All of his eff orts and suggestions were essential in fi nalising this editorial project and we wish to give him our heartfelt thanks for everything he has done.

We also would like to thank our PhD candidates (Laura Lizzi and Brigida Varesano) for helping us in the fi nal checking phases before publication.

(14)

(15)

Intersentia xv

LIST OF CASES

COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

A v. B , case C-184/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:479 . . . 270 A , case C-523/07, ECLI:EU:C:2009:225 . . . 272 , 290 , 296 – 297 , 299 , 304 – 305 , 307 A. v. the Netherlands , case C-550/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:248 . . . 66 – 67 Aguirre-Zarraga v. Simone Pelz , case C-491/10 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2010:828 . . . 230 , 236 , 295 Å kerberg Fransson , case C-617/10, ECLI:EU:C:2013:105 . . . 25 , 65 , 86 Anklagemyndigheden v. Peter Michael Poulsen and Diva Navigation Corp. ,

case C-286/90, ECLI:EU:C:1992:453 . . . 142 Bogendorff von Wolff ersdorff , case C-438/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:401 . . . 27 , 86 C , case C-435/06, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2461 . . . 272 C. v. M. , case C-376/14 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2268 . . . 274 Carpenter , case C-60/00, ECLI:EU:C:2002:434 . . . 87 , 90 Chakroun v. the Netherlands , case C-578/08, ECLI:EU:C:2010:117 . . . 57 , 65 Child and Family Agency v. J.D. , case C-428/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:819 . . . 155 , 169 , 276 , 291 Coleman , case C-303/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:415 . . . 93 Coman , case C-673/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:385 . . . 29 , 81 Commission v. France , case 167/73, ECLI:EU:C:1974:35 . . . 79 De Cavel v. De Cavel , case 143/78, ECLI:EU:C:1979:83 . . . 299 Denilauler v. snc Couchet Fr è res , case 125/79, ECLI:EU:C:1980:130 . . . 292 Doris Povse v. Mauro Alpago , case C-211/10, ECLI:EU:C:2010:400 . . . 237 – 238 , 240 Dynamic Medien Vertriebs GmbH , case C-244/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:85 . . . 11 Freitag , case C-541/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:432 . . . 27 Garcia Avello , case C-148/02, ECLI:EU:C:2003:539 . . . 27 , 86 Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v. Offi ce national de l ’ emploi (ONEm) , case C-34/09,

ECLI:EU:C:2011:124 . . . 34 , 70 , 81 Gogova , case C-215/15, ECLI:EU:C:2015:710 . . . 291 Grunkin-Paul , case C-353/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:559 . . . 27 , 86 H.C. Chavez-Vilchez and Others , case C-133/15 [AG Opinion],

ECLI:EU:C:2016:659 . . . . . 11 H.C. Chavez-Vilchez and Others , case C-133/15 [Judgment],

ECLI:EU:C:2017:354 . . . 34 , 71 Health Service Executive v. S.C. and A.C. , case C-92/12 PPU,

ECLI:EU:C:2012:255 . . . 272 , 289 , 293 , 296 HR , case C-512/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:513 . . . 290 Italian Leather spa v. WECO Polsterm ö bel GmbH & Co. , case C-80/00,

ECLI:EU:C:2002:342 . . . 303 , 306 J. McB. v. L.E. , case C-400/10 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2010:582 . . . 153 Jasna Deticek v. Maurizio Sgueglia , case C-403/09 PPU,

ECLI:EU:C:2009:810 . . . 154 , 228 , 236 , 290 , 294 , 296 – 298

(22)

Intersentia

xxii

K. v. Buundesasylamt , case C-245/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:685 . . . 49

K.A. and Others v Belgische Staatcase , case C-82/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:308 . . . 34

Konstantinidis , case C-168/91, ECLI:EU:C:1993:115 . . . 27

Mario Reichert, Hans-Heinz Reichert and Ingeborg Kockler v. Dresdner Bank AG. , case C-261/90, ECLI:EU:C:1992:149 . . . 305

Mario Vicente Micheletti and others v. Delegaci ó n del Gobierno en Cantabria , case C-360/90, ECLI:EU:C:1992:295 . . . 305

Marjan Noorzia v. Bundesministerin f ü r Inneres , case C-338/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2092 . . . 127 – 128 Maruko , case C-267/06, ECLI:EU:C:2008:179 . . . 86

Matouskova , case C-404/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:653 . . . 271

Mercredi , case C-497/10 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2010:829 . . . 290

Mietz v Intership Yachting Sneek BV , case C-99/96, ECLI:EU:C:1999:202 . . . 303 , 306 MRAX , case C-459/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:461 . . . 86

Murat Dereci and Others v. Bundesministerium f ü r Inneres , case C-256/11, ECLI:EU:C:2011:734 . . . 34 , 70 Neli Valcheva v Georgios Babanarakis , case C-335/17 [AG Opinion], ECLI:EU:C:2018:242 . . . . . 76

Neli Valcheva v Georgios Babanarakis , case C-335/17 [Judgment], ECLI:EU:C:2018:359 . . . 14 , 273 Nold , case 4/73, ECLI:EU:C:1974:51 . . . 89

O. and S. v Maahanmuuttovirasto and Maahanmuuttovirasto v. L. , cases C-356/11 and C-357/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:776 . . . 34 , 64 – 65 , 81 O. v. Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel and Minister voor Immigratie, Integratie en Asiel v. Bcase , case C-456/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:135 . . . 33 , 79 OL v PQ , case C-111/17 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2017:436 . . . 290

Opinion of the Court 2/13, 18 December 2014, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2454 . . . 57 , 241 P v. Q , case C-455/15 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2015:763 . . . 304

Parliament v. Council , case C-540/03, ECLI:EU:C:2006:429 . . . 10 , 57 , 103 , 111 , 228 Parris , case C-443/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:897 . . . 86

Pfl eger , case C-390/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:281 . . . 86

PM v. AH , case C-604/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:10 . . . 292

Pupino , case C-105/03 [AG Opinion], ECLI:EU:C:2004:712 . . . 48

Pupino , case C-105/03 [Judgment], ECLI:EU:C:2005:386 . . . 9

Purrucker I , case C-256/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:437 . . . 289 – 290 , 299 – 300 Purrucker II , case C-296/10, ECLI:EU:C:2010:665 . . . 287

Rahman , case C-83/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012/519 . . . 80 , 88 , 109 Rend ò n Mar ì n , case C-165/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:675 . . . 34 , 70 Rinau , case C-195/08 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2008:406 . . . 278 , 287 Roux v. Belgium , case C-363/89, ECLI:EU:C:1991:41 . . . 79

Runevic-Vardyn and Wardyn , case C-391/09 [AG Opinion], ECLI:EU:C:2010:784 . . . 23

Runevic-Vardyn and Wardyn , case C-391/09 [Judgment], ECLI:EU:C:2011:291 . . . 27 , 32 Sanders , case C-400/13 and C-408/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2461 . . . 269

Saponaro , case C-565/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:265 . . . 271 , 291 Sayn-Wittgenstein , case C-208/09, ECLI:EU:C:2010:806 . . . 27

Secretary of State for the Home Department v. CS , case C-304/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:674 . . . 11 , 34 Secretary of State for the Home Department v. NA , case C-115/15, ECLI:EU:C:2016:487 . . . . . 34

(23)

Intersentia xxiii

List of Cases

Shirley McCarthy v. Secretary of State for the Home Department , case C-434/09,

ECLI:EU:C:2011:277 . . . . . 25

SM , case C-129/18, ECLI:EU:C:2019:248 . . . 105 , 109 St Paul Dairy Industries NV v. Unibel Exser BVBA , case C-104/03, ECLI:EU:C:2005:255 . . . . 306

Stauder , case 29/69, ECLI:EU:C:1969:57 . . . 89

Th e Queen, on the application of MA and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department , case C-648/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:367 . . . 12 , 49 , 69 , 143 U.D. v. X.B. , case C-393/18 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2018:835 . . . 153 , 290 , 292 , 305 Van Uden Maritime BV v. Firma Deco Line , case C-391/95, ECLI:EU:C:1998:543 . . . 289 , 297 , 303 W and V , case C-499/15, ECLI:EU:C:2017:118 . . . 290 , 292 Wachauf , case 5/88, ECLI:EU:C:1989:321 . . . 86

Yoshikazu Iida v. Stadt Ulm , case C-40/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:691 . . . 68 , 88 , 134 Zhu and Chen , case C-200/02, ECLI:EU:C:2004:639 . . . 27 , 81

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Abdulaziz, Cabales, and Balkandali v. UK , nos. 9214/80, 9473/81 and 9474/81, ECHR 1985 . . . . . 56 , 72 Abubakar v. Malta , nos. 25794/13 and 28151/13, 22.02.2017 . . . 50

Abubeker v. Austria and Italy , no. 73874/11, 18.06.2013 . . . 51

Advisory Opinion [GC], no. P16-2018-001 . . . xii , 223 Al Nashif v. Bulgaria , no. 509963/99, ECHR 2002 . . . 61

Al-Adsani v. United Kingdom [GC], no. 35763/97, ECHR 2001-XI . . . 48 , 176 Anayo v. Germany , no. 20578/07, 21.12.2010 . . . 13

Belgian Linguistics Case , nos. 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64, ECHR 1968 . . . . . 61

Bosphorous Hava Yollari Turizm ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v. Ireland , no. 45036/11, ECHR 2005-VI . . . 48 , 238 , 240 Brauer v. Germany , no. 3545/04, 28.05.2009 . . . 13

Braun v France , no. 1462/18 . . . 201

Bronda v. Italy , no. 22430/93, 09.06.1998 . . . 14

Chapin and Charpentier v. France , no. 40183/07, 9.6.2016 . . . 172

Chbihi Loudoudi and others v. Belgium , no. 52265/10, ECHR 2015 . . . 112

Ciubotaru v. Moldova , no. 27138/04, 27.04.2010 . . . 23

Collins and Akaziebie v. Sweden , no. 23944/05, 08.03.2007 . . . 18

Cusan and Fazzo v. Italy , no. 77/07, 07.01.2014 . . . 24

D. v Belgium , no. 29176/13, 11.09.2014 . . . 192 – 194 Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom , no. 7525/76, 22.10.1981 . . . 23

E.B. c. France [GC], no. 43546/02, 22.01.2008 . . . 176 , 216 El Ghatet v. Switzerland , no. 56971/10, . . . 59 , 63 Ferrari v. Romania , no. 1714/10, 28.04.2010 . . . 234

Foulon and Bouvet v. France , nos. 9063/14 and 10410/14, 21.07.2016 . . . . 32 , 190 – 191 , 198 Frett è v. France , no. 36515/97, ECHR 2002-I . . . 216 Gas and Dubois v. France , no. 25952/07, ECHR 2012-II . . . 90 , 92 , 94 , 180

(24)

Intersentia

xxiv

Gaskin v. the United Kingdom , no. 10454/83, 07.07.1989 . . . 24

Genovese v. Malta , no. 53124/09, 11.10.2011 . . . 24

Golder v. United Kingdom , no. 4451/70, 21.02.1975 . . . 48 , 176 Golemanova v. Bulgaria , no. 11369/04, 17.02.2011 . . . 26

Goodwin v. United Kingdom [GC], no. 289957/95, ECHR 2002-VI . . . 23

Guillot v. France , no. 22500/93, 24.10.1993 . . . 24

Halimi v. Austria and Italy , no. 53852/11, 18.06.2013 . . . 51

Harroudj v. France , no. 43631/09, ECHR 2012 . . . 111 , 221 Hirsi Jamaa and Others v. Italy , no. 27765/09, ECHR 2012-II . . . 51

Hussein Diirshi and others v. Netherland and Italy , no. 2314/10, 10.09.2013 . . . 51

Hussin v. Belgium , no. 70807/01, 6.05.2004 . . . 173 , 216 I.A.A. and others v. UK , no. 25960/13 ECHR 2016 . . . 72

Iosub Caras v. Romania , no. 7198/04, 27.07.2006 . . . 232

Raban v. Romania , no. 25437/08, 26.10.2010 . . . 232

Izevbekhai and others v. Ireland , no. 43408/08, 17.05.2011 . . . 18

J.R.M. v. the Netherlands , no. 16944/90, ECHR 1993 . . . 90

Jeunesse v. the Netherlands , no. 12738/10, ECHR 2014 . . . 11 , 62 Johansen v. Norway , no. 17383/90, 17.01.1995 . . . 227

Johansson v. Finland , no. 10163/02, 06.09.2007 . . . 24

Josef. v. Belgium , no. 70055/10, 27.02.2014 . . . 19

K. and T. v. Finland , no. 25702/94, ECHR 2001-VII . . . 90

K.A. and A.D . v. Belgium , nos. 42756/98 and 45558/98, 17.02.2005 . . . 23

K.A. v. Finland , no. 27751/95, 14.01.2003 . . . 24

Kanagaratnam v. Belgium , no. 15297/09, 13.12.2011 . . . 6

Karner v. Austria , no. 40016/98, ECHR 2003-XI . . . 172 , 180 Keegan v. Ireland , no. 16969/90, 26.05.1994 . . . 13

Kozak v. Poland , no. 13102/02, 2.03.2010 . . . 180

Kroon and others v. Th e Netherlands , no. 18535/91, 27.10.1994 . . . 177

L. v. Th e Netherlands , no. 45582/99, ECHR 2004 . . . 61

Laborie v. France , no. 44024/2013, 19.01.2017 . . . 32 , 190 – 191 , 198 Levin v. Sweden , no. 35141/06, 15.03.2012 . . . 24

M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece , no. 30696/09, ECHR 2011 . . . 69

MA/Sofi a Povse and Doris Povse v. Austria , no. 3890/11 . . . 238 , 240 Manuello and Nevi v. Italy , 107/10, 20.01.2015 . . . 14

Marckx v. Belgium , no. 6833/74, 13.06.1979 . . . 13 , 30 , 61 , 90 , 92 , 177 Mary Green and Ajad Farhat v. Malta , no. 38797/07, 6.07.2010 . . . 23

Maslov v. Austria , no. 1638/0323, ECHR 2008 . . . 72

Maumousseau and Washington v. France , no. 39388/05, 06.12.2007 . . . 232

McDonald v. France , no. 18648/04, 29.04.2008 . . . 23

Mennesson v. France and Labassee v. France , nos. 65192/2011 and 65941/2011,ECHR 2014-III . . . 32 , 91 , 176 , 188 , 198 Miruts Hagos v. Netherland and Italy , no. 9053/10, 27.08.2013 . . . 51

Mohammed Hassan and others v. Th e Netherlands and Italy , no. 40524/10, 27.08.2013 . . . 51

Mohammed Hussein v. Th e Netherlands and Italy , no. 27725/10, 02.04.2013 . . . 51

Mubilanzila Mayeka et Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium , no. 13178/03, 12.10.2006 . . . 50 – 51 Muskhadzhiyeva and others v. Belgium , no. 41442/07, 19.01.2010 . . . 6

A.M.E. v. Th e Netherlands , no. 51428/10, 05.02.2015 . . . 50 Negrepontis-Giannisis v. Greece , no. 56759/08, 3.05.2011 . . . 23 , 91 , 173 , 218

(25)

Intersentia xxv

List of Cases

Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, 06.07.2010 . . . 49 , 72 , 167 , 176 , 179 , 232 – 233 Neulinger in X v. Latvia , no. 27853/09, 26.11.2011 . . . 233 – 234

Niemietz v. Germany , no. 13710/88, 16.12.1992 . . . 23

Nistor v. Romania , no. 14565/05, 02.11.2010 . . . 14

Norris v. Ireland , no. 10581/83, 26.10.1988 . . . 23

Nunez v. Norway , no. 55597/09, ECHR 2011 . . . 62

Nylund v. Finland , no. 27110/95, ECHR 1999-VI . . . 90

Odi è vre v. France [GC], no. 42326/98, 13.02.2003 . . . 24

Oliari and others v. Italy , nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11, 21.07.2015 . . . 172 , 180 Olsson v. Sweden , no. 10465/83, 24.03.1988 . . . 180

Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy , no. 25358/12, 27.01.2015 . . . 30 , 116 , 177 , 180 , 190 , 194 – 197 , 217 – 220 Petrovic v. Austria , no. 20458/92 , (156/1996/775/976), 27.03.1998 . . . 172

Pini and Others v. Romania , nos. 78028/01 and 78030/01, 22.09.2004 . . . 216

Pretty v. United Kingdom , no. 2346/02, ECHR 2002-III . . . 23

R. B. A. B. and others v. Th e Netherlands , no. 7211/06, 07.06.2016 . . . 18

R.M.S. v. Spain , no. 28775/12, 18.06.2013 . . . 24

Rahimi v. Greece , no. 8687/08, 05.07.2011 . . . 50

Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v. Th e Netherlands , no. 50435/99, ECHR 2006 . . . 62

S. F. and others v. Bulgaria , no. 8138/16, 07.12.2017 . . . 20

Saenz and Saenz Cortes v France , no. 11288/18 . . . 201

Sahin v. Germany , no. 30943/96, 08.07.2003 . . . 14 , 179 Schalk and Kopf v. Austria , no. 30141/04, 22.06.2010 . . . 172 , 180 Senigo Longue and others v. France , no. 19113/09, ECHR 2014 . . . 72

Senigo Longue v. France , no. 19113/09, 10.07.2014 . . . 50

Serife Yigit v. Turkey , no. 3976/05, 2.11.2005 . . . 129

Severe v. Austria , no. 53661/15, 21.09.2017 . . . 234 – 235 , 239 Sharifi and others v. Italy and Greece , no. 16643/09, 21.10.2014 . . . 51

Stjerna v. Finland , no. 18131/91, 25.11.1994 . . . 23

Streletz, Kessler and Krenz v. Germany [GC], nos. 34044/96, 35532/97 and 44801/98, 22.03.2001 . . . 176

Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no. 29217/12, 14.11.2014 . . . 50 – 51 , 69 Vallianatos and Others v. Greece [GC], nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, ECHR 2013-VI . . . 93 , 172 Wagner and J.M.W.L. v. Luxembourg , no. 76240/01, ECHR 2007-VII . . . 23 , 91 , 94 , 167 , 173 , 216 – 217 , 219 X and others v. Austria [GC], no. 19010/07, ECHR 2013-II . . . 72 , 180 – 181 X, Y and Z v. United Kingdom , no. 21830/93, 22.04.1997 . . . 228

X. v Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, ECHR 2013-VI . . . 168 , 245 X. v. Germany , no. 6167/73, 18.12.1974 . . . 129 Z.H. and R.H. v. Switzerland , no. 60119/12, 08.12.2015 . . . 116 , 128 – 130 , 132

(26)

(27)

Intersentia xxvii

LIST OF AUTHORS

Roberto Baratta

Professor of International Law and European Union Law at the University of Macerata, Italy

Elisabetta Bergamini

Professor of International Law at the University of Udine, Italy Laura Carpenato

Associate Professor of European Union Law at the University of Genoa, Italy Francesco Deana

Lecturer in European Union Law at the University of Udine, Italy Sara De Vido

Researcher of International Law at the Ca ’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy Marcella Distefano

Professor of International Law at the University of Messina, Italy Pietro Franzina

Professor of International Law at the University of Ferrara, Italy Costanza Honorati

Professor of European Union Law at the University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy Ruth Lamont

Senior Lecturer in Family and Child Law at the University of Manchester, United Kingdom

Alessandra Lang

Professor of European Union Law at the University of Milan, Italy Maura Marchegiani

Professor of International Law at the University of Foreigners of Perugia, Italy Chiara Ragni

Professor of International Law at the University of Milan, Italy Peter Rodrigues

Professor of Immigration Law and Chair of the Institute of Immigration Law at Leiden University, Th e Netherlands

(28)

Intersentia

xxviii

Lidia Sandrini

Professor of International Law at the University of Milan, Italy Katarina Trimmings

Senior Lecturer in Private International Law at the University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom

Alina Tryfodinou

Professor of Law at the University of Reading, United Kingdom

Fundamental Rights and Best Interests of the Child in Transnational Families

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD

IN TRANSNATIONAL FAMILIES

Edited by

Elisabetta Bergamini Chiara Ragni in collaboration with

Francesco Deana

PREFACE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CONTENTS

LIST OF CASES

COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

LIST OF AUTHORS