Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-17-Speech-5-040"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001117.4.5-040"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, for over six years I have had the honour of being the special mediator for the European Parliament for transnationally abducted children. This role was first developed by President Plumb, following a request from many women in France whose children had been abducted and with whom they were no longer in contact. They were seeking Parliament's help. Since then, many other people have also sought the help of the European Parliament when their children have been abducted.
I have worked on these issues for over six years and, very much thanks to the help and resources of the European Parliament, have had several significant successes in recovering children who have been abducted. Most of the cases of child abduction are actually handled very efficiently and appropriately by the central authorities in all Member States. Unfortunately, I generally find myself dealing with the more complex cases.
At the heart of this regulation, which has been essentially rushed through during the French presidency, is the question of access to children by non-custodial parents. It has already been dubbed "the Brussels 3" issue, not so much a directive as a regulation. As such, it has the limitations of the Brussels 2 Convention, but also some of its strengths. It refers exclusively to children of couples who have married. It refers to children under the age of 16. It is also a directive whose scope has been described as both modest and pragmatic – and indeed it is a modest little regulation.
The precise scope of it would cover parents, living in a different Member State from where the guardianship judgment was made, who were looking for visiting rights. It would allow the child to be brought to another Member State for a limited period in order for the visiting right to be exercised.
Crucial to its operation would be the principle that a judgment made on visiting rights in one Member State is recognised throughout the EU. An exception to this principle would be if the guardian parent proves that, due to new circumstances, the visit would endanger the physical and moral health of the child. Undoubtedly, this regulation will work in tandem with the Hague Convention on the transnational abduction of children. It does not seek to impose on other Member States the existing law of one Member State; it is simply an attempt at mutual enforcement of these custody orders.
There are constitutional concerns in some Member States, notably Germany and Austria. There is concern that the applicant parent can apply for access to the child, with only eight days for the other parent to respond to the request. Undoubtedly, many of our courts are very slow and ponderous, and there is great difficulty in getting them to act quickly on these issues.
There is also concern about the forcible return of a child. My belief is that the existence of good law, applicable in all Member States, has had a significant effect in reducing the number of abductions of children. Hopefully, this is what this regulation will ensure between Member States. Unfortunately, it does not apply outside the European Union, and there are fears that it will cut across the Hague Convention. But the Council of Ministers will discuss this, and I recommend its acceptance to the House."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples