JRG v EB

Where a court in another EU member state has made a residence or parental responsibility order, the registration and appeal procedure under Council Regulation No. 2201/2003 should normally be used. The Regulation takes precedence over the Hague Convention in matters within its scope. Recognition may be refused only on narrow and exceptional grounds, and the foreign judgment cannot be reviewed on its merits. A Hague application may properly be adjourned where its defences would not be available on registration, and any success would probably be overtaken by subsequent enforcement of the foreign order. The court must also consider proportionality, expense, court resources and the avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings.

The applicant father sought the return of three children to France under the Hague Convention after their mother retained them in England. A French court had awarded residence to the father and issued an Annex II certificate under Council Regulation No. 2201/2003. The mother raised habitual residence, consent, objection, and grave-risk defences under the Hague Convention.

The central issue was whether the High Court should determine those defences when the French order could instead be registered and enforced in England, with an appeal providing the effective forum for any challenge to recognition or enforcement.

1. Regulatory primacy. The French court was the court first seised and had jurisdiction under Council Regulation No. 2201/2003. The Regulation took precedence over the Hague Convention in relations between member states where the subject matter was governed by the Regulation.
2. Recognition and enforcement. A judgment concerning parental responsibility was generally recognised without special procedure and could be registered for enforcement in another member state. The initial registration process was administrative. The person opposing registration and the child had no right to make submissions at that stage, but either party could appeal the enforceability decision as of right, with a further appeal requiring permission.
3. Limited grounds of challenge. The French order could not be reviewed on its substance. The potentially relevant grounds were manifest conflict with public policy, taking account of the child’s best interests, and failure to give the child an opportunity to be heard contrary to fundamental procedural principles. Such challenges would succeed only in exceptional circumstances.
4. Case-management discretion. It would be disproportionate and pointless to determine the Hague defences first. If the mother succeeded, the father could promptly register and enforce the French order or obtain a subsequent return order from the French court. The Hague application was therefore adjourned pending registration and any appeal.
5. The court directed the father to apply for registration, invited expedited consideration by the Senior District Judge, and listed an anticipated appeal. Where a relevant residence or parental responsibility order has been made in another member state, the registration and appeal route should normally be adopted.