Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T15:37:49.438Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘What Has It Got to Do Necessarily with the European Union?’: International Family Law and European (Economic) Integration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2017

Johan Meeusen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Family law has long been considered a domain which virtually escaped any impact from European Community law. Insofar as European cooperation was aimed at economic integration in the context of the EEC, the arguments in favour of keeping it that way seemed obvious and convincing. Today, the relationship between European law and (international) family law is often viewed in an entirely different way. The explanation for this shift lies in the broad, functional approach adopted by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to the free movement of persons in the European Union, as well as in the transformation of the Community from the EEC into the EC and its incorporation into a ‘European Union’ (EU) not exclusively oriented towards economic integration.

Type
Research Article
Information
Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies , Volume 9 , 2007 , pp. 329 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © Centre for European Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The term ‘conflict of laws’ in this text refers to the same broad concept which continental lawyers usually refer to as private international law, ie the legal rules determining jurisdiction, the applicable law and recognition and enforcement.

2 Jessurun d’Oliveira, HU ‘The EU and a Metamorphosis of Private International Law’ in Fawcett, J (ed) Reform and Development of Private International Law. Essays in honour of Sir Peter North (Oxford, OUP, 2002) 119 Google Scholar.

3 House of Lords, European Union Committee, 10th Report of Session 2004–2005, The Hague Programme: a five-year agenda for EU justice and home affairs, report on the examination of witness Baroness Ashton of Upholland, Q71.

4 JO 1968 L 257/2, [1968] I OJ (II) 475.

5 Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 Apr 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, OJ 2004 L 158/77, rectified in OJ 2004 L 229/35.

6 Case 59/85, Netherlands v Reed [1986] ECR 1283.

7 Fallon, M ‘Les conflits de lois et de juridictions dans un espace économique intégré. L’expérience de la Communauté européenne’ (1995) 253 Recueil des Cours 00 at 52–3 and 85-6Google Scholar.

8 Case C–168/91, Konstantinidis [1993] ECR I–1191.

9 Case C–336/94, Dafeki [1997] ECR I–6761.

10 Case C–430/97, Johannes [1999] ECR I–3475, para 27. According to the Court, Art 12 EC does not preclude the laws of a Member State from taking the spouses’ nationalities into consideration as a connecting factor for the purposes of determining the substantive national law applicable to the effects of a divorce (para 28).

11 Council Regulation (EC) 1347/2000 of 29 May 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility for children of both spouses, OJ 2000 L 160/19.

12 Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 of 27 Nov 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) 1347/2000, OJ 2003 L 338/1. In this paper this Regulation is examined in particular with regard to its provisions on matrimonial matters.

13 Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, COM(2005)649 final.

14 COM(2006)399 final.

15 Green Paper on Succession and Wills, COM(2005)65 final (hereafter: Green Paper on Succession and Wills) and Green Paper on applicable law and jurisdiction in divorce matters, COM(2005)82 final (hereafter: Green paper on Divorce).

16 Green Paper on conflict of laws in matters concerning matrimonial property regimes, including the question of jurisdiction and mutual recognition, COM(2006)400 final (hereafter: Green Paper on Matrimonial Property).

17 See in this regard in particular the two fundamental ECJ judgments in the early 1960s: Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 3 and Case 6/64, Costa v ENEL [1964] ECR 1203.

18 Straetmans, G ‘Non-economic Free Movement of European Union Citizens and Family Law Matters. Does the Internal Market have any Limit?’ in Meeusen, J, Pertegás, M, Straetmans, G and Swennen, F (eds) International Family Law for the European Union (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2007) 235 Google Scholar.

19 See also the Explanatory Memorandum of the Commission with its Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (COM(2005)650 final, para 3.1) and the Explanatory Memorandum of the Commission with its original Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) (COM(2003)427 final, para 2.2). (Hereafter, said proposals will be abbreviated to the Rome I proposal and Rome II proposal respectively; document COM(2006)83 final will be referred to as the ‘Amended Rome II proposal’.)

20 Wagner, R ‘EG-Kompetenz für das Internationale Privatrecht in Ehesachen?’ (2004) RabelsZ 138 Google Scholar.

21 Mansel, H-P, above n ‘Zum Systemwechsel im europäischen Kollisionsrecht nach Amsterdam und Nizza’ in Baur, JF and Mansel, H-P (eds) Systemwechsel im europäischen Kollisionsrecht (Munich, CH Beck, 2002) 182 Google Scholar.

22 House of Lords, European Union Committee, 8th Report of Session 2003–2004, The Rome II Regulation, paras 66–72.

23 House of Lords, European Union Committee, 10th Report of Session 2004–2005, the Hague Programme: a five-year agenda for EU justice and home affairs, paras 58–63, as well as the report ‘Examination of Witness Baroness Ashton of Upholland’.

24 Case C–376/98, Germany/European Parliament and Council [2000] ECR I–8419, paras 83 ff; Case C–491/01, American Tobacco [2002] ECR I–11453, para 60.

25 Duintjer Tebbens, H ‘Ein Ziviljustizraum in der Europäischen Union—auf Kosten einer Aushöhlung der internationalen Zusammenarbeit?’ in Baur, JF and Mansel, H-P (eds), above n 21, 179; Tagaras, H ‘Questions spéciales relatives à l’unification communautaire du droit international privé de la famille (règlement 1347/2000)’ in Mélanges en hommage à Jean Victor Louis (Brussels, ULB, 2003), 1, 465 Google Scholar. See in another sense Mansel, H-P, above n 21, 9, whose arguments are more convincing de lege ferenda in my view than de lege lata.

26 Duintjer Tebbens, H, above n 25, 175 ff; Hellner, M ‘The Limits to Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters: Taking Legality Seriously’ in Hochloch, H (ed) Wege zum Europäischen Recht (Baden-Baden, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 2002) 19 Google Scholar.

27 cf Schack H Cf ‘Das Neue Internationale Eheverfahrensrecht in Europa’ [2001] RabelsZ 618.

28 Cf Basedow, J ‘Die Vergemeinschaftung des Kollisionsrechts nach dem Vertrag von Amsterdam’ in Baur, JF and Mansel, H-P (eds), above n 21, 182.

29 Press release IP/07/42 of 15 Jan 2007, ‘EU citizens ask for more EU action in field of family law which is at heart of their concerns and in the centre of EU justice debate’.

30 The first time this occurred was in the judgment of 20 Sept 2001 in Case C–184/99, Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I–6193, para 31.

31 Series of judgments about the interpretation of Arts 12, 17 and/or 18 EC, starting with the judgment of 12 May 1998 in Case C–85/96, Martínez Sala [1998] ECR I–2691.

32 Directive 2004/38/EC, above n 5.

33 Wagner, R, above n 20, 138.

34 Action Plan of the Council and the Commission on how best to implement the provisions of the Amsterdam Treaty on an area of freedom, security and justice, [1999] OJ C/19/1 paras 15, 16 and 39.

35 Presidency conclusions, Tampere European Council, 15 and 16 Oct 1999, pt 2 (see above).

36 Presidency conclusions, Tampere European Council, 4 and 5 Nov 2004 (see above), III, para 3.4.1 of appendix I.

37 Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome, 19 June 1980), 1980 OJ L266/1.

38 cf srael J ‘Europees internationaal privaatrecht’ [2001] Nederlands Internationaal Privatrecht 143.

39 Remien, O ‘European Private International Law, the European Community and its Emerging Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’ (2001) 26 CML Rev 64 Google Scholar. See also the Green Paper about converting the Treaty of Rome of 1980 on the law applicable to contract obligations into a Community instrument, as well as about its modernisation: COM(2002)654 final.

40 Dethloff, N ‘Arguments for the Unification and Harmonisation of Family Law in Europe’ in Boele-Woelki, K (ed) Perspectives for the Unification and Harmonisation of Family Law in Europe (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2003) 58 Google Scholar (‘In a Europe of citizens, people are no longer considered primarily as elements of factor mobility within the single market. Thus the relevance of family relationships and of the family-law provisions shaping them is gaining in importance for the realisation of Freedom and Equality in Europe’).

41 Fallon, M ‘Préface’ in Bergé, J-S and Niboyet, M-L (eds) La réception du droit com munautaire en droit privé des Etats membres (Brussels, Bruylant, 2003) 9 Google Scholar: ‘il y a quelque mauvaise foi à faire accroire que le droit communautaire n’est qu’un droit des marchands’.

42 Fallon, M ‘Approche systémique de l’applicabilité dans l’espace de Bruxelles I et de Rome I’ in Meeusen, J, Pertegás, M and Straetmans, G (eds) Enforcement of International Contracts in the European Union (Antwerp, Intersentia, 2004) 159 Google Scholar: ‘le législateur semble avoir négligé la question d’un ajustement du domaine d’application dans l’espace des règles de compétence directe au regard des contraintes qui accompagnent les termes de l’habilitation législative’.

43 And taken over in Art 2 of the Rome I Proposal, COM(2005)650 final, above n 19.

44 Explanatory Memorandum by the Commission with its Rome II Proposal (ad Art 2), above n 19. The universal character of the Rome II conflicts rules emerges from Art 2 of the Amended Rome II proposal: the uniform conflicts rules can designate the law of a Member State of the European Union or of a third state.

45 Fallon, M ‘La compétence internationale selon le droit judiciaire européen’ in de Leval, G and Storme, M (eds) Het Europees Gerechtelijk Recht & Procesrecht (Bruges, Die Keure, 2003) 53 ffGoogle Scholar.

46 Cf Fallon, M, above n 42, 159.

47 Ibid, 161; Pataut, E ‘De Bruxelles à La Haye. Droit international privé communautaire et droit international privé conventionnel’ in Le droit international privé: esprit et méthodes. Mélanges en l’honneur de Paul Lagarde (Paris, Dalloz, 2005) 667-74Google Scholar; Wagner, R, above n 20, 147.

48 Art 1 of the Rome I Proposal; Art 1 of the Amended Rome II proposal, both above n 19.

49 Explanatory Memorandum with the Proposal on Maintenance Obligations, para 3.1 (see above).

50 Wautelet, P ‘La dissolution du marriage en droit international privé—compétence, droit applicable et reconnaissance des décisions étrangères’ in Wautelet, P (ed) Actualités du contentieux familial international (Brussels, De Boek & Larcier, 2005) 74 Google Scholar.

51 Ibid, 76.

52 Fallon M ‘Droit familial et droit des Communautés européennes>’ [1998] Revue Trimestrielle de Doit. Familial 000 at 389–90; Watté N and Boularbah H ‘Le règlement com munautaire en matière matrimoniale et de responsabilité parentale (Règlement dit ‘Bruxelles II’)’ [2000] Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Familial 559.

53 Case 237/83, Prodest [1984] ECR 3153, para 6.

54 Case C–214/94, Boukhalfa [1996] ECR I–2253, para 15.

55 Case C–381/98, Ingmar [2000] ECR I–9305, paras 24–26.

56 Art 6.2 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 Apr 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, OJ 1993 L 95/29; Art 9 of Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 Oct 1994 on the protection of purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis, OJ 1994 L 280/83; Art 12.2 of Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of distance contracts, OJ 1997 L 144/19; Art 7.2 of Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, OJ 1999 L 171/12; Art 12.2 of Directive 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 Sept 2002 concerning the distance marketing of consumer financial services and amending Council Directive 90/619/EEC and Directives 97/7/EC and 98/27/EC, OJ 2002 L 271/16. About the significance of these Directives in terms of conflict of laws see Meeusen, J ‘Belgisch internationaal contractenrecht in Europees perspectief: EVO, oneerlijke bedingen, verkoop op afstand, timesharing ’ in Overeenkomstenrecht, XXVIste Postuniversitaire Cyclus Willy Delva (Antwerp, Kluwer, 2000) 408 ffGoogle Scholar.

57 Case C–70/03, Commission v Spain [2004] ECR I–7999, paras 32–35.

58 See Leible S and Staudinger A ‘Article 65 of the EC Treaty in the EC System of Competencies’ [2001] The European Legal Forum 230; Struycken AVM ‘Le droit inter national privé d’origine communautaire et les Etats tiers’ [2001–2] Revue des Affaires Européennes 470; Wagner, R, above n 20, 144.

59 Cf Fallon, M, above n 42, 162. See also House of Lords, European Union Committee, 8th Report of Session 2003–2004, The Rome II Regulation, para 70.

60 Fallon, M ‘Libertés communautaires et règles de conflit de lois’ in Fuchs, A, Muir Watt, M and Pataut, E (eds), Les conflits de lois et le système juridique communautaire (Paris, Dalloz, 2004) 52 Google Scholar. See also Fallon’s proposal—aimed at the habitual residence of the creditor— for demarcating the field of application of a jurisdiction rule on maintenance obligations (Fallon, M, above n 42, 156).

61 Wautelet, P, above n 50, 77.

62 Previously, I cited the example of an American who married a Belgian woman in the USA and who spent his entire married life in the USA; he can be summoned to appear in a Belgian court by his wife as soon as she has resided in Belgium for six months, even when the defendant has never been to Europe, let alone Belgium (Meeusen J ‘Nieuw internationaal procesrecht op komst in Europa: het EEX II-verdrag’ [1998–9] RW 756).

63 Fallon, M, above n 61, 54; González Campos, JD ‘La Cour de Justice des Communautés Européennes et le non-Droit international privé’ in Mansel, H-P (ed) Festschrift für Erik Jayme (Munich, Sellier European Law Publishers, 2004), i, 273-5Google Scholar. The introduction of a new Art 7, regarding residual jurisdiction in matrimonial matters, by the Rome III proposal has been an important argument for the two Houses of the States-General of the Kingdom of the Netherlands for rejecting that Proposal: both Chambers doubt whether the Community has any competence where the relationship of an EU Member State with a third state is concerned, in view of the internal market clause of Art 65 (letter of the presidents of the Senate and House of Representatives to Commissioner Mr F Frattini).

64 Cf Pataut, E, above n 47, 682–3.

65 Fallon, M, above n 42, 158; Helms T ‘Internationales Verfahrensrecht für Familiensachen in der Europäischen Union’ [2002] FamRZ 1600.

66 See, including an example, Tagaras, H, above n 25, 465–6.

67 COM(2005)649 final, para 3.1 (see above).

68 See recital 4 of the preamble to the Rome I Proposal and ground 4 of the Amended Rome II proposal, both above n 19, as well as the Explanatory Memorandum of the Commission with its original Rome II proposal, para 2.1 and the explanation with Art 2, 10.

69 See the Commission’s concern for such unequal treatment and distorted competition, also expressed in its Explanatory Memorandum to the Rome II Proposal, particularly in the explanation on Art 2.

70 Cf para 16 of the opinion of AG Fennelly in the Group Josi case (Case C–412/98, [2000] ECR I–5925).

71 Case C–412/98, Group Josi [2000] ECR I–5925.

72 Case C–281/02 Owusu [2005] ECR I–1383, §26.

73 Ibid, §34.

74 Joined Cases C–465/00, 138/01 and 139/01, Rechnungshof [2003] ECR I–4989, paras 41 and 42.

75 Remien, O, above n 39, 75. See also the observations made by Sir Lawrence Collins, contained in para 89 of House of Lords, European Union Committee, 8th Report of Session 2003–2004, The Rome II Regulation.

76 Opinion of AG Léger in Case C–281/02, Owusu [2005] ECR I–1383, paras 193–213.

77 Cf Pataut, E, above n 47, 672.

78 cf Van den Eeckhout V ‘Tien jaar Europees internationaal privaatrecht’ [2005] Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Europees Recht 298.