Thursday, 23 May 2013
EU Domestic Violence Protection.
EU-wide protection for victims of domestic violence to become law
Victims of violence, in particular domestic violence, will soon be able to count on EU-wide protection, after the European Parliament voted with an overwhelming majority (602 votes in favour, 23 against, 63 abstentions) to endorse the European Commission's proposal for an EU-wide protection order. The new regulation will mean that citizens (in most cases women) who have suffered domestic violence can rely on a restraining order obtained in their home country wherever they are in the EU: the protection will travel with the citizens. In practice, the EU law will benefit women in particular: around one in five women in Europe have suffered physical violence at least once in their life, according to surveys. An estimated 1 in 5 women in Europe suffer some kind of violence at least once in their lives. Sadly, the most common form of physical violence is inflicted by someone close to the woman, usually an intimate partner," said Vice-President Viviane Reding, EU's Justice Commissioner. “Thanks to the European Protection order, victims of domestic violence can breathe a sigh of relief: they will be able to rely on a restraining order obtained in their home country wherever they are in the Union. The protection will travel with the citizens. This is a tangible example of how the EU is helping to reinforce the rights of victims all over Europe. I would like to thank rapporteurs Antonio López-Istúriz and Antonyia Parvanova for their tireless work on this important dossier which paved the way for a swift adoption by the European Parliament.
Today's vote in the European Parliament follows a political agreement between the European Parliament and Council of Ministers at a so-called trilogue meeting in February (
Wednesday, 22 May 2013
Legal Aid Consultation: 4PB International Child Law Group response to consultation
The 4PB ICLG has prepared a response to the current legal aid consultation: http://www.4pb.com/media/PDFs/Transforming_legal_aid_-_4PB_International_Child_Law_Group_Response_to_Consultation_final_.pdf
The focus of the response is on the proposal to introduce a residence test (resident at time of application and residence for 12 months in total in UK at any time).
We conclude that such a requirement would have a major impact on international family law cases, including but not limited to
(a) forced marriage cases,
(b) stranded spouse cases,
(c) non-Hague inherent jurisdiction abduction cases
(d) Hague Convention respondents
(e) reciprocal enforcement applications.
We identify examples of real cases where legal aid would not be available under the proposed changes and where its absence would be likely to have seriously detrimental effects both on the individual children concerned and on the administration of justice.
We recommend that classes of family cases are exempted from the residence requirement.
The focus of the response is on the proposal to introduce a residence test (resident at time of application and residence for 12 months in total in UK at any time).
We conclude that such a requirement would have a major impact on international family law cases, including but not limited to
(a) forced marriage cases,
(b) stranded spouse cases,
(c) non-Hague inherent jurisdiction abduction cases
(d) Hague Convention respondents
(e) reciprocal enforcement applications.
We identify examples of real cases where legal aid would not be available under the proposed changes and where its absence would be likely to have seriously detrimental effects both on the individual children concerned and on the administration of justice.
We recommend that classes of family cases are exempted from the residence requirement.
Wednesday, 1 May 2013
Annual Report of the Office of the Head of International Family Justice for 2012
The Annual Report provides a real insight into the activities of the Office of the International Liaison Judge together with an evaluation of developments and a statistical analysis of the cases it has dealt with.
The central message is the continually growing need for international judicial liaison as global families increase and the undoubted benefits that this can bring in resolving litigation.
The statistics show that in 2012 there was a 40.5% rise in applications for assistance to 253. This reflects growing globalisation and the increase in applications under the 1980 Hague which increased by 100% in the decade to 2008.
The requests for assistance involved 71 separate jurisdictions. This included liaison with Sudan. Of the 71 jurisdictions involved tangible assistance was given in 46. Given only 2 countries (England and Netherlands) have a permanent office as opposed to a judge alone this is very positive.
50% of all the cases were intra-European, 14% the Americas and Carribean, 10% Africa, 15% Middle East and Asia and 6% Australia/NZ. Within the EU the largest number of applications was in respect of Poland (14) but as Poland has not appointed a sitting judge as the IHLJ or EJN judge (same for Italy) this has impeded liaison. France, Germany, Spain and Ireland also generated significant numbers of requests. Liaison with the USA has proved easy to facilitate as they are accustomed to inter-State liaison. Good links have been made with Kenya, Nigeria and with a number of South American countries.
The office has dealt with queries relating to public and private law children cases, relocation, inter-country adoptions, surrogacy, forced marriage and financial remedy cases as well as abductions.
Of the requests most were 'outgoing' where the English courts were seeking assistance from another jurisdiction. Only 11% were incoming requests from other countries seeking information about our systems.
Although only 28% of the requests were made directly by judges (56%) were made by practitioners all approaches have to have the sanction of the judge involved.
The Pakistan Protocol has been used in a nearly 200 cases since 2003, some to achieve returns many as a protective measure in temporary leave to remove 'holiday' cases. The Cairo Declaration has not borne the fruit that the Pakistan Protocol has.
Interesting examples of the assistance given include
(a) a request to the AG of Cyprus for assistance in ensuring a mother was not prosecuted on return where an EAW had been issued
(b) assistance in the transfer of care of an incapacitated adult from France to England.
(c) Liaison with the French authorities to secure the return of 2 children the subject of care proceedings in England.
The full report can be found at : http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Reports/international_family_justice_2013.pdf
The central message is the continually growing need for international judicial liaison as global families increase and the undoubted benefits that this can bring in resolving litigation.
The statistics show that in 2012 there was a 40.5% rise in applications for assistance to 253. This reflects growing globalisation and the increase in applications under the 1980 Hague which increased by 100% in the decade to 2008.
The requests for assistance involved 71 separate jurisdictions. This included liaison with Sudan. Of the 71 jurisdictions involved tangible assistance was given in 46. Given only 2 countries (England and Netherlands) have a permanent office as opposed to a judge alone this is very positive.
50% of all the cases were intra-European, 14% the Americas and Carribean, 10% Africa, 15% Middle East and Asia and 6% Australia/NZ. Within the EU the largest number of applications was in respect of Poland (14) but as Poland has not appointed a sitting judge as the IHLJ or EJN judge (same for Italy) this has impeded liaison. France, Germany, Spain and Ireland also generated significant numbers of requests. Liaison with the USA has proved easy to facilitate as they are accustomed to inter-State liaison. Good links have been made with Kenya, Nigeria and with a number of South American countries.
The office has dealt with queries relating to public and private law children cases, relocation, inter-country adoptions, surrogacy, forced marriage and financial remedy cases as well as abductions.
Of the requests most were 'outgoing' where the English courts were seeking assistance from another jurisdiction. Only 11% were incoming requests from other countries seeking information about our systems.
Although only 28% of the requests were made directly by judges (56%) were made by practitioners all approaches have to have the sanction of the judge involved.
The Pakistan Protocol has been used in a nearly 200 cases since 2003, some to achieve returns many as a protective measure in temporary leave to remove 'holiday' cases. The Cairo Declaration has not borne the fruit that the Pakistan Protocol has.
Interesting examples of the assistance given include
(a) a request to the AG of Cyprus for assistance in ensuring a mother was not prosecuted on return where an EAW had been issued
(b) assistance in the transfer of care of an incapacitated adult from France to England.
(c) Liaison with the French authorities to secure the return of 2 children the subject of care proceedings in England.
The full report can be found at : http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Reports/international_family_justice_2013.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)