costanza honorati

L'opera raccoglie e ordina sistematicamente i regolamenti UE in materia di diritto internazionale privato della famiglia, completandoli con gli atti nazionali e internazionali di pi\uf9 frequente utilizzo e con tutta la giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea

Al principio dell’unicità dello status di figlio stabilito dalla legge n. 219/2012 corrisponde quello di unicità dello status di padre. Oggi, in Italia, un padre gode ex lege della piena responsabilità parentale, indipen-dentemente dall’esistenza di un rapporto matrimoniale con la madre. Benché da noi ancorata al principio di eguaglianza, tale affermazione non è però da tutti condivisa nel resto d’Europa. Numerosi paesi europei, infatti, ritengono che il minore nato fuori dal matrimonio sia in una situazione oggettivamente diversa da quella in cui si trova il figlio nato all’interno di esso, e che tale situazione giustifichi un trattamento differen-ziato della responsabilità parentale. Essi negano pertanto la responsabilità parentale ex lege del padre non sposato, prevedendone una sua (eventuale) attribuzione, successiva alla nascita del figlio, per effetto dell’accordo con la madre o del provvedimento del giudice. Assumendo a paradigma di tale approccio l’ordinamento inglese, il presente contributo esamina la discipli-na normativa ivi vigente, soffermandosi sulla ratio sottostante e sui meccanismi predisposti per garantire la tutela della madre e l’interesse del minore. Particolare spazio verrà poi dato alla giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo che, nel confermare la legittimità della scelta normativa inglese, ha definito an-che i limiti invalicabili di tale diverso trattamento, così inducendo altri ordinamenti a modificare le proprie normative interne.

This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the JURI Committee, will be presented during a Workshop dedicated to potential and challenges of private international law in the current migratory context. The child’s best interests are a primary consideration under international and EU law. EU migration and private international law frameworks regulate child protection, but in an uncoordinated way: the Dublin III and Brussels IIa Regulations are neither aligned nor applied coherently. This should change. In particular, the rules and mechanisms of Brussels IIa should be used to enhance the protection of migrant children. These include rules on jurisdiction to take protective measures, on applicable law, and on recognition and enforcement of protective measures, and mechanisms for cross-border cooperation between authorities.

italiano1. Migranti e diritto internazionale privato europeo. L'oggetto del presente contributo. - 2. L'interazione tra i regolamenti Dublino III e Bruxelles II-bis. - 3. Il criterio di applicazione soggettiva del regolamento Bruxelles II-bis ed i suoi rapporti con la convenzione dell'Aja del 1996. - 4. La protezione dei minori per mezzo del regolamento Bruxelles II-bis: il criterio della residenza abituale (art. 8) e della presenza fisica del rifugiato e dello sfollato (art. 13). - 5. Segue: la collaborazione tra l'autorita centrale e l'unita Dublino, e il collocamento presso Stati terzi. EnglishFew studies have investigated the relation between Migration Law and PIL. Even less have focused on the interaction between Brussels IIa and Dublin III Regulations. The present study, moving from the often declared assumption that "a migrant minor is first of all a minor" focuses on the coordination between the two Regulations and the possible application of Br...

EnglishThis article deals with the recognition and enforcement within the European judicial area of out-of-court divorce (or separation) agreements resulting from the two procedures introduced in Italy in 2014 by Decree-Law no. 132 of 12 September 2014, prompting a wider use of alternative dispute resolution techniques, both in civil and commercial matters and in family matters. After a short presentation of the new procedures, made available to spouses for divorce (by mutual consent) or separation or modification of divorce/separation conditions, i.e. the negoziazione assistita mediante avvocati and a divorce procedure before the Mayor, as civil register officer, provided by Arts 6 and 12 of d.l. no. 132/2014 respectively, the article examines the difficulties that have emerged in the application to such agreements of the rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments contained in Regulation (EC) no. 2201/2003, so called Brussels IIa. These rules are then compared to the...

The article deals with the ECJ Grunkin Paul judgment and addresses the many and relevant issues stemming out of such decision, while emphasizing its role as a relevant step towards full enjoyment of EU citizenship rights. Basing its decision on Article 18 EC, the Court assumes that the right to free circulation includes the right of all citizens to circulate with the same status they gained under one State (the so-called State of origin) and to maintain their personal identity throughout the entire European Union. In other words the right not to be forced by law to change one’s name should be recognized as inherent to the fundamental right to circulate within the EU. However, the existence of a right to free circulation of name is only one among many of the different issues arising from the Grunkin Paul decision. Another important point dealt with is the one on the law applicable to the name of EU citizens. Insofar the article examines the Advocate General position on the compatibility of the German conflict of laws rule with the principles of non-discrimination and free circulation and takes a critical view on the lack of response by the ECJ as to whether the national conflict of law rule is compatible with EU law. Further, the Grunkin Paul decision concerns the scope of application of the personal status rights. Even though the Court didn’t address the subject, it is maintained that the right to continuity of name, i.e. to personal identity, may also be extended to other features of personal status, or even to family status. Finally, one last highly sensitive issue addressed by the article concerns the determination of the State of origin. The author maintains that the judgment highlights the need for reviewing the theory according to which the State of origin is only the one of nationality, although the latter is reasonable from a standpoint of respecting the member States’ scopes of competence. In the end, given the Konstantinidis and Garcia Avello judgments, the Grunkin Paul decision constitutes another important step towards recognition of names in the European Union. Indeed by guaranteeing the free circulation of names this decision also contributes to reinforce and make more effective the free circulation of EU citizens.

Prirucnik uz Uredbu Bruxelles IIa tekst je koji predstavlja izraz trenutacnog zakonodavstva i sudske prakse i prezentira stavove iz akademskih radova u vezi s međunarodnim privatnim pravom u postupcima razvoda i roditeljske odgovornosti pred sudovima država clanica Europske unije. Posvecujuci posebnu pozornost dobroj praksi, namijenjen je sucima, odvjetnicima, sredisnjim tijelima, centrima za socijalnu skrb i svima koji su u svojoj praksi ukljuceni u prekogranicne predmete koji nastaju uslijed obiteljskih kriza. Ovaj Prirucnik proizasao je kao rezultat projekta pod naslovom “EU Judiciary Training on Brussels IIa Regulation: From South to East” (European Commission Grant Agreement Number: JUST/2014/JTRA/ AG/EJTR/6854) koji je trajao od 1. listopada 2015. do 30. rujna 2017. godine.

SOMMARIO: 1. La revisione del regolamento Bruxelles ll-bis: Yiter e gli scopi. - 2. Gli aspetti non toccati: la giurisdizione in materia matrimoniale. - 3. Le modifiche: qualche precisazione terminologica e quella riguardo alia proroga di competenza. - 4. I I diritto del minore ad essere ascoltato. - 5. Un nuovo capitolo sulla sottrazione di minori: la concentrazione delle competenze. - 6. Segue: il giudizio sul ritorno del minore. Qualche precisazione necessaria. - 7. Segue: e la conferma del giudizio di prevalenza. - 8. L'abolizione del!'exequatur e l'introduzione di norme minime uniformi per la procedura d'esecuzione. - 9. La cooperazione tra autorita centrali, giudiziarie e amministrative. - 10. Conclusioni

Few studies have investigated the relation between Migration Law and PIL. Even less have focused on the interaction between Brussels IIa and Dublin III Regulations. The present study, moving from the often declared assumption that ‘a migrant minor is first of all a minor’ focuses on the coordination between the two regulations and the possible application of Brussels IIa to migrant minors in order to adopt protection measures to be recognized in all EU Member States

The present essay is a first assessment of the Proposal for a recast of the Brussels IIa Regulation (COM(2016) 211). After a short explanation of the reasons for not touching on the highly controversial grounds for divorce, the essay develops on the proposed amendments in the field of parental responsibility and international abduction of children. It further analyses the amendments proposed to the general criterion of the child’s habitual residence and to prorogation of jurisdiction (par. 3) and the new provision on the hearing of the child (par. 4). Major attention is given to the new chapter on abduction of children, that is assessed into depth, also in regard of the confirmation of the much-discussed overriding mechanism (par. 5-7). Finally, the amendment aiming to the abolition of exequatur, counter- balanced by a new set of grounds for opposition, is assessed against the cornerstone of free circulation of decision’s principle. Indeed, new Article 40 will allow to refuse enforcement when the court of the state of enforcement considers this to be prejudicial to the best interest of the child, thus overriding basic EU principles.

SOMMARIO: 1. Premessa. Incidenza del principio di territorialità in tema di proprietà intellettuale sulla fase del riconoscimento delle decisioni. – 2. Il regime generale del riconoscimento delle decisioni ex Reg. n. 44/2001. Principi generali. – 3. Il riconoscimento delle decisioni sull’esistenza e validità del diritto di privativa. Il controllo sulla competenza del giudice d’origine. – 4. Il giudizio di con- traffazione: il riconoscimento delle decisioni di condanna. – 5. (Segue): e la circolazione delle mi- sure coercitive. – 6. I provvedimenti provvisori e cautelari e la loro circolazione.

In several recent decisions on cases concerning the international abduction of minors the European Court of Human Rights set the requirement of an «in-depth examination of the entire family situation» in order to comply with Article 8 ECHR. The present article considers the ef- fects of such principle on the role and on the proceedings of both the court of the State of the child’s habitual residence and of the court of the State of his refuge after abduction, especially when acting in the frame of Brussels II Regulation. While the requirement of «in-depth examination» seems overall synergetic to the role of the court of habitual residence, also when such court is judging on the return of the abducted minor pursuant to Article 11(8) Reg. 2201/2003, deeper concerns arise with reference to the role of the court of the State of refuge. When such a court is asked to enforce a decision for the return of the abducted child, the possible violation of the child’s fundamental right in the State of origin might raise the question of opposition to recognition and enforcement. The article thus endeavours to find a solution balancing the child’s fundamental rights and EU general fi- nality to strengthen the area of freedom, security and justice.

The Interedil judgment focuses on two main issues within the judicial coopera- tion in civil matters. First of all, it allows, on a general ground of the preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation of Article 3, to go more into depth ± or, better, confirm ± various issues regarding the relations between courts of merits and supreme courts in front of EU law, and, therefor, to affirm the primacy of EU law. Secondly, while it confirms various issues concerning the notion, the inter- pretation and the acknowledgment of COMI, the judgment provides new elements to have a more clear, univocal and predictable ascertainment of COMI. Some issues still, however, remain unresolved and require further clarifications from the European Court of Justice, mainly with regard to the relations between the principle of freedom of establishment within the EU and Insolvency Regulation .

Al principio dell’unicità dello status di figlio stabilito dalla legge n. 219/2012 corrisponde quello di unicità dello status di padre. Oggi, in Italia, un padre gode ex lege della piena responsabilità parentale, indipen-dentemente dall’esistenza di un rapporto matrimoniale con la madre. Benché da noi ancorata al principio di eguaglianza, tale affermazione non è però da tutti condivisa nel resto d’Europa. Numerosi paesi europei, infatti, ritengono che il minore nato fuori dal matrimonio sia in una situazione oggettivamente diversa da quella in cui si trova il figlio nato all’interno di esso, e che tale situazione giustifichi un trattamento differen-ziato della responsabilità parentale. Essi negano pertanto la responsabilità parentale ex lege del padre non sposato, prevedendone una sua (eventuale) attribuzione, successiva alla nascita del figlio, per effetto dell’accordo con la madre o del provvedimento del giudice.
Assumendo a paradigma di tale approccio l’ordinamento inglese, il presente contributo esamina la discipli-na normativa ivi vigente, soffermandosi sulla ratio sottostante e sui meccanismi predisposti per garantire la tutela della madre e l’interesse del minore. Particolare spazio verrà poi dato alla giurisprudenza della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo che, nel confermare la legittimità della scelta normativa inglese, ha definito an-che i limiti invalicabili di tale diverso trattamento, così inducendo altri ordinamenti a modificare le proprie normative interne.