BWBV0003995
Geldig vanaf 01-09-1990
Artikel 9
Europees Verdrag betreffende de erkenning en de tenuitvoerlegging van beslissingen inzake het gezag over kinderen en betreffende het herstel van het gezag over kinderen
1. In cases of improper removal, other than those dealt with in Article 8, in which an application has been made to a central authority within a period of six months from the date of the removal, recognition and enforcement may be refused only if:
a. in the case of a decision given in the absence of the defendant or his legal representative, the defendant was not duly served with the document which instituted the proceedings or an equivalent document in sufficient time to enable him to arrange his defence; but such a failure to effect service cannot constitute a ground for refusing recognition or enforcement where service was not effected because the defendant had concealed his whereabouts from the person who instituted the proceedings in the State of origin;
b. in the case of a decision given in the absence of the defendant or his legal representative, the competence of the authority giving the decision was not founded: i. on the habitual residence of the defendant, or
ii. on the last common habitual residence of the child's parents, at least one parent being still habitually resident there, or
iii. on the habitual residence of the child;
i. on the habitual residence of the defendant, or
ii. on the last common habitual residence of the child's parents, at least one parent being still habitually resident there, or
iii. on the habitual residence of the child;
c. the decision is incompatible with a decision relating to custody which became enforceable in the State addressed before the removal of the child, unless the child has had his habitual residence in the territory of the requesting State for one year before his removal.
2. Where no application has been made to a central authority, the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall apply equally, if recognition and enforcement are requested within six months from the date of the improper removal.
3. In no circumstances may the foreign decision be reviewed as to its substance.
a. in the case of a decision given in the absence of the defendant or his legal representative, the defendant was not duly served with the document which instituted the proceedings or an equivalent document in sufficient time to enable him to arrange his defence; but such a failure to effect service cannot constitute a ground for refusing recognition or enforcement where service was not effected because the defendant had concealed his whereabouts from the person who instituted the proceedings in the State of origin;
b. in the case of a decision given in the absence of the defendant or his legal representative, the competence of the authority giving the decision was not founded: i. on the habitual residence of the defendant, or
ii. on the last common habitual residence of the child's parents, at least one parent being still habitually resident there, or
iii. on the habitual residence of the child;
i. on the habitual residence of the defendant, or
ii. on the last common habitual residence of the child's parents, at least one parent being still habitually resident there, or
iii. on the habitual residence of the child;
c. the decision is incompatible with a decision relating to custody which became enforceable in the State addressed before the removal of the child, unless the child has had his habitual residence in the territory of the requesting State for one year before his removal.
2. Where no application has been made to a central authority, the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article shall apply equally, if recognition and enforcement are requested within six months from the date of the improper removal.
3. In no circumstances may the foreign decision be reviewed as to its substance.
- Citeren als
- Art. 9
- Geldig vanaf
- Status
- Geldend recht
- Identificatie
- BWBV0003995
- Officiële bron
- wetten.overheid.nl