Citaat | Parket bij de Hoge Raad 13 mei 2016
Onder 2.14 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 13 mei 2016
Een alinea uit Parket bij de Hoge Raad 13 mei 2016, ECLI:NL:PHR:2016:366.
‘Where the change of habitual residence of the child from one State to another occurs at a time when the authorities of the first habitual residence are seised of a request for a measure of protection, the question arises as to whether these authorities retain their competence to take this measure ( perpetuatio fori ) or whether the change of habitual residence deprives them ipso facto of this jurisdiction and obliges them to decline its exercise. The Commission rejected by a strong majority a proposal by the Australian, Irish, British and United States delegations favourable to perpetuatio fori . Certain delegations explained their negative vote by their hostility to the very principle of perpetuatio fori in this field and wanted jurisdiction to change automatically in case of a change of habitual residence, while other delegations thought that it would be more simple for the Convention not to say anything on this subject thereby abandoning to the procedural law the decision on perpetuatio fori . The first opinion appeared to be the more exact in the case of a change of habitual residence from one Contracting State to another Contracting State. Indeed it is not acceptable that in such a situation, which is located entirely within the interior of the scope of application of the Convention, the determination of jurisdiction be left to the law of each of the Contracting States. Moreover this solution is one which currently prevails for the interpretation of the Convention of 5 October 1961. On the other hand, in the case of a change of habitual residence from a Contracting State to a non-Contracting State, Article 5 ceases to be applicable from the time of the change of residence and nothing stands in the way of retention of jurisdiction, under the national law of procedure, by the authority of the Contracting State of the first habitual residence which has been seised of the matter, although the other Contracting States are not bound by the Convention to recognise the measure which may be taken by this authority’.
Zelf controleren
Voor dit citaat hoeft niemand Bron op zijn woord te geloven. Het document dat rechtspraak.nl publiceerde, staat op https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/9728ef01cff6d762b33433d2d37620afc237bfb3bbc60d1c509b73d8649cb54f. Wie het ophaalt en de SHA-256 ervan berekent, krijgt 9728ef01cff6d762b33433d2d37620afc237bfb3bbc60d1c509b73d8649cb54f, en de alinea staat in dat document op bytes 26268 tot 28568.
$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/9728ef01cff6d762b33433d2d37620afc237bfb3bbc60d1c509b73d8649cb54f | shasum -a 256