Skip to content

Brussels IIb Regulation — Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111

TL;DR. Brussels IIb is the EU regulation governing cross-border jurisdiction, recognition, and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, plus a specific framework for international child abduction that complements (and partly supersedes) the 1980 Hague Convention as between EU Member States. Adopted 25 June 2019, applies from 1 August 2022, directly applicable in 26 EU Member States (all except Denmark). Key articles for PA-context analysis:

  • Article 1 — Scope (matrimonial + parental responsibility; explicit exclusion of parent-child relationship, adoption, maintenance);
  • Article 7 — General jurisdiction in parental responsibility (habitual residence of the child);
  • Article 9 — Jurisdiction in cases of wrongful removal or retention (preservation of habitual-residence-State jurisdiction);
  • Article 10 — Choice of court (with explicit best-interests-of-the-child threshold);
  • Article 21 — Right of the child to express his or her views (in any parental-responsibility proceeding);
  • Article 22-27 — Hague Convention return mechanism with EU-specific overlays including the 6-week first-instance + 6-week appeal expedition rule (Art. 24) and the protective-measure innovation at Art. 27(3) reframing the Art. 13(b) grave-risk defence.

Source: EUR-Lex CELEX 32019R1111 — official EU regulation, public text. · Fetched: 2026-06-14 · Editorial commentary licence: CC BY 4.0

Full statutory text — verbatim selected articles

Article 1 — Scope

1. This Regulation applies in civil matters of:

(a) divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment;

(b) the attribution, exercise, delegation, restriction or termination of parental responsibility.

2. The matters referred to in point (b) of paragraph 1 may, in particular, include:

(a) rights of custody and rights of access;

(b) guardianship, curatorship and similar institutions;

© the designation and functions of any person or body having charge of the person or property of a child, or representing or assisting a child;

(d) the placement of a child in institutional or foster care;

(e) measures for the protection of the child relating to the administration, conservation or disposal of the property of a child.

3. Chapters III and VI of this Regulation apply where the wrongful removal or retention of a child concerns more than one Member State, complementing the 1980 Hague Convention. Chapter IV of this Regulation applies to decisions ordering the return of a child to another Member State pursuant to the 1980 Hague Convention which have to be enforced in a Member State other than the Member State where the decision was given.

4. This Regulation does not apply to:

(a) the establishment or the contesting of a parent-child relationship;

(b) decisions on adoption, measures preparatory to adoption, or the annulment or revocation of adoption;

© the name and forenames of a child;

(d) emancipation;

(e) maintenance obligations;

(f) trusts or succession;

(g) measures taken as a result of criminal law offences committed by children.

Article 7 — General jurisdiction (parental responsibility)

1. The courts of a Member State shall have jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility over a child who is habitually resident in that Member State at the time the court is seised.

2. Paragraph 1 of this Article shall be subject to Articles 8 to 10.

Article 9 — Jurisdiction in cases of the wrongful removal or retention of a child

Without prejudice to Article 10, in the case of the wrongful removal or retention of a child, the courts of the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention shall retain their jurisdiction until the child has acquired a habitual residence in another Member State and:

(a) each person, institution or other body having rights of custody has acquiesced in the removal or retention; or

(b) the child has resided in that other Member State for a period of at least one year after the person, institution or other body having rights of custody has had or should have had knowledge of the whereabouts of the child and the child is settled in his or her new environment and at least one of the following conditions is met:

(i) within one year after the holder of rights of custody has had or should have had knowledge of the whereabouts of the child, no application for return has been lodged with the competent authorities of the Member State to which the child has been removed or where the child is being retained;

(ii) an application for return lodged by the holder of rights of custody has been withdrawn and no new application has been lodged within the time limit set in point (i);

(iii) an application for return lodged by the holder of rights of custody was refused by a court of a Member State on grounds other than point (b) of Article 13(1) or Article 13(2) of the 1980 Hague Convention and that decision is no longer subject to ordinary appeal;

(iv) no court was seised as referred to in Article 29(3) and (5) in the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention;

(v) a decision on rights of custody that does not entail the return of the child has been given by the courts of the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention.

Article 21 — Right of the child to express his or her views

1. When exercising their jurisdiction under Section 2 of this Chapter, the courts of the Member States shall, in accordance with national law and procedure, provide the child who is capable of forming his or her own views with a genuine and effective opportunity to express his or her views, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body.

2. Where the court, in accordance with national law and procedure, gives a child an opportunity to express his or her views in accordance with this Article, the court shall give due weight to the views of the child in accordance with his or her age and maturity.

Article 24 — Expeditious court proceedings (return)

1. A court to which an application for the return of a child referred to in Article 22 is made shall act expeditiously in proceedings on the application, using the most expeditious procedures available under national law.

2. Without prejudice to paragraph 1, a court of first instance shall, except where exceptional circumstances make this impossible, give its decision no later than six weeks after it is seised.

3. Except where exceptional circumstances make this impossible, a court of higher instance shall give its decision no later than six weeks after all the required procedural steps have been taken and the court is in a position to examine the appeal, whether by hearing or otherwise.

Article 27 — Procedure for the return of a child

1. A court cannot refuse to return a child unless the person seeking the return of the child has been given an opportunity to be heard.

2. The court may, at any stage of the proceedings, in accordance with Article 15, examine whether contact between the child and the person seeking the return of the child should be ensured, taking into account the best interests of the child.

3. Where a court considers refusing to return a child solely on the basis of point (b) of Article 13(1) of the 1980 Hague Convention, it shall not refuse to return the child if the party seeking the return of the child satisfies the court by providing sufficient evidence, or the court is otherwise satisfied, that adequate arrangements have been made to secure the protection of the child after his or her return.

4. For the purposes of paragraph 3 of this Article, the court may communicate with the competent authorities of the Member State where the child was habitually resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention, either directly in accordance with Article 86 or with the assistance of Central Authorities.

5. Where the court orders the return of the child, the court may, where appropriate, take provisional, including protective, measures in accordance with Article 15 of this Regulation in order to protect the child from the grave risk referred to in point (b) of Article 13(1) of the 1980 Hague Convention, provided that the examining and taking of such measures would not unduly delay the return proceedings.

6. A decision ordering the return of the child may be declared provisionally enforceable, notwithstanding any appeal, where the return of the child before the decision on the appeal is required by the best interests of the child.

Why these articles matter for parental-alienation analysis

Brussels IIb is the operative EU cross-border framework layered over the 1980 Hague Convention. PA-context cross-border litigation between EU Member States proceeds primarily under Brussels IIb, with the Hague Convention 1980 supplying the substantive return framework but Brussels IIb providing the EU-specific procedural overlays.

Article 7 + 9 — Habitual residence as jurisdictional anchor

The habitual-residence rule is the canonical PA-relevant jurisdictional principle. PA-pattern conduct frequently involves cross-border relocation (lawful or unlawful) — Brussels IIb Article 7 anchors jurisdiction in the child's habitual residence at the time the court is seised, while Article 9 preserves the original-habitual-residence-State's jurisdiction in cases of wrongful removal/retention. The interaction is operationally important: Article 9 prevents the abducting parent from "manufacturing" jurisdiction by cross-border movement.

Article 10 — Choice of court with best-interests threshold

Article 10 permits parties to agree on jurisdiction where the child has a substantial connection with the Member State and the exercise of jurisdiction is in the best interests of the child (10(1)©). This is the canonical EU-treaty-level expression of the best-interests-of-the-child overlay on jurisdictional rules.

Article 21 — Right of the child to be heard

Article 21 codifies at EU-regulation level the right of the child capable of forming his or her own views to a "genuine and effective opportunity to express his or her views" in any parental-responsibility proceeding. This implements UN CRC Article 12 at the regional EU level. The "due weight in accordance with age and maturity" qualifier mirrors CRC Article 12(1). In PA-context cases, this Article 21 framework is the procedural anchor for the child-hearing analysis discussed in detail in the UNCRC + Italian + German entries.

Articles 22-27 — Hague Convention return mechanism with EU overlays

These articles introduce EU-specific procedural enhancements to the 1980 Hague Convention return mechanism as between Brussels IIb Member States:

  • Article 24(2) — 6-week first-instance decision rule: this is much more concrete than the Hague Convention's general "expeditious procedures" requirement. PA-context cases benefit from the structural commitment to rapid disposition of return applications.

  • Article 24(3) — 6-week appeal decision rule: novel addition in Brussels IIb. Hague Convention itself did not impose timing on appellate review.

  • Article 25 — ADR invitation: the court is required to invite the parties to consider mediation/ADR unless contrary to the child's best interests or inappropriate. This creates an explicit pathway for negotiated resolution in cross-border PA-context cases.

  • Article 27(3) — protective-measure innovation reframing Article 13(b): this is the most significant Brussels IIb addition to the Hague framework. Where a court considers refusing return based on Hague Article 13(b) "grave risk," the court SHALL NOT refuse to return the child if the party seeking return shows that adequate protective arrangements have been made for after return. This significantly narrows the Article 13(b) defence as between Brussels IIb Member States — alienating-parent respondents cannot succeed on Article 13(b) merely by demonstrating risk; they must additionally show that no adequate protective arrangements can be made. The CJEU's interpretive jurisprudence (e.g., D.B. v The Sociétés et al. preliminary references) progressively refines this analysis.

  • Article 27(5) — provisional protective measures on return order: the court may take provisional protective measures to protect the child from Article 13(b) grave risk while still ordering return. Operationalises the Article 27(3) "adequate arrangements" approach.

  • Article 27(6) — provisional enforceability of return order pending appeal: the return order may be declared provisionally enforceable notwithstanding appeal where the child's best interests so require. Prevents alienating-parent respondents from indefinitely delaying return via appellate proceedings.

CJEU interpretive jurisprudence

The CJEU has issued substantial interpretive jurisprudence under Brussels IIa (predecessor) and Brussels IIb on these articles — including Mercredi v Chaffe (C-497/10) on habitual residence, Povse v Alpago (C-211/10) on wrongful retention, Detiček v Sgueglia (C-403/09) on provisional measures jurisdiction, and Aguirre Zarraga v Pelz (C-491/10) on Article 11(8) provisional enforceability. These authorities are the operative interpretive material in cross-border PA-context litigation.

Cross-references within the AntiAlienate Knowledge Base

Primary source

  • EUR-Lex canonical URL: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32019R1111
  • Citation: Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 25 June 2019 on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast)
  • OJ reference: OJ L 178, 2.7.2019, p. 1
  • Status: Public — EU Official Journal text, freely reproducible.
  • Application: Adopted 25 June 2019; applies from 1 August 2022; directly applicable in 26 EU Member States (all except Denmark — Denmark has not opted into Brussels IIb following its TEU Title V opt-out).

Sources & authoritative references

Referenced in this page:

Topic baseline (independently verifiable):