Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

Long Live the Regulation? Brussels II ter Regulation becomes fully applicable

August 3, 2022/in News/by Krzysztof Pacula
image_pdfimage_print

(by Krzysztof Pacula and Thalia Kruger)

Starting from 1 August 2022, the Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 of 29 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) became fully applicable, replacing the Brussels II Regulation. This Regulation is called Brussels IIter by some; Brussels IIb by others, Brussels IIbis (recast) by yet others, or simply Regulation 2019/1111 (thanks to its easy number). Brussels IIb will probably prevail, as this is the name that the Commission seems to be opting for.

As nearly two decades has passed since the Brussels IIbis Regulation itself became applicable, it seemed important to record its retirement also on CoL and to welcome its successor. Special thanks need to go to Mayela Celis who rang the bell timely.

The new Regulation was already finalised by the EU legislator in June 2019, after the Commission’s proposal of June 2016. They agreed to a three-year preparation phase for authorities to get everything in place. In this time, the Regulation was already in force, but only certain obligations applied, such as obligations of Member State authorities to communicate certain information to the Commission. After some to’ing and fro’ing to get it all correct, this information has been published on the Commission’s e-Justice portal for civil matters (but not everything is translated yet). This portal also includes the interactive forms.

Regulation 2019/1111 is longer and more complex that its predecessor. A brief summary of some of the main novelties:

  • a full abolition of exequatur for all decisions in matters of parental responsibility, yet maintaining two regimes: a ‘general’ (Art. 30 et seq.) and a ‘privileged’ regime (Art. 42 et seq.);
  • partial harmonisation of actual enforcement, as opposed to only declaring a decision enforceable and referring for its enforcement to national law (Art. 51 et seq., esp. Arts 56 and 57 on suspension and refusal of enforcement;
  • a clear regime for the recognition of authentic instruments and agreements, including private divorces, provided that the jurisdiction rules were respected (Art. 64 and following);
  • a clarification of when provisional and protective measures are permitted (Art. 15) and their (limited) cross-border effect (Art. 2(1));
  • a limitation of the controversial  ‘overriding mechanism’ (also called ‘second chance procedure’ or ‘trumping mechanism’) to procedures on the substance of custody rights (Art. 29, in particular 29(6));
  • a strict obligation to give the child the opportunity to be heard (Art. 21 in general; Art. 26 for child abduction cases);
  • an obligation for courts to consider and refer parties to mediation in child abduction cases (Art. 25);
  • a more correct disconnection between the Regulation and the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention (Art. 97);
  • clarification of the scope of the rule on the placement of children, especially in intra-family cases, although leaving it to national law to define the exact scope (Art. 82, esp. 82(2) on what the Member States have to communicate to the Commission in this regard).

For further discussion on the new Regulation and the changes its brings, see to the special volume of Polish quarterly on civil procedure („Polish Civil Procedure”, „Polski Proces Cywilny”), which we brought to your attention a while ago.

Volume XXII of the Yearbook of Private International Law (2020-21) also featured a section on the highlights of the Regulation.

In 2020 the University of Osijek hosted a series of online expert seminars (still available on the University’s YouTube channel).

Although repealed, the „old” Regulation does not completely loose its relevance. Under Article 100 of the Brussels II ter Regulation, the former is still applicable in particular to the legal proceedings instituted prior to 1 August 2022 and to the decisions given in such proceedings.

So… Exit the Regulation (but not fully), enter the Regulation. Anyway, Long Live to the Latter ?

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Krzysztof Pacula https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Krzysztof Pacula2022-08-03 19:00:102022-08-04 08:51:33Long Live the Regulation? Brussels II ter Regulation becomes fully applicable

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
  • PRC Double Interest neither Double nor Penal: Australian Courts Clear Its Name When Enforcing Chinese Judgments June 10, 2026
  • The AIFC Court, Gazprom v Naftogaz and the Emergence of a New Conduit Jurisdiction Debate June 6, 2026
  • Montana Supreme Court Decides International Child Custody Case June 3, 2026
  • China’s Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Regulation Blocked EU’s Extraterritorial Data Acquisition May 29, 2026
Link to: “To trust or not to trust – this is the question of private international law”. M. Weller on Mutual Trust, Recueil des Cours, vol. 423 (2022) Link to: “To trust or not to trust – this is the question of private international law”. M. Weller on Mutual Trust, Recueil des Cours, vol. 423 (2022) “To trust or not to trust – this is the question of private international... Link to: ICCS plurilingual forms present and future of international cooperation in civil status matters: Conference on 21 September 2022 Link to: ICCS plurilingual forms present and future of international cooperation in civil status matters: Conference on 21 September 2022 ICCS plurilingual forms present and future of international cooperation in civil...
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top