HCCH - The Judges' Newsletter on International Child Protection - Vol. XX - Summer-Autumn 2013

The Judges’ Newsletter on International Child Protection Volume XX | Summer – Autumn 2013 Special focus Concentration of jurisdiction under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and other international child protection instruments A publication of the Hague Conference on Private International LawThe Judges’ Newsletter is published biannually by the Hague Conference on Private International Law under the supervision of Louise Ellen Teitz, First Secretary, and Philippe Lortie, First Secretary, with the assistance of Joëlle Küng, former Legal Offi cer, and Carlo Di Nicola, Legal O ffi cer. This journal is written by and for judges with the aim of exchanging the information necessary for effi cient judicial co-operation in the fi eld of international child protection. Contact details for the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law are as follows: Hague Conference on Private International Law Permanent Bureau Scheveningseweg 6 2517 KT The Hague The Netherlands

Tel: +31 (70) 363.3303

Fax: +31 (70) 360.4867

E-mail: TheJudgesNewsletter@hcch.nl

secretariat@hcch.net Website: http:/ /www.hcch.net Copyright©2013 Hague Conference on Private International Law All rights reserved. Articles contained herein may be reproduced for educational purposes. No part may, however, be reproduced for commercial purposes without the express written consent of the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law. INTERNATIONAL BOARD OF JUDICIAL ADVISERS  H.E. Justice Antonio Boggiano; former President of the Supreme Court of Argentina  The Honourable Judge Peter Boshier; Commissioner, Law Commission, New Zealand  Mr Eberhard Carl, former Judge at the Regional Superior Court at Frankfurt/Main, Germany  The Honourable Justice Jacques Chamberland; Court of Appeal of Quebec, Canada

 The Honourable Judge Peter Boshier; Commissioner, Law Commission, New Zealand  Mr Eberhard Carl, former Judge at the Regional Superior Court at Frankfurt/Main, Germany  The Honourable Justice Jacques Chamberland; Court of Appeal of Quebec, Canada  The Honourable Justice James Garbolino; former Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of California, United States of America  Ms Catherine Gaudet Bossard; Honouree Judge, former Conseiller to the Court of Appeal of Bourges, France  The Honourable Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness; former Judge of the Supreme Court of Ireland  The Honourable Dr Katalin Murányi; Chairperson of the Civil College, Budapest, Hungary  The Honourable Elisa Pérez-Vera; Constitutional Court of Spain  The Honourable Judge Adel Omar Sherif; Deputy Chief Justice, Supreme Constitutional Court, Cairo, Egypt  The Right Honourable Sir Mathew Thorpe; Associate Member, 1 Hare Court, England and Wales1on International Child Protection Table of contents Special Focus Concentration of jurisdiction under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. 2 1 – Introduction, Philippe LORTIE 2 2 – Australia, The Honourable Diana BRYANT AO 3 3 – Belgium, Myriam DE HEMPTINNE 5 4 – Bulgaria, Judge Bogdana JELIAVSKA 6 5 – Canada, The Honourable Justice Robyn M. DIAMOND 7 6 – China (Hong Kong, SAR), Deputy High Court Judge Bebe Pui Ying CHU 9 7 – Cyprus, The Honourable Justice George A. SERGHIDES 11 8 – Dominican Republic, Antonia Josefi na GRULLÓN BLANDINO 13 9 – Finland, Justice Elisabeth BYGGLIN 14 10 – France, Mrs. Isabelle GUYON-RENARD 15 11 – Germany, Judge Sabine BRIEGER 16

8 – Dominican Republic, Antonia Josefi na GRULLÓN BLANDINO 13 9 – Finland, Justice Elisabeth BYGGLIN 14 10 – France, Mrs. Isabelle GUYON-RENARD 15 11 – Germany, Judge Sabine BRIEGER 16 12 – Hungary, Judge dr. Márta GYENGE-NAGY 18 13 – Israel, Judge Benzion GREENBERGER 19 14 – The Netherlands, Annette C. OLLAND 20 15 – Panama, Delia P. CEDEÑO 21 16 – Paraguay, María Eugenia GIMÉNEZ DE ALLEN 22 17 – South Africa, The Honourable Mrs Justice Belinda VAN HEERDEN 23 18 – Sweden, Judge Ann-Sofi e BEXELL 24 19 – Switzerland, Daniel BÄHLER 25 20 – United Kingdom (England and Wales), The Right Honourable Lord Justice Mathew THORPE 26 21 – United Kingdom (Northern Ireland), The Honourable Justice Ben STEPHENS 26 Regional Perspectives • The links between Common Law and Civil Law worlds in South American States, Graciela TAGLE 27 International Child Protection Projects • 6 th World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights “Building Bridges From Principle to Reality”, 17 - 20 March 2013, Sydney, Australia, The Honourable Justice Robyn

M. DIAMOND 29 • Resolutions from the 6 th World Congress on Family Law and Children’s Rights 30 • The Euromed Justice III Project – Establishment of a Handbook on Good Practices concerning the resolution of cross-border family confl icts in the Euro-Mediterranean region, Juliane HIRSCH 33

Members of the International Hague Network of Judges 35 Personal Note 392 The Judges’ Newsletter South Africa and the United Kingdom (England & Wales and Northern Ireland)), concentration of jurisdiction regarding child abduction matters was established at the time of the implementation of the 1980 Child Abduction

Members of the International Hague Network of Judges 35 Personal Note 392 The Judges’ Newsletter South Africa and the United Kingdom (England & Wales and Northern Ireland)), concentration of jurisdiction regarding child abduction matters was established at the time of the implementation of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention. Finally, jurisdiction was concentrated in a number of States (Belgium, Bulgaria, Dominican Republic, France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland) after some years of operation of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention. Finally, it is interesting to note that in some States, when concentration was attributed to a given court, another level of concentration took place by designating one or more specialised judges responsible for child abduction cases in these courts (Bulgaria, Germany, Israel, South Africa and the United Kingdom (England & Wales and Northern Ireland)). Concentration has taken place in States with a federal structure (Australia, Canada, Germany and Switzerland) and in pluri-legislative States (Cyprus and Israel). In most States (Belgium, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Netherlands, Panama, Paraguay, Sweden and Switzerland), concentration of jurisdiction was established by the passing of legislation. In a smaller number of States (Bulgaria, South Africa and the United Kingdom (England & Wales and Northern Ireland)) concentration of jurisdiction was eff ected by Rules of Court or the Code of Civil Procedure, with the designation of specialised judges made by administrative decisions of the Lord Chief Justice in the case of South Africa, England & Wales and Northern Ireland. In Hungary concentration of jurisdiction was set up by Ministerial Decree. In the Dominican Republic it was through a resolution passed by the Supreme Court, whilst in Hong Kong SAR it was by way of Ordinance. In Australia, concentration of jurisdiction was established pursuant to a Protocol between the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court. Finally, in Canada, by creating a network of judges at both the Provincial and Superior Court levels, concentration of jurisdiction appears to be taking

Australia, concentration of jurisdiction was established pursuant to a Protocol between the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court. Finally, in Canada, by creating a network of judges at both the Provincial and Superior Court levels, concentration of jurisdiction appears to be taking place by way of these judges who have been designated to the national networks. As mentioned above, concentration of jurisdiction very often takes place within the Family Court (Australia, Cyprus and Israel) or the Child and Adolescent Court (Dominican Republic, Panama and Paraguay). The High Court was chosen in a few jurisdictions (China (Hong Kong SAR), South Africa and the United Kingdom (England & Wales and Northern Ireland)). In some States, jurisdiction was concentrated with the Court of Appeal (Bulgaria and Finland) or in the courts of fi rst instance in the jurisdictions where the largest courts of appeal are located (Belgium (fi ve courts), France (37 courts) and Germany (24 courts)). The chosen courts have better infrastructures, including better research facilities. In two cases, jurisdiction was concentrated in a District Court (Netherlands and Sweden). Finally, in the case of Switzerland, concentration of jurisdiction resides with fi rst instance cantonal superior courts. Finally, it is interesting to note that some States have concentrated jurisdiction in relation to other instruments, Special Focus Concentration of jurisdiction under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction

1. Overview

By Philippe LORTIE, First Secretary, Permanent Bureau, Hague Conference on Private International Law According to an analysis of the Country Pro fi les under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the “1980 Child Abduction Convention”), more than 40 States Parties to this Convention have concentrated jurisdiction for child abduction matters.1 Despite the high numbers of States that have concentrated jurisdiction, no comparative research has been undertaken in this area and few detailed accounts

Aspects of International Child Abduction (the “1980 Child Abduction Convention”), more than 40 States Parties to this Convention have concentrated jurisdiction for child abduction matters.1 Despite the high numbers of States that have concentrated jurisdiction, no comparative research has been undertaken in this area and few detailed accounts exist as to the “who, what, where, when, why and how” concentration of jurisdiction took place in these States. In order to know more, the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law sought articles for a special issue of the Judges’ Newsletter from Members of the International Hague Network of Judges, from States where concentration of jurisdiction has taken place in one form or another. The Permanent Bureau was delighted to receive 20 very interesting contributions on this subject, covering all continents.2 It is hoped that this collection of articles will provide helpful information to States Parties to the 1980 Child Abduction Convention which have not yet concentrated jurisdiction. The articles that follow highlight many of the advantages that result from the concentration of jurisdiction, such as: - an accumulation of experience among the judges concerned; - the development of mutual con fi dence between judges and authorities in diff erent legal systems; - the creation of a high level of interdisciplinary understanding of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention; - mitigation of delay in the processing of cases; - greater consistency in practice by judges and lawyers. The articles included in this volume show that concentration of jurisdiction in family law matters was already in place in a number of States (Cyprus, Israel, Panama and Paraguay) before the implementation of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention. Thus, when the Convention was implemented in these Sates, competence was attributed to these already concentrated jurisdictions. In some other States (China (Hong Kong SAR), Finland, 1 See the Country Pro fi les under the 1980 Child Abduction Convention on the Hague Conference website at < www.hcch.net >, under “Child Abduction Section”, and “Country Profi les”.

In some other States (China (Hong Kong SAR), Finland, 1 See the Country Pro fi les under the 1980 Child Abduction Convention on the Hague Conference website at < www.hcch.net >, under “Child Abduction Section”, and “Country Profi les”. 2 Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, China (Hong Kong SAR), Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, Netherlands, Panama, Paraguay, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom (England & Wales and Northern Ireland).3on International Child Protection The Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (“the 1996 Child Protection Convention”) came into operation in Australia on 1 August 2003 and is in force between Australia and 41 Contracting States. The Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (“the 1993 Adoption Convention”) came into operation in Australia on 1 December 1998 and is currently in force between Australia and 92 Contracting States. Australia became a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (“UNCRC”) on 22 August 1990. UNCRC has not been incorporated directly into Australian domestic law. By amendment eff ective from 7 June 2012, an additional object of the parenting provisions of our Family Law Act 1975 (Cwth) is “to give e ff ect to the Convention of the Rights of the Child.” 5 UNCRC does not override specifi c provisions of domestic law or our regulations which implement the 1980 Child Abduction Convention. UNCRC is an aid to interpretation and can be used to resolve ambiguities in domestic legislation and may have be signifi cant in the interpretation of Australian laws and the common law relating to children. Judicial structure and operation of the 1980 Child

implement the 1980 Child Abduction Convention. UNCRC is an aid to interpretation and can be used to resolve ambiguities in domestic legislation and may have be signifi cant in the interpretation of Australian laws and the common law relating to children. Judicial structure and operation of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention Family law cases are heard by the Family Court of Australia,6 which is the superior court of record, and the Federal Circuit Court,7 which is the trial court. The Family Court of Australia is a specialised court comprising the Chief Justice, the Honourable Justice Diana Bryant, the Deputy Chief Justice and 31 Judges. It sits directly below our supreme court, the High Court of Australia (which comprises the Chief Justice and 6 Justices). The Family Court hears appeals and cases of long duration or of such complexity as renders the case unsuitable for determination by the trial court. Pursuant to a Protocol between the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, all Hague abduction cases are dealt with by the Family Court of Australia as are international relocation cases. Accordingly, in Australia jurisdiction to hear abduction cases at fi rst instance is concentrated to 23 justices of the general or trial division of the Family Court. An appeal from the fi rst instance decision lies to the Appeal Division of the Family Court comprised of three judges often comprised of two Appeal Division judges and a judge from the General Division. An appeal from a decision of the Full 5 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 60B(4). 6 Reference to the Family Court of Australia includes the Family Court of Western Australia which comprises fi ve state judges, under the leadership of Chief Judge Stephen Thackray, and is vested with State and Federal jurisdiction in matters of family law and deals with divorce, property of a marriage or a de facto relationship, matters relating to of children, maintenance and adoptions. 7 Prior to 28 May 2013 the Federal Circuit Court was known as the Federal Magistrates’ Court and the judges were known as Federal

and Federal jurisdiction in matters of family law and deals with divorce, property of a marriage or a de facto relationship, matters relating to of children, maintenance and adoptions. 7 Prior to 28 May 2013 the Federal Circuit Court was known as the Federal Magistrates’ Court and the judges were known as Federal Magistrates. The change of name refl ects the fact that the work of that court was at the level of a County Court or District Court rather than at Magistrates’ Court level. such as the Luxembourg Convention of 20 May 1980 on Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions concerning Custody of Children and on Restoration of Custody of Children (Belgium, Bulgaria, Finland, Germany, Hungary), the Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Bulgaria, Canada (through the Canadian networks of Judges), China (Hong Kong SAR) and Finland), the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (Canada (through the Canadian networks of judges) even though the 1996 Convention is not in force for Canada, Finland and Germany), the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults (Germany), Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom (England & Wales and Northern Ireland)), the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (Canada (through the Canadian networks of judges) even though the 2007 Convention is not in force for Canada), and Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law,

the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance (Canada (through the Canadian networks of judges) even though the 2007 Convention is not in force for Canada), and Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations (Germany). We hope that you will fi nd the reading of the following articles as interesting as we did and that they will inspire States which have not yet concentrated jurisdiction to do so in the very near future.

2. Australia By The Honourable Diana BRYANT AO, Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia and The Honourable Justice Victoria Bennett of the Family Court of Australia3

Australia is a federation. Power to make private law in relation to children of relationships is vested in the Commonwealth government and the power to make public law, in relation to children who are adjudged to be in need of care and protection or who have committed a crime, is vested the seven states and territories.4 It is a system which is administered cooperatively and without diffi culty. International children’s conventions aff ecting Australia The Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the 1980 Child Abduction Convention”) came into operation in Australia on 1 January 1987 and is currently in force between Australia and 81 other Contracting States. 3 The authors are members the International Hague Network of Judges for Australia. 4 The states are Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia. The self governing territories are the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory.4 The Judges’ Newsletter applications to the superior, specialist court, hearings can be allocated more quickly and case managed more directionally than they can be in the high volume trial court. Case management and the ability to expedite the hearing of abduction applications are important because our supreme court, the High Court of Australia, has eschewed

applications to the superior, specialist court, hearings can be allocated more quickly and case managed more directionally than they can be in the high volume trial court. Case management and the ability to expedite the hearing of abduction applications are important because our supreme court, the High Court of Australia, has eschewed a purely summary determination of return applications.10 Consequently, it is not uncommon for a fi nal hearing to run for between 1 and 3 days and involve commissioning reports by social scientists, other expert evidence and taking cross examination from overseas outside court sitting hours. We find that the other benefits of the concentration of jurisdiction are:- • the e ffi ciency with which judicial education about recent developments within the Hague community as well as recent decisions in other Contracting States can be delivered; • the ability to familiarise our judges with the operation of the International Hague Network of Judges and the ability to facilitate general or direct (case specifi c) judicial communications between our court and the relevant judge in the Contracting State of habitual residence via the International Hague Network of Judges. This is particularly valuable to implement conditions for return, schedule a preliminary hearing in the home State and other safe harbour measures; • the ease of delivery of information about mediation of abduction cases within our jurisdiction. This specialised mediation must be facilitated, if it is to be facilitated at all, at very short notice so as to not delay any judicial determination of the case. It is usually only available through a small number of service providers who can operate at minimal or no fi nancial cost to the participants and who can provide a co-mediator in each Contracting State (eg. International Social Service) or who have the technology to convene the required number of sessions (often three) through audio visual connectivity; • as a superior court of record, it should be apparent to the courts of other Contracting States that any determination of our Family Court is authoritative and not prone to reversal by multiple rulings after further

technology to convene the required number of sessions (often three) through audio visual connectivity; • as a superior court of record, it should be apparent to the courts of other Contracting States that any determination of our Family Court is authoritative and not prone to reversal by multiple rulings after further contests in higher courts. The authoritative nature of our determinations aids enforcement, Article 15 requests and direct judicial communications around conditions for return and safe harbour measures. We appreciate the benefi ts of the determination of Hague abduction cases being concentrated in our one specialist and superior court. Likewise, we appreciate the relative ease of dealing with other Contracting States who have, over the last 20 or so years, taken the signifi cant but very constructive step of concentrating jurisdiction to determine these cases to a specifi c court or level of court within that State. Most respectfully, our experience is that in Contracting States where jurisdiction is concentrated, the 1980 Child Abduction 10 MW v Director-General, Department of Community Services [2008] HCA 12 at [46] to [49] Court of the Family Court to the High Court of Australia requires leave of the High Court. To date, leave has been sought in 19 Hague abduction cases but granted in only six.8 The Commonwealth Central Authority in Australia for the 1980 Child Abduction Convention is the same as the Central Authority for the 1996 Child Protection Convention work and is a person appointed within the Commonwealth AttorneyGeneral’s Department. Another person is appointed to be the Central Authority for the work of the 1993 Adoption Convention. The Commonwealth Attorney-General designates a person in each of the States and Territories to be the State Central Authority for the 1980 Child Abduction Convention work within that State. This is usually the secretary or head of the state’s child welfare department. Accordingly, a State Central Authority has at its disposal the services of trained child protection workers, emergency accommodation and a working relationship with the police. Through the Commonwealth Central Authority, the State

Convention work within that State. This is usually the secretary or head of the state’s child welfare department. Accordingly, a State Central Authority has at its disposal the services of trained child protection workers, emergency accommodation and a working relationship with the police. Through the Commonwealth Central Authority, the State Central Authorities have access to some offi cial records, such as immigration records from which it can be determined when a child entered or departed Australia as well as social security payments. Abduction applications are prosecuted by the State Central Authority. The left behind parent is not required to pay for the costs of the prosecution (Article 26). A left behind parent may prosecute their own case, to the exclusion of the State Central Authority, but it is most unusual. Accordingly, almost every abduction case is prosecuted by a model litigant who has extensive experience in Hague abduction cases. This results in a concentration of expertise in prosecution work. Unlike some other Contracting States, legal aid bodies in Australia do not maintain a panel of specialist lawyers whom they will fund to act for abducting parents to defend the application. Accordingly, the standard of defence work is varied. Where a child is represented in a Hague abduction proceeding, which is exceptional,9 that representation is funded by the legal aid authority of the state or territory in which the child is located. It is the authors’ experience that, within our state of Victoria, independent children’s lawyers have extensive experience in international child abduction matters and a personal commitment to undertake the work to a high standard. Skilled representation of the child’s interest is essential where an abducting parent fails or neglects to raise an issue for determination such as the jurisdictional facts of habitual residence or right of custody or an exception to return. Benefi ts resulting from concentration of jurisdiction By concentrating jurisdiction to hear Hague abduction 8 Leave has been granted in the cases of: De L v Director General, of NSW Department of Community Services & Anor [1996] HCA 9; DJL

to return. Benefi ts resulting from concentration of jurisdiction By concentrating jurisdiction to hear Hague abduction 8 Leave has been granted in the cases of: De L v Director General, of NSW Department of Community Services & Anor [1996] HCA 9; DJL v The Central Authority (2000) 201 CLR 226; DP v Commonwealth Central Authority (2001) 206 CLR 401; MW v Director-General of the Department of Community Services [2008] HCA 12; LK v DirectorGeneral, Department of Community Services [2009] HCA9 and most recently in RCB as litigation guardian of EKV, CEV, CIV and LRV v The Honourable Justice Colin James Forrest [2012] HCA 47. 9 Section 68L(3) Family Law Act 19755on International Child Protection Knowledge of the instruments and international case-law, speed of intervention, reinforcement of direct cooperation among the judges in the various Member States, leading to reinforced confi dence in the judicial systems, demanded that specialisation of the courts” (Bill, Chamber Parliamentary Documents, session 2006-2007, 51-3002/001, p. 44 [French version]). The Act of 10 May 2007 accordingly concentrated jurisdiction with the Courts at fi rst instance established at the locations of Courts of Appeal (Brussels, Mons, Liege, Antwerp and Gent) and, in those cases where the proceedings are to be held in the German language, the Court at fi rst instance of Eupen. These cases, previously assigned to the 27 Presidents of diff erent courts (matching the 27 judicial circuits of the country), are now, starting at the fi rst instance, assigned solely to 6 lower-court Presidents, it being understood that on appeal, the proceedings are handled by one of the country’s fi ve Courts of Appeal. The new Article 1322 bis of the Judicial Code lists the proceedings for which this concentration of jurisdiction is

solely to 6 lower-court Presidents, it being understood that on appeal, the proceedings are handled by one of the country’s fi ve Courts of Appeal. The new Article 1322 bis of the Judicial Code lists the proceedings for which this concentration of jurisdiction is now to apply: - applications based on the Luxembourg Convention for the recognition and enforcement of decisions concerning custody and restoration of the custody of children; - applications based on the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980, for immediate return of the child, for observance of the custody rights or rights of access existing in another State or for the organisation of a right of access; - applications for the child’s return or custody pursuant to a decision to deny return delivered in another EU Member State under Article 11 of Regulation Brussels IIa; - applications on the basis of Article 48 of Regulation Brussels IIa, for determination of the practical terms of exercise of a right of access; and - applications on the basis of Article 28 of Regulation Brussels IIa for recognition or enforcement of decisions relating to rights of access or return of the child. Only the last of those proceedings may be brought unilaterally (Article 1322 bis § 2), the others requiring initiation by means of an application inter partes (Article 1322 bis § 1). As regards territorial jurisdiction, the passing of the new Act was an opportunity to specify, by the addition of the new Articles 633 sexies and septies to the Judicial Code, that the case is to be brought before the President of the Court at fi rst instance, established at the location of the Court of Appeal within the circuit of which, as the case may be: - the child is present (Article 633 sexies): this situation relates to return proceedings, when Belgium is the requested State; - the child has its habitual residence at the time of fi ling or sending of the applicatio