@ARTICLE{26583261_135029636_2014, 
	author = {N Rostovtseva and Etienne Pataut}, 
	keywords = {, Convention on Abduction, Central body, place of ordinary residence, right to access, rights of custody, protection of children, illegal transfer of a childinternational child abduction},
	title = {Child Abduction: European and Russian Perspectives},
	journal = {},
	year = {2014},
	number = {3},
	pages = {102-120},
	url = {/en/mag/pravo/2014--3/135029636.html},
	publisher = {},
	abstract = {The paper studies one of the most topical issues arousing in international private law, i.e. internationalabduction of children by one of the parents. The first part of the article analyzes the majour provisions of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil law aspects of international Child Abduction (hereafterConvention); reveals the majour concepts of the Convention (abduction, rights of custody, right toaccess, Central body), specifies the conditions under which a child transferred to another country maybe returned to the country of his regular residence and the cases when returning a child is impossible.The second part of the article studies the issues of applying the Convention in the EU, in particular twolegal regimes established for the interaction between EU countries by the EU Council of November 272003 no 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonialmatters and the matters of parental responsibility which operates in the EU and other countries(case study of Russia). Case practice is studied as to the decisions of the European Court of HumanRights on abducting children. The case of Irina Belen’kaya shows the issues which used to arise beforeRussia joined the Convention and caused by the impossibility to enforce a foreign judicial decision inRussia and in France and the obstacles for an effective protection of children’s interests, shows the roleof the Central body which is the Ministry of Education and Science. Some circumstances have beenspecified as they hurdle the efficient implementation of the Convention in Russia, i.e. inconsistencies ofsome provisions of the Russian legislation with Convention (differences in the concepts of abduction,custody, lack of the definition in the Convention for the place to ordinary residence. Attention has beendrawn to recent changes after Russia has joined the Convention on the Civil Aspects of InternationalChild Abduction (Federal law of May 5, 2014 No 126-FZ).},
	annote = {The paper studies one of the most topical issues arousing in international private law, i.e. internationalabduction of children by one of the parents. The first part of the article analyzes the majour provisions of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil law aspects of international Child Abduction (hereafterConvention); reveals the majour concepts of the Convention (abduction, rights of custody, right toaccess, Central body), specifies the conditions under which a child transferred to another country maybe returned to the country of his regular residence and the cases when returning a child is impossible.The second part of the article studies the issues of applying the Convention in the EU, in particular twolegal regimes established for the interaction between EU countries by the EU Council of November 272003 no 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonialmatters and the matters of parental responsibility which operates in the EU and other countries(case study of Russia). Case practice is studied as to the decisions of the European Court of HumanRights on abducting children. The case of Irina Belen’kaya shows the issues which used to arise beforeRussia joined the Convention and caused by the impossibility to enforce a foreign judicial decision inRussia and in France and the obstacles for an effective protection of children’s interests, shows the roleof the Central body which is the Ministry of Education and Science. Some circumstances have beenspecified as they hurdle the efficient implementation of the Convention in Russia, i.e. inconsistencies ofsome provisions of the Russian legislation with Convention (differences in the concepts of abduction,custody, lack of the definition in the Convention for the place to ordinary residence. Attention has beendrawn to recent changes after Russia has joined the Convention on the Civil Aspects of InternationalChild Abduction (Federal law of May 5, 2014 No 126-FZ).}
}