The European Court of Human Rights and the Best Interests of the Child in the Recent Case Law on International Child Abduction
The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is an effective instrument for protecting the rights of families in the case of child abduction. It creates a jurisdictional mechanism in order to promote the swift return of a child wrongfully removed from his place of habitual residence, on the general presumption that the prompt return of a removed child objectively corresponds to the best interests of the child. Although the case law of the European Court of Human Rights has generally encouraged national courts to maintain a strict application of the Hague Convention in ascertaining the contrast with the prohibition of interference in private and family life contained in Art. 8 of the ECHR, in the Neulinger case the Grand Chamber gave a different interpretation, on the basis of the prominence of the principle of the best interests of the child. This case and other more recent judgments by the European Court, for some authors, could potentially harm the functionning of the Hague Convention. A protocol to the Hague Convention, as has already been envisaged, could probably be beneficial to ensure that the Hague Convention can still continue to function effectively in the future, as long as it is based on the prominence of the principle of the best interests of the child over all other considerations.
The European Court of Human Rights and the Hague Child Abduction Convention: Prioritising Return or Reflection?
Over the last four decades the 1980 Hague Convention has provided for the prompt return of children to their State of habitual residence. But now that wrongful removals and retentions are most often carried out by primary carers, the majority of whom will be mothers, the instrument has come under increasing scrutiny, not least from the European Court of Human Rights. This article analyses the Grand Chamber judgments in Neulinger and X v. Latvia and considers how compliance with Article 8 ECHR should be achieved in the application of the Hague Convention; prioritising return or reflection? In so doing it also reflects on whether a summary return mechanism can continue to accord with twenty-first century expectations and norms.
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010
This book celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by bringing together the views of key practitioners and policy-makers who have played an outstanding role in thinking about and shaping EU policies on freedom, security and justice. 
 
Ten years ago, the member states transferred competences to the EU for law and policy-making in the fields of immigration, asylum and border controls, and began the transfer process for criminal justice and policing. This decade of European cooperation on AFSJ policies has experienced very dynamic convergence, the enactment of a large body of European law and the setting-up of numerous EU agencies working in these domains. Such dynamism in policy-making has not been without challenges and vulnerabilities, however. As this collective volume shows, the main dilemmas that lie ahead relate to an effective (while more plural) institutional framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, stronger judicial scrutiny through a greater role for national courts and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, better mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of EU AFSJ law and a more solid fundamental rights strategy. The contributions in this volume address the progress achieved so far in these policy areas, identify the challenges for future European cooperation in the AFSJ and put forward possible paths for making more progress in the next generation of the EU’s AFSJ.