<s>[INST] The next text is a question of a member of the European parliament:"In addition to the Hague Convention of 25October 1980 concerning the protection of children's interests, from a more strictly European point of view we now have Regulation (EC) No2201/2003(1) concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility. This regulation, known as ‘Brussels II a’, refers to the Hague Convention but prevails over it. It stipulates that the competent forum of jurisdiction for decisions concerning cases of child abduction is that of the habitual residence and that the time frame for the return of the child must be very short (six weeks). It is in compliance with this regulation that the children of MrsColombo from Milan were removed from school without her knowledge. Clearly, however, there are considerable differences in family law under the various legal systems of the Member States.  Article1626a of the German Civil Code, for instance, deprives fathers of children born outside wedlock of the right of custody (parental authority), making it subject to the mother's consent. The BrusselsII a regulation, meanwhile, instead of trying to harmonise, by eliminating the anomalies between national legislations, prefers to create a system whereby every cross-border dispute remains within the borders of the state in which the persons concerned live, i.e.under the legal system in force within those borders. The system which was introduced, therefore, to meet a common legislative need has become the expression of the inability of the EU and its Member States to achieve a modern family law which meets the requirements of EU citizens. The example of the German Civil Code is emblematic in this regard. To ensure that custody and visiting rights provided for in one state are respected in the other contracting states, in actual fact the legal anomalies of one EU state (Germany, in the case of parental authority) are extended to other states which do not have such anomalies. So much for the Hague Convention and Regulation (EC) No2201/2003.  1.Does the Commission not consider Article1626a of the German Civil Code to be discriminatory, as ruled by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg?  2.On what principles is the European legal area based?  3.Can these principles coexist with a discriminatory law which favours one parent alone?  4.Does the Commission not think it is in children's interest to ensure they have the right to two parents?  5.Will it amend Regulation (EC) No2201/2003 to remedy this anomaly, which does not only penalise the father but also the child?    (1)OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, p. 1."
Analyze carefully the text and assign it to the most relevant policy area among those listed below. Do not explain your answer and return only a number.
Policy area numbers: 1 = Macroeconomics
2 = Civil Rights, Minority Issues and Civil Liberties
3 = Health
4 = Agriculture and Fisheries
5 = Labour, employment and pensions
6 = Education
7 = Environment
8 = Energy
9 = Immigration
10 = Transportation
12 = Law and Crime
13 = Social welfare
14 = Regional and Urban issues and Planning
15 = Banking, finance and domestic commerce issues
16 = Defence
17 = Space, science, technology, and communications issues
18 = Foreign trade
19 = International affairs and foreign aid
20 = Governance and government
21 = Public Lands, Water Management and Territorial Issues
23 = Culture and media
[/INST]. Answer = [12]. </s>
In addition to the Hague Convention of 25October 1980 concerning the protection of children's interests, from a more strictly European point of view we now have Regulation (EC) No2201/2003(1) concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility. This regulation, known as ‘Brussels II a’, refers to the Hague Convention but prevails over it. It stipulates that the competent forum of jurisdiction for decisions concerning cases of child abduction is that of the habitual residence and that the time frame for the return of the child must be very short (six weeks). It is in compliance with this regulation that the children of MrsColombo from Milan were removed from school without her knowledge. Clearly, however, there are considerable differences in family law under the various legal systems of the Member States.  Article1626a of the German Civil Code, for instance, deprives fathers of children born outside wedlock of the right of custody (parental authority), making it subject to the mother's consent. The BrusselsII a regulation, meanwhile, instead of trying to harmonise, by eliminating the anomalies between national legislations, prefers to create a system whereby every cross-border dispute remains within the borders of the state in which the persons concerned live, i.e.under the legal system in force within those borders. The system which was introduced, therefore, to meet a common legislative need has become the expression of the inability of the EU and its Member States to achieve a modern family law which meets the requirements of EU citizens. The example of the German Civil Code is emblematic in this regard. To ensure that custody and visiting rights provided for in one state are respected in the other contracting states, in actual fact the legal anomalies of one EU state (Germany, in the case of parental authority) are extended to other states which do not have such anomalies. So much for the Hague Convention and Regulation (EC) No2201/2003.  1.Does the Commission not consider Article1626a of the German Civil Code to be discriminatory, as ruled by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg?  2.On what principles is the European legal area based?  3.Can these principles coexist with a discriminatory law which favours one parent alone?  4.Does the Commission not think it is in children's interest to ensure they have the right to two parents?  5.Will it amend Regulation (EC) No2201/2003 to remedy this anomaly, which does not only penalise the father but also the child?    (1)OJ L 338, 23.12.2003, p. 1.