EU Parliament Investigates Brazil’s Compliance with Hague Child Abduction Rules

1. The parliamentary question

In priority question P-000075/2024, Jeroen Lenaers asked the Commission about Brazil’s implementation of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. The questions concerned urgent compliance, restrictive application of Article 13 consistently with international case-law, and further measures through which the Commission could assist. They express the concerns and requests of the questioning Member; they are not themselves findings by a court or by the Parliament as a whole.

The question’s footnote refers to a United States report. Parliamentary scrutiny can bring implementation concerns into diplomatic discussion, but it does not replace the evidential record or the legal test in an individual case. A parent’s application must still establish the Convention’s relevant conditions before the competent authority.

2. What the Commission said in February 2024

The answer given by Mr Reynders on behalf of the Commission acknowledged concerns about lengthy proceedings and non-return in some cases. It reported discussion with the European External Action Service and the EU Delegation in Brasilia, consultation with the HCCH Regional Office, and consideration of a diplomatic démarche.

The Commission said that step would be reassessed later in view of developments it regarded as promising: six Hague Network judicial designations, a case-management guide, a National Judicial Council objective concerning cases initiated before 31 December 2020, and training. It stated that monitoring would continue.

This was a dated institutional account. It did not certify that the backlog had been cleared or that those measures had produced a specified improvement, and it did not attribute their creation to an order of the European Parliament. The answer provides no basis for presenting the contemplated European démarche as a completed action. A statement made in 2024 must not be presented as a verified account of every later development.

3. Reporting concerns without overstating the statistics

The July 2023 United States Action Report, cited in the parliamentary record, is a report under the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act, rather than an Act enacted in 2023. Its Brazil section reports the State Department’s assessment of noncompliance during 2022 and describes diplomatic engagement. That historical assessment is attributable to the United States authorities and their reporting framework; it is not a European judgment or a current national incidence survey.

Return applications, children involved, unresolved requests, reported removals and estimated unreported events are different measures. A claim that unreported cases are three times the official total requires an identified dataset and a defensible method. Neither parliamentary concern nor a report about unresolved return requests supplies that calculation. Implementation criticism should be supported by the relevant period and population, rather than by an unqualified assertion of unprecedented national rates.

4. Article 11 and the six-week benchmark

Article 11 of the 1980 Convention requires judicial or administrative authorities to act expeditiously. If the authority has not reached a decision within six weeks from the commencement of proceedings, the applicant or the requested Central Authority has the right, under the conditions stated there, to request reasons for the delay.

This provision creates neither an automatic return order on the forty-second day nor a rule that every child must physically have returned by that date. It also does not authorise dispensing with proceedings whenever an application is made promptly. The obligation of expedition must operate through procedures capable of deciding the Convention issues and implementing any order without avoidable delay.

Article 12 addresses the return obligation and distinguishes proceedings commenced before and after the one-year period. Its operation must be read together with the Convention’s other provisions. The six-week reference and the one-year framework serve different functions; neither should be converted into a substitute for examining the applicable legal conditions.

5. Return proceedings and the Convention’s exceptions

Wrongfulness under Article 3 turns on a breach of custody rights under the law of the child’s habitual residence immediately before the removal or retention, together with the required exercise of those rights. The child’s or parent’s nationality does not replace that inquiry. Article 4 sets the Convention’s scope, including its age limit, and Article 38 requires attention to the Convention relationship between the States concerned where accession is involved.

Article 13 contains distinct grounds: non-exercise of custody rights, consent or subsequent acquiescence, grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation, and a sufficiently mature child’s objection. It is therefore inaccurate to describe the entire article as concerning danger on return. Those grounds require examination within their treaty limits and evidential setting; urgency does not make a properly raised defence legally irrelevant.

Under Article 19, a return decision does not determine the merits of custody. Prompt return proceedings should remain focused on their own subject, while treating protection concerns and procedural participation seriously. Equally, they should not become a general assessment of which country or parent would offer the preferable future upbringing.

6. Interim protection requires its own legal basis

Protective measures can be necessary while the return application is being resolved. Article 7 includes cooperation to prevent further harm or prejudice through provisional measures. In Brazilian proceedings, an urgent application must identify the measure sought, the supporting evidence and the applicable procedural requirements; Article 300 of the Code of Civil Procedure supplies the general framework for urgent relief, including probability of the right and danger of harm or risk to the useful result of proceedings.

A request to secure passports, prevent a further removal, arrange contact or protect a person is not necessarily equivalent to an application for immediate physical return. The nature and consequences of each measure matter. A preliminary return order cannot be presented as a compulsory consequence of Article 11 or as a universal procedure that bypasses the competent court’s assessment and procedural safeguards.

7. Liaison judges and judicial cooperation

The HCCH guidance on judicial communications explains how Hague Network judges can facilitate communication and practical cooperation. Its principles preserve the independence of the judge deciding the case and contemplate safeguards concerning notice to the parties, records and written conclusions, with participation where appropriate. Communications can help clarify available protective measures and practical arrangements.

Network membership does not make a liaison judge a substitute Central Authority, an appellate supervisor or an official obliged to procure a particular outcome. The respective roles of the case judge, liaison judge and Central Authority must be respected. Effective cooperation should support a lawful decision and its implementation.

8. Institutional monitoring and practical action

Diplomatic engagement, judicial training and scrutiny of delays can support implementation. Their value should be assessed by evidence of timely case management, reasoned decisions, available protection and effective enforcement. That is an institutional assessment, distinct from promising success to a particular applicant or treating criticism of delay as proof that every refusal of return was unlawful.

A family seeking return should preserve evidence of habitual residence, custody rights and their exercise, the chronology of removal or retention, and relevant travel or consent documents. Any immediate protection needs should be clearly identified. The Brazilian Central Authority’s cooperation role should be distinguished from judicial representation and the court’s decision-making function. Article 29 also preserves direct access to judicial or administrative authorities; no communication to a European institution itself commences or replaces Brazilian return proceedings.