The Dutch Office of the Liaison Judge International Child Protection

The Dutch Office of the Liaison Judge International Child Protection Report from 1 January 2014 1 January 2015 The District Court of The Hague Family Law and International Child Protection Division

CONTENTS Preface 3 Chapter 1. The duties and activities of the Office of the Liaison Judge International Child Protection (BLIK) 4 1.1 Liaison 4 1.2 Help desk 4 1.3 Knowledge centre and website 5 1.4 Wiki Juridica 5 1.5 Digital newsletter 5 1.6 Contact 5 1.7 Conferences 5 1.8 Contact persons 6 1.9 National network 6 Chapter 2. Developments in 2014 7 2.1 Amendments to the law since 2012 7 2.2 Procedure as of 1 January 2012 8 2.3 Other developments in 2014 9 Chapter 3. Cases handled by BLIK 12 3.1 Cases filed in 2013 and decided in 2014 12 3.2 Cases filed in 2014 12 3.3 Liaison requests 14 3.4 Help desk questions 15 Chapter 4. BLIK Overview: facts, figures and graphs 16 4.1 s in international child abduction cases 16 4.2 Legal Proceedings before the District Court 17 4.2.1 Hearings 17 4.2.2 Processing times 18 4.2.3 Court decisions on return s 19 4.3 Legal Proceedings before the Court of Appeal 20 4.4 Help desk questions and liaison requests 20 Chapter 5. Preview 22 Chapter 6. Staff 23 APPENDICES 26 2

Preface This is the 2014 report on the activities of the Dutch Office of the Liaison Judge International Child Protection (Bureau Liaisonrechter Internationale Kinderbescherming, in short BLIK). Since its creation on 1 January 2006 BLIK has performed the functions of a liaison judge. As of January 2012 jurisdiction in child abduction cases has been concentrated in the District Court and the Court of Appeal of The Hague and the Central Authority s powers of legal representation transferred to the members of the Bar. In 2014 the District Court of The Hague continued its established practice of conducting pretrial reviews with the potential for referral to cross border mediation, followed by a second hearing on the merits of the case before the full court and a decision on the return within two weeks. In Chapter 4 the facts and figures of 2014 will be compared with those from previous years. These show, inter alia, that there has been an almost continuous flow of cases (except in 2012) and that processing times have remained almost the same. Moreover, in 2014 BLIK continued to establish contacts between Dutch and foreign courts. Its staff attended conferences, gave lectures and organised expert meetings at home and abroad and in addition performed its help desk function, i.e. handling of requests for advice by Dutch fellow-judges who have questions on international child abduction and child protection cases. The number of staff and members of BLIK (Chapter 6) have not changed. Chapter 2 sets out the developments in 2014: the mirror agreement pilot, the assumption of jurisdiction by Dutch courts in very exceptional circumstances of outgoing cases of international child abduction, in which children have been wrongfully removed to or retained in another state, the use of cross border mediation in cases of international relocation, the revision of the Brussels (II) bis Regulation, the stepping up of the national network and the hearing of minors from the age of six in international child abduction cases. This report ends with a short preview. Johan Visser President of the Family Law and International Child Protection Division Annette Olland Senior Judge Family Law and International Child Protection Division 3

Chapter 1. The duties and activities of the Office of the Liaison Judge International Child Protection (BLIK) 1.1 Liaison BLIK was created to support the Liaison Judges in the performance of their duties. The Liaison Judge serves as an intermediary for Dutch judges who hear child abduction cases or other cases involving aspects of international child protection, and who want to contact a foreign judge, as well as for foreign judges who want to contact a Dutch judge in this respect. If necessary, the Liaison Judge can contact judges in states which are not a party to the conventions mentioned earlier. One of the major tasks of BLIK therefore is to bring Dutch judges into contact with foreign judges and vice versa, if possible through the foreign Liaison Judge. Contact is usually made by telephone or e-mail. There are two international Liaison Judge networks, on the one hand the International Hague Network of Judges: a world-wide network under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (hereafter: HCCH) and on the other hand a newer European network under the auspices of the European Judicial Network (hereafter: EJN). The HCCH publishes The Judges Newsletter produced by and for members of the network, and its members (the so-called Hague Network Judges) stay in contact with each other by telephone and e-mail and by attending conferences on international child protection and judicial cooperation. This makes it easier and faster to establish contact in a particular case. If the state involved has no Liaison Judge or Network Judge, contact may be established through the Central Authority or through a judge who has attended an international conference and has agreed to act as an unofficial liaison judge when necessary. A request for contact is dealt with immediately and, so far, BLIK has met its target of establishing contact within one week. 1.2 Help desk In addition to facilitating contacts between judges in the Netherlands and their foreign counterparts, BLIK serves as a help desk for Dutch judges on issues of international child abduction and international child protection. The help desk can be contacted by phone or e-mail. Just as with liaison requests, help desk questions are dealt with immediately. BLIK aims to answer questions within the shortest time possible, and usually does so by letter, fax, e-mail or phone within a few days. The help desk was set up for the exclusive use of the Dutch courts, so if necessary BLIK refers queries from individuals to other agencies that may be of assistance to them, such as the International Child Abduction Centre (IKO), and the Central Authority. 4

1.3 Knowledge centre and website In order to perform its duties effectively, BLIK has put a lot of effort into building up and expanding its expertise, and has produced various manuals and memoranda. It also collects case law in the field of international child protection. BLIK runs a website, which is only available to the judiciary. 1 This website provides practical information on BLIK. It also hosts a list of contact persons at the various District Courts and other useful addresses and up to date information on international child protection. Finally, it also features the most frequently-asked questions and answers. 1.4 Wiki Juridica Since 2011 professional, job-related information has been made available to judges through Wiki Juridica, a wiki module on the BLIK website, set up to promote the exchange of information on national legal issues. BLIK s homepage has a link to the Wiki page on international child abduction and child protection cases. Staff member Patrick Lahman acts as BLIK s wiki editor. 1.5 Digital newsletter Since 2011 BLIK has produced a digital newsletter informing those involved in child protection of the latest developments in this field. The newsletter is issued four times a year and is also available via BLIK s website. 1.6 Contact BLIK serves as the first point of contact for the Central Authority and may also serve as a central letterbox for any notifications of orders on non-return by foreign courts involving a child habitually residing in the Netherlands before the abduction (article 11 paragraph 6 Brussels II (bis). 1.7 Conferences The Liaison Judges and other members of BLIK staff are regularly invited to attend conferences on international child protection and judicial co-operation. Attending these conferences is a good way of accumulating knowledge and meeting official and unofficial Liaison Judges and other experts in the field and staying in touch with them. The Liaison Judges of BLIK have given lectures and conducted workshops at many of these conferences. 1 This website can be consulted nationwide by using the link: Bureau Liaisonrechter Internationale Kinderbescherming (Office of the Liaison Judge International Child Protection). 5

1.8 Contact persons Another major task of BLIK is to keep in touch with contacts. As a result of their participation in conferences and their organisation of its annual expert meeting, BLIK staff have met many foreign Liaison Judges, both official and unofficial ones, and other experts in the field of international child abduction and international child protection. Current contacts include official and unofficial Liaison Judges from various foreign countries, the Central Authority, the EJN, the HCCH, the Dutch Foreign Office, the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice, the Public Prosecutor s Office, various Dutch universities and the International Child Abduction Centre (IKO). 1.9 National network In order to improve communication between BLIK and Dutch courts hearing international child abduction cases, BLIK has set up a so-called national network as an adjunct to the international Liaison Judge networks under the auspices of the HCCH and the EJN respectively. Each District court in the Netherlands has a designated international child protection contact person. BLIK has a list of these contact persons and whenever a request or question comes up involving a pending child abduction case or one which should be or will be filed in the near future with another Dutch District court, BLIK will immediately contact the contact person concerned. Subsequently, this contact person may either answer a question of a general nature or refer the question to the judge in his or her own court who is hearing the case. 6

Chapter 2. Developments in 2014 2.1 Amendments to the law since 2012 January 2012 the concept of the concentration of jurisdiction in international child abduction cases was introduced. The 2012 report sets out at length the amendments to the Dutch International Child Abduction Implementation Act 2 as well as their context. In summary, the amendments are 3 : - Concentration of jurisdiction at first instance: Since 1 January 2012 jurisdiction at first instance in international child abduction cases lies with the District Court of The Hague, and consequently jurisdiction on appeal lies with the Court of Appeal of The Hague. 4 The concept of concentration of jurisdiction only applies in international child abduction cases. In international cases involving parental access rights the District Court of the child s place of residence has jurisdiction. - Limitation of appeal to the Dutch Supreme Court: Pursuant to article 13 paragraph 8 of the Dutch International Child Abduction Implementation Act, there is no recourse to ordinary legal remedies against a decision on appeal by a Court of Appeal. This limitation of the possibility of appeal aims to achieve speed and clarity in international child abduction cases. If unity of law and development of law so require, the Advocate-General may lodge an appeal in cassation on a point of law with the Dutch Supreme Court. - Protection of rights during appeal proceedings: Article 13 paragraph 5 of the Dutch International Child Abduction Implementation Act determines that the effect of the court order will be suspended once an appeal is lodged against it, unless the court decides otherwise in the child s best interest, either on request or on its own initiative. In this way the law is brought into line with existing practice in which it is often desirable that a minor stay in the Netherlands whilst awaiting a decision on appeal. - Termination of Central Authority s powers of legal representation The amendment of Article 5 of the Dutch International Child Abduction Implementation Act and the Dutch International Child Protection Implementation Act meant the removal of the Central Authority s powers of legal representation. Since 1 January 2012 the Central Authority s role in international child abduction cases has been mainly mediatory. If parents fail to reach a settlement, they will be referred to a barrister who in turn may present the case to the court. 2 Act of 2 May 1990 concerning the Implementation of the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction and the 1980 European Custody Convention, Stb [Dutch Bulletin of Acts and Decrees] 1990, 202; The Act came into force on 1 September 1990. 3 Amendment Act that amended the Dutch International Child Abduction Implementation Act and the Dutch International Child Protection Implementation Act, Stb 2011, 530. 4 Article 11 paragraph 1 Dutch International Child Abduction Implementation Act. 7

2.2 Procedure as of 1 January 2012 In summary, the return procedure as from 2012 is as follows. A return must be filed with the District Court by an barrister. However, prior to that an for intervention by the Dutch Central Authority for International Child cases (the Central Authority) may be filed. Special facilities offered by the Central Authority include translations of legal documents and subsidized mediation. Since the child s interests are paramount in international child abduction cases, parents or other authorized persons or institutions may seek to resolve their dispute through mediation. The Ministry of Security and Justice encourages this by partially funding the cost of mediation. The Mediation Bureau, which is linked to Centrum IKO, offers assistance in finding and hiring specialised cross-border mediators. If no mediation takes place at this preliminary stage or if the parents fail to reach a (complete) settlement a return can be filed with the District Court of The Hague by the barrister of the resident parent. Normally a pre-trial review takes place before a single judge court within two weeks of the filing of the. The judge at this pre-trial review will, together with the parties and their barristers, explore the possibility of cross-border mediation if this has not already taken place at the preliminary stage. At this stage, too, the Ministry of Security and Justice partially funds the cost of mediation while the Mediation Bureau of the Centrum IKO offers the necessary assistance. The cross-border mediation is conducted by two professional mediators, preferably a lawyer and a psychologist. If the parents fail to reach a settlement within two weeks, a second hearing will take place before the full court, followed by a decision on the return within two weeks. An appeal to the Court of Appeal can be lodged within two weeks. A hearing will take place within two weeks of the lodging of the appeal, and the Appeal Court decision will follow two weeks later. No further appeal is possible except appeal in cassation to the Dutch Supreme Court on a point of law. Once the court has issued a return order, the child or the children have to be returned to their country of origin in accordance with the order. Usually, the return is effected either on a voluntary basis or by enforcement of the order. The protocol for co-operation in the enforcement of return orders in international child abduction cases can be found on www.rijksoverheid.nl. 8

2.3 Other developments in 2014 In 2014 BLIK continued to facilitate contact between Dutch judges and their foreign counterparts. The liaison judges and other BLIK staff attended and participated in conferences, lectures and various expert meetings both here and abroad. BLIK also performed its help desk function by assisting Dutch judges with questions on international child abduction and protection cases. It turns out that BLIK has now built up a good reputation abroad, especially with regard to the short term within which the District Court of The Hague deals with incoming cases and the possibility of referring these cases to cross- border mediation. The number of invitations from abroad for giving presentations on this subject has considerably increased. Moreover, foreign delegations have frequently visited the Hague District Court to find out more about our modus operandi. In addition, the following important developments are worth mentioning. - Pilot incorporation of mirror agreements Since 1 November 2014 barristers in child abduction cases may submit mirror agreements to the Court but no earlier than after the interlocutory decision on the return, instead of submitting these agreements directly after they have been concluded, with the accompanying request to fully incorporate them into the final court order, which is the usual practice. After the interlocutory decision the mirror agreement will thus be sent to the Court for it to take note of it and for it to be incorporated into the final court order. This procedure may be appealing in cases where the parties are hesitant to submit the mirror agreement to the Court before the decision on the return. The District Court of The Hague is applying this procedure as a pilot project from 1 November 2014 until 1 May 2015, after which an evaluation of it will be made. - Outgoing cases; return to the Netherlands On 4 March 2014 the District Court of The Hague issued two court orders in so-called outgoing cases, in which the return of the child from a foreign country to the Netherlands had been requested. The first case (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2014:2725) concerned the return of a minor from Turkey to the Netherlands. The father based his on the 1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction (hereinafter: HCCA). Both Turkey and the Netherlands are parties to this convention. The District Court referred to the judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court of 9 December 2011 (HR 9 December 2011, ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BU2834), from which it had to be held that in this case a return could only be filed with a court in the member state in which the child was actually resident, in this case Turkey. The Dutch court therefore lacked jurisdiction to hear the. The second case (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2014:2752) concerned the return of minors from Lebanon to the Netherlands. In this case too, the mother based her on the HCCA. Although Lebanon, unlike the Netherlands, is not a party to the Convention, pursuant to article 2 of the Dutch International Child Abduction Implementation Act this act also applies in cases of international child abduction when no conventions are applicable. In line with articles 2 and 13 paragraph 3 of the Dutch International Child Abduction Implementation Act, the District Court applied the provisions of the Convention analogously to this case. The question was whether the Dutch court had jurisdiction to hear the return. 9

According to the Dutch Supreme Court a return can only be filed with a court in the member state in which the child is actually resident (HR 9 December 2011, ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BU2834). However, since the minors were retained in Lebanon, which is not a member state, it was not possible to file a return based on the Convention there. Neither did the Lebanese legal system provide for a fast judicial procedure similar to that of the Convention. Consequently, since the objective of the Convention could not be achieved by initiating proceedings in Lebanon, the District Court found that the Convention did not preclude the Dutch court from hearing the return. The Court s jurisdiction was based on the provisions of Title 1, Section 1 of Book 1 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, as the Brussels II (bis) Regulation and the 1996 Hague Convention on the International Protection of Children (hereinafter: HCPC) were not applicable and its jurisdiction in this matter could not be based on any other conventions or regulations. The Court held that pursuant to article 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure it had jurisdiction to hear the case as it had substantial connections with the Dutch legal sphere, given that the mother had her habitual residence in the Netherlands, the last joint place of residence of the parties and the minors was in the Netherlands and all individuals involved had Dutch nationality. After assessing the merits of the case the District Court ordered the immediate return of the minors to the Netherlands on the basis of article 12 of the Convention. - Cross-border mediation in cases of international relocation In 2014 cross border mediation was used in several international relocation cases, similar to the use of cross border mediation in international child abduction cases. The IKO was very cooperative in this. As a result, various parties were able to solve their conflict about whether or not one of them could relocate abroad with the children with the help of the well- tried cross border pressure cooker method. - Revision of Brussels II (bis) Regulation The European Commission has recently started to evaluate the functioning of the Brussels II (bis) Regulation. Part of this is through public consultation, in order to get viewpoints and input from all interested individuals, lawyers, academics, organisations, District Courts, national authorities and Member States. At the latest meeting of the EJN in Rome in November 2014 at which the Netherlands was represented by delegates from the Ministry of Security and Justice and BLIK, potential changes to the Brussels II (bis) Regulation were discussed. The Commission, for instance, asked questions about articles 12 (prorogation of jurisdiction) and 15 (transfer to a court better placed to hear the case). Do these provisions function properly or do they need clarification? Article 15 in particular does not seem clear to all Member States. One of the Member States asked whether it is required that a judgment is given or that a case is pending for article 15 to be applicable. Problems are also encountered in determining the court best placed to hear the case and sometimes set processing times are exceeded because the request for the transfer of the case is not answered in time. However, these latter problems seem to be of a more practical nature and are not so much caused by the Regulation itself. The liaison judge in particular may play a role here in dealing with these issues. Article 11 (return of the child) was another topic of discussion. Various ideas were put forward for speeding up the return procedure, since the 6-week time limit of article 11 paragraph 3 of the Regulation is not always met. Limiting the number of court hearings and instances, the concentration of jurisdiction and setting common minimum standards for the enforcement procedure were some of the ideas put forward. The Netherlands was mentioned as an example in relation to this. The desirability of an age limit for minors to be heard and guidelines on how these hearings should take place were also brought up in the debate. The points of view of the Member States and their input will be considered by the Commission in 10

its evaluation of the Regulation. It is not clear yet when any possible amendments to the Regulation can be expected. - Transfer of jurisdiction pursuant to article 15 Brussels II(bis) Regulation Moreover, the number of requests for transfer of jurisdiction to a court of another member state on the basis of article 15 of the Brussels II (bis) Regulation by both Dutch and foreign courts appears to have slightly increased since 2013, especially between Dutch courts on the one side and German, Belgian and UK courts on the other. - Hearing minors Since 1 April 2014 the District Court of The Hague in international child abduction proceedings has followed the policy adopted by the Court of Appeal of The Hague, allowing children aged six and upwards to have an interview with the Judge in a so-called child interview. So far, it has turned out that minors almost always show up when invited for this interview. 11

Chapter 3. Cases handled by BLIK 3.1 Cases filed in 2013 and decided in 2014 In 2014 the court rendered decisions in five cases that had been initiated in 2013. An overview of these may be found in Appendix A. All these cases concerned return s, and in three of them the parties were referred to mediation, which unfortunately did not result in full settlements in any of the cases. The court granted one return order and denied another three. One return concerned a so-called outgoing case and the court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction. 3.2 Cases filed in 2014 In 2014 twenty-seven return s were filed, twenty-one of which were decided in 2014. Two of these involved so-called outgoing cases. An overview of these cases can be found in Appendix B. In total twenty-six pre-trial review hearings were conducted in 2014. In fourteen of these cases the parties were referred directly to mediation after the pre-trial review. In addition, twenty four full court hearings took place in 2014. The information below relates to the cases in which the court s decision was given in 2014. In nineteen out of the twenty-one return cases a pre-trial review hearing took place. In twelve of these cases the parties were referred to mediation. In one case mediation resulted in full settlement, whilst in two cases mirror agreements were drawn up. In nine cases mediation was unsuccessful. Ultimately, decisions were rendered in twenty cases. orders were granted in nine cases, and denied in nine cases. A different decision was rendered in one case (no jurisdiction) and in another case the return was withdrawn. Thus it can be concluded that 2014 (twenty-seven s) showed a slight decrease in the number of return s based on the HCCA when compared to 2013 (thirty s). The six remaining return s filed in 2014 will be heard in 2015. 12

Case data 1 Number of pre-trial review hearings in 2014 2 Number of referrals to mediation after pre-trial review hearings in 2014 3 Number of full court hearings in 2014 Outcomes 4 Number of return orders granted 5 Number of return orders denied 2014 26 14 24 9 9 6 Other decisions 1 7 Number of return s withdrawn 1 8 Number of settlement 1 agreements incorporated into court order Total 21 Other data 9 Number of s in which CA has been involved 13 10 Number of s in which CA has not been involved 11 Free Legal Aid provided to non-resident parent (applicant) 12 Free Legal Aid provided to abducting parent (interested party) 13 Free Legal Aid provided to barristers of both parents 14 No Free Legal Aid requested/provided Processing Times 15 Average processing time between filing of and pre-trial review hearing (calendar days) 16 Average processing time of court proceedings until court decision (calendar days) 8 6 8 9 4 17 days ( 26 pre-trial review hearings ) 54 days (20 decisions) 13

3.3 Liaison requests As set out in paragraph 1.1, a Dutch court hearing a case involving international protection or abduction of a child can request BLIK to contact a foreign court with jurisdiction in the case. Foreign courts seeking contact with a Dutch court may also go through BLIK. The table below gives an overview of the liaison requests handled by the Liaison Judges during the period covered by the report. No. From Liaison Subject with 2014/1 CA the Netherlands Belgium Article 11 paragraph 6/7 Brussels II (bis) 2014/2 CA the Netherlands Belgium Article 11 paragraph 6/7 Brussels II (bis) 2014/5 District Court Alkmaar Germany Article 15 Brussels II (bis) 2014/6 Spanish Liaison Judge Spain Article 11 paragraph 4 Brussels II (bis) 2014/7* District Court Gelderland Portugal Translation of documents in the context of Article 15 Brussels II (bis) 2014/8* CA the Netherlands Sweden Article 15 Brussels II (bis) 2014/11 District Court Brussels Belgium Article 15 Brussels II (bis) 2014/12* District Court Zeeland/ Belgium Article 15 Brussels II (bis) West-Brabant 2014/13 District Court Antwerp Belgium Article 15 Brussels II (bis) 2014/14 District Court The Hague England Article 15 Brussels II (bis) 2014/15* District Court Gelderland Belgium Article 15 Brussels II (bis) 2014/17 District Court Hamburg Germany Article 19 Brussels II (bis) 2014/18 CA the Netherlands Portugal Video conference 2014/19* District Court East Brabant Poland Jurisdiction in relation to child abduction to Poland 2014/21 District Court Hamburg Germany Article 19 Brussels II (bis) 2014/22 CA the Netherlands Belgium Article 11 paragraph 6/7 Brussels II (bis) 2014/23 CA the Netherlands England Article 55 Brussels II (bis) 2014/25 District Court Limburg Belgium Article 15 Brussels II (bis) 2014/26 District Court The Hague Poland Liaison request information Polish procedure 2014/27 District Court North- Netherlands Germany Article 15 Brussels II (bis) * liaison question as well as helpdesk question. 14

3.4 Help desk questions Dutch courts may consult the BLIK help desk on the subject of international child abduction and international child protection, see paragraph 1.2 above. Below is an overview of the help desk questions dealt with during the period covered by the report: No. From Subject 2014/3 CA the Netherlands Questions CA Ireland 2014/4 District Court North Netherlands Evidence Regulation 2014/7* District Court Gelderland Translation of documents in the context of Article 15 Brussels II (bis) 2014/8* CA the Netherlands Article 15 Brussels II (bis) 2014/9 ScheerSanders Law Offices Statement of No Appeal 2014/10 CA the Netherlands Article 15 Brussels II (bis) 2014/12* District Court Zeeland/West- Article 15 Brussels II (bis) Brabant 2014/15* District Court Gelderland Article 15 Brussels II (bis) 2014/16 CA the Netherlands Decision custody registers 2014/19* District Court East Brabant Jurisdiction in relation to child abduction to Poland 2014/20 District Court Zeeland/ West- Brabant Registration of parental access agreement, concluded in the UK, by a District Court in the Netherlands 2014/24 District Court Rotterdam from Pakistan in interim injunction proceedings 2014/28 District Court Zeeland/West- Brabant Question on acknowledgement/custody * liaison question as well as helpdesk question. 15

Chapter 4. BLIK Overview: facts, figures and graphs More than nine years ago, on 1 January 2006, BLIK officially began its activities. In the 2013 report we already looked back at the past years. Here again we will look at what developments can be observed and what conclusions drawn based on the facts and figures from the past few years. Below, the most important developments are illustrated by graphs and briefly explained. 4.1 s in international child abduction cases s in international child abduction cases heard by the District court in The Hague have been recorded since 2008. The majority of these s concern return s pursuant to the HCCA. The graph below shows the number of return s filed annually with the District Court of The Hague. 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 Number of return s filed with the District Court of The Hague 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 number of return s filed This graph illustrates the following developments: a. A sharp increase in the number of return s filed in the period from 2008 to 2010; b. A temporary decrease in the number of return s filed in 2012; c. A slight decrease in the number of return s filed in 2014 compared to 2013. Re a: The sharp increase in the number of return s filed with the District Court of The Hague in the period from 2008 to 2010 may be explained as follows. As of 1 January 2012 jurisdiction at first instance in international child abduction cases was concentrated in the District Court of The Hague. Previously, the Youth Division of the Court of the child s actual place of residence had jurisdiction, and return s were filed with any appropriate District Court in the Netherlands. By designation order of 4 February 2009 the District Court of The Hague was appointed as the alternative court with the power to hear child abduction cases in addition to other District Courts. Consequently, since 2010 almost all international child abduction cases have been heard by the District Court of The Hague. 16

Re b: The temporary decrease in the number of return s filed in 2012 can be attributed to the removal, as of 1 January 2012, of the Central Authority s powers of legal representation in such cases. This caused a drop in the number of return s filed, especially in the first half of 2012. Since the number of return s filed in 2014 is back to old levels, it can be concluded that the transfer of the Central Authority s powers of legal representation to the members of the legal profession has had no lasting effect on the number of return s filed. Re c: The year 2014 showed a slight decrease in the number of return s compared to 2013. The number of return s filed fluctuates each year, but it is expected that between 25 and 30 new return s will be coming in annually. 4.2 Legal Proceedings before the District Court 4.2.1 Hearings Since 2010, the return procedure that is followed by the District Court of The Hague except in exceptional circumstances - has been as described in paragraph 2.2 above. The graph below shows the number of pre-trial review hearings, full court hearings and referrals to mediation per annum. 30 Number of court hearings and referrals to mediation 25 20 15 10 5 0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 pre-trial review hearings (single judge) full court hearings referrals to mediation Strikingly enough, the decrease in the number of return s filed in 2012 has not led to a similar decrease in the number of court hearings conducted in 2012. This may be because in November and December 2011, shortly before its powers of legal representation were removed, the Central Authority filed a large number of return s which were heard in court in 2012. 17

Finally, it can be concluded that the ratio of pre-trial review hearings vis-a-vis full court hearings and referrals to mediation has remained constant over the years. However, remarkably enough, the number of mediations went down compared to the number of pre-trial review cases in 2014. 4.2.2 Processing times As a rule the District Court, in accordance with article 11 paragraph 3 Brussels II (bis), will render a decision within six weeks (forty two days) of the filing of a return. The graph below shows that the average processing time in return cases over the past four years was around sixty days, i.e. more than eighteen days longer than prescribed by the Brussels II (bis) Regulation. In the past year, processing times have been further decreased to fifty-four (54) days. 100 80 60 40 20 Processing Times in return cases before the District Court of The Hague (in days) 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 average processing time (in 2009 no distinction was made between time before and time after the pretrial review hearing) average time between pre-trial review hearing and date of court decision average time between filing date of the return and pre-trial review hearing This can be attributed to the following: - The District Court aims to schedule a pre-trial review hearing within two weeks of the filing of the return. Often, however, practicalities such as a visa being required or tickets having to be purchased will cause the applicant party to ask for postponement of the pre-trial review hearing. The respondent may also request a postponement. The District Court takes a restrictive attitude towards requests for postponement of these hearings. - The scheduling of full court hearings is subject to similar obstacles. Here too the District Court is regularly confronted with requests for postponement or other delaying factors. - In 2014 two return cases had a processing time of approximately one hundred days due to exceptional circumstances. Clearly, these cases have disproportionately affected the average processing time of return cases. - In 2014 six return cases were processed within the statutory deadline. 18

4.2.3 Court decisions on return s The graph below shows decisions taken on return s in the past six years. In 2014 the number of return s that were granted (9) equaled that of return s that were denied (9). This is, however, not due to a conscious policy change or different way of assessing these cases by the District Court. The records state that the grounds for denying a return order vary: four were denied because the court found there was no wrongful removal or retention (article 3 HCCA), one return was denied because the court was of the opinion that the child had settled in his new environment (article 12 paragraph 2 HCCA), and in two cases a return order was denied pursuant to article 13 paragraph 2 HCCA because the minor objected to being returned. Finally, in one case the District Court denied a return order because there was a grave risk that his return would place the child in an intolerable situation (article 13 paragraph 1(b) HCCA) while in another case a return order was denied because of the voluntary return of the children. 12 District Court Decisions 10 8 6 4 2 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 return order granted return order denied settlement agreement incorporated into decision 19

4.3 Legal Proceedings before the Court of Appeal The graph below gives an overview of the decisions of the Court of Appeal of The Hague following an appeal lodged against a decision of the District Court of The Hague rendered in the past four years. 12 Court of Appeal Decisions 10 8 6 4 2 0 2011 2012 2013 2014 decisions confirmed decisions quashed other (appeal rejected or inadmissable) 4.4 Help desk questions and liaison requests Finally, the graph below gives an overview of the help desk questions and liaison requests handled in the past six years. 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 Help desk questions and Liaison requests 0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 help desk questions liaison requests combination of liasion request and help desk question 20

The following trends are discernible in this graph: - A substantial decrease in the number of liaison requests up to 2011, followed by a substantial increase in the years 2012-2014; - In 2014 on five occasions a help desk question was combined with a liaison request or vice versa. The reason for the decrease in the number of liaison requests up to 2011 is unclear. The increase in liaison requests from 2012 onwards seems to be partly attributable to the rising number of requests for transfer of jurisdiction pursuant to article 15 of the Brussels II (bis) Regulation by both Dutch and foreign courts. The phenomenon of combined requests might be explained by a different method of categorising requests and help desk questions this year. Finally, it can be concluded that closer contacts between both domestic and foreign judges have proved successful: Dutch, as well as foreign judges, have increasingly turned to BLIK in 2014! 21

Chapter 5. Preview General No major amendments to the law or other significant changes are expected in 2015. BLIK intends to continue its regular practice of conducting thorough yet speedy proceedings in international child abduction cases, in which the parties have the opportunity to settle their differences through cross-border mediation. The same thoroughness and speed will be deployed in proceedings on the merits of the case and in interim relief proceedings involving aspects of international child abduction or child protection. In addition, BLIK s judges, staff lawyers and other staff members will do their utmost to maintain and strengthen contacts with professionals in the field of international child abduction, including the Central Authority, Dutch and foreign family law judges, the Child Abduction Centre (IKO), experts and the Public Prosecutor s Office. National network BLIK will continue to intensify contact between the members of the national network in 2015. Meetings will be organized in all courts with contact persons and other staff who handle BLIK-related cases, not just in order to get to know each other better, but also to exchange knowledge and experience. Family law judges in the Netherlands have increasingly turned to BLIK, which certainly is a positive development. For this to last, it is necessary that judges hearing these cases are aware of what can or cannot be achieved in cross-border cases. This may help lower the barriers for contacting a foreign family law judge. Conferences abroad In 2015 BLIK staff will also attend a number of conferences abroad and give presentations at some of these. 22

Chapter 6. Staff The following judges have been appointed as Liaison Judges: Mr. J. (Johan) Visser, LL.M (President of the Family Law and International Child Protection Division of the District Court of The Hague) Mrs. A.C. (Annette) Olland, LL.M (senior Judge of the Family Law and International Child Protection Division of the District Court of The Hague, President of the Dutch Office of the Liaison Judge International Child Protection, specialising in international family law) In addition, two judges specialising in the field of international child abduction and international child protection serve as deputy-liaison Judges: Mrs. J. (Jojanneke) Brandt, LL.M (judge of the Family Division of of the District Court of The Hague) Mrs. H.M. (Hetty) Boone, LL.M (judge of the Youth Division of the District Court of The Hague) 23

The following (senior) staff members and staff lawyers take turns working on BLIK s help desk and assist the Liaison Judges in carrying out their duties: Mrs. V. (Vera) van den Hoed-Koreneef Mr. P. (Patrick) Lahman Mrs. A.W. (Aafke) Spee, LL.M Mrs. M. (Marieke) Pereira Horta van Dijk, LL.M Mrs. K. (Kathelijne) Willems, LL.M 24

The following paralegal supports BLIK s liaison judges, (senior) staff members and staff lawyers in carrying out their tasks: Mrs. M. (Moniek) Verkerk, LL.M In addition, a pool of fourteen family law or child law judges conduct pre-trial review and full court hearings whilst two other staff members take turns working as clerks at these court hearings. BLIK Contact details Rechtbank Den Haag, team familie en internationale kinderbescherming Attn of: Bureau Liaisonrechter Internationale Kinderbescherming Postbus 20302 2500 EH Den Haag, Nederland Email: blik@rechtspraak.nl Telephone: (0031)(0)70-381 1762 (alternative number: (0031)(0)70-381 3567) Fax: (0031)(0)70-381 3557 25

APPENDICES 26

APPENDIX A: s filed in 2013 and decided in 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 451908 Bulgaria 1-10-13 14-11-13 D 31-01-14 44 122 Order denied Yes Partly FC 17-1-14 Both parties No 2 454898 Belgium 20-11-13 5-12-13 D 3-01-14 15 44 Order granted Yes No FC 18-12-13 No No 3 456706 130148 4 457267 130138 5 457377 140004 Mexico 13-12-13 16-1-14 D 10-02-14 34 59 Order denied Yes No FC 30-1-14 Both parties Morocco 30-12-13 16-1-14 D 11-02-14 17 43 Order denied No * FC 28-1-14 Applicant Yes Netherlands 31-12-13 * D 4-03-14 * 63 No jurisdiction No * FC 18-2-14 Applicant Yes Yes *= not applicable 1: Case number 2: Subject 3: Country 4: Filing date 5: Date pre-trial review hearing 6: Date court decision 7: Number of calendar days between filing date and pre-trial review hearing 8: Number of calendar days between filing date and court decision 9: Court decision 10: Mediation 11: Mediation successful? (MA = mirror agreement, SA = settlement agreement) 12: Full Court (FC) or single-judge section (SJ) 13: Has one of the parties obtained Free Legal Aid? If so, who? 14: Is the case known to the CA? 27

APPENDIX B: s filed and decided in 2014 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. 457764 2. 459043 Custody + return from Pakistan to the Netherlands 3. 460002 4. 460671 140024 5. 461157 140014 6. 461795 140011 7. 461904 130126 8. 464998 and interim relief 140021 9. 466400 10. 467163 140002 11. 468039 140058 12. 469095 140039 Netherlands 6-1-14 * D 4-3-14 * 57 Order granted No * FC 18-2-14 Applicant No (from Lebanon) Netherlands 27-1-14 * D2-5-14 * 96 No jurisdiction * * FC 28-3-14 Both parties No Peru 11-2-14 20-2-14 D 24-3-14 9 41 Order granted Yes No FC 10-3-14 No No Sudan 20-2-14 7-3-14 D 11-4-14 15 50 Order denied No * FC 28-3-14 Both parties Yes Spain 28-2-14 13-3-14 ID 17-3-14 D 22-4-14 13 53 Order granted No * FC 7-4-14 Both parties Yes Poland 11-3-14 27-3-14 D 23-4-14 16 43 Order granted Yes No FC 9-4-14 No Yes South Africa 12-3-14 27-3-14 D 13-5-14 15 62 Order denied Yes No FC 22-4-14 Applicant Yes South Africa 30-4-14 15-5-14 D 16-6-14 15 47 Order denied No * FC 26-5-14 Applicant Yes Belgium 21-5-14 5-6-14 D 17-7-14 15 57 Order denied No * FC 3-7-14 Respondent No USA 4-6-14 19-6-14 D 21-7-14 15 47 Order denied Yes No FC 7-7-14 Respondent Yes USA 17-6-14 3-7-14 D 25-7-14 16 38 Incorporation of SA, return withdrawn Yes Yes SA * Both parties Yes England 4-7-14 17-7-14 D 12-8-14 13 39 Order granted No * FC 30-7-14 Both parties Yes 28

13. 469305 (and 475121) 130146 14. 469627 140068 15. 469881 & international parental access arrangements 130048 16. 469896 17. 470912 140040 18. 472712 19. 473028 130159 20. 473314 21. 476037 Germany 7-7-14 17-7-14 D 17-10-14 10 102 Order denied (incorporation of arrangements on main residence, parental access, information and consultation) Yes No FC 22-9-14 Respondent Yes Belgium 11-7-14 24-7-14 D 18-9-14 13 69 Order denied No * FC 4-9-14 Both parties Yes Germany 16-7-14 14-8-14 D 11-9-14 29 57 Order denied Yes No MA FC 28-8-14 Both parties Yes Surinam 16-7-14 31-7-14 D 27-8-14 15 42 Order granted Yes No FC 20-8-14 Respondent No Belgium 31-7-14 14-8-14 * 14 * Withdrawn Yes No * Both parties Yes Belgium 28-8-14 11-9-14 D 9-10-14 14 42 Order granted Yes No FC 25-9-14 Respondent No MA Poland 3-9-14 18-9-14 D 14-10-14 15 41 Order granted No * FC 29-9-14 Respondent Yes Austria 9-9-14 18-9-14 D 22-10-14 9 43 Order granted Yes No FC 8-10-14 Applicant No Spain 24-10-14 6-11-14 D 8-12-14 13 46 Order denied Yes No FC 24-11-14 No No *= not applicable 1: Case number 2: Subject 3: Country 4: Filing date 5: Date pre-trial review hearing 6: Date court decision 7: Number of calendar days between filing date and pre-trial review hearing 8: Number of calendar days between filing date and court decision 9: Court decision 10: Mediation 11: Mediation successful? (MA = mirror agreement, SA = settlement agreement) 12: Full Court (FC) or single-judge section (SJ) 13: Has one of the parties obtained Free Legal Aid? If so, who? 14: Is the case known to the CA? 29