| Abstrakt: |
This article is dedicated to the legal analysis of the specifics of Council Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 in the context of its application to the protection of unaccompanied asylum seeker children. The article emphasizes that European Union law stipulates that unaccompanied children migrating from third countries to the EU must be protected, regardless of whether they fall under the general European asylum system. The European Regulation (EU) 2019/1111 plays a significant role in this context, as it guarantees the protection of unaccompanied children migrating to the EU by establishing parental responsibility. Although maintaining family unity aligns with the best interests of the child, the right to family reunification is not always straightforward or feasible for unaccompanied migrant children, who often lack documentation. Moreover, the exercise of the right to reunification does not always align with the principle of the best interests of these children. Therefore, it is crucial to promptly appoint a guardian for such children upon their arrival to advocate for their interests and ensure their protection. To expedite the appointment process and facilitate the effective implementation of other protective measures, Regulation 2019/1111 provides for the possibility of adopting provisional and protective measures. Consequently, the courts of any Member State have the right to adopt provisional and protective national measures if such measures are provided for in the national legislation of that Member State. To date, the case law of the CJEU has established three cumulative requirements for provisional and protective measures: the measure must be temporary, urgent, and must be taken in relation to a child present in the Member State handling the case. Jurisdiction should be determined by the Member State of the child’s habitual residence, except in certain situations, such as when the child’s residence changes or according to an agreement between those with parental responsibility. If no proceedings regarding parental responsibility have been concluded and the child’s habitual residence changes following lawful relocation, jurisdiction should be retained with the child to maintain proximity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
