1. The concept of ‘habitual residence’,
for the purposes of Articles 8 and 10 of the Brussels II Regulation
(No 2201/2003) must be interpreted as meaning that such residence
corresponds to the place which reflects some degree of integration
by the child in a social and family environment. To that end, where
the situation concerned is that of an infant who has been staying
with her mother only a few days in a Member State – other than
that of her habitual residence – to which she has been removed,
the factors which must be taken into consideration include, first,
the duration, regularity, conditions and reasons for the stay in the
territory of that Member State and for the mother’s move to
that State and, second, with particular reference to the child’s
age, the mother’s geographic and family origins and the family
and social connections which the mother and child have with that Member
State. It is for the national court to establish the habitual residence
of the child, taking account of all the circumstances of fact specific
to each individual case. If the application of the abovementioned
tests were, in the case in the main proceedings, to lead to the conclusion
that the child’s habitual residence cannot be established, which
court has jurisdiction would have to be determined on the basis of
the criterion of the child’s presence, under Article 13 of the
Regulation.
2. Judgments of a court of a Member State
which refuse to order the prompt return of a child under the Hague
Convention of 25 October 1980 on the civil aspects of international
child abduction to the jurisdiction of a court of another Member State
and which concern parental responsibility for that child have no effect
on judgments which have to be delivered in that other Member State
in proceedings relating to parental responsibility which were brought
earlier and are still pending in that other Member State.