Call for expressions of interest with a view to setting up a group of experts on Brussels IIA Regulation (Council Regulation No. 2201/2003)

Esperando una revisión interna por parte de Justicia y Consumidores de cómo han respondido a esta solicitud.

Dear Justice and Consumers,

Under the right of access to documents in the EU treaties, as developed in Regulation 1049/2001, I am requesting documents which contain the following information:


Being aware of failures of the EU law EC2201/2003 (the so called Brussels IIa) regulation as shown in the petition 1229/2013

I had put several FOI requests. Already the public consultation could be interpreted as a desaster:

And it seems the commission is not willing to start infringement proceedings against member states in violation of EU law, as requested twice from MEPs
(This above FOI request is unanswered and overdue)

The European Citizens and also the Members of the European Parliament (MEP) and the National Parliaments could get the impression that there is a lack of transparency with the so called review and revision of the EU law EC2201/2003 (Brussels IIa).

This FOI is also still not answered and overdue as several others.


As it came out that the commission is trying to find experts (the link includes further links):

-- QUOTED----
Call for expressions of interest with a view to setting up a group of experts on Brussels IIA Regulation (Council Regulation No. 2201/2003)
Time-limit for receipt of applications: 18/02/2015

I would like to know:
(1) who has applied (shown an interest) on this 'call for expression of interest ..'
(2) who made the rules (requirements) for these experts and
(3) in case the decision for this people is already done until this FOI has to be answered (around 16th April 2015)
(3.1) who has been chosen to participate and
(3.2) who has been rejected ?

Further I would like to know,
(4) how the civil society is included in this decision and law making process ?
If the civil society is not included, kindly let me know
(4.1) why the civil society is kept out not and
(4.2) who has decided to keep the civil society and also people who suffered from this existing, but often not working regulation, are kept out.

(5) Further I would like to know how lobbyists, mainly lawyers, barristers and legal firms who can make a lot of private money but also public money through legal aid are kept under control ? Or even better, when the civil society is kept out the same should be done with this lobbyists.
(5.1) How is this done ?

Seeing the FOI request from Pascoe Sabido
it should not take 7 weeks until this request is answered.

Yours faithfully,

Klaus Zinser

Klaus Zinser dejó un comentario ()

Correction: The FOI was made today 24th February 2015 + 15 working days -> it should be answered latest on 17th March 2015 (not 16th April 2015)

Dear Justice and Consumers,

i am waiting for the answer on the request. This hould have been done latest on 17th March 2015.

Yours faithfully,

Klaus Zinser

Justicia y Consumidores

2 Adjuntos

Dear Mr Zinser,


Please find attached the reply to your email sent on 24 February 2015,
signed by our Head of Civil justice policy Unit, Mr Michael Shotter.


Yours sincerely,



European Commission
Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers

Civil Justice Policy Unit


mostrar partes citadas

Dear Justice and Consumers,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Justice and Consumers's handling of my FOI request 'Call for expressions of interest with a view to setting up a group of experts on Brussels IIA Regulation (Council Regulation No. 2201/2003)'.

Seeing the last available document:

"The Group shall normally meet in Brussels on the Commission premises in accordance with the procedures and schedule established by it, with the indicative dates:
1. Meeting – March 2015
2. Meeting – April 2015
3. Meeting – May 2015
4. Meeting – June 2015
5. Meeting – September 2015
A definitive time-table will be agreed in the first meeting of the Group taking into account the availability of the members.
The Commission shall provide secretarial services for the meetings of the Group. Representatives of interested Commission services may attend meetings of the Group.
The Commission shall publish all relevant documents on the activities carried out by the group such as agendas, minutes and participants’ submissions, either in the Register or via a link from the Register to a dedicated website where information can be found. Exceptions to publication are possible where disclosure of a document would undermine the protection of a public or private interest as defined in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) N° 1049/20015."

The group is established and has started to work.

Seeing that Michael Shotter, from what I know a british national and an english lawyer (unfortunately i cant find a CV) was dealing with my questions i have serious concerns.

Mr Shotter seems to be the person in the commission who decides about the violation of EC2201/2003. Also it seems Mr Shotter therefore decides about infringement proceedings against member states.

We all know that the EU Commission has been asked several times to start infringement proceedings against UK in violation of EC2201/2003 but they never did.

From the position of the commission therefore there has never been a violation of EU law as they never started infringement proceedings. But the commission has started a review and wants to rework the EC2201/2003 regulation.
Why ? Additionally to this request for a review the commission should also answer the question why there is a review when there was no violation of this EU law.
Also I want to know where i can find information about this working expert group who excludes the civil society and maybe has contacts to the legal industry lobbyists.

The taxpayer has a right for proper work. It seems Brussells IIa was a desaster and now they go ahead in the same way behind hidden doors. I am open to change my opinion when there is a proof.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on the Internet at this address:

Yours faithfully,

Klaus Zinser

Dear Justice and Consumers,

I am still waiting for the internal review.

Yours faithfully,

Klaus Zinser

Dear Justice and Consumers,

there is still no reply on this:

Kindly ket me know what you have done in the meantime and when I will get an answer.

Yours faithfully,

Klaus Zinser

Dear Justice and Consumers,

another month has passed.

Looking at the original timetable

"The Group shall normally meet in Brussels on the Commission
premises in accordance with the procedures and schedule established
by it, with the indicative dates:
1. Meeting – March 2015
2. Meeting – April 2015
3. Meeting – May 2015
4. Meeting – June 2015
5. Meeting – September 2015"

the European Citizens could get the impression that it seems the European Commission, DG JUST and especially Michael Shotter, are trying to create facts in making decisions excluding the Eureopan Parliament and excluding the European Citizens.

Latest hereby you are informed about a decision from the council of Europe from 2nd October 2015:


In German Language:

'Gleichheit und gemeinsame elterliche Verantwortung: die Rolle der Väter

Parlamentarische Versammlung

1. Die Parlamentarische Versammlung fördert konsequent die Gleichstellung der Geschlechter am Arbeitsplatz und im Privatbereich. Wesentliche Verbesserungen in diesem Bereich, auch wenn sie immer noch nicht ausreichend sind, können in den meisten Mitgliedsstaaten des Europarates beobachtet werden. Innerhalb der Familie muss die Gleichstellung von Eltern gewährleistet und gefördert werden, von dem Moment an, wo das Kind auf die Welt kommt. Die Beteiligung beider Eltern in ihrer Erziehung des Kindes ist von Vorteil für dessen Entwicklung. Die Rolle der Väter gegenüber ihren Kindern, ebenso kleinen Kindern, muss besser anerkannt und angemessener bewertet werden.

2. Gemeinsame elterliche Verantwortung bedeutet, dass die Eltern bestimmte Rechte, Pflichten und Verantwortlichkeiten gegenüber ihren Kindern haben. Tatsache ist jedoch, dass Väter manchmal mit Gesetzen, Praktiken und Vorurteilen konfrontiert werden, die dazu führen können, ihnen die dauerhafte Beziehung zu ihren Kindern vorenthalten. In seiner Resolution 1921 (2013) “Die Gleichstellung der Geschlechter, der Vereinbarkeit von Privat- und Berufsleben und gemeinsame Verantwortung”, fordert die Versammlung die Behörden der Mitgliedstaaten auf, das Recht der Väter zu respektieren, um die gemeinsame Verantwortung sicherzustellen, dass das Familienrecht im Falle einer Trennung oder Scheidung die Möglichkeit der gemeinsamen Obsorge im besten Interesse für die Kinder, auf der Grundlage gegenseitiger Vereinbarung zwischen den Eltern, sicherstellt.

3. Die Versammlung möchte hierbei hervorheben, dass die Achtung des Familienlebens sowohl durch das Grundrecht der in Artikel 8 der Europäischen Menschenrechtskonvention (ETS No. 5), sowie durch zahlreiche internationale Rechtsinstrumente, zu bewahren ist. Für jeden Elternteil und sein Kind ist die Möglichkeit, zusammen zu sein, ein wesentlicher Bestandteil des Familienlebens. Eltern-Kind-Trennung hat unheilbare Auswirkungen auf ihre Beziehung. Eine solche Trennung sollte nur von einem Gericht und nur unter außergewöhnlichen Umständen mit ernsten Risiken für das Wohl des Kindes angeordnet werden.

4. Darüber hinaus ist die Versammlung überzeugt, dass die Entwicklung gemeinsamer Obsorge hilft, Geschlechterstereotypen in Bezug auf die Rolle von Frauen und Männern in der Familie zu überwinden, welche lediglich ein Spiegelbild der soziologischen Veränderungen darstellt, wie sie sich in den letzten fünfzig Jahren in Hinblick auf die Privat- und Familien-Sphäre entwickelt hat.

5. Angesichts dieser Überlegungen fordert die Versammlung die Mitgliedstaaten auf:

5.1. das Europäische Übereinkommen über die Ausübung von Kinderrechten (ETS Nr 160) und das Übereinkommen über den Umgang mit Kindern (ETS Nr 192) zu unterzeichnen und / oder zu ratifizieren, wenn sie es nicht bereits getan haben,

5.2. das Haager Übereinkommen von 1980 über die zivilrechtlichen Aspekte internationaler Kindesentführung, sofern sie es noch nicht gemacht haben, zu unterzeichnen und/ oder zu ratifizieren und diese in einer Form umzusetzen und zu implementieren, dass sichergestellt ist, dass jene Behörden, welche für die Durchsetzung zuständig sind, diesen umgehend nachkommen und sie befolgen.

5.3. sicherzustellen, dass die Eltern die gleichen Rechte gegenüber ihren Kindern nach dessen Rechtsvorschriften und Verwaltungspraxis haben, und jedem Elternteil das Recht garantieren, informiert zu werden, und ein Mitspracherecht bei wichtigen Entscheidungen, die das Leben und die Entwicklung ihres Kindes beeinflussen, im besten Interesse des Kindes zu erhalten.

5.4. von ihren Gesetzen jede Benachteiligung zu entfernen, die auf dem Familienstand der Eltern basiert, die ihr Kind anerkannt haben;

5.5. in ihre Gesetze den Grundsatz der Doppelresidenz (Wechselmodell) nach einer Trennung einzuführen, und Ausnahmen ausschließlich auf Fälle von Kindesmisshandlung, Vernachlässigung, oder häuslicher Gewalt einzuschränken, mit jener Zeitaufteilung, in der das Kind mit jedem Elternteil lebt, die entsprechend den Bedürfnissen und Interessen des Kindes angepasst sind;

5.6. respektieren das Recht der Kinder in allen Angelegenheiten angehört zu werden, die sie betreffen, wenn sie ein ausreichendes Verständnis für die betreffenden Fragen besitzen;

5.7. berücksichtigen die geteilte Betreuung bei der Vergabe von Sozialleistungen;

5.8. setzen alle erforderlichen Schritte um, damit Entscheidungen in Bezug auf den Wohnsitz der Kinder und deren Zugang zu diesen Rechten voll durchgesetzt werden, inklusive dem Nachgehen von Beschwerden bezüglich Behinderung der Kindesübergaben;

5.9. Mediation im Rahmen der juristischen Familienverfahren, die Kinder involvieren, zu fördern, insbesondere durch die Einführung einer gerichtlich angeordneten Pflicht der Informationsberatung, um die Eltern aufzuklären, dass die Doppelresidenz (Wechselmodell) eine sinnvolle Option im besten Interesse des Kindes darstellt, und eine solche Lösung zu erarbeiten, indem sichergestellt wird, dass die Mediatoren eine angemessene Schulung erhalten und durch die Förderung der interdisziplinären Zusammenarbeit auf der Grundlage des “Cochemer Modells ” trainiert sind;

5.10. stellen sicher, dass alle Fachkräfte, die während des Familien-Gerichtsverfahrens in Kontakt mit Kindern kommen, die notwendige interdisziplinäre Ausbildung auf die spezifischen Rechte und Bedürfnisse von Kindern der verschiedenen Altersgruppen besitzen, wie auch sonst bei allen Verfahren, in die Kinder involviert sind, den Leitlinien des Rates für eine kinderfreundliche Justiz entsprechen;

5.11. Elternschaftspläne zu fördern, die Eltern ermöglichen, die wichtigsten Aspekte, die das Leben der Kinder betreffen, selbst zu bestimmen und die Einführung der Möglichkeit für Kinder, eine Überprüfung der Vereinbarungen, die sie selbst betreffen, zu überprüfen bzw. zu bewerten, insbesondere ihrem Wohnort;

5.12. bezahlten Elternurlaub für Väter einzuführen, wobei ein Modell der nicht übertragbaren Karenzzeiten zu bevorzugen ist.“'

And the original in English Language:


Resolution 2079 (2015)1

Provisional version

Equality and shared parental responsibility: the role of fathers

Parliamentary Assembly

1. The Parliamentary Assembly has consistently promoted gender equality in the workplace and in the private sphere. Major improvements in this field, while still not sufficient, can be observed in most member States of the Council of Europe. Within families, equality between parents must be guaranteed and promoted from the moment the child arrives. The involvement of both parents in their child’s upbringing is beneficial for his or her development. The role of fathers vis-à-vis their children, including very young children, needs to be better recognised and properly valued.

2. Shared parental responsibility implies that parents have certain rights, duties and responsibilities vis-à- vis their children. The fact is, however, that fathers are sometimes faced with laws, practices and prejudices which can cause them to be deprived of sustained relationships with their children. In its Resolution 1921 (2013) “Gender equality, reconciliation of personal and working life and shared responsibility”, the Assembly called on the authorities of the member States to respect the right of fathers to enjoy shared responsibility by ensuring that family law foresees, in case of separation or divorce, the possibility of joint custody of children, in their best interest, based on mutual agreement between the parents.

3. The Assembly wishes to point out that respect for family life is a fundamental right enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ETS No. 5) and numerous international legal instruments. For a parent and child, the ability to be together is an essential part of family life. Parent–child separation has irremediable effects on their relationship. Such separation should only be ordered by a court and only in exceptional circumstances entailing grave risks to the interest of the child.

4. Furthermore, the Assembly firmly believes that developing shared parental responsibility helps to transcend gender stereotypes about the roles of women and men within the family and is merely a reflection of the sociological changes that have taken place over the past fifty years in terms of how the private and family sphere is organised.

5. In the light of these considerations, the Assembly calls on the member States to:

5.1. sign and/or ratify, if they have not already done so, the Convention on the Exercise of Children’s Rights (ETS No. 160) and the Convention on Contact concerning Children (ETS No. 192);

5.2. sign and/or ratify, if they have not already done so, the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and to properly implement it, ensuring that the authorities responsible for enforcing it co-operate and respond promptly;

5.3. ensure that parents have equal rights vis-à-vis their children under their laws and administrative practice, guaranteeing each parent the right to be informed and to have a say in important decisions affecting their child’s life and development, in the best interests of the child;

5.4. remove from their laws any difference based on marital status between parents who have acknowledged their child;

5.5. introduce into their laws the principle of shared residence following a separation, limiting any exceptions to cases of child abuse or neglect, or domestic violence, with the amount of time for which the child lives with each parent being adjusted according to the child’s needs and interests;

5.6. respect the right of children to be heard in all matters that affect them when they are deemed to have a sufficient understanding of the matters in question;

5.7. take shared residence arrangements into account when awarding social benefits;

5.8. take all necessary steps to ensure that decisions relating to children’s residence and to access rights are fully enforced, including by following up complaints with respect to failure to hand over a child;

5.9. encourage and, where appropriate, develop mediation within the framework of judicial proceedings in family cases involving children, in particular by instituting a court-ordered mandatory information session, in order to make the parents aware that shared residence may be an appropriate option in the best interest of the child, and to work towards such a solution, by ensuring that mediators receive appropriate training and by encouraging multidisciplinary co-operation based on the “Cochem model”;

5.10. ensure that the professionals who come into contact with children during court proceedings in family cases receive the necessary interdisciplinary training on the specific rights and needs of children of different age groups, as well as on proceedings that are adapted to them, in accordance with the Council of Europe Guidelines on child-friendly justice;

5.11. encourage parenting plans which enable parents to determine the principal aspects of their children’s lives themselves and introduce the possibility for children to request a review of arrangements that directly affect them, in particular their place of residence;

5.12. introduce paid parental leave available to fathers, with preference being given to the model of non-transferable periods of leave.


1. Assembly debate on 2 October 2015 (36th Sitting) (see Doc. 13870, report of the Committee on Equality and Non- Discrimination, rapporteur: Ms Françoise Hetto-Gaasch; and Doc. 13896, opinion of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, rapporteur: Mr Stefan Schennach). Text adopted by the Assembly on 2 October 2015 (36th Sitting). '

The commissioin has to inform their secretely working specialists about this.

Further the EU commission, DG JUST should be aware that the CJEU decision re Max Schrems (Safe Harbour not valid anymore) also has an influence on the historic EC2201/2003 EU law and the parental responsibility.

Kindly let me know when you will answer the request.

Klaus Zinser

Kristina Ronnberg dejó un comentario ()

The list of members of the Expert Group, and the minutes of the first three meetings are available at