ITALY Law and Practice Contributed by: Carlo Rimini and Rebecca Andrello, Studio dell’avv. prof. Carlo Rimini
are no children, the public prosecutor’s check is merely formal. Once the agreement is authorised and lodged with the Italian public records, it produces the same effects as a court order. Mediation The procedure for mediation (ruled by Legisla - tive Decree No 28/2010) is managed by a third and impartial person (mediator), who tries to solve the dispute between the parties and also suggests some solutions. If an agreement is reached, it produces the same effects as a court order once it is authorised by the court. ADR methods are suggested by the courts. The parties are free to choose if they prefer to fol - low an ADR process or standard judicial pro - ceedings. In any case, the lawyers assisting the spouses are obliged by Italian law to inform them that they can try to solve the dispute through ADR, before starting any proceedings. According to Article 7 of EU Regulation 1111/2019, Italian jurisdiction in matters of parental responsibility is grounded if the child is habitually resident in Italy at the time the court is seized. Generally speaking, to safeguard the best interests of the child (which is the main fac - tor the court considers when establishing juris - diction), jurisdiction is first determined according to the criterion of proximity, as the judge geo - graphically closest to the habitual residence of the minor is in the most favourable situation to assess measures to be taken in the interest of the minor. 3. Child Law 3.1 Choice of Jurisdiction
The habitual residence of the minor is the place where the centre of their life and relationships is concretely located, and the place where the child has a certain integration in a social, edu - cational and family environment. Habitual resi - dence does not correspond to the place where the child is physically present or registered only. The judge has wide discretion in this regard. Exceptions There are some exceptions to this general rule. • Lawful move (Article 8) – the courts of the member state of the child’s former habitual residence shall retain jurisdiction for three months following the lawful move, to modify a decision on access rights given in that mem - ber state before the child moved, if certain conditions are met. • Wrongful move (Article 9) – the courts of the member state where the child was habitu - ally resident immediately before the wrongful removal or retention shall retain their jurisdic - tion until the child has acquired a habitual residence in another member state and certain conditions are met. • Choice of court (Article 10) – the courts of a member state have jurisdiction if: (a) the child has a substantial connection with that member state; (b) the parties, as well as any other holder of parental responsibility, have agreed freely upon the jurisdiction, at the latest at the time the court is seized, or have expressly accepted the jurisdiction in the course of the proceedings; or (c) the exercise of jurisdiction is in the best interests of the child. • Transfer of jurisdiction to a court of another member state (Article 12) – the court of a member state having jurisdiction on the basis of the criteria of the Regulation can ask the
195 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook