Habitual residence is the basic connecting factor for determining the courts’ international jurisdiction under the Brussels II Regulation and for the choice of jurisdiction and applicable law under other European regulations. Most regulations contain no explicit definition of the concept, the determination of its particular content being left to the autonomous interpretation of the CJEU. A survey of the CJEU’s case law shows that the specific content of habitual residence is quite variable, depending on the type of legal relationship and the categories of actors involved, as it is linked to the context and circumstances of each specific case. The lack of precise guidelines for its determination leaves a lot of discretion to national courts and may lead to inconsistencies in case law. The Master's thesis addresses the question whether it is possible and reasonable to create a uniform concept or an inter-regulatory definition of habitual residence which would match all possible legal statuses of various individuals in a range of legal relationships. Its core provides a brief historical outline of the reasons for adopting the habitual residence as a key concept and presents in detail the criteria for its determination in the CJEU’s case law, its detailed analysis being presented in relation to the different categories of individuals (children/infants, adults, entrepreneurs/professionals) and to the various legal relationships, such as a (common-law) marriage/registered partnership dissolution, payment of maintenance, insolvency, inheritance proceedings, conclusion of civil law transactions, torts, etc. The Master's thesis is concluded with considerations on the (im)possibility of creating a uniform concept of habitual residence, encompassing all possible legal statuses of different types of individuals in various legal relationships.
|
