Court of Appeal makes a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning whether it is compatible with EU law to grant an interlocutory injunction directing at the public body of another Member State preventing that body arranging for the adoption of children in the courts of that other Member State, finding that, while the scheme of the Brussels/Lugano system may preclude the grant of in personam protective measure, it is not clear cut and guidance is needed urgently.
EU law – child abduction – application restraining Hampshire County Council from proceeding with the adoption of three young children – Hampshire has elected once again not to participate in the appeal – whether this Court has a jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction against Hampshire County Council – Article 29.8 of the Constitution – children were wrongfully removed from this jurisdiction prior to the enforcement proceedings having been served on the parents – interlocutory injunction directed in personam to Hampshire County Council qua party to the present proceedings restraining it from proceeding with the adoption pending outcome of the appeal – Brussels II bis Regulation – whether it is compatible with EU law and, specifically, the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003, for the courts of one Member State to grant an interlocutory injunction (protective measures) directed in personam at the public body of another Member State preventing that body arranging for the adoption of children in the courts of that other Member State – urgent Article 267 TFEU reference made.