In the present case, a child, a British citizen, returned to India with her mother. The father, also Indian, requested that the competent courts be those of England and Wales and that the child be returned to the United Kingdom.

The Court of Justice has held that Article 10 of the Brussels IIa Regulation lays down criteria applicable only to the territory of the Member States and not to cases of abduction to third countries. Those abductions are covered by rules enshrined in international conventions such as the 1996 Hague Convention on Parental Responsibility and the Protection of Children.

Thus, the criterion of proximity lies at the heart of the Court’s reasoning and goes hand in hand with respect for the best interests of the child: In the present case, the only criterion establishing a connection between the child and the United Kingdom is citizenship. It is therefore not possible to confer on the UK courts unlimited jurisdiction when the child’s family and social life is in India. Consequently, Article 10 of the Brussels IIa Regulation is not applicable where a child has acquired his or her habitual residence in a third State as a result of an abduction.