Navigating Through Habitual Residence Determination
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18690/lexonomica.17.2.171-202.2025Keywords:
habitual residence determination, connecting factor, private international law, EU Case-law, legal certaintyAbstract
Within the private international law area today, habitual residence seems to be omnipresent. Almost irrespective of the context, there seems to be no more appealing connecting factor than a habitual residence. It makes one wonder what exactly is so appealing about it. Is it the ease of determining habitual residence? Or maybe legal certainty? Uniformity? Flexibility? All these questions are legitimate and require answers in order to grasp the concept, its advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, this article provides an overview of the development of the concept, both in theory and in case law, with the aim of consolidating existing knowledge and seeking answers to the remaining questions.
Povzetek
Na področju mednarodnega zasebnega prava gre dandanes zaznati, da je običajno prebivališče vseprisotno. Skoraj ne glede na kontekst se zdi, da ni bolj atraktivnega povezovalnega dejavnika kot običajno prebivališče. To vzbuja vprašanje, kaj točno je tako atraktivno. Je to enostavnost določanja običajnega prebivališča? Ali morda pravna varnost? Enotnost? Prilagodljivost? Vsa ta vprašanja so upravičena in zahtevajo odgovore, da bi lahko razumeli predmetni pojem ter njegove prednosti in slabosti. Zato ta članek ponuja pregled razvoja koncepta, tako v teoriji kot v sodni praksi, z namenom utrditi obstoječe znanje in poiskati odgovore na odprta vprašanja.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge that the work on this paper has been funded by the Faculty of Law, University of Split, under the project nr. 18 – „The impact of migration on status issues (UMSP)“.
Downloads
References
Astorga, R.L. (2007). The Nationality of Juridical Persons in the ICSID Convention in Light
of its Jurisprudence, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, 11, p. 417-472.
Beaumont, P. and McEleavy, P. (1999). The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Beaumont, P. and Holliday, J. (2021). Habitual residence in Child Abduction Cases: The Hybrid Approach is Now the Norm but How Much Weight should Be Given to Parental Intention?, in: Pfeiffer, M; Brodec, J.; Briza, P.; Zavadilová, M. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Monika Pauknerová, p. 27-36 (Praha: Wolters Kluwer).
Boiché, A. (2022). A Spouse Can Only Have One Habitual Residence for the Application of
Article s Brussels II-bis, European Papers, 6(3), p. 1339-1343.
Bonomi, A. and Wautelet, P. (eds.) (2012). Le droit européen des successions: Commentaire du Reglement no 2012/650 du 4 julliet 2012 (Bruxelles: Bruylant).
Borráss, A. (1998). Explanatory Report on the Convention drawn up on the basis of Article
K3 of the Treaty on European Union, on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Matrimonial Matters (1998), OJ C 221/27, 16. 7. 1998.
Bouček, V. (2015). Uobičajeno boravište u hrvatskom međunarodnom privatnom pravu, Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu, 65(6), p. 885-914.
Clermont, K.M.; Palmer, J.R.B. (2025). Exorbitant Jurisdiction, Maine Law Review, 58(2), accessed from http://digitalcommons.mainelaw.maine.edu/mlr/vol58/iss2/9, 22. 3. 2025.
de Lima Pinheiro, L.: „Article 19“ (2017). In: Magnus, U.; Mankowski, P. (eds), European Commentaries on Private International Law: Rome I Regulation, Otto Schmidt, p. 799-810.
de Stefano, C. (2021). The Nationality of Natural and Juridical Persons in International Investment Law, European Yearbook of International Economic Law, Special issue, p. 59-80.
de Winter, L.I. (1969). Nationality or domicile? The present state of the affairs, Recueil Des
Cours, 128(3), p. 357-493.
Dicey, A.V.; (1967). Morris, J.H.C.: On the Conflict of Laws (London: Stevens & Sons Limited).
Dutta, A. (2017). Der gewönliche Aufenthalt – Bewährung und Perspektiven eines Anknüpfungsmoments im Lichte der Europäisierung des Kollisionsrechts, Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts, 2, p. 139-146.
Gociu, M. (2023). The principle of autonomous interpretation and limits of Member States'
courts in interpreting EU law, Challenges of the Knowledge Society. Public Law, p. 282-292.
Hess, B. (2021). Towards a Uniform Concept of Habitual Residence in European Procedural
and Private International Law ?, Polski Proces Cywilny, 4, p. 523-542.
Kruger, T. (2020). Finding a habitual residence, in: Viarengo, I.; Villata, F. (eds), Planning the
future of cross border families. A Path Through Coordination, p. 117-132 (Oxford: Hart Publishing).
Kunda, I. (2019). Uobičajeno boravište djeteta, u: Župan, M. (ed.), Prekogranično kretanje
djece u Europskoj uniji, Pravni fakultet, Osijek, p. 295-315.
Kunda, I.; Winkler, S., Pertot; T. (2020). Jurisdiction and applicable law in succession matters,
in: Cazorla González, M.J.; Giobbi, M.; Kramberger Škerl, J.; Ruggeri, L.; Winkler, S. (eds.), Property Realtions of Cross-Border Couples in the European Union, p. 91-131 (Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche).
Leible, S. and Müller, M. (2012/2013). The Idea of a „Rome 0 Regulation“, Yearbook of Private International Law, 14, p. 137-152.
Mancini, P.S. (1851). Della nazionalità come fondamento del diritto delle gente – Lecture published in: Diritto internazionale, Prelezioni, 1873.
Martiny, D. (2007). Objectives and values of (private) international law in family law, in: Meeusen, J,; Pertegás, M.; Straetmans, J.; Swennen, J. (eds.), International family law for the European Union, p. 69-99 (Antwerp-Oxford: Intersentia).
Perez Vera, E. (1980). Offprint from the Acts and Documents of the Fourteenth Session, tome III, Child Abduction, Explanatory report.
Pfeiffer, M. (2024). Habitual residence and nationality as personal law connecting factors in
European private international law, in: Carruthers, J.M., Lindsay, B.W.M.: Research Handbook on International Family Law, p. 53-71 (Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing).
Ragno, F. (2009). The Law Applicable to Consumer Contracts under the Rome I Regulation,
in: Ferrari; F.; Leible, S. (eds), Rome I Regulation: the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations in Europe, p. 129-170 (Munich: Sellier).
Raiteri, M. (2014). Citizenship as a connecting factor in private international law for family
matters, Journal of Private International Law, 10(2), p. 309-334.
Re, J. (2020). Habitual residence in the Succession Regulation, in: in: Viarengo, I.; Villata, F.
(eds), Planning the future of cross border families. A Path Through Coordination, p. 133-150 (Oxford: Hart Publishing).
Rentsch, B. (2017). Der Gewönliche Aufenthalt im System des Europäischen Kollisionsrechts (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck).
Ricci, C. (2020). Habitual Residence as a Ground of Jurisdiction in Matrimonial Disputes Connected with the EU: Challenges and Potential, Civil Procedure Review, 11(1), p. 151-178.
Rogerson, P. (2000). Habitual Residence: The New Domicile?, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 49(1), p. 86-107.
Sajko, K.. (2009). Međunarodno privatno pravo. (Zagreb: Narodne novine).
Schuz, R. (2013). The Hague Child Abduction Convention: A Critical Analysis (Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing).
Sloane; R. (2009). Breaking the Genuine Link: The Contemporary International legal regulation of Nationality, Harvard International Law Journal, 50(1), accessed from. https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/489, 22. 2. 2025.
Struyven, O. (1998-1999). Exorbitant jurisdiction in the Brussels Convention, Jura Falconis Jg., 35(4), p. 521-548.
Symeonides, S.C. (2007). Material Justice and Conflict Justice in Choice of Law, in: Borchers, P. and Zekoll, J. (eds.) (2001) International Conflict of Laws for the Third Millenium: Essays in Honor of Friedrich k. Juenger, p. 125-140 (Ardsley- New York: Transnational Publishers).
Tomasi, L.; Ricci, C.; Bariatti, S. (2007). Characterisation in family matters for purposes of European private international law, in: Meeusen, J,; Pertegás, M.; Straetmans, J.; Swennen, J. (eds.), International family law for the European Union, p. 341-388 (Antwerp-Oxford: Intersentia).
Trakman, L. (2015). Domicile of Choice in English Law: An Achilles Heel?, Journal of Private International Law, 11(2), p. 317-343.
Von Savigny, F.C. (1849). System des heutigen Römischen Rechts, Berlin.
Wagner, R. (2016). A „Rome 0“ Regulation from a Political Point of View, in: Leible, S. (ed.), General Principles of European Private International Law, p. 171-187 (Alpen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer).
Weller, M.-P. and Rentsch, B. (2016). Habitual residence: A Plea for Settled Intention, in: Leible, S. (ed.), General Principles of European Private International Law, p. 171-187 (Alpen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer).
Wilderspin, M. (2023). European Private International Family Law. The Brussels IIb Regulation (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Zgrabljić Rotar, D. and Hoško, T. (2020). Uobičajeno boravište ostavitelja prema Uredbi o nasljeđivanju, Zagrebačka pravna revija, 9(3), p. 208-229.
Zhang, M. (2018). Habitual Residence v. Domicile: A Challenge Facing American Conflicts of Law, Maine Law Review, 70(2), p. 161-197.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 University of Maribor, University Press
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
© Univerza v Mariboru, Pravna fakulteta, Univerzitetna založba
Prosti pristop