Facts
This case involved adult protection proceedings initiated by the Child and Adult Protection Authority (KESB) of Thun against A. (born 1920). [A.] suffered from moderate dementia and had limited decision-making capacity. In August 2016, [A.] deregistered with the municipality of U. and moved to Spain.
A.'s children filed motions in the ongoing proceedings for precautionary revocation of legal capacity, inventory of assets, and involuntary residential placement. The KESB declared itself territorially competent and dismissed the motions. [A.] appealed against this, with the aim of establishing the KESB's lack of jurisdiction.
The Federal Supreme Court had to decide whether the KESB remained competent despite A.'s relocation to Spain, a non-contracting state of the Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults (HEsÜ).
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court held that the principle of perpetuatio fori applies when the habitual residence is transferred to a non-contracting state. This means that the KESB's international jurisdiction established at the commencement of the proceedings continues to exist even after A.'s relocation to Spain.
The Federal Supreme Court reasoned that while the HEsÜ generally provides that the authorities of the state of the new habitual residence become competent in case of relocation to a contracting state, this regulation does not apply to…