The Court delivered on 17 October 2018 its judgment in case C‑393/18 PPU (UD v XB), which is about Brussels II bis:

“Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 […] must be interpreted to the effect that a child must have been physically present in a Member State in order to be regarded as habitually resident in that Member State, for the purposes of that provision. Circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, assuming that they are proven, that is to say, first, the fact that the father’s coercion of the mother had the effect of her giving birth to their child in a third country where she has resided with that child ever since, and, secondly, the breach of the mother’s or the child’s rights, do not have any bearing in that regard”.

This decision needs to be read in the light of the opinion of the AG (see here on this blog).

Source: here