Latest Decisions

  • Added on: 22 April 2020 |Superior Appellate Court

    Monasky v Taglieri|UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |HC/E/US 1450

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    No summary available
    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    View case
  • Added on: 22 April 2020 |Appellate Court

    Pohl v Pohl, 2019 ABCA 71|CANADA - ALBERTA |HC/E/CA 1449

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

    Article(s)

    3 12 13(1)(b) 26

    Synopsis

    1 child allegedly wrongfully removed at age 13 – National of Canada – Divorced parents – Parents have joint custody and mother has primary care – Child lived in Arizona, USA until August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Alberta, Canada on May 18, 2018 – Application dismissed – Main issue: Art 13(1)(b) – It would be an intolerable situation to return the child to Arizona as neither parent resides there.

    View case
  • Added on: 22 April 2020 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision of the Federal Supreme Court 5A_846/2018 of 6 November 2018|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1448

    Languages
    Full text download FR
    Summary available in FR
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3

    Order

    Case remitted to lower court

    Article(s)

    1 3 4

    View case
  • Added on: 22 April 2020 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision of the Federal Supreme Court 5A_475/2018 of 9 July 2018|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1447

    Languages
    Full text download FR
    Summary available in FR
    Grounds

    Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    13(2)

    View case
  • Added on: 22 April 2020 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision of the Federal Supreme Court 5A_1021/2017 of 8 march 2018|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1446

    Languages
    Full text download FR
    Summary available in FR
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3

    Order

    Case remitted to lower court

    Article(s)

    3

    View case
  • Added on: 17 April 2020 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision of the Federal Supreme Court 5A_440/2019 of 2 July 2019|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1445

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

    Order

    Appeal allowed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    Two children wrongfully removed at ages nine and four – Nationals of Macedonia – Married parents – Father national of Macedonia – Mother national of Macedonia – Joint parental custody – Children lived in Austria until 28 July 2018 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Austria 5 September 2018 – Return ordered – Main issues: Effective exercise of custody and grave risk – Article 3(1)(b) must be read in the light with the Convention's concern that the original condition should be established; there is a presumption that the holder of custody has fulfilled his obligations; the grounds for exclusion are to be interpreted narrowly and only real dangers are to be taken into account in the case of Article 13(1)(b).

    View case
  • Added on: 17 April 2020 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision of the Federal Supreme Court 5A_666/2017 of 27 September 2017|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1444

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Procedural Matters | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    13(2)

    Synopsis

    One child wrongfully removed at age ten – National of Switzerland and Spain – Unmarried parents – Father national of Spain – Mother national of Switzerland – Joint custody according to Spanish law – Child lived in Spain until January/February 2016 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Spain on 17 February 2016 – Return refused – Main issues: substantially changed circumstances; objection of the child to a return – If the circumstances have changed substantially, it must be possible, to reassess a return decision; the child's opposition within the meaning of Article 13(2) must be expressed with a certain emphasis and with comprehensible reasons.

    View case
  • Added on: 17 April 2020 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision of the Federal Supreme Court 5A_513/2016 of 12 August 2016|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1443

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Rights of Custody - Art. 3

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 5

    Synopsis

    One child wrongfully removed at age ten – National of Switzerland and Spain – Unmarried parents – Father national of Spain – Mother national of Switzerland – Joint custody according to Spanish law – Child lived in Spain until January/February 2016 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Spain on 17 February 2016 – Return refused – Main issues: parental custody – The father received parental joint custody when the child's place of residence was transferred to Spain, since in Spain both parents have parental custody by law.

    View case
  • Added on: 17 April 2020 |Superior Appellate Court

    Decision of the Federal Supreme Court 5A_293/2016 of 8 August 2016|SWITZERLAND |HC/E/CH 1442

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    1 3 4 5 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    Two children wrongfully removed at ages nine and seven – Married parents – Shared parental custody – Children lived in Spain until 5 February 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 17 February 2016 –Application dismissed – Main issue(s): Habitual residence - is understood to mean the actual centre of the child's life, which is determined by the factual circumstances; Consent - the departure of the spouse does not require any approval by the other; the only thing requiring approval is the change of the children's place of residence abroad; Grave risk - must be interpreted restrictively: meaning a serious danger, initial language and reintegration difficulties typically do not constitute a serious danger.

    View case
  • Added on: 8 April 2020 |First Instance

    Souza v. Krahn; Krahn v. Alves-Souza, 2019 MBQB 174|CANADA - MANITOBA |HC/E/CA 1441

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

    Order

    Appeal allowed, application dismissed

    Article(s)

    1 3 4 Preamble

    Synopsis

    1 child allegedly retained at age 3 – National of Canada and United Stated – Unmarried parents – Father national of Brazil – Mother national of Canada – Child lived most of her life in Canada but spent several months in the United States on three separate occasions – Application for return filed with the courts on August 30, 2019 – Application dismissed – Main issue: Art 3 – The child was habitually resident in Canada and therefore there was no wrongful retention

    View case