Latest Decisions

  • Added on: 24 September 2018 |First Instance

    Municipal Court of Rijeka, No. R1Ob-649/16 of 16 June 2017|CROATIA |HC/E/HR 1396

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 12 13(1)(b) 16

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully retained at age 5 – National of Croatia and Germany – Married parents – Father national of Croatia and Germany – Mother national of Croatia – Joint costudy according to the German Civil Code – Child lived in Germany until December 2015 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Croatia on 22 March 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Croatia on 30 May 2016 – Return ordered – Main issues: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return, Undertakings, Objections of the Child to a Return – The Court ordered the return of the child, whose retention in Croatia was found to be unlawful under Art. 3 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

    View case
  • Added on: 24 September 2018 |Appellate Court

    County Court of Zagreb, No. 1 Gž Ob-1456/2016-2 of 2 December 2016|CROATIA |HC/E/HR 1395

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

    Order

    Case remitted to lower court

    Article(s)

    12 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully removed at age 3 – National of Croatia– Married parents– Father national of Croatia– Mother national of Croatia – Joint parental responsibility according to German Civil Code – Child lived in Germany until 6 April 2016 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Croatia on 10 June 2016 – Application for return filed with the Central court of Croatia on 29 August 2016 - Main issue(s): Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return; Procedural matters, Brussels IIa Regulation – the courts are obliged to give a fully-founded factual basis for the application of Articles 12 and 13 of the Hague Convention.

    View case
  • Added on: 24 September 2018 |First Instance

    Municipal Court of Osijek, No. 12 R1 Ob-566 of 3 October 2016|CROATIA |HC/E/HR 1394

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Undertakings | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(b) 13(2)

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully removed at age 3 – National of Croatia – Married parents– Father national of Croatia – Mother national of Croatia – Joint parental responsibility under the  German Civil Code – Child lived in Germany until 6 April 2016 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Croatia on 10 June 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Croatia on 29 August 2016 – Return ordered – Main issues:  Rights of Custody, Art. 13(1)(b) “grave risk” exception to return, Objections of the Child to a Return – The child’s removal from Germany to Croatia was held to be unlawful under the Hague Convention, and none of the exceptions to ordering return were deemed applicable.

    View case
  • Added on: 24 September 2018 |Appellate Court

    County Court of Zagreb, No. 15 Gž Ob-1264 / 16-2 of 11 October 2016|CROATIA |HC/E/HR 1393

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

    Order

    Case remitted to lower court

    Article(s)

    3 12 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully retained at age 5 – National of Croatia and Germany – Married parents– Father national of Croatia and Germany – Mother national of Croatia – Joint custody according to the German Civil Code and under Croatian law – Child lived in Germany until December2015 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Croatia on 22 March 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Croatia on 30 May 2016 - The Court granted the appeal, set aside the first instance judgment and remitted the case for a new trial to the court of first instance – Main issues: Rights of Custody, Brussels IIa Regulation –The first instance court should have applied the Brussels II a Regulation, including its requirement for return to be ordered in Art. 13(1)(b) cases in which it has been established that adequate arrangements have been made to secure the protection of the child upon his return.

    View case
  • Added on: 24 September 2018 |First Instance

    Municipal Court of Rijeka, No. R1 Ob-336/16 of 27 July 2016|CROATIA |HC/E/HR 1392

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

    Order

    Return refused

    Article(s)

    7 12 13(1)(b) 13(2) 16 19

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully retained at age 5 – National of Croatia and Germany – Married parents– Father national of Croatia and Germany – Mother national of Croatia – Joint parental responsibility  according to the German Civil Code – Child lived in Germany until December 2015 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Croatia on 22 March 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Croatia on 30 May 2016 – Return refused – Main issues: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return, Objections of the Child to a Return, Procedural matters  – The Court refused the request for return of the child under Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

    View case
  • Added on: 30 August 2018 |First Instance

    X. (the mother) against Y. (the father) |NETHERLANDS - KINGDOM IN EUROPE |HC/E/NL 1391

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    Child national of Australia and Germany, wrongfully retained at age two – Unmarried parents – Father national of Australia – Mother national of Guatemala and Germany – Joined custody – Child lived in Australia until November 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of The Netherlands on 2 January 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: 13 (1)(b) allegation of domestic violence; no grave risk of harm to the minor. Adequate institutions and facilities for protection from domestic violence in Australia. Decision upheld by the Court of Appeal of the Hague by decision on 11 April 2018.

    View case
  • Added on: 20 August 2018 |Appellate Court

    2017 (Ra) No. 742 Appeal case against an order of the return of a child|JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1390

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

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

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully retained in Japan ― National of Singapore and Japan ― Married parents ― Father national of Singapore – Mother national of Japan ― Child lived in Singapore until 2016 ― Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Singapore in 2016 ― Petition for return filed with the courts of Japan in 2017 ― Return ordered ― Main issues: acquiescence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – There is no grave risk in ordering the return of the child in cases involving domestic violence between the parents where a protection order is in place in the requesting State and where there is no evidence that any violence has been committed against the child ― It cannot be said that a parent has not actually exercised rights of custody at the time of removal if he did not know the whereabouts of the child at that time  ― A parent has not approved of or acquiesced in the retention if he filed a return application with the Central Authority of the requesting State about one month after coming to know of the removal, and with the courts of the requested State almost one year after the removal, respectively.

    View case
  • Added on: 16 July 2018 |Superior Appellate Court

    Office of the Children’s Lawyer v. Balev, 2018 SCC 16|CANADA |HC/E/CA 1389

    Languages
    Full text download EN | FR
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Interpretation of the Convention | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

    Order

    Guidance on the application of the Convention issued

    Article(s)

    1 2 3 4 5 11 12 13(2) 19

    Synopsis

    2 children retained at ages 11 and 8 – Nationals of Canada – Married parents – Father national of Canada – Mother national of Canada – Father transferred physical custody in a notarised letter to the mother for the period April 2013 to August 2014, to allow the children to enroll in a Canadian school – Children lived in Germany until April 2013 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Germany on 11 April 2014 – Return decision of the Court of Appeal of Ontario of 13 September 2016 was appealed to the Supreme Court, but the children were returned to Germany before the Court rendered its judgment; despite the appeal being moot, the Court considered the issues raised to be important and in need of clarification – Main issues: interpretation of the Convention, habitual residence, objections of the child to a return, procedural matters – To ensure uniformity of State practice, courts should generally adopt the interpretation of the Convention that has gained the most support in other foreign domestic courts – The “hybrid approach” to determining habitual residence (which considers all relevant factual links and circumstances in their entirety, instead of focusing either on parental intention or the child’s acclimatisation) should be followed – Courts should adopt a non-technical and straightforward approach to considering the child’s objections to return – It is up to the judicial authorities to ensure that the State lives up to its obligations to act expeditiously under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention – Convention proceedings should be judge-led, not party-driven, and judges should not hesitate to use their authority to expedite proceedings

    View case
  • Added on: 11 May 2018 |Superior Appellate Court

    2017 (Ju) No. 2015 Case of a request for Habeas Corpus relief|JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1388

    Languages
    Full text download JA | EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Non-Convention Issues | Issues Relating to Return

    Order

    Case remitted to lower court

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully removed at age 11 years and 3 months ― National of Japan and the United States ― Married parents ― Father and mother nationals of Japan ― Father was granted sole custody by a court in the United States after the return order became final and binding ― Child lived in the United States until 12 January 2016 ― Application for return filed with the courts of Japan in July 2016 ― Return ordered and execution by substitute failed (due to the mother’s strenuous resistance and the child’s objection); the father subsequently filed a request for habeas corpus relief ― Main issues: Non-Convention Issues, Issues Relating to Return ― There are special circumstances in which a mature child cannot be seen to be staying with the abducting parent based on his free will, so continued care of the child in defiance of a return order can amount to “restraint” under the Habeas Corpus Act and Habeas Corpus Rules ― Where continued “restraint” by the abducting parent in breach of a return order is “conspicuously illegal”, the requirements of a habeas corpus order are met.

    View case
  • Added on: 17 April 2018 |Superior Appellate Court

    2017 (Kyo) No. 9 Case on Appeal with Permission against Modification of Final Order|JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1387

    Languages
    Full text download JA | EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b) 13(2)

    Synopsis

    This is the first and so far the only Supreme Court decision which modified a final and binding return order due to a change in circumstances under the Hague Convention Implementation Act. It is seen as a highly exceptional case.

    4 children (2 sets of twins) wrongfully retained in Japan ― Children lived in the United States until July 2014, when the elder twins were 11 years and 7 months old and the younger twins 6 years and 5 months old ― Married parents ― Father national of the United States ― Mother national of Japan ― Order for the return of all children became final and binding in January 2016 ― The Supreme Court upheld the Osaka High Court decision modifying the return order due to change in circumstances and dismissed the petition for the return of the children ― Main issues: Grounds for refusal of a return order ― The elder twins’ objection to being returned ― A grave risk of placing the younger twins in an intolerable situation by separating them from their siblings 

    View case