Latest Decisions

  • Added on: 1 April 2020 |Appellate Court

    2016 (Ra) No. 622 Appeal case against dismissal of case seeking return of a child|JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1440

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2)

    Synopsis

    1 child removed to Japan ― National of Algeria and Japan ― Married parents ― Father an Algerian national, Mother a Japanese national ― Parents married in France in 1998 ― Child born in 2004 and lived in France until 2015 ― Mother removed and has retained the child in Japan ― Petition for return of the child filed with the Osaka Family Court ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal to the Osaka High Court dismissed ― Main issues: Father’s Consent or Acquiescence ― Grave Risk for the Child ― Child’s objection

    View case
  • Added on: 1 April 2020 |Appellate Court

    2015 (Ra) No. 714 Appeal case against an order to return the child|JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1439

    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal allowed, return refused

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    1 child (nationality unknown) removed from Turkey to Japan ― Father a Turkish national - Mother a Japanese national ― Parents married in Turkey in 2012 ― The child was born in the same year ― Father allegedly sexually abused the child and exercised violence against the mother ― Mother allegedly incurred injury including a bone fracture due to the father’s violence ― Mother removed the child to Japan in 2014 ― Mother obtained a domestic violence restraining order by the Family Court in Turkey ― Father petitioned to the Tokyo Family Court for return of the child ― Return ordered ― The Tokyo High Court overruled and dismissed the petition for return of the child in 2015 ― Main issues: Article 13(1)(b) Grave Risk for the child

    View case
  • Added on: 30 March 2020 |First Instance

    B.S.P. v C.M., 2017 SKQB 179 |CANADA - SASKATCHEWAN |HC/E/CA 1438

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Undertakings

    Order

    Return ordered with undertakings offered

    Article(s)

    3 5 11 15

    Synopsis

    4 children removed at ages 13, 6, 5 & 2 – Unmarried parents – Court found that both parents had custody rights – The children lived in United States (North Dakota) until September 29, 2016 – Application for return filed with courts of Canada (Saskatchewan) in May 2017 – Return of 3 children ordered in June 2017 – Main issues: Article 3 (custody) – In the absence of proved foreign law, the Court applied Saskatchewan law and found that the father had custody rights with respect to his 3 biological children at the time of the removal – Undertakings – Father provided undertaking not to enforce US chasing order before a certain date to avoid children being forcibly removed from their mother by the police. 

    View case
  • Added on: 30 March 2020 |Appellate Court

    2015 (Ra) No. 491 Case on Appeal against a return order|JAPAN |HC/E/JP 1437

    Languages
    Full text download 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 ordered

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b) 13(2)

    Synopsis

    4 children wrongfully removed to Japan ― Parents married in 2001 and living in the United States ― Father and mother nationals of Japan ― 5 children ― The parents separated and had been living apart since 2011 ― The mother obtained a restraining order against the father for the third time in 2012, along with a provisional custody order over the 5 children ― The father removed 4 of their 5 children via Canada to Japan in 2014 ― The parents obtained a divorce decree in the United States in 2014, which declared the mother as the sole custodian ― The mother filed an application for return with the courts of Japan in 2014 ― The Tokyo Family Court ordered return ― The father filed an appeal ― Main issues: No objections of the children ― No grave risk in ordering return of the child.

    View case
  • Added on: 27 March 2020 |Appellate Court

    Ludwig v. Ludwig, 2019 ONCA 680|CANADA - ONTARIO |HC/E/CA 1436

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

    Article(s)

    1 3 8 12 13(2) 12(2)

    Synopsis

    4 children allegedly retained - aged 10, 13, 14 and 16 at the time of the decision – Nationals of Canada and Germany – Father national of Germany – Mother national of Canada – Both parents had rights of custody – Children lived in Germany until August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Ontario in August 2018 – Application dismissed – Main issue(s): Habitual Residence – Art 3 – The children were habitually resident in Canada and therefore there was no wrongful retention 

    View case
  • Added on: 20 February 2020 |European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR)

    CASE OF O.C.I. AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA (Application no. 49450/17)|ROMANIA |HC/E/RO 1435

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b)

    Ruling

    The court found that there had been a violation of the Article 8 Right to Respect for Private and Family Life and awarded damages to the mother and the children.

    View case
  • Added on: 13 January 2020 |Appellate Court

    Abou-Haidar v Sanin Vazquez USCA Case #19-7110|UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |HC/E/US 1434

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    No summary available
    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully retained at age 6 – Married parents – Father national of France, Italy and Lebanon – Mother national of Spain and Uruguay – Joint custody – Child lived in France until July 2018  – Application for return filed with the US District Court in Washington in June 2019 – Return ordered – Main issue(s): Article 3 - wrongful retention before the expected date of return.

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

    FE v YE [2017] EWHC 2165 (Fam)|UNITED KINGDOM |HC/E/UK 1433

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Interpretation of the Convention | Human Rights - Art. 20

    Order

    Return ordered subject to undertakings

    Article(s)

    11 20

    Ruling

    Where a grant of asylum has been made by the Home Secretary it is impossible for the court later to order a return of the subject child under the 1980 Hague Convention. Equally, it is impossible for a return order to be made while an asylum claim is pending (including pending an appeal). Such an order would be in direct breach of the principle of non-refoulement.

    The court ordered that the children be returned to Israel, but that this order should not take effect until 15 days after the promulgation by the First-tier Tribunal of its decision on the appeal by the mother and the children against the refusal of the grant of asylum by the Home Secretary. If the First-tier Tribunal allowed the appeal then the return order would be stayed. If the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, then the return would be implemented, unless the mother wished to appeal on a point of law, in which case the court would appraise the strength or otherwise of the grounds of appeal. 

    View case
  • Added on: 7 January 2020 |Appellate Court

    U.2014.1295Ø – TFA.445/1OE / nr. B-3977-13|DENMARK |HC/E/DK 1432

    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)

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 12 13(1)(b) 13(2)

    Ruling

    The City Court (first instance) determined that the child was living in Poland before the removal and that a return to Poland would not harm the child. Therefore, the removal/retention was wrongful and that the child should go back to the mother in Poland.

    The Eastern High Court (second instance) upheld the decision.

    View case
  • Added on: 15 December 2019 |Appellate Court

    C.L. / Procureur général, agissant à la demande de l’Autorité centrale|BELGIUM |HC/E/BE 1431

    Languages
    Full text download FR
    Summary available in FR
    Grounds

    Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Article 15 Decision or Determination | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

    Order

    Appeal allowed, application dismissed

    Article(s)

    3 15

    View case