Latest Decisions

  • Added on: 1 February 2019

    Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court, 2 UF 172/09, 8 January 2010|GERMANY |HC/E/DE 1414

    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)

    Ruling

    The immediate complaint appeal was approved and the father’s application for a return was successful.

    The accusations made against the father, which led to a rejection of the return application in accordance with Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention by the court of first instance, were not held to have been proven.

    However, the court refrained from ordering the immediate surrender of the three children to the father, and has instead opted for a “graduated return order”. The “graduated return order”, granted the mother the opportunity to effect the return of the children herself. The Hague Child Abduction Convention does not contain any explicit rules on how exactly the courts are to order returns. Determining the operative provisions of the return order is a matter of domestic procedural law.

    View case
  • Added on: 1 February 2019 |Appellate Court

    Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court, 2 UF 266/14, 16 December 2014|GERMANY |HC/E/DE 1413

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal allowed, return refused

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(b)

    Ruling

    The complaint appeal was approved and the father’s application for a return was refused. The court ruled that the child’s wellbeing would be endangered were he to be returned.

    View case
  • Added on: 1 February 2019 |Appellate Court

    Oberlandesgericht Hamm, II-11 UF 85/12, 28 June 2012|GERMANY |HC/E/DE 1412

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    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 allowed, return refused

    Article(s)

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

    Ruling

    The complaint appeal was approved and the Applicant’s application for the children to be returned was rejected. It was ruled that there was a grave risk of physical or mental harm to both of the children, meaning that the exception set out in Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention applied.

    View case
  • Added on: 1 February 2019

    Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2 BvR 233/96, 15 February 1996 |HC/E/DE 1411

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b)

    Ruling

    The child’s mother’s application for an interlocutory order was rejected. The court ruled that it was not able to find any evidence that there would be grave consequences for the child if the order of the Higher Regional Court were enforced.

    View case
  • Added on: 1 February 2019 |Appellate Court

    Schleswig Holsteinisches Oberlandesgericht, 12 UF 169/13, 08 January 2014|GERMANY |HC/E/DE 1410

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(b)

    Ruling

    The complaint appeal was broadly rejected and it was once again ordered that the daughter be returned; the deadline for this was extended. It was not possible to establish any reason to believe that the child’s wellbeing would be endangered in the event that she were returned.

    View case
  • Added on: 25 January 2019 |Appellate Court

    Oberlandesgericht Nürnberg (Nuremberg Higher Regional Court), 7 UF 660/17, 05 July 2017 |GERMANY |HC/E/DE 1409

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(b)

    Ruling

    The mother’s complaint appeal was rejected and the father’s application for the return of the child was approved. It was not possible to establish any reason to suggest that the child’s wellbeing would be endangered in the event that she were returned.

    View case
  • Added on: 25 January 2019 |First Instance

    EW v. LP, HCMP1605/2011, 31 January 2013 |CHINA (HONG KONG, SAR) |HC/E/CNh 1408

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    No summary available
    Article(s)

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

    Synopsis

    One child wrongfully removed at age 3 – National of Slovakia – Unmarried parents– Father national of Slovakia – Mother national of Slovakia – Joint rights of custody – Child lived in Slovakia until September 2010 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Hong Kong on 22 August 2011 –Return refused – Main issue(s): Article 13(1)(a) acquiescence - the Father’s words and inaction were inconsistent with the fundamental objective of the Convention to secure a prompt return, and he was held to have acquiesced. Article 13(1)(b) – due to the child’s instable background and now being settled in his new environment, there was a grave risk that he would be placed in an intolerable situation if an order for return was made.

    View case
  • Added on: 25 January 2019 |Appellate Court

    Gomez v. Fuenmayor, No. 15–12075, 05 February 2016 |UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |HC/E/US 1407

    Languages
    Full text download EN
    No summary available
    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    One child wrongfully removed – National of Venezuela – Unmarried parents– Father national of Venezuela – Mother national of Venezuela – Father awarded primary custody which was revoked when he left for the USA. Mother granted supervised visits – Child lived in Venezuela until February 2014 – Application for return filed with the court of the USA on 15 December 2014 – Return refused – Main issue(s): Article 13(1)(b) – sufficiently serious threats and violence directed against a child’s parent can pose a grave risk of harm to the child as well.

    View case
  • Added on: 24 January 2019 |Appellate Court

    Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart (Stuttgart Higher Regional Court), 17 UF 56/16, 04 May 2016|GERMANY |HC/E/DE 1406

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

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

    Ruling

    The complaint appeal was rejected and it was once again ordered that the child be returned. No evidence was found that the child’s wellbeing was in danger due to the fact, that the father lost custody of his other daughter because of sexual abuse and his alleged paedophilic tendencies.

    View case
  • Added on: 24 January 2019 |Appellate Court

    OLG München (Munich Higher Regional Court), 6 July 2016, 12 UF 532/16|GERMANY |HC/E/DE 1405

    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(b)

    Ruling

    The mother’s complaint appeal was rejected and the father’s application for the return of the child was approved. It was not possible to establish any reason why the child’s wellbeing would be endangered in the event that he were returned.

    View case