CASE

Download full text EN

Case Name

K.J. v. Poland (Application No 30813/14)

INCADAT reference

HC/E/PL 1348

Court

Name

European Court of Human Rights

Level

European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR)

Judge(s)

András Sajó (President); Nona Tsotsoria, Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Egidijus Kūris, Iulia Antoanella Motoc, Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer (judges); Fatoş Aracı (Deputy Section Registrar) 

States involved

Requesting State

UNITED KINGDOM

Requested State

POLAND

Decision

Date

1 March 2016

Status

Final

Grounds

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Order

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

HC article(s) Considered

11 13(1)(b)

HC article(s) Relied Upon

-

Other provisions

Article 8 ECHR 

Authorities | Cases referred to

X v. Latvia (Application No 27853/09) [INCADAT Reference HC/E/1234]; Maumousseau and Washington v. France (Application No 39388/05) [INCADAT Reference HC/E/942]; Ignaccolo-Zenide v. Romania (Application No 31679/96) [INCADAT Reference HC/E/336]; Iosub Caras v. Romania (Application No 7198/04) [INCADAT Reference HC/E/867]; Shaw v. Hungary (Application No 6457/09) [INCADAT Reference HC/E/1150]; Adžić v. Croatia (Application No 22643/14) [INCADAT Reference HC/E/1337]; K.J. v. Poland (Application No 30813/14) [INCADAT Reference HC/E/1348]; López Guió v. Slovakia (Application No 102/80/12) [INCADAT Reference HC/E/1272]; Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland (Application No 41615/07) [INCADAT Reference HC/E/1323]; G.S. v. Georgia (Application No 2361/13) [INCADAT Reference HC/E/1349]; Paradis v. Germany (Application No 4783/03) [INCADAT Reference HC/E/860]; Carlson v. Switzerland (Application No 49492/06) [INCADAT Reference HC/E/999]; Karrer v. Romania (Application No 16965/10) [INCADAT Reference HC/E/1149]; R.S. v. Poland (Application No 63777/09) [INCADAT Reference HC/E/1350]; Blaga v. Romania (Application No 54443/10) [INCADAT Reference HC/E/1274]; Monory v. Hungary & Romania (Application No 71099/01) [INCADAT Reference HC/E/802]

SYNOPSIS

Synopsis available in EN | FR | ES

1 child wrongfully retained at age 2 – Married parents – Father national of Poland – Mother national of Poland – Parental responsibility was exercised jointly by both parents – Child lived in the United Kingdom  – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of the United Kingdom on 21 September 2012 – Return refused before application to ECtHR on 12 April 2014 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 9,000 awarded in damages – The reasoning of the domestic courts regarding the Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Child Abduction Hague Convention exception in light of Article 8 ECHR was misguided; none of the arguments objectively ruled out the possibility of the mother's return with the child

Un enfant retenu illicitement à l’âge de deux ans – Parents mariés – Père ressortissant polonais – Mère ressortissante polonaise – Exercice conjoint de la responsabilité parentale – Enfant résident au Royaume-Uni – Demande de retour déposée auprès de l’Autorité centrale du Royaume-Uni le 21 septembre 2012 – Retour refusé avant le dépôt d’un recours auprès le CrEDH le 12 avril 2014 – Violation de l’art. 8 de la CEDH – 9 000 € de dommages et intérêts – Le raisonnement des tribunaux nationaux dans leur application de l’exception visée à l’art. 13(1)(b) de la Convention Enlèvement d’enfants de 1980 était infondé ; aucun des arguments présentés n’écartait la possibilité du retour de la mère avec l’enfant

Niño retenido ilícitamente a la edad de dos años – Padres casados – Padre nacional de Polonia – Madre nacional de Polonia – Responsabilidad parental ejercida conjuntamente por ambos padres – Niño con residencia en el Reino Unido – Solicitud de restitución presentada ante la Autoridad Central del Reino Unido el 21 de septiembre de 2012 – Restitución denegada antes de la presentación de un recurso ante el TEDH el 12 de abril de 2014 - Violación del art. 8 del CEDH - Indemnización de €9000 por daños y perjuicios – El razonamiento de los tribunales nacionales en cuanto a la aplicación de la excepción del art. 13(1)(b) del Convenio de La Haya de 1980, a la luz del art. 8 del CEDH, fue considerado erróneo; ninguno de los argumentos esgrimidos excluía la posibilidad del regreso de madre e hijo

SUMMARY

No summary available