Refine your search

Keyword:

Grounds:

Show more

Year:

Country:

Show more

Article(s):

Show more

Order:

Show more

Requesting State:

Show more

Requested State:

Show more

Court Level:

Instrument:

Search results (18)

  • 2016 | HC/E/RU 1381 | RUSSIAN FEDERATION | Appellate Court |
    Thompson v. Thompson
    Languages
    Full text download RU
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b) 12(1)

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully removed at age 2 - National of the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation - Married parents - Father national of United Kingdom - Mother national of Russia - Both parents had rights of custody - Child lived in Spain with both parents until April 2016 - Application for return filed with the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 18 August 2016 - Return refused - Main issue: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return - A child aged 3 has a physchological and physiological need for her mother and since the mother had decided to stay in Russia, return to Spain would expose the child to a grave risk of harm

    This case forms the subject of an application to the European Court of Human Rights (Thompson v. Russia, Application no. 36048/17), lodged on 15 May 2017 and communicated on 23 October 2017. 

  • 2015 | HC/E/US 1385 | UNITED STATES - FEDERAL JURISDICTION | First Instance
    Pliego v. Hayes, 86 F.Supp.3d 678 (W.D. Ky. 2015)
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully removed at 3 years – National of Spain and United States of America – Married parents – Father national of Spain – Mother national of United States of America – The mother and father had joint custody – Child lived in Turkey until 6 April 2014  – Application for return filed with the courts of the United States of America (federal jurisdiction) – Return ordered – Main issue(s): habitual residence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – The retention was deemed unlawful and the “grave risk” exception to ordering return had not been established

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

  • 2018 | HC/E/UA 1397 | Superior Appellate Court
    Hague return case from Ukraine to the United Kingdom No 2-4237/12
    Languages
    Full text download
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    2 3 5 8 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 16 19 20 12(1)

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully retained at age 6 months - National of United Kingdom and Ukraine - Married parents- Father national of the United Kingdom - Mother national of Ukraine – Applicant father had joint custody with respondent mother under British legislation – Child lived in the United Kingdom until 11 April 2012 -Application for return filed with the courts of Ukraine on 19 December 2012 - Return ordered on 29 August 2018 - Main issues: Articles 5 and 12 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention (a parent cannot independently decide to change the child’s place of habitual residence; the place of habitual residence is of major importance to restoring of the status quo for the child; first instance court and appeal court incorrectly interpreted exceptions for non-return of a child as a settlement in new environment, acquiescence in the retention and grave risk to return).

  • 2015 | HC/E/NO 1400 | NORWAY | Appellate Court
    Case no. LB-2015-76479
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    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) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

    Order

    Appeal allowed, return ordered

    Article(s)

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

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully removed at age 7 – National of Poland –unmarried parents– Father national of Poland – Mother national of Poland – Disputed custody rights– Child lived in Poland until August 2014 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Poland in September 2014 – Return ordered – Main issues: Article 3 – Rights of custody –  the father had limited custody rights but these extended to the right to decide the child’s habitual residence and therefore the father had rights of custody within the meaning of the Convention; Article 13(1)(b) – Grave risk of harm - there were no grounds for concluding that return would be “clearly unfavourable to the child” or that he would most likely suffer harm if returned. Therefore the exception did not apply; Article 13 – Child’s objections - the fact that the child  said he wanted to live with his mother  was not a ground for concluding that the child was opposed to returning to Poland, therefore the exception did not apply.

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

  • 2018 | HC/E/NL 1391 | NETHERLANDS - KINGDOM IN EUROPE | First Instance
    X. (the mother) against Y. (the father)
    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.

  • 1997 | HC/E/IL 832 | ISRAEL | Appellate Court |
    Civil Appeal 4391/96 Ro v. Ro
    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN | FR
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered subject to undertakings

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b)

    Ruling

    Appeal allowed and return ordered subject to undertakings. The removal was wrongful and any potential harm to the child from a return could be minimized by the father's compliance with the conditions set and the child could otherwise be protected by the English authorities.

  • 2013 | HC/E/NO 1402
    Case no. LF-2013-168054
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b) 13(2) 20

    Synopsis

    2 children wrongfully removed at ages 11 and 13 – Nationals of Portugal –divorced parents  – Father national of Portugal – Mother national of Portugal – Custody rights disputed – Children lived in Portugal until January 2013  – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Portugal in April 2013 – Return ordered – Main issues: Article 13(1)(b) – Grave risk of harm – even though the children did not seem to have a good relationship with their father there was not found to be a serious risk of harm should they return to Portugal and the exception did not apply; Article 13 – Child’s objections - the children’s opinions primarily had to be regarded as a desire to live with their mother, rather than as resistance to returning to Portugal and so the exception did not apply; Article 20 – Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – the court held that it was consistent with human rights for the children to be returned and that the exception did not apply.

  • 2018 | HC/E/NL 1384 | NETHERLANDS - KINGDOM IN EUROPE | Appellate Court
    [father] tegen [mother] Hof Den Haag 14 februari 2018, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2018:296
    Languages
    Full text download NL
    No summary available
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

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

    Synopsis

    4 children wrongfully removed - Nationals of the Netherlands - Married parents - Father and mother nationals of the Netherlands - Order of 22 November 2017 granted a certified authority ("gecertificeerde autoriteit") temporary custody pending the execution of a return order (if any); parents initially had joint custudy  - Children lived in an unidentified State until 14 June 2017 - Return refused - Main issues: objections of the child to return, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return - In cases in which the children's objections go farther than expressing a mere preference not to return, and in which the children's testimony is consistent and there is evidence of severe insecurity, instability and uncertainty in the environment to which they are to be returned, return may be refused under Art. 13(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, provided the children have attained the appropriate age and degree of maturity - Ordering the return of only some of the children will result in separation, which could place the returned children in an intolerable situation - Return may be refused under Art. 13(1)(b) of the Convention for all children where there is a history of repeated domestic violence, intervention of the courts and social workers, and where the children have suffered from frequent changes of residence and school; and where the care provided in the requested State is restoringing continuity to their lives and enabling them to process their trauma, such that it is in their best interests to remain there

  • 2016 | HC/E/US 1386 | UNITED STATES - FEDERAL JURISDICTION | Appellate Court
    Pliego v. Hayes, 843 F.3d 226 (6th Cir. 2016)
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully removed at 4 years  – National of Spain and the United States of America – Married parents – Father national of Spain – Mother national of United States of America – The mother and father had joint custody – Child lived in Turkey until April 2014 (first removal) and April 2015 (second removal)  – Application for return filed with the courts of the United States of America (federal jurisdiction) – Return ordered – Main issue(s): Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – an “intolerable situation” can include circumstances where there is conclusive evidence that courts of the State of habitual residence are practically or legally unable to adjudicate custody

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

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

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

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

  • 2015 | HC/E/USf 1383 | UNITED STATES - FEDERAL JURISDICTION | First Instance
    Sabogal v. Velarde, 106 F.Supp.3d 689 (2015)
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered subject to undertakings

    Article(s)

    1 3 5 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 20

    Synopsis

    2 children wrongfully removed (born in 2005 and 2007) - Separated parents - The Purvian courts had effectively granted temporary custody to the mother on 21 November 2013, and then to the father on 1 October 2014 (following the removal)  - Children lived in Peru until 20 February 2014 - Application for return filed with the District Court on 17 February 2015 - Return ordered subject to undertakings - Main issues: rights of custody, Art.13(1)(b) "grave risk" exception to return, undertakings - A very severe degree of psychological abuse is sufficient to conclude that the Art. 13(1)(b) "grave risk" exception to return under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention applies, even in cases in which there is very little or no evidence of physical abuse

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

  • 2007 | HC/E/NO 1398 | NORWAY | Appellate Court
    Case no. LB-2007-127164
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    1 child wrongfully removed at age 6 – National of the United Kingdom and Norway – Married parents– Father national of the United Kingdom – Mother national of Norway –  Parents exercised joint rights of custody – Child lived in the United Kingdom until 5 June 2007 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Norway on 25 June 2017– Return ordered – Main issue(s): Article 13(1)(b) – the exception was not met, the risk must be serious and must relate to harm or an intolerable situation for the child. Although harm to the child’s next-of-kin may also entail a risk of the child being harmed psychologically but the risk was not sufficiently serious in this case.