Case Law Search

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Undertakings

Appeal allowed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Appeal allowed and return ordered with undertakings offered; the father had not acquiesced in terms of Article 13(1)(a).

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal breached the mother's rights of custody and was therefore wrongful.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the Convention was applicable and the retention was wrongful while Article 13(2) had not been proved to the standard required.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Challenge to legality dismissed; while the return proceedings were pending, the authorities in the children's State of habitual residence had granted the mother custody.

Interpretation of the Convention

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Case remitted to lower court

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Interpretation of the Convention | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. 

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed; the decisions on the merits were quashed and the case referred back to the court of first instance for it to rule on the father's application in accordance with the Hague Convention and the principles set down by the Supreme Court in the case at hand. The removal was wrongful under the terms of Article 3.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the grave risk of harm envisaged by Art. 13 (1)(b) was not proved.

Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed; the father had applied for return only in the event that he should be awarded custody of the children.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) |

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child (allegedly) wrongfully removed at age 4 – National of the USA – Unmarried parents – Father national of the USA and the Dominican Republic – Mother national of Switzerland, the Dominican Republic, Italy – Shared parental responsibility – Child lived in the USA – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Switzerland on 7th of January 2021 – Return refused – Main issue: Grave Risk (Art. 13(1)(b) – Status quo ante cannot be attained, since mother has a travel ban to the USA. Grave risk to the child if separated from the mother for the next 10 years.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

2 children allegedly wrongfully retained at ages 3 and less than 1 - Unmarried parents - Father national of France - Mother national of the United Kingdom and Canada - Children lived in France until July 2013 - Return proceedings initiated soon after 20 November 2013 - Application dismissed - Main issue: habitual residence - Parents' joint decision for children to temporarily move to another State does not preclude the children from becoming habitually resident in that State

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

Appeal by the mother (the taking parent) dismissed: the removal was wrongful and none of the grounds for exception invoked were applicable. The father's appeal was partially allowed: removal of the condition of taking protective measures.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The retention was considered wrongful. The grave risk exception under Article 13(1)(b), raised by the defendant on appeal, had not been established. The children's opinions did not suggest a strong opposition that would be sufficient to constitute the exception to return under Article 13(2).

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) |

The ECrtHR held unanimously that the Slovak Republic had breached Article 6(1) of the ECHR taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13, due to the excessive length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal allowed and return ordered, subject to undertakings; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been met and the Court of Appeal ordered the return of the child subject to undertakings by the applicant father.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention of the girls against the wishes of the father was wrongful and the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been met.