Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return refused in respect of the older child; the standard required under Article 13(2) had been met. Return ordered in respect of the younger child; the standard required under Article 13(2) had not been met.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in the United States at the relevant date and the standard had not been met under Article 13(1)(a) to show that the father had acquiesced.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed; there had been a fundamental change in the circumstances since the original decision and it was now appropriate to take the girl's objections into account. The case was remitted to the trial judge.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return ordered

Return ordered; the children were habitually resident in Germany at the relevant date.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that there had not been a wrongful retention under the Convention. However, the court allowed the appeal in that it stayed the substantive family law proceedings and held that the child's future should be determined in Texas.

Human Rights - Art. 20

Application dismissed and return ordered; the Convention does not violate the Irish Constitution.

Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed; the child was habitually resident in Sweden at the relevant date. The case was remitted to the High Court for a hearing to determine if an Article 13 exception applied.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered with undertakings offered

Return ordered and undertakings offered; the removal was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of physical harm had not been met.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal of the mother allowed; removal wrongful but return refused; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had been met. The court found that a high probability existed that the father would violate the undertakings he had given and, as a consequence, the children would remain at grave risk if returned.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and Article 13(1)(b) was not proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate a grave risk of physical and psychological harm had been met.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Israel on the relevant date.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of physical harm had not been met.

Return refused

Return refused; the father had waived his Convention rights when he dismissed the substantive proceedings brought in the State of the child's habitual residence.

Procedural Matters

The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and awarded damages to both mother and child.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Unanimous: no breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). There was no separate issue concerning the claims based on Articles 6 and 13. The authorities' lack of diligence in preventing the abduction was admittedly manifest but had been indemnified by the Spanish authorities. The authorities had not been lacking in diligence regarding the child's return, despite the absence of results in this respect.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal upheld and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but a return to Germany would expose the children to a grave risk of physical, and most importantly, psychological harm.  In addition, it was proven that the children, who possessed the necessary age and maturity, objected to being returned to Germany.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return ordered

Rights of Custody - 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 and return ordered. The retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions raised was applicable.