Case Law Search

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the Article 13(1)(b) defence had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; acquiescence had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention, however, the return was subject to extensive and stringent conditions, including the obtaining of a mirror order in the High Court of South Africa.

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)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, being in breach of the father's rights of custody, but the older siblings had valid objections to a return and the children would face a grave risk of harm if separated.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused: the removal was wrongful, but Article 12(2) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

Challenge to legality dismissed; the child was habitually resident in Canada on the relevant date, therefore the retention was wrongful. None of the exceptions was established.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; Article 13(1)(a) - acquiescence - had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Issues Relating to Return

Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal inadmissible for being manifestly unfounded. None of Arts. 3, 12, 13(1)(b) and 14 is inconsistent with the German Constitution, and neither their interpretation nor their application by the Court of Appeal was inconsistent with the Constitution.

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

Return ordered

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, 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

Return ordered

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

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the Family Court of Australia for adjudication; the trial judge had erred in rejecting the Article 13(1)(b) exception without paying sufficient regard to the expert evidence on the matter.

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

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the District Court for final judgment; the strict interpretation given to Article 13(1)(b) by the trial court was rejected by the Court of Appeals.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Removal wrongful and return ordered; Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

The Court ordered the return of the children. The Court did not accept the fathers account of events and held that, even if they were true, they would not amount to a grave risk envisaged by Article 13(1)(b).

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 |

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

one child wrongfully retained between age 4 and 5– National of unknown –unmarried parents – Father national of unknown – Mother national of unknown – Shared parental responsibility – Child lived in Portugal until 10 March 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 23 April 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: Removal and Retention – The father could not prove that the mother had given her consent for the child to remain in Switzerland and the mother filed an appeal within the one year period set out in Article 12.

Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed; the conditions for the suspension of the provisional enforcement were not met.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered.