Case Law Search

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

Return refused

Return refused. 

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

Return ordered

Return ordered.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

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

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered subject to undertakings by both parents; the retention of the child had been wrongful, and the grave risk of harm exception had not been established.

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

Appeal inadmissible; the appellant failed to assert any plea raising a substantial issue.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed aged less than one year old - Unmarried parents - Joint custody - Child lived in Greece until May 2010 - Application for return filed in April 2011 - Return ordered - Main issues: Settlement of the child, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return, procedural matters - Art. 12(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention only applies where return proceedings have been commenced after a period of more than one year has elapsed since the date of the wrongful removal

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Case remitted to lower court

1 child allegedly wrongfully removed - Married parents - Father national of Italy - Mother national of Italy - Joint custody - Child lived in Belgium until February 2014 - Return refused - Main issues: Rights of custody - A removal cannot be considered wrongful if it did not breach custody rights that were actually exercised at the time of the removal 

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 7 – National of France – Married parents – Father national of France – Mother national of France – Child lived in Morocco until February 2011 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Morocco in March 2011 – Application dismissed – Main issues: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, costs – It is up to the parent who alleges an exception to return under Art. 13 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention to prove that the conditions for non-return have been met – In accordance with Art. 26 of the Convention, the parent who wrongfully removed the child can be ordered to pay for the costs of the return proceedings

Non-Convention Issues | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Best Interests of the Child | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Best Interests of the Child | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Guidance on the application of the Convention issued

Return refused

Return refused. There was a grave risk that returning the child to Italy would expose her to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place her in an intolerable position for the purposes of Article 13(1)(b). This risk could not be adequately and effectively mitigated by protective measures. 

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

Return ordered

Return ordered. Whilst the child objected to the return and was of an age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to take her views into account, the Court exercised its discretion to order a return.