Case Law Search

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.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Procedural Matters |

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 4 – National of Poland - Married parents (ongoing divorce proceedings) – Mother national of Poland – Father national of Poland - Parents had joint custody. Divorce court gave mother the right to have the child during the abduction until the end of the divorce proceedings. Decision that was annulled after return was ordered. – Child lived in Poland (until 4 December 2015)  – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Switzerland on 6 June 2016 – Return ordered – Main issue: Grave Risk – The fact that the mother considers her own return to Poland to be intolerable, both financially and professionally, is not relevant to the examination of the exception to return.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but the Supreme Court found that the level of harm required by Article 13(1)(b) had been established.

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

Appeal dismissed; return order upheld. The Court of Appeal had duly provided grounds for its decision and was not required to conduct a more thorough investigation relating to a possible grave risk of danger.

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

Case remitted to lower court

1 child wrongfully removed at age 13 - Divorced parents - Shared custody - Child lived in the United States until June 2012 - Return application filed with the Central Authority of the United States - Case remitted to a lower court for substantive determination - Main issues: objections of the child to return, Art 13(1) (b) grave risk exception to return - The child’s objection to return should be assessed independently of other exceptions to return, and may constitute sufficient grounds for a refusal to order return of the child

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

Case remitted to lower court

1 child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 10 - National of United States of America and Italy - Divorced parents - Joint custody - Child lived in the United States until the second half of 2015 - Application for return filed on 21 October 2015 - Return refused - Main issues: Objection of the child to return - Due weight should be given to the child’s opinion where the child is considered to have attained an appropriate age and degree of maturity, even if certain aspects of the child’s opinion are considered to be imprecise

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of a 1-year-old girl – separated parents – Spanish father – Venezuelan mother – the custody rights were jointly exercised – the girl lived in Spain until July 2011 – the return request was filed before the Spanish courts on 12 July 2011 – Appeal allowed, return ordered – Main issues: removal and retention, rights of custody, grave risk, human rights, jurisdiction issues, procedural matters, best interests of the child - removal was not wrongful, but retention was, since the father did not authorise the girl’s permanent stay in Venezuela – both parents had custody rights under Spanish law – the mother did not establish the grave risk circumstances claimed – the girl’s return did not violate any Venezuelan fundamental principle on human rights protection – who is the right parent to have custody should not be discussed within return proceedings; on the contrary, this type of proceeding is concerned with whether there was a wrongful removal or retention – measures were taken to secure the safe return  of the child to Spain and the parents were encouraged to resort to mediation.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal had decided with good reason that the retention was wrongful and suitably noted that it had not been established that the Article 13 grounds for exception were applicable.

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

Appeal declared inadmissible.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Appeal dismissed; the arguments put forward by the mother were rejected.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but acquiescence had been established to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Challenge against the legality of the appellate judgment dismissed and return order confirmed; the retention was wrongful and Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out to the standard required under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Issues Relating to Return

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Article 15 Decision or Determination | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Rights of Access - Art. 21

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the inferior courts had erred in rejecting the determination of the Romanian courts pursuant to Article 15; under Romanian law the father had no rights of custody for Convention purposes therefore the removal of the child was not wrongful.

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

Case remitted to lower court

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

Return refused

Return refused. Given the mother's vulnerable situation, a return to Spain would risk exposing the child to physical or psychological harm, or otherwise place her in an intolerable situation.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters | Issues Relating to Return | Best Interests of the Child

Return ordered with undertakings offered

Wrongful removal of a boy when he was 10 years old - Venezuelan – the father had exclusive custody rights  - the child lived in Venezuela until 2018 – the father requested return before the Venezuelan Central Authority in July 2020 – return ordered – main issues: removal and retention, consent, settlement of the child, grave risk, objection of the child to a return, procedural matters, issues relating to return, best interests of the child – removal was wrongful since it breached the father’s custody rights, attributed to him under the law of the State where the child was habitually resident – the father did not consent to the child’s removal – he acted towards the child’s return within a year since the wrongful removal – it was not established that the child would be exposed to a grave risk or an intolerable situation upon return to Venezuela – it was not established that the child’s fundamental rights were impaired – there was not an irreducible objection of the child against returning to the place where he was habitually resident - the Court ordered an interim exit and change of residence ban - the Court ordered the parents to collaborate with enforcement of the return order - the Court ordered to take the necessary steps for the child’s safe return

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

Return ordered

Return ordered. Whilst the Mother established that there was a grave risk of harm to the child within the meaning of Article 13(1)(b), the protective measures available in Slovakia and the undertakings offered by the Father were more than sufficient to protect him.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The Federal Court rejected the appeal and upheld the cantonal court's decision ordering the children's return to Israel. However, it stated that given the current situation in Israel, it would be up to the competent enforcement authority to organise the safe return of the children, accompanied by their mother, as soon as the situation allowed.