Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful because the children had lost their habitual residence in France upon departure and had acquired a habitual residence in Alberta, Canada.

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

Return refused

Return refused; retention wrongful, but the objections of the child were upheld.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration made that the removal of the child was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. The father was deemed to hold and to be actually exercising rights of custody.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application inadmissible; There was an objective and reasonable justification for the difference in treatment between married and unmarried fathers with regard to the automatic acquisition of parental rights.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Germany on the relevant date.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful being in breach of the father's rights of custody.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The complaint appeal was broadly rejected and it was once again ordered that the daughter be returned; the deadline for this was extended. It was not possible to establish any reason to believe that the child’s wellbeing would be endangered in the event that she were returned.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

The complaint appeal was approved and the Applicant’s application for the children to be returned was rejected. It was ruled that there was a grave risk of physical or mental harm to both of the children, meaning that the exception set out in Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention applied.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

The complaint appeal was approved and the father’s application for a return was refused. The court ruled that the child’s wellbeing would be endangered were he to be returned.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

Violation of Article 8, ECHR; the Russian Federation had failed to put in place the necessary legal framework to address the international child abduction case at the time, and had failed to take all reasonable measures to facilitate the enjoyment of the right to family life. The Russian Court's decision to refuse to recognise and enforce the Czech decision of 2 June 2011 did not amount to a violation of Article 8, ECHR.

The Court considered it unnecessary to separately examine the applicant's claim under Article 13, ECHR. 12,500 Euros awarded in damages. 

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Case remitted to lower court

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

Return ordered

Return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions invoked applied.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, quashing and annulment of the ruling dismissing the application for the child's return and referral of the case to the Versailles Court of Appeal to act upon the return application in the light of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

The Belgian courts have no jurisdiction: the existence of acquiescence by the father in the child's wrongful retention precludes the international jurisdiction of the Belgian courts on the basis of Article 10 of the Brussels II a Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003).

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Preliminary ruling issued to the effect that a Member State was not precluded from requiring by its law that an unmarried father must have obtained a court order granting him custody of a child in order to qualify as having "custody rights" which would render the removal of that child from its country of habitual residence as wrongful for the purposes of Article 2(11) of Council Regulation 2201/2003.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed; there had been a wrongful retention since the child had her habitual residence in Italy.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

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

Return ordered

The court ordered the return of the children to the State of Connecticut, United States of America, within two weeks of the order becoming final and binding.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return refused

The court held that the child’s habitual residence remained in Hong Kong. In light of this decision, the retention of the child in Hong Kong could not be considered wrongful.