Case Law Search

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 | 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.

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.

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. 

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters |

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Lawful removal of a 2-year-old girl – Argentine national – Married parents – American father – Argentine mother – The girl lived in Argentina until April 2017, when her family travelled to the United States. She stayed there and then returned to Argentina in September that same year – The father requested her return before the Argentine courts – Appeal dismissed, return refused – Main Issues: habitual residence, removal and retention – The habitual residence of the girl was in Argentina because she had created no stable or permanent bonds in the United States that allowed for a determination that her place of living was there – The removal was lawful since it had been authorised by court in accordance with Argentine law.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had been proved.

Return refused

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the child was habitually resident in Ontario and his retention was in breach of the mother's rights of custody.

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

Return refused

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

Return refused

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Return refused

Return refused; the applicant father was found to have consented to the child living in South Africa permanently and the child would face a grave risk of harm if returned to the applicant.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the District Court; the trial court had erred in its legal interpretation of the concept of habitual residence.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in another Contracting State at the date of the retention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Appeal dismissed, removal wrongful and return ordered with undertakings offered; none of the exceptions argued had been proved to the requisite standard.