Case Law Search

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; there had been a wrongful retention and none of the exceptions had been established.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; there had been a wrongful removal and there was insufficient evidence to indicate consent on the part of the applicant mother.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful, the children being habitually resident in England in April 1995.

Return refused

Return refused; the father had waived his Convention rights when he dismissed the substantive proceedings brought in the State of the child's habitual residence.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in Spain at the relevant date. The child was not wrongfully retained in Ohio, as the United States had become the child's habitual residence.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate the child would face a grave risk of psychological harm had not been met.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court finding that no custody rights had been breached and that consequently there had not been a wrongful removal.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; the standard required under Articles 13(1)(b) and 20 had not been met.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return refused

Return refused; the child was no longer habitually resident in Germany at the relevant date.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the retention of the child was not wrongful since at the moment of retention the child had acquired a habitual residence in Massachusetts.

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

Return ordered

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Article 15 declaration refused

Article 15 declaration refused; the removal was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.

Article 15 Decision or Determination | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Article 15 declaration refused

Article 15 declaration refused; the removal was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Article 15 Decision or Determination

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the removal was wrongful having breached rights of custody held by the father.

Procedural Matters

The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and awarded damages to both mother and child.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal was in breach of actually exercised rights of custody and was therefore wrongful, none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

The Grand Chamber held by 9 votes to 8 that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Unanimous: no breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). There was no separate issue concerning the claims based on Articles 6 and 13. The authorities' lack of diligence in preventing the abduction was admittedly manifest but had been indemnified by the Spanish authorities. The authorities had not been lacking in diligence regarding the child's return, despite the absence of results in this respect.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the child had retained her habitual residence in California throughout her 34-month stay in Ireland.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed