Case Law Search

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.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Leave to appeal refused and return application dismissed; there had been no wrongful removal because the father did not have rights of custody at the moment of the removal.

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) | 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.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

Removal wrongful and return would be ordered once suitable practical arrangements had been put in place; none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions invoked was applicable.

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

The Court unanimously ruled that Romania had breached Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to thoroughly assess the best interests of the child and to give the father the opportunity to present his case. It also awarded the father compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Breach of Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR, award of damages. In merely representing the father before the local courts the Romanian authorities had failed to observe their full obligations under Article 7 of the Hague Convention. The erroneous interpretation of Article 3 of the Hague Convention and thereby the guarantees of that instrument led to a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Best Interests of the Child | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return refused

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; the conditions for application of the Convention were met and the mother had not put forward any grounds for exception.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Issues Relating to Return

Return refused

Return refused. The father did not have rights of custody within the meaning of Article 3. 

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return ordered

Return ordered. The Social Services of Naples had rights of custody and removal of the child from Italy was wrongful. 

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

Return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 5 – Divorced parents – Father national of [State(s)] – Joint custody. Mother was the primary carer and father had rights of access – Child was born in USA but moved with the family to Colombia. He was wrongfully retained in the USA by the mother in 2024 and, after return to Colombia, wrongfully removed to the USA again in December 2025  – Application for return filed on 19 December 2025 – Return ordered – Main issues: Article 3, the father had rights of custody and the child was habitually resident in Colombia, the Court placed little weight on the evidence concerning the child’s settlement in the United States in the time following the wrongful retention.

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

Return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained at age 6 – National of Mexico – divorced parents – Father national of Mexico – Mother national of Mexico – Joint custody, the child lived with the mother and the father had weekend visitation rights – Child lived in Mexico until May 2022 – Application for return filed with the Mexican Central Authority in June 2025 – Return ordered – Main issues: Though the mother had sole custody of the child, the father retained parental rights which were equivalent to rights of custody under the 1980 Convention. The father's actions did not amount to acquiescence as he had agreed for the child to travel to the US only until May 2025.