Case Law Search

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The retention was considered wrongful. The grave risk exception under Article 13(1)(b), raised by the defendant on appeal, had not been established. The children's opinions did not suggest a strong opposition that would be sufficient to constitute the exception to return under Article 13(2).

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in the United States of America on the relevant date, and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as there was no express agreement that the child would return to the United States of America on 29 December 2012.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the children were habitually resident in the United States of America at the relevant date.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the child had not been shown to habitually reside in Italy at the relevant date.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the children were habitually resident in New Zealand on the relevant date.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal of the children was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal upheld and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but a return to the United Kingdom would expose the child to a grave risk of physical, and most importantly, psychological harm.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Unanimous: infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); award of damages on the basis of Article 41 of the ECHR.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful for the children had neither lost their Israeli habitual residence at the relevant date nor acquired a habitual residence in Australia. There was no grave risk of harm and whilst the father had at one stage consented to the relocation the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion to make a return order.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Application dismissed

By a 4:3 majority the European Court of Human Rights ruled that there had not been a breach of the mother and child's right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; return ordered. The removal was wrongful and the mother had not established that an exception was applicable.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed; the judge at first instance rightly considered that the children had settled in France.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered. The removal was wrongful and it had not been proven that a return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

By a majority of five to two, the European Court of Human Rights held that Latvia had violated Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to take account of various relevant factors in assessing the best interests of the child. The Court also awarded the mother compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and no exception raised was applicable.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed but on application of the correct legal standard the original dismissal of the Hague application was affirmed; the children were not habitually resident in France at the time of the removal.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered