Case Law Search

Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal inadmissible: there had been no manifest error.

Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed; the father had applied for return only in the event that he should be awarded custody of the children.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained at age 6 months - National of United Kingdom and Ukraine - Married parents- Father national of the United Kingdom - Mother national of Ukraine – Applicant father had joint custody with respondent mother under British legislation – Child lived in the United Kingdom until 11 April 2012 -Application for return filed with the courts of Ukraine on 19 December 2012 - Return ordered on 29 August 2018 - Main issues: Articles 5 and 12 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention (a parent cannot independently decide to change the child’s place of habitual residence; the place of habitual residence is of major importance to restoring of the status quo for the child; first instance court and appeal court incorrectly interpreted exceptions for non-return of a child as a settlement in new environment, acquiescence in the retention and grave risk to return).

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child (allegedly) wrongfully removed at age 4 – National of the USA – Unmarried parents – Father national of the USA and the Dominican Republic – Mother national of Switzerland, the Dominican Republic, Italy – Shared parental responsibility – Child lived in the USA – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Switzerland on 7th of January 2021 – Return refused – Main issue: Grave Risk (Art. 13(1)(b) – Status quo ante cannot be attained, since mother has a travel ban to the USA. Grave risk to the child if separated from the mother for the next 10 years.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

2 children allegedly wrongfully retained at ages 3 and less than 1 - Unmarried parents - Father national of France - Mother national of the United Kingdom and Canada - Children lived in France until July 2013 - Return proceedings initiated soon after 20 November 2013 - Application dismissed - Main issue: habitual residence - Parents' joint decision for children to temporarily move to another State does not preclude the children from becoming habitually resident in that State

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Case remitted to lower court

1 child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 10 - National of United States of America and Italy - Divorced parents - Joint custody - Child lived in the United States until the second half of 2015 - Application for return filed on 21 October 2015 - Return refused - Main issues: Objection of the child to return - Due weight should be given to the child’s opinion where the child is considered to have attained an appropriate age and degree of maturity, even if certain aspects of the child’s opinion are considered to be imprecise

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Article 15 Decision or Determination | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Rights of Access - Art. 21

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the inferior courts had erred in rejecting the determination of the Romanian courts pursuant to Article 15; under Romanian law the father had no rights of custody for Convention purposes therefore the removal of the child was not wrongful.

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

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal had decided with good reason that the retention was wrongful and suitably noted that it had not been established that the Article 13 grounds for exception were applicable.

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

Appeal declared inadmissible.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Appeal dismissed; the arguments put forward by the mother were rejected.

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

Appeal by the mother (the taking parent) dismissed: the removal was wrongful and none of the grounds for exception invoked were applicable. The father's appeal was partially allowed: removal of the condition of taking protective measures.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in France and Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - 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 and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been established.

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).

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of a 1-year-old girl – separated parents – Spanish father – Venezuelan mother – the custody rights were jointly exercised – the girl lived in Spain until July 2011 – the return request was filed before the Spanish courts on 12 July 2011 – Appeal allowed, return ordered – Main issues: removal and retention, rights of custody, grave risk, human rights, jurisdiction issues, procedural matters, best interests of the child - removal was not wrongful, but retention was, since the father did not authorise the girl’s permanent stay in Venezuela – both parents had custody rights under Spanish law – the mother did not establish the grave risk circumstances claimed – the girl’s return did not violate any Venezuelan fundamental principle on human rights protection – who is the right parent to have custody should not be discussed within return proceedings; on the contrary, this type of proceeding is concerned with whether there was a wrongful removal or retention – measures were taken to secure the safe return  of the child to Spain and the parents were encouraged to resort to mediation.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters | Issues Relating to Return | Best Interests of the Child

Return ordered with undertakings offered

Wrongful removal of a boy when he was 10 years old - Venezuelan – the father had exclusive custody rights  - the child lived in Venezuela until 2018 – the father requested return before the Venezuelan Central Authority in July 2020 – return ordered – main issues: removal and retention, consent, settlement of the child, grave risk, objection of the child to a return, procedural matters, issues relating to return, best interests of the child – removal was wrongful since it breached the father’s custody rights, attributed to him under the law of the State where the child was habitually resident – the father did not consent to the child’s removal – he acted towards the child’s return within a year since the wrongful removal – it was not established that the child would be exposed to a grave risk or an intolerable situation upon return to Venezuela – it was not established that the child’s fundamental rights were impaired – there was not an irreducible objection of the child against returning to the place where he was habitually resident - the Court ordered an interim exit and change of residence ban - the Court ordered the parents to collaborate with enforcement of the return order - the Court ordered to take the necessary steps for the child’s safe return

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the child had never lost her original habitual residence in Texas.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters