Case Law Search

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

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

Return ordered

The father's appeal was dismissed and the daughter's return ordered. The mother's appeal was dismissed and the son's return refused at this time.

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

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

2 children wrongfully retained at ages 6 and 10 – Married parents – Father national of Poland – Mother national of Poland – Joint custody excercised in Switzerland – Children lived in Switzerland – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Switzerland on 24 October 2008 – Application dismissed before application to ECtHR on 1 December 2009 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 11,800 awarded in damages – The Polish courts had not taken into account the legitimate interests of the applicant in an adequate or fair manner in the judicial proceedings; i.a. improperly relying on a Polish interim custody order to consider the retention lawful

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered. The removal and retention of the child in Uruguay was considered wrongful.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; in an unanimous ruling, the Chamber ruled that there had not been a breach of the father and children's right to family life under Article 8 of the ECHR.

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

Return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at 3 years – National of Spain and United States of America – Married parents – Father national of Spain – Mother national of United States of America – The mother and father had joint custody – Child lived in Turkey until 6 April 2014  – Application for return filed with the courts of the United States of America (federal jurisdiction) – Return ordered – Main issue(s): habitual residence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – The retention was deemed unlawful and the “grave risk” exception to ordering return had not been established

Non-Convention Issues | Issues Relating to Return

Case remitted to lower court

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

Return refused

1 child wrongfully retained at age 10 - National of El Salvador and Canada - Married parents - Father national of El Salvador - Mother national of Canada - Father exercised rights of custody for about 10 years, mother obtained custody in May 2012 - Child lived in El Salvador until November 2011 - Application for return filed with the Provincial Court in July 2012 - Return refused under Article 13(2) - Main issues: Art 13(1) (b) grave risk exception to return, objection of the child to return - Abuse of one parent by another can only be a relevant consideration for the Art. 13(1)(b) exception if the child is “placed in the midst of an abusive relationship” - An assessment of whether a child was placed in an intolerable situation due to the administration of corporal punishment should account for the range of generally accepted disciplining practices in the relevant social context - The factors to be taken into consideration when assessing whether a child has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of her views include: level of cognitive functioning, capacity for logical and rational reasoning and nuanced evaluation of different circumstances - Decisions not to order return under Article 13(2) should account for the policy considerations underlying the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention 

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

2 children wrongfully removed at ages 4 and 2 – Unmarried parents – Father national of Canada – Mother national of Canada and Columbia – Shared custody (parenting arrangement) – Children lived with both parents at times in the United States of America and at times in Canada – Children last lived in the United States of America from August 2010 until their removal in April 2013 - Application for return filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia in April 2013  – Return ordered – Main issues: habitual residence, Art. 13(1) (b) grave risk exception – A settled intention of the parents, for the purposes of establishing habitual residence, requires a “sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled” – Mere speculation that one of the parents might be deported on grounds of immigration status and might choose to move to a State that would allegedly endanger the children is insufficient evidence to establish that the Art. 13(1) (b) grave risk exception applies

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

Case remitted to lower court

1 child wrongfully removed at age 13 - Divorced parents - Shared custody - Child lived in the United States until June 2012 - Return application filed with the Central Authority of the United States - Case remitted to a lower court for substantive determination - Main issues: objections of the child to return, Art 13(1) (b) grave risk exception to return - The child’s objection to return should be assessed independently of other exceptions to return, and may constitute sufficient grounds for a refusal to order return of the child

Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

CJEU - Preliminary ruling issued, case remitted to national courts

In the case of abduction to a third party (non-EU Member) State, the jurisdiction of the court of an EU Member State that is seised of an action relating to parental responsibility cannot be based on Article 10 of the Brussels II bis Regulation.

Where a finding is made that the child now has his or her habitual residence in a third State, the jurisdiction of the court will have to be determined in accordance with the applicable international conventions or, in their absence, in accordance with Article 14 of the Brussels II bis Regulation.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

There had been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR in respect of both the father and the child.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Case remitted to lower court

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal allowed, return refused

The court allowed the appeal and refused to order the return of the child.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. 

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

1 child wrongfully retained at age 6 – National of Ukraine – Unmarried parents – Father national of Georgia and Ukraine – Mother national of Ukraine – Child lived in Ukraine until July 2010 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Ukraine in October 2010 – Return refused before application to ECtHR on 28 December 2012 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 8,300 awarded in damages – The reasoning of the Georgian Supreme Court regarding Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Child Abduction Hague Convention was insufficient and misconceived - The child's best interests in view of the specific circumstances of the case were not properly determined

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

One child wrongfully removed at age ten – National of Switzerland and Spain – Unmarried parents – Father national of Spain – Mother national of Switzerland – Joint custody according to Spanish law – Child lived in Spain until January/February 2016 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Spain on 17 February 2016 – Return refused – Main issues: substantially changed circumstances; objection of the child to a return – If the circumstances have changed substantially, it must be possible, to reassess a return decision; the child's opposition within the meaning of Article 13(2) must be expressed with a certain emphasis and with comprehensible reasons.