Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child (national of Japan and the United States) removed from the United States to Japan ― Father a United States national, mother a Japanese national ― Parents married in Japan in 2012 and lived together with the mother’s son from her previous marriage ― The family moved to the United States in 2014 ― Upon becoming pregnant, the mother went back to Japan with her son in 2015 ― Mother returned to the United States with the new-born child in 2016 ― Father petitioned for divorce and obtained a provisional ne exeat order ― Mother moved to a shelter with the child within the United States ― Father had frequent access to the child, but contact broke up after an argument between the parents ― Mother removed the child to Japan in 2016 ― Obtaining assistance of the Central Authority of Japan in 2016, Father petitioned to the Osaka Family Court for return of the child in 2017 ― Return ordered ― Appeal to the Osaka High Court dismissed and return ordered in 2017 ― Main issues: Habitual Residence of the child ― Actual exercise of rights of custody ― Grave Risk for the child.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The City Court (first instance) determined that the child was living in Poland before the removal and that a return to Poland would not harm the child. Therefore, the removal/retention was wrongful and that the child should go back to the mother in Poland.

The Eastern High Court (second instance) upheld the decision.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return not ordered; the District Court had not erred in its finding that the appellant had sexually abused his daughter. Therefore, it had been established that the child would face a grave risk of harm if returned. 

Issues Relating to Return

Wrongful retention of a boy – Uruguayuan and Costa Rican – Divorced parents – The child lived in Uruguay until 6 february 2020 – The return request was made before the Costa Rican Central Authority - Habeas corpus disallowed – Main Issues: Non-Convention Issues -  the safeguard in Art. 32 of the Constitution is not unlimited, it must be examined in consideration of the HCCH Convention on Child Abduction and the best interests of the child.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

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 - 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.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered, subject to undertakings; Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The Federal Court rejected the appeal and upheld the cantonal court's decision ordering the children's return to Israel. However, it stated that given the current situation in Israel, it would be up to the competent enforcement authority to organise the safe return of the children, accompanied by their mother, as soon as the situation allowed.

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

Case remitted to lower court

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 – Case remitted to lower court – Main issues: objections of the child to return – According to the mother, the child has expressed that he does not wish to return to Spain. An expert opinion that was ordered by the competent cantonal court has affirmed the child’s ability to independently form such an opinion. The father, however, invokes that the expert’s opinion was biased towards the mother and overlooked multiple factors that put the child’s maturity level as defined in 13 (2) into question.

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

Appeal allowed; the Luxembourg courts had no jurisdiction.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal refused; return allowed. It was settled that the retention was wrongful.

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

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

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.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

By six votes to one, the European Court of Human Rights held that Portugal had infringed Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but did not award damages as the father had made no claim for just satisfaction.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions raised was applicable.

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.

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

Appeal inadmissible; the appeals did not raise any substantial legal issues.

Habitual Residence - 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 with undertakings offered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the objection of one child to return was not sufficiently strong to override the policy of the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and no exception asserted was applicable.

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

Appeal allowed and case remitted to trial court for exercise of discretion; the retention was wrongful, but the children objected to a return to Poland and were of sufficient age and maturity for their objections to be taken into account.