Case Law Search

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was in breach of rights of custody vested in the local authority.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed; case remitted to the District Court to determine whether, under the law of Germany, the father had rights of custody at the time of the removal and whether he was exercising those rights.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; the father had acquiesced in terms of Article 13(1)(a) and the court exercised its discretion not to order the return of the child.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the child was habitually resident in the United States on the relevant date.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Constitutional complaint upheld; the decision of the Higher Regional Court (OLG) had violated the parental rights of the father pursuant to German Basic Law and violated the constitutional rights of the children. The case was remitted to the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Celle.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of physical and psychological harm had not been met.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Application dismissed

Convention proceedings dismissed.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Removal wrongful and return ordered, subject to undertakings; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of psychological harm had not been met.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered

The children were ordered to be returned on 1 August 1991, the date specified by the 1986 Separation Agreement.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return refused

Return refused; the mother had met the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to show the child would face a grave risk of psychological harm if returned, and, under Article 13(1)(a), that the father had consented to the removal of the child.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal of the children was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.

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

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

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the applicant and the court both had rights of custody and were actually exercising those rights at the time of the removal.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the eldest child objected to being returned and the court exercised its discretion not to return her. The other children were not returned as to separate them from their sister would place them in an intolerable situation.

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

Return refused

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was wrongful but Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10 | Procedural Matters

Appeal upheld in part: the tribunal administratif had jurisdiction to hear the case, but the application was rejected on the merits since the Central Authority had the power not to process the application on the basis of Article 27 of the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

The challenge was upheld insofar as the treatment of custody issues by the cour administrative d'appel was concerned but other than that the latter decision was upheld and the application to annul the decision of 7 June 1993 was dismissed.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the court seised was incompetent to hear the matter and in addition the Convention was not applicable.