Case Law Search

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention and awarded damages to the father; the challenge founded on Article 8 was rejected as manifestly ill-founded, whilst the challenge on the basis of Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 was held to be inadmissible.

Issues Relating to Return

The Court ruled unanimously that there had neither been a breach of Article 8 (right to family life) nor Art 6(1) (right to a fair trial) in the manner in which the Polish authorities had processed and sought to enforce the order providing for the return of the abducted child to her State of habitual residence.

Article 15 Decision or Determination | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, refusal of Article 15 declaration confirmed

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Procedural Matters

Removal wrongful and return ordered. However, the subsequent concealment of the child for eight years made enforcement of the original return order impossible.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

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

Return ordered with regards to the two younger children subject to undertakings; the removal was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) of the Convention to indicate that the children would face a grave risk of harm had not been met. Application dismissed with regard to the oldest child.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Application that the Estonian courts' decision to return the child to Italy had been in breach of international law and contrary to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights declared inadmissible.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; retention wrongful as the children were habitually resident in Australia on the relevant date.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Issues Relating to Return |

Return ordered with undertakings offered

One child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 5 and a half – National of Ukraine and the United Kingdom – Father national of the United Kingdom and South Africa – Mother national of Hungary and Ukraine – Child lived in Ukraine in the mother’s custody with regular contact with the father – Following Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022 child and Mother move to England In April 2022 – Mother plans to return to Ukraine in Summer 2022 – Father obtains Prohibited Steps Order from English Court - Application for return issued on 29 July 2022 – Main issues: habitual residence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – risk of exposure to war – risk of loss of relationship with father due to alleged closure of court system and mothers hostility to father – A child’s retained roots in Ukraine support his habitual residence remains in the Ukraine – The risk faced by the child upon return to Ukraine failed to meet the threshold of ‘grave harm’ – the region was not subject to active hostility and life continued as normal – the court system was functioning – mother promoted contact – undertakings reduced any risk below grave risk threshold. – Return ordered

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 13 – National of Brazil – Divorced parents– Father national of Brazil – Mother national of Brazil – Joint right to determine the residence of the child. Father has custody. – Child lived in Brazil until 31 October 2014 – Application for return filed with the Courts of Switzerland on 28 April 2016 – Return refused – Main issue: Objections of the Child to a Return – Child was mature enough for its opinion to be taken into consideration which constituted a reason to refuse the return based on Article 13(2).

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The court rejected the application for deferment of enforcement.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed; return refused. The daughters objected to a return that exposed them to a grave risk of danger, whereas no adequate measures had been taken in Belgium.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed, return refused. The child was settled in its new environment.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the father had consented to the relocation of the child on the basis of Article 13(1)(a).

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Two children wrongfully removed at ages nine and four – Nationals of Macedonia – Married parents – Father national of Macedonia – Mother national of Macedonia – Joint parental custody – Children lived in Austria until 28 July 2018 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Austria 5 September 2018 – Return ordered – Main issues: Effective exercise of custody and grave risk – Article 3(1)(b) must be read in the light with the Convention's concern that the original condition should be established; there is a presumption that the holder of custody has fulfilled his obligations; the grounds for exclusion are to be interpreted narrowly and only real dangers are to be taken into account in the case of Article 13(1)(b).

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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