Case Law Search

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the father was actually exercising his rights of custody and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Issues Relating to Return

Breach of Article 8 of the ECHR and award of damages. The Portuguese authorities had failed to take sufficient or adequate measures to ensure respect for the father's right to have his son returned.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed: the trial judges had not considered whether, under Article 3, the children had acquired a habitual residence in Australia.

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in Australia on the relevant date.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention in light of the intervening custody order made by the authorities in the State of the children's habitual residence.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; by a majority verdict the Court of Appeal found that none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return refused

Return refused; the retention was not wrongful as the father had consented to the relocation of the child.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | 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.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful the child having retained his habitual residence in Germany.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful but Article 12(2) was successfully invoked, the child now being settled in her new environment.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return refused

Retention wrongful but return refused; the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) had been proved to show that the father had consented to the children living in Finland.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal of the child was not wrongful as the rights possessed by the BJA did not amount to rights of custody. The application was therefore rejected.

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

Challenge to legality dismissed; the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been met and the return was therefore ordered.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful as it was in breach of the father's custody rights. The standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; while the retention of the children in Germany was wrongful, the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had been met.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful since the child was habitually resident in Israel at the relevant date.