Case Law Search

Issues Relating to Return

Application to appeal dismissed and return order upheld. The prior return of the child rendered an appeal moot.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Issues Relating to Return

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered to a Member State other than the State of the child's habitual residence; none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Return ordered

Procedural Matters

Compensation would be awarded to the applicant father to cover the cost of locating the child, hiring a lawyer in Israel and the lawyer's fees. Compensation was not awarded for emotional distress because the damage was not sufficiently serious, bearing in mind that the child was returned.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and no exception had been established.

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

Return ordered

Mother's application allowed and immediate return of the children to Greece ordered. The children were wrongfully retained and no exception had been established. 

Procedural Matters

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful, the children being habitually resident in Germany at the time they were taken.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the children were habitually resident in Germany at the time of the removal, albeit the primary reasoning of the trial court was not followed.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the children were now settled in their new environment and it would not be appropriate for them to be returned.

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

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; a grave risk of harm pursuant to Art 13(1)(b) had not been established to the level required under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed; the father's right to veto the removal of his child from Chile, under court order and Chilean statute did not afford him a custodial right and thereby a remedy for the purposes of the Convention.

Issues Relating to Return

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; there had not been a breach of Art. 6 or Art. 8 of the ECHR.

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

Return refused

Retention wrongful but return refused: Article 13(1)(b) had been established. A return to Lithuania would expose the child to an intolerable situation given his settlement in the United Kingdom.

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

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; alternative conclusions submitted by the New Zealand court depending on the factual determinations made by the Australian court seised of the return proceedings.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but the child would face a grave risk of harm if returned.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

Unanimous: breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The authorities had failed to deploy adequate efforts to enable the mother to regain contact with her children.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

Unanimous: breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR): the father had waited two years for the judgment ordering the child's return, and the mother's obstructive behaviour had been comforted by a judgment awarding custody to her even though a judgment ordering return had also been delivered.