Case Law Search

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.

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.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

The Hague Convention proceedings in Slovakia were held not to be in compliance with the requirements of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully removed at age 4 – National of Poland – Married parents – Father national of Poland – Mother national of Poland – Parents exercised joint rights of custody – Child lived in Norway until June 2012 and then Poland until December 2012 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Norway in December 2012 –Return refused – Main issue: Article 3 – habitual residence – the child was habitually resident in Norway and so the return to Norway from Poland did not constitute an unlawful removal.

One child wrongfully removed at age 1 – National of Israel – Married parents  – Mother national of Russia – Joint custody rights – Child lived in Israel until August 1996 – Application for return filed in October 1998 – Return refused – Main issue(s): Article 13(1)(b) – there was a grave risk of psychological harm to the child, severe enough to invoke Article 13(1)(b), even though its cause is mostly related to the threat to the mother.

Procedural Matters

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The child’s mother’s application for an interlocutory order was rejected. The court ruled that it was not able to find any evidence that there would be grave consequences for the child if the order of the Higher Regional Court were enforced.

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

Leave to appeal refused and non return order therefore confirmed; the trial judge had been entitled to accept the objections of the two older children and to exercise her discretion not to return any of the children.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 |

CJEU - Preliminary ruling issued, case remitted to national courts

Preliminary ruling given on the interpretation of habitual residence as an autonomous concept within the Brussels IIa Regulation. The Court concluded that the child’s habitual residence was in Greece and therefore the Court considered that there had not been an unlawful retention by the mother

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

Order made that the 6 year old child subject of the proceedings be interviewed and assessed.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Preliminary ruling given, inter alia, on the meaning of habitual residence as a Community concept within Brussels II a Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003).

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions applied.