Case Law Search

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Return ordered, subject to undertakings; a grave risk of harm had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, but Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Procedural Matters

The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and awarded damages to both mother and child.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal was in breach of actually exercised rights of custody and was therefore wrongful, none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the trial court had been entitled to find that the Article 13(1)(b) exception had been established.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed aged less than one year old - Unmarried parents - Joint custody - Child lived in Greece until May 2010 - Application for return filed in April 2011 - Return ordered - Main issues: Settlement of the child, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return, procedural matters - Art. 12(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention only applies where return proceedings have been commenced after a period of more than one year has elapsed since the date of the wrongful removal

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 6 - National of Canada - Divorced parents - Father national of Mexico - Mother national of Canada - Joint custody: the mother had primary care, the father periods of care - Child lived in the United States of America until March 2013 - Application for return filed with the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba on 28 March 2013 - Return ordered - Main issues: Art 13(1) (b) grave risk exception to return, objection of the child to return, procedural matters - Motion for staying the enforcement of the first instance return order dismissed - A child aged 8 years (at the time of the proceedings) does not face a grave risk of being exposed to physical or psychological harm or being placed in an intolerable situation if return is ordered while the primary caregiver cannot (immediately) accompany her, pending the outcome of a visa application - Bar an extraordinary level of maturity,  a child aged 8  years has not attained the necessary age and degree of maturity at which her wishes ought to be considered under Art. 13(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

The Grand Chamber held by 9 votes to 8 that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Unanimous: no breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). There was no separate issue concerning the claims based on Articles 6 and 13. The authorities' lack of diligence in preventing the abduction was admittedly manifest but had been indemnified by the Spanish authorities. The authorities had not been lacking in diligence regarding the child's return, despite the absence of results in this respect.

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

Appeal inadmissible; the appellant failed to assert any plea raising a substantial issue.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application for ne exeat order dismissed; the Court invoked Article 5 of the Hague Child Abduction Convention, in conjunction with Article 1518.1 of the Greek Civil Code.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the child had retained her habitual residence in California throughout her 34-month stay in Ireland.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return order upheld, but the orders for costs which had been made by the lower courts in favour of the father were set aside.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the trial court; the trial court had erred by failing to determine whether the parents had intended to abandon their habitual residence in the United States of America or whether they had intended to retain it while residing abroad temporarily.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Unanimous: breach of Article 8 ECHR owing to the mother's deprivation of actual exercise of her family life with the child for over six years; award to the mother of EUR 16,223 for intangible damage and EUR 13,000 (plus any tax due) for costs and expenses.

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 upheld and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but a return to Germany would expose the children to a grave risk of physical, and most importantly, psychological harm.  In addition, it was proven that the children, who possessed the necessary age and maturity, objected to being returned to Germany.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered subject to undertakings by both parents; the retention of the child had been wrongful, and the grave risk of harm exception had not been established.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the child had remained habitually resident in the United States of America, and, the mother had consented to the Texas court's final resolution of the issue of custody.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; removal wrongful and neither the Article 13(1)(b) nor Article 20 exception had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.