Case Law Search

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, but on the strength of the child's objection to a return to Switzerland, the court exercised its discretion under Article 13(2) not to order a return.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate the child would face a grave risk of psychological harm had not been met.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court finding that no custody rights had been breached and that consequently there had not been a wrongful removal.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; the standard required under Articles 13(1)(b) and 20 had not been met.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return refused

Return refused; the child was no longer habitually resident in Germany at the relevant date.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the retention of the child was not wrongful since at the moment of retention the child had acquired a habitual residence in Massachusetts.

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

Return ordered

Issues Relating to Return

The Court ruled unanimously that Austria had breached Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to take proper steps to enforce the order providing for the return of the child. The Court also made an award of compensation to the father under Article 41 of the ECHR, but by a 4 : 3 majority declined to make a financial award to the child who has also issued proceedings.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Article 15 declaration refused

Article 15 declaration refused; the removal was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.

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

Article 15 declaration refused

Article 15 declaration refused; the removal was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.

Non-Convention Issues

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; having considered the child's best interests, the objections of the mother and the policy to applied in non-Convention abduction cases the court ordered that the child be returned to Saudi Arabia.

Non-Convention Issues

Return ordered

Return ordered subject to undertakings.

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

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the removal was wrongful having breached rights of custody held by the father.

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.

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.