Case Law Search

Issues Relating to Return

Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the applicant father was found, in a majority verdict, not to have possessed rights of custody for the purposes of the Hague Convention at the time of the removal.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, but there was a grave risk that a return would expose the child to psychological harm and place him in an intolerable situation.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

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

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; both the English courts and the applicant father held rights of custody in respect of the child at the moment of the child's removal.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the trial judge had not erred in the exercise of his discretion in making a return order notwithstanding having found the children to be settled in their new environment and that they objected to a return.

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

In a unanimous ruling the Court held that Poland had breached Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to make adequate and effective efforts to reunite the applicant with his daughters. The Court also made an award of compensation to the father under Article 41 of the ECHR.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return ordered. The child's removal was wrongful and the exception of Article 13 inapplicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return order upheld; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions were applicable.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful.

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

Maltese non-return order considered but not followed; child ordered to be sent back to England, his State of habitual residence, in accordance with Article 11 of the Brussels II a Regulation.

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

Leave to appeal refused and return order confirmed; the removal was wrongful and the objections of the children to a return did not satisfy the standards of Article 13(2).

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required by the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Challenge rejected and return order confirmed. The removal was wrongful and the court of appeal had correctly found the Article 13(1)(b) exception to be inapplicable.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the father had not consented to the relocation of his children to England.

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

The removal was wrongful but there was a grave risk of harm to the children. The Public Prosecutor was asked to inform the Court of the steps taken to protect the children following their return.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered.  The removal was wrongful; the children were habitually resident in Spain on the relevant date and consent had not been established.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

2 children allegedly wrongfully retained (aged 10 and 14 at the time of the decision) – Married parents – Father national of the United-States – Mother national of China Hong Kong SAR and the United-States – Children lived in the United States until July 2013 – Application for return filed in February 2015 – Application dismissed – Main issues: habitual residence, wrongful retention, and children’s objections to return – A change of habitual residence occurs when a move from one State to another has a sufficient degree of stability – The absence of a joint parental intention to reside in a given State is not decisive in precluding the possibility of the children having established habitual residence there – Retention is considered wrongful from the moment the parent knows (s)he will not return to the previous country – When taking into account children’s views, a preference may be sufficient to meet the standard of the child’s objection exception under Art. 13(2), provided it is substantial