Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The retention was considered wrongful. The grave risk exception under Article 13(1)(b), raised by the defendant on appeal, had not been established. The children's opinions did not suggest a strong opposition that would be sufficient to constitute the exception to return under Article 13(2).

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

Application dismissed

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the Article 13(1)(b) exception was no longer established.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in the United States of America on the relevant date, and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and non-return order upheld; the doctrine of "equitable tolling" was not applicable to the settlement exception in Art. 12(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

By a majority ruling (5:2) the ECrtHR found there to have been a violation of Art. 8 of the ECHR and, in a unanimous ruling, that there had been a violation of Art. 6 of the ECHR.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

By five to two: no breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the children were habitually resident in the United States of America at the relevant date.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Non-Convention Issues | Procedural Matters

Jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales upheld, residence order in favour of the mother confirmed.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the child had not been shown to habitually reside in Italy at the relevant date.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal dismissed; return order upheld. The Court of Appeal had duly provided grounds for its decision and was not required to conduct a more thorough investigation relating to a possible grave risk of danger.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the children were habitually resident in New Zealand on the relevant date.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal of the children was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | 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. A discretion remained to order the return of children notwithstanding a finding of settlement, but the District Court's finding that the discretion should not be exercised was not to be disturbed.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal upheld and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but a return to the United Kingdom would expose the child to a grave risk of physical, and most importantly, psychological harm.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child wrongfully removed at age 2 - National of the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation - Married parents - Father national of United Kingdom - Mother national of Russia - Both parents had rights of custody - Child lived in Spain with both parents until April 2016 - Application for return filed with the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 18 August 2016 - Return refused - Main issue: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return - A child aged 3 has a physchological and physiological need for her mother and since the mother had decided to stay in Russia, return to Spain would expose the child to a grave risk of harm

This case forms the subject of an application to the European Court of Human Rights (Thompson v. Russia, Application no. 36048/17), lodged on 15 May 2017 and communicated on 23 October 2017. 

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Unanimous: infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); award of damages on the basis of Article 41 of the ECHR.

Non-Convention Issues

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; a return to Lebanon would flagrantly violate, or completely deny or nullify, both the mother and child's right to respect for their family life together.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful for the children had neither lost their Israeli habitual residence at the relevant date nor acquired a habitual residence in Australia. There was no grave risk of harm and whilst the father had at one stage consented to the relocation the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion to make a return order.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Application dismissed

By a 4:3 majority the European Court of Human Rights ruled that there had not been a breach of the mother and child's right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.