Case Law Search

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; return ordered. The removal was wrongful and the mother had not established that an exception was applicable.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed; the judge at first instance rightly considered that the children had settled in France.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered. The removal was wrongful and it had not been proven that a return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

By a majority of five to two, the European Court of Human Rights held that Latvia had violated Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to take account of various relevant factors in assessing the best interests of the child. The Court also awarded the mother compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.

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

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and no exception raised was applicable.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but the Supreme Court found that the level of harm required by Article 13(1)(b) had been established.

Procedural Matters

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed but on application of the correct legal standard the original dismissal of the Hague application was affirmed; the children were not habitually resident in France at the time of the removal.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Issues Relating to Return

By a majority of 5 to 2 the Court ruled that the French authorities had not breached Article 8 of the ECHR either in ordering the return of the child to the United States, or, in the manner in which the return order was enforced. The Court held unanimously that there had been no breach of Article 6(1).

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered. The removal was wrongful as it was rendered without knowledge of the father's right to custody.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

Return refused

Application dismissed the removal was not deemed to have been in breach of actually exercised rights of custody.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Return ordered.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the District Court for consideration on the merits.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

By a majority the Court declared the application to be inadmissible, on the basis of it being manifestly ill-founded; the Turkish authorities had not disregarded their obligations under Article 6 of the ECHR (right to fair trial) or violated the right to respect for family life guaranteed under Article 8 of the ECHR.

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the child had become habitually resident in the United States at the time of the retention, therefore the latter action was not wrongful.