Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of a child when she was 4 years old - Trinidadian - Trinidadian parents – Joint custody but primary and residential custody with the mother - Child lived in the United States for 2 years and 4 months until she was removed and wrongfully retained in Trinidad as from 15 July 2017 – The return application was filed before a Trinidadian Family Court on 28 November 2017 – Appeal dismissed, return ordered - Main issues: habitual residence, removal and retention, grave risk, procedural matters – The child’s habitual residence was found to be in the U.S. because that was the mother’s place of residence and the girl had lived there for a considerable time - Removal had not been wrongful since the father had a temporary timesharing order but retention was since it breached the mother’s right of custody – The exception in Article 13(1)(b) was not granted as mere financial discomfort was not grave enough 

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of an intolerable situation had not been met.

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

Return ordered with undertakings offered

Return ordered and undertakings offered; the removal was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of physical harm had not been met.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered forthwith subject to undertakings. The child had been wrongfully removed and none of the exceptions applied.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The court found that the Convention was not applicable to the case but dismissed the appeal on the basis that the child's interests were best served by a return to the United States.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and Article 13(1)(b) was not proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return ordered

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

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; Article 13(1)(a) had not 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.

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.

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.

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

Return ordered

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.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Case remitted to lower court

1 child wrongfully removed at age 4 - National of Switzerland - Unmarried parents - Father national of Switzerland - Mother national of Spain - The lower courts had determined that the removal was in breach of the father’s custody rights - Child lived in Switzerland until August 2013 - Application for return filed with the courts of Spain on 7 November 2013 - Return refused at first instance, then return ordered on appeal - Main issue: settlement of the child - “Amparo” claim successful: the Constitutional Court found that the mother’s constitutional right to effective legal protection had been violated (no ruling on return / non-return) - A proper analysis of whether the child has become settled in its new environment should be conducted where a year has passed since the abduction occurred, in order for a decision to be rendered that is in the best interests of the child - It is immaterial that the delay is not attributable to the conduct of the parents; regardless of the cause, it may not affect the best interests of the child

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.

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

The Court unanimously ruled that Romania had breached Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to thoroughly assess the best interests of the child and to give the father the opportunity to present his case. It also awarded the father compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; the child was settled in his new environment and the Court exercised its discretion not to order his return.

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)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, being in breach of the father's rights of custody, but the older siblings had valid objections to a return and the children would face a grave risk of harm if separated.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of two children, a boy aged 4 and a girl aged 6 – Nationals of the United States, Costa Rica and El Salvador – The children resided in Lourdes de San Vito de Coto Crus, Puntarenas, Costa Rica at the moment of the removal to El Salvador – The return application was submitted before the Central Authority of the Republic of El Salvador – Appeal allowed, return ordered – Main issues: removal and retention, rights of custody, objections of the child to a return, procedural issues – The habitual residence of the children before the removal was in Costa Rica – The children were wrongfully retained by their mother in El Salvador because they did not return to Costa Rica after a month of vacation as agreed– Both parents had rights of custody – The hearing process of the children and the taking of their opinions into consideration were not carried out properly – The debate over the merits of the rights of custody unnecessarily delayed the return proceeding, in contravention of the nature and purpose of the Convention.