Refine your search

Keyword:

Grounds:

Show more

Year:

Country:

Show more

Article(s):

Show more

Order:

Show more

Requesting State:

Show more

Requested State:

Show more

Court Level:

Instrument:

Search results (76)

  • 2014 | HC/E/PA 1341 | PANAMA | First Instance |
    PROD c/ DDMV
    Languages
    Full text download ES
    Summary available in EN | ES
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 7 9 12 13(1)(b) 16

    Ruling

    Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal to Panama was considered wrongful and the grave risk exception of Article 13(1)(b) raised by the mother was not established.

  • 1995 | HC/E/UKe 171 | UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES | First Instance |
    R. v. R. (Residence Order: Child Abduction) [1995] Fam 209
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

    Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

    Article(s)

    3 16 17

    Ruling

    The court ordered that the English Central Authority inform the Spanish Central Authority of the facts of the case and that the father be advised of his rights under the Convention.

  • 1994 | HC/E/CA 11 | CANADA | Superior Appellate Court |
    Thomson v. Thomson [1994] 3 SCR 551, 6 RFL (4th) 290
    Languages
    Full text download EN | FR
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

    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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    1 3 5 11 12 13(1)(b) 15 16

    Ruling

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

  • 1999 | HC/E/IT 297 | ITALY | First Instance |
    R. and R., 7 January 1999, Juvenile Court of Rome
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(b) 13(2) 16

    Ruling

    Return ordered; the removal was wrongful as the child was habitually resident in England at the relevant date.

  • 1993 | HC/E/FR 298 | FRANCE | First Instance |
    TGI Abbeville, 6 octobre 1993, W. v. G.
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return refused

    Article(s)

    12 13(1)(b) 16

    Ruling

    Return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate a grave risk of physical and psychological harm had been met.

  • 2000 | HC/E/DE 467 | GERMANY | Superior Appellate Court |
    Bundesgerichtshof, XII. Zivilsenat (Federal Supreme Court, 12th Civil Chamber) Decision of 16 August 2000 - XII ZB 210/99
    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

    Interpretation of the Convention

    Article(s)

    2 7 16

    Ruling

    Appeal dismissed; refusal to make a custody order upheld. The Court held that Article 16 prohibits a custody decision on the merits where a return order has been made but not yet enforced.

  • 2010 | HC/E/CA 1421 | CANADA - ONTARIO | First Instance
    J.D. v. P.D., 2010 ONCJ 410
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered with undertakings offered

    Article(s)

    3 4 5 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 16

    Synopsis

    3 children wrongfully removed at age 7 – Father national of the United Kingdom and Canada – Mother national of the United Kingdom and Canada – Both parents had rights of custody under the law of Scotland – Children lived in the United Kingdom until August 2009 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of the Scotland on 20 October 2009 – Return ordered – Main issue(s): Rights of custody – Art. 3 – Father had rights of custody under the law of Scotland; there was no court order restricting his rights as a parent – Removal & Retention – Arts 3 and 12 – Children wrongfully removed, in breach of the father’s custody rights and without his consent. The father was exercising his rights despite the child protection investigation – Grave Risk – Art. 13(1)(b) –There is no grave risk. Social service agencies and court in Scotland will protect the children upon their return – Undertakings – Undertakings imposed to assist the return and to protect the children in the transitional period before the court in Scotland takes over. 

  • 2008 | HC/E/FR 978 | FRANCE | Superior Appellate Court |
    Cass Civ 1ère 9 juillet 2008 (N° de pourvoi 06-22090 & 06-22091)
    Languages
    Full text download FR
    Summary available in FR
    Grounds

    Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

    Article(s)

    3 16

  • 2002 | HC/E/CA 760 | CANADA | First Instance |
    Kovacs v. Kovacs (2002), 59 O.R. (3d) 671 (Sup. Ct.)
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return refused

    Article(s)

    2 3 11 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 16 20 13(3)

    Ruling

    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.

  • 1994 | HC/E/CA 766 | CANADA | First Instance |
    Spini v. Spini, [1994] N.B.J. No. 567 (Q.L.)
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 5 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 16 13(3)

    Ruling

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

  • 2006 | HC/E/ES 887 | SPAIN | Appellate Court |
    Auto Audiencia Provincial Nº 133/2006 Pontevedra (Sección 1ª), Recurso de apelación Nº 473/2006
    Languages
    Full text download ES
    Summary available in EN | FR
    Grounds

    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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 12 13(1)(b) 13(2) 16

    Ruling

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

  • 2011 | HC/E/HU 1150 | European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR) |
    Shaw v. Hungary (Application No 6457/09)
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR
    Grounds

    European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

    Article(s)

    12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 16 13(3)

    Ruling

    The Court unanimously ruled that Hungary had breached Article 8 of the ECHR where domestic courts failed to act expeditiously in the proceedings to return the child and the national authorities had failed to take adequate and effective measures for the enforcement of the return order. It also awarded the father compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.

  • 2012 | HC/E/TR 736 | TURKEY | Superior Appellate Court |
    Supreme Court, Civil Chamber II, E. 2012/10867 K.2012/15417
    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal allowed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 16 13(3) 12(2) 12(1)

    Ruling

    Return ordered; the "grave risk of harm" exception had not been established.

  • 2010 | HC/E/CH 1079 | SWITZERLAND | Superior Appellate Court |
    5A_80/2010, II. zivilrechtliche Abteilung, arrêt du TF du 22 mars 2010
    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN | FR
    Grounds

    Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

    Article(s)

    13(1)(b) 16 26

    Ruling

    Appeal dismissed; the application for the child's independent representation was manifestly groundless and the mother failed to assert any genuinely new circumstance.

  • 2011 | HC/E/UKs 1154 | UNITED KINGDOM - SCOTLAND | First Instance |
    IGR, Petitioner [2011] CSOH 208
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR
    Grounds

    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)

    Order

    Return refused

    Article(s)

    11 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 16 18 19 12(2)

    Ruling

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

  • 2016 | HC/E/SV 1519 | EL SALVADOR | Appellate Court
    U. V. s/ Restitución Internacional
    Languages
    Full text download ES
    Summary available in EN | ES
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal allowed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    11 16 17

    Synopsis

    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.