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:

Show more

Instrument:

Search results (830)

  • 2001 | HC/E/MC 510 | MONACO | Appellate Court |
    R 6136; M. Le Procureur Général contre M. H K
    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

    Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return refused

    Article(s)

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

    Ruling

    Appeal dismissed and return refused: the removal was wrongful, but Article 12(2) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

  • 1995 | HC/E/FR 513 | FRANCE | Superior Appellate Court
    Cass Civ 1ère 7 juin 1995, N° de pourvoi 94-15.860
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

    Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Procedural Matters

    Article(s)

    3 7 8 19 29

    Ruling

    Challenge upheld and decision of the Cour d'appel overruled; case remitted to the Cour d'appel of Toulouse.

  • 1997 | HC/E/FR 515 | FRANCE | Superior Appellate Court |
    Cass Civ 1ère 22 avril 1997, N° de pourvoi 95-11999
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

    Rights of Custody - Art. 3

    Article(s)

    3

    Ruling

    Challenge to legality dismissed; the retention of the child was wrongful.

  • 1992 | HC/E/FR 518 | FRANCE | Superior Appellate Court |
    Cass Civ 1ère 16 décembre 1992, N° de pourvoi 91-13119
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(b)

    Ruling

    Challenge to legality dismissed; the child was habitually resident in Canada on the relevant date, therefore the retention was wrongful. None of the exceptions was established.

  • 1997 | HC/E/DK 521 | DENMARK | Superior Appellate Court |
    V.L. 3. marts 1997, 11. afdeling, B-2511-96
    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3

    Order

    Appeal allowed, application dismissed

    Article(s)

    3

    Ruling

    Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the children were habitually resident in Denmark on the relevant date.

  • 2005 | HC/E/RO 802 | European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR) |
    Monory v. Hungary & Romania, Application No. 71099/01, (2005) 41 EHRR 77
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

    Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

    Article(s)

    3

    Ruling

    Breach of Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR, award of damages. In merely representing the father before the local courts the Romanian authorities had failed to observe their full obligations under Article 7 of the Hague Convention. The erroneous interpretation of Article 3 of the Hague Convention and thereby the guarantees of that instrument led to a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR.

  • 2004 | HC/E/IL 837 | ISRAEL | Appellate Court |
    Family Appeal 592/04 R.K v. Ch. K.
    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN | FR
    Grounds

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

    Article(s)

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

    Ruling

    Appeal allowed in part; the removal was wrongful but the return of the girls would be refused for the father by his actions had acquiesced in their remaining in Israel.

  • 2002 | HC/E/FR 850 | FRANCE | Appellate Court |
    CA Paris, 20 septembre 2002, No de RG 2002/13730
    Languages
    Full text download FR
    Summary available in FR
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(b)

  • 1996 | HC/E/DE 573 | GERMANY |
    Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2BvR 1075/96, 15 August 1996
    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN | FR
    Grounds

    Human Rights - Art. 20

    Article(s)

    3 5 12 13(1)(b) 14 15 12(2) 12(1)

    Ruling

    Appeal inadmissible for being manifestly unfounded. None of Arts. 3, 12, 13(1)(b) and 14 is inconsistent with the German Constitution, and neither their interpretation nor their application by the Court of Appeal was inconsistent with the Constitution.

  • 2001 | HC/E/CA 758 | CANADA | Appellate Court |
    Katsigiannis v. Kottick-Katsigianni (2001), 55 O.R. (3d) 456 (C.A.)
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    1 3 12 13(1)(a)

    Ruling

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

  • 2002 | HC/E/BE 706 | BELGIUM | First Instance |
    Civ Liège (réf) 14 mars 2002, Ministère public c/ A
    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in FR
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 12 13(1)(b)

  • 2007 | HC/E/BE 857 | BELGIUM | First Instance |
    Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles, 25 janvier 2007, No de rôle: 07/78/C
    Languages
    Full text download FR
    Summary available in FR
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 13(1)(b)

  • 2005 | HC/E/NZ 816 | NEW ZEALAND | Superior Appellate Court |
    S.K. v. K.P. [2005] 3 NZLR 590
    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN | FR
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3

    Order

    Application dismissed

    Article(s)

    3

    Ruling

    Appeal dismissed and application dismissed, by a majority the Court of Appeal ruled that the child had no habitual residence on the relevant date.

  • 2008 | HC/E/CA 1126 | CANADA | First Instance |
    Suarez v. Carranza, 2008 BCSC 1187
    Languages
    Full text download EN
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Return ordered subject to undertakings

    Article(s)

    3 5 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 14

    Ruling

    Removal wrongful and return ordered; Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

  • 2018 | HC/E/CH 1537 | SWITZERLAND | Superior Appellate Court
    Decision of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court 5A_576/2018 of the 31st of July 2018
    Languages
    Full text download DE
    Summary available in EN
    Grounds

    Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 |

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

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

    Synopsis

    one child wrongfully retained between age 4 and 5– National of unknown –unmarried parents – Father national of unknown – Mother national of unknown – Shared parental responsibility – Child lived in Portugal until 10 March 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 23 April 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: Removal and Retention – The father could not prove that the mother had given her consent for the child to remain in Switzerland and the mother filed an appeal within the one year period set out in Article 12.

  • 2009 | HC/E/AU 1018 | NEW ZEALAND | Appellate Court |
    Fairfax v. Ireton [2009] 3 NZLR 289
    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

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

    Order

    Article 15 declaration granted

    Article(s)

    3 5 15

    Ruling

    Appeal allowed; article 15 declaration granted.  The applicant father was considered to hold rights of custody under New Zealand law.

  • 2010 | HC/E/USf 1024 | UNITED STATES - FEDERAL JURISDICTION | Appellate Court |
    Poliero v. Centenaro, 373 Fed.Appx. 102, 2010 WL 1573771 (C.A.2 (N.Y.)) (2d Cir. 2010)
    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN | FR | ES
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    3

    Ruling

    Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful, the children having retained their Italian habitual residence during their extended stays in the United States.

  • 2008 | HC/E/CA 1028 | CANADA | First Instance |
    C. v. H., [2009] W.D.F.L. 337, 62 R.F.L. (6th) 351, 2008
    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN | ES
    Grounds

    Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

    Order

    Return ordered

    Article(s)

    3 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 27

    Ruling

    Return ordered.

  • 2016 | HC/E/EC 1539 | ECUADOR | Appellate Court
    A. C. C. s/ Restitución Internacional
    Languages
    No full text available
    Summary available in EN | ES
    Grounds

    Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters |

    Order

    Appeal dismissed, return ordered

    Article(s)

    1 3 5 12 13(1)(b)

    Synopsis

    Wrongful retention of the child – Separate parents – Custody rights were jointly exercised – The child lived in Spain until the August 11, 2014 – The request for return was filed before the Central Authority of Spain in September 2014 – Return ordered – Main issues: Habitual residence, removal and retention, settlement of the child, art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, procedural matters – The habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful removal was in Spain – There was wrongful retention in breach of the right of custody which was exercised jointly according to the agreement signed by the mother and father – The settlement of the child was not evaluated because the one year period established by the Convention to that effect had not elapsed – The evidence did not contribute to determine whether there had been sexual abuse, on the contrary, a true demonstration of the risk was necessary to justify applying article 13(1)(b) - The Central Authority of Spain was urged to take measures to protect the child and to do a follow up of the case to provide the father with the necessary support. 

  • 2018 | HC/E/CO 1512 | COLOMBIA | Superior Appellate Court
    T-202-18
    Languages
    Full text download ES
    Summary available in EN | ES
    Grounds

    Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

    Order

    Case remitted to lower court

    Article(s)

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

    Synopsis

    Wrongful retention of a child when she was 5 years old - US national - parents married - father US national - mother Colombian national - both parents had custody rights under the Convention - child lived in the US until 19 December 2015 - return application was filed before the US Central Authority on 13 June 2016 - lower court was ordered to make a new judgment in the international return proceedings, taking into account the child's views - main issues: aims of the Convention - Preamble, settlement of the child, acquiescense, art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, child's objections to return – the best interests of the child is to be returned to his or her center of life without delay, unless one of the grounds of exception is proven - assessment of the child's settlement is appropriate only if one year has elapsed between the wrongful conduct and the date of filing of the international return application - the grave risk must be greater than the natural hardship that may result from a change of his or her residence or the dislocation of the current living group - the decision on the application of the exception of Art. 13(2) requires consideration of the voice of the child who is of sufficient age and maturity.