CASO

Texto completo no disponible

Nombre del caso

Tribunal for Children, Cagliari, 15 November 2001, Case No. 682/01 V.G. et 1785 Cron.

Referencia INCADAT

HC/E/IT 450

Tribunal

País

Italia

Nombre

Tribunal pour Enfants, Cagliari (Sardinia) (Italia)

Instancia

Primera Instancia

Estados involucrados

Estado requirente

Alemania

Estado requerido

Italia

Fallo

Fecha

15 November 2001

Estado

Definitiva

Fundamentos

Traslado y retención - arts. 3 y 12

Fallo

Restitución ordenada

Artículo(s) del Convenio considerados

-

Artículo(s) del Convenio invocados en la decisión

1 13(2)

Otras disposiciones

-

Jurisprudencia | Casos referidos

-

INCADAT comentario

Objetivos y ámbito de aplicación del Convenio

Cuestiones de competencia en el marco del Convenio de La Haya
Cuestiones de competencia conforme al Convenio de La Haya (art. 16)

SUMARIO

Sumario disponible en EN | FR | ES

Facts

The child, a boy, was approximately two years old at the date of the alleged wrongful removal. The parents, Italian citizens, were not married. They had been living in Germany.

The parents decided to separate and after the mother left the family residence, the father took the child to Italy and left him with the paternal grandmother. According to the father, the mother had abandoned the child. The mother maintained however that the father had forced her to leave the family home and had prevented her from seeing the child.

The mother then issued proceedings in Germany and return proceedings in Italy.

The German court seised of the case granted exclusive custody to the mother and ordered the immediate return of the child to Germany. It based its jurisdiction over the case on article 1 of the 1961 Hague Convention, the habitual residence of the child in Germany, and the habitual residence of both parents in Germany.

Neither party challenged the court's jurisdiction. The German court applied the law of the child's nationality, in particular, article 317 bis of the Italian Civil Code, in deciding that it was in the child's best interests to remain with his mother, as he had always had a closer relationship with her than with his father.

Ruling

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful being in breach of the mother's actually exercised rights of custody.

Grounds

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

The Italian court recognized the German court’s jurisdictional competence to hear the case. It held that it was not acceptable that the child should continue to live with his grandmother in Italy while both parents lived in Germany. There was no justification for the child’s remaining in Italy. In addition, the father would more easily be able to exercise his access rights if the child were living in the same country.

INCADAT comment

Jurisdiction Issues under the Hague Convention

Jurisdiction Issues under the Hague Convention (Art. 16)

Given the aim of the Convention to secure the prompt return of abducted children to their State of habitual residence to allow for substantive proceedings to be convened, it is essential that custody proceedings not be initiated in the State of refuge. To this end Article 16 provides that:

"After receiving notice of a wrongful removal or retention of a child in the sense of Article 3, the judicial or administrative authorities of the Contracting State to which the child has been removed or in which it has been retained shall not decide on the merits of rights of custody until it has been determined that the child is not to be returned under this Convention or unless an application under this Convention is not lodged within a reasonable time following receipt of the notice."

Contracting States which are also party to the 1996 Hague Convention are provided greater protection by virtue of Article 7 of that instrument.

Contracting States which are Member States of the European Union and to which the Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 (Brussels II a Regulation) applies are provided further protection still by virtue of Article 10 of that instrument.

The importance of Article 16 has been noted by the European Court of Human Rights:

Iosub Caras v. Romania, Application No. 7198/04, (2008) 47 E.H.R.R. 35, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 867];
 
Carlson v. Switzerland no. 49492/06, 8 November 2008, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 999].

When should Article 16 be applied?

The High Court in England & Wales has held that courts and lawyers must be pro-active where there is an indication that a wrongful removal or retention has occurred.

R. v. R. (Residence Order: Child Abduction) [1995] Fam 209, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 120].
 
When a court becomes aware, expressly or by inference that there has been a wrongful removal or retention it receives notice of that wrongful removal or retention within the meaning of Article 16. Moreover, it is the duty of the court to consider taking steps to secure that the parent in that State is informed of his or her Convention rights. 

Re H. (Abduction: Habitual Residence: Consent) [2000] 2 FLR 294, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 478]

Lawyers, even those acting for abducting parents, had a duty to draw the attention of the court to the Convention where this was relevant.

Scope and Duration of Article 16 Protection?

Article 16 does not prevent provisional and protective measures from being taken:

Belgium
Cour de cassation 30/10/2008, CG c BS, N° de rôle: C.06.0619.F, [INCADAT cite : HC/E/BE 750]. 

However, in this case the provisional measures ultimately became final and the return was never enforced, due to a change in circumstances.

A return application must be made within a reasonable period of time:

France
Cass Civ 1ère 9 juillet 2008 (N° de pourvois K 06-22090 & M 06-22091), 9.7.2008, [INCADAT cite : HC/E/FR 749]

United Kingdom - England & Wales
R. v. R. (Residence Order: Child Abduction) [1995] Fam 209, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 120].

A return order which has become final but has not yet been enforced is covered by Article 16:

Germany
Bundesgerichtshof, XII. Zivilsenat Decision of 16 August 2000 - XII ZB 210/99, BGHZ 145, 97 16 August 2000 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 467].

Article 16 will no longer apply when a return order cannot be enforced:

Switzerland
5P.477/2000/ZBE/bnm, [INCADAT cite : HC/E/CH 785].