CASE

Case Name

Family, appeal request 1930/14, Plonit v Ploni

INCADAT reference

HC/E/IL 1317

Court

Country

ISRAEL

Name

Supreme Court of Israel

Level

Superior Appellate Court

Judge(s)
N. Hendel, Y. Dantzinger, N. Solberg

States involved

Requesting State

UNITED KINGDOM

Requested State

ISRAEL

Decision

Date

5 June 2014

Status

Final

Grounds

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Article 15 Decision or Determination

Order

-

HC article(s) Considered

3 15 29

HC article(s) Relied Upon

15

Other provisions

-

Authorities | Cases referred to
Rhona Schuz, The Hague Child Abduction Conventiom: A Critical Analysis 1 (2013); A.E. Anton, The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, 30 INT. & COMP. L.Q. 537, 553 (1981) Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985, c. 5.03 s 8 (Eng); Elisa Perez-Vera, Explanatory Report on the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention 463 (HCCH Publication, 1980); Request for Family Appeal , 9441/12 Ploni v Plonit; Re P [1995] 1 FLR 831 (Eng. C.A.); Re L [2001] 2 FCR 1 (Fam); A v B [2008] EWHC 2524 (Fam); Perez v. Garcia, 148 Wn. App. 131, 136-137 (2009); Viragh v Foldes, 415 Mass. 96 (1993); Request for Family Appeal 7784/12 Plonit v Ploni; Tsimhoni v Eibschitz-Tsimhoni, US District Court for Eastern District of Michigan (Unreported, 26 March 2010).

INCADAT comment

Article 12 Return Mechanism

Rights of Custody
Article 15 Decision or Determination

SUMMARY

Summary available in EN | ES

Facts

The parents were married in Russia in 2001, moved to England in 2004 and their daughter was born in 2006. They divorced in 2009.

In April 2010, an English court, with the consent of the parents, gave an order regarding custody and visitation rights.. The order stipulated, among other things, that the habitual residence of the child was in England and Wales, and written parental consent was required in order to move her away.

By April / May 2013, the couple had decided to move to Israel. There was disagreement about the nature of the agreement between them. The father claimed that they agreed to move to Israel permanently (but it was not done in writing), while the mother asserted that she had agreed to move because the father had pressured her financially and because she thought that the purpose of the transition was arranging the girl's Israeli passport which required spending a year in Israel.

In July 2013, mother and child travelled to Israel and the child began to study in a local school. On 18 December 2013, the mother and the girl flew back to England with no intention of going back to Israel and without the knowledge of the father. The father subsequently filed an application in the English court for return of the child under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

At the same time the father filed an application to the Israeli Family Matters Court requesting a declaration that the child's removal was unlawful under Article 15 of the Convention. The Family Matters Court held that the habitual residence of the child remained in the UK and therefore the issue should be addressed in England.

The father appealed to the District Court, which reversed the decision, holding that for the purposes of the Article 15 declaration, the habitual residence of the child could be considered to be in Israel and so the removal of the child was unlawful.

At the same time a judgment was obtained in England holding that the habitual residence of the child remained in England and that the period of time living in Israel did not change this: MB v SB [2014] EWHC 3719 (Fam.). The High Court referred to the proceedings conducted in Israel but gave them little consideration.

The father sought permission to appeal the High Court's decision, which caused the mother to request permission to appeal to the Supreme Court in Israel, since she feared that the English Court of Appeal would give greater weight to the Israeli District Court declaration.

Ruling

Appeal allowed and Article 15 declaration refused.

Grounds

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

-

Article 15 Decision or Determination

-

INCADAT comment

For the original English proceedings, see MB v SB [2014] EWHC 3719 (Fam.).

The father was refused permission to appeal by the trial judge and then made a written application before the Court of Appeal.  Ultimately the father's appeal was discontinued, see: SB v MB [2014] EWHC 3721 (Fam.), at [3], in which it was held that the father should be responsible for half the mother's costs.

Article 15 Decision or Determination

The Role and Interpretation of Article 15

Article 15 is an innovative mechanism which reflects the cooperation which is central to the 1980 Hague Convention.  It provides that the authorities of a Contracting State may, prior to making a return order, request that the applicant obtain from the authorities of the child's State of habitual residence a decision or other determination that the removal or retention was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention, where such a decision or determination may be obtained in that State. The Central Authorities of the Contracting States shall so far as practicable assist applicants to obtain such a decision or determination.

Scope of the Article 15 Decision or Determination Mechanism

Common law jurisdictions are divided as to the role to be played by the Article 15 mechanism, in particular whether the court in the child's State of habitual residence should make a finding as to the wrongfulness of the removal or retention, or, whether it should limit its decision to the extent to which the applicant possesses custody rights under its own law.  This division cannot be dissociated from the autonomous nature of custody rights for Convention purposes as well as that of 'wrongfulness' i.e. when rights of custody are to be deemed to have been breached.

United Kingdom - England & Wales
The Court of Appeal favoured a very strict position with regard to the scope of Article 15:

Hunter v. Murrow [2005] EWCA Civ 976, [2005] 2 F.L.R. 1119 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 809].

The Court held that where the question for determination in the requested State turned on a point of autonomous Convention law (e.g. wrongfulness) then it would be difficult to envisage any circumstances in which an Article 15 request would be worthwhile.

Deak v. Deak [2006] EWCA Civ 830 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 866].

This position was however reversed by the House of Lords in the Deak case:

Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] 1 AC 619, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880].

Whilst there was unanimity as to the utility and binding nature of a ruling of a foreign court as to the content of the rights held by an applicant, Baroness Hale, with whom Lord Hope and Lord Brown agreed, further specified that the foreign court would additionally be much better placed than the English court to understand the true meaning and effect of its own laws in Convention terms.

New Zealand
Fairfax v. Ireton [2009] NZFLR 433 (NZ CA), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 1018].

A majority in the Court of Appeal, approving of the position adopted by the English Court of Appeal in Hunter v. Morrow, held that a court seised of an Article 15 decision or determination should restrict itself to reporting on matters of national law and not stray into the classification of a removal as being wrongful or not; the latter was exclusively a matter for the court in the State of refuge in the light of its assessment of the autonomous law of the Convention. 

Status of an Article 15 Decision or Determination

The status to be accorded to an Article 15 decision or determination has equally generated controversy, in particular the extent to which a foreign ruling should be determinative as regards the existence, or inexistence, of custody rights and in relation to the issue of wrongfulness.

Australia
In the Marriage of R. v. R., 22 May 1991, transcript, Full Court of the Family Court of Australia (Perth), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 257];

The court noted that a decision or determination under Article 15 was persuasive only and that it was ultimately a matter for the French courts to decide whether there had been a wrongful removal.

United Kingdom - England & Wales
Hunter v. Murrow [2005] EWCA Civ 976, [2005] 2 F.L.R. 1119, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 809].

The Court of Appeal held that an Article 15 decision or determination was not binding and it rejected the determination of wrongfulness made by the New Zealand High Court: M. v. H. [Custody] [2006] NZFLR 623 (HC), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 1021]. In so doing it noted that New Zealand courts did not recognise the sharp distinction between rights of custody and rights of access which had been accepted in the United Kingdom.

Deak v. Deak [2006] EWCA Civ 830, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 866].

The Court of Appeal declined to accept the finding of the Romanian courts that the father did not have rights of custody for the purposes of the Convention.

This position was however reversed by the House of Lords in the Deak case:

Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] 1 AC 619, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880].

The House of Lords held unanimously that where an Article 15 decision or determination was sought the ruling of the foreign court as to the content of the rights held by the applicant must be treated as conclusive, save in exceptional cases where, for example, the ruling had been obtained by fraud or in breach of the rules of natural justice. Such circumstances were absent in the present case, therefore the trial court and the Court of Appeal had erred in disregarding the decision of the Bucharest Court of Appeal and in allowing fresh evidence to be adduced.

As regards the characterisation of the parent's rights, Baroness Hale, with whom Lord Hope and Lord Brown agreed, held that it would only be where this was clearly out of line with the international understanding of the Convention's terms, as might well have been the case in Hunter v. Murrow, should the court in the requested state decline to follow it. For his part Lord Brown affirmed that the determination of content and classification by the foreign court should almost invariably be treated as conclusive.

Switzerland
5A_479/2007/frs, Tribunal fédéral, IIè cour civile, 17 octobre 2007, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 953].

The Swiss supreme court held that a finding on custody rights would in principle bind the authorities in the requested State.  As regards an Article 15 decision or determination, the court noted that commentators were divided as to the effect in the requested State and it declined to make a finding on the issue.

Practical Implications of Seeking an Article 15 Decision or Determination

Recourse to the Article 15 mechanism will inevitably lead to delay in the conduct of a return petition, particularly should there happen to be an appeal against the original determination by the authorities in the State of habitual residence. See for example:

Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] 1 AC 619, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880].

This practical reality has in turn generated a wide range of judicial views.

In Re D. a variety of opinions were canvassed. Lord Carswell affirmed that resort to the procedure should be kept to a minimum. Lord Brown noted that it would only be used on rare occasions. Lord Hope counselled against seeking perfection in ascertaining whether a removal or retention was wrongful, rather a balance had to be struck between acting on too little information and searching for too much. Baroness Hale noted that when a country first acceded to the Convention Article 15 might be useful in cases of doubt to obtain an authoritative ruling on the content and effect of the local law.

New Zealand
Fairfax v. Ireton [2009] NZFLR 433 (NZ CA), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 1018].

The majority in the Court of Appeal, suggested that Article 15 requests should only rarely be made as between Australia and New Zealand, given the similarities of the legal systems.

Alternatives to Seeking an Article 15 Decision or Determination

Whilst courts may simply wish to determine the foreign law in the light of the available information, an alternative is to seek expert evidence.  Experience in England and Wales has shown that this is far from fool-proof and does not necessarily result in time being saved, see: 

Re F. (A Child) (Abduction: Refusal to Order Summary Return) [2009] EWCA Civ 416, [2009] 2 F.L.R. 1023, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 1020].

In the latter case Thorpe L.J. suggested that greater recourse could be made to the European Judicial Network, through the International Family Law Office at the Royal Courts of Justice. Pragmatic advice could be offered as to the best route to follow in a particular case: whether to go for a single joint expert; whether to go for an Article 15 decision or determination; or whether to go for an opinion from the liaison judge as to the law of his own country, an opinion that would not be binding but which would perhaps help the parties and the trial court to see the weight, or want of weight, in the challenge to the plaintiff's ability to cross the Article 3 threshold.

Hechos

Los padres contrajeron matrimonio en Rusia en el 2001, se mudaron a Inglaterra en el 2004 y tuvieron a su hija en el 2006. En el 2009, se divorciaron.

En abril de 2010, con el consentimiento de los padres, un tribunal de Inglaterra emitió una orden referente a la custodia y a los derechos de visitas. Entre otras cosas, la orden establecía que el país de residencia habitual de la niña era Inglaterra y Gales y que, para su traslado, era necesario el consentimiento escrito de los padres.

En abril/mayo de 2013, la pareja decidió mudarse a Israel. Hubo desacuerdos sobre la naturaleza del acuerdo entre ellos. El padre declaró que habían acordado (aunque no por escrito) mudarse permanentemente a Israel; mientras que la madre afirmó que ella había accedido a mudarse porque el padre la había presionado económicamente y porque pensó que el propósito de la mudanza era conseguir el pasaporte israelí de la niña, para lo cual tenía que pasar un año en Israel.

En julio de 2013, la madre y la niña viajaron a Israel y la niña comenzó a estudiar en una escuela local. El 18 de diciembre de 2013, la madre y la niña regresaron a Inglaterra sin intenciones de regresar a Israel y sin el conocimiento del padre. En consecuencia, el padre presentó una solicitud ante un tribunal de Inglaterra para que se restituyera a la niña de acuerdo con el Convenio de La Haya de 1980 sobre sustracción de menores.

Al mismo tiempo, el padre presentó una solicitud ante el Tribunal de Familia de Israel, en la cual solicitaba que se declarase que el traslado de la niña había sido ilícito de acuerdo con el artículo 15 del Convenio. El Tribunal de Familia sostuvo que el país de residencia habitual de la niña era Inglaterra y que, por lo tanto, la cuestión debería resolverse allí.

El padre apeló ante el Tribunal del Distrito, que invalidó la resolución con el argumento de que, a los fines de la declaración del artículo 15, podría considerarse que el país de residencia habitual de la niña era Israel y que, en consecuencia, el traslado había sido ilícito

.Al mismo tiempo, en Inglaterra se dictó una sentencia en la que se declaró que el país de residencia habitual de la niña era Inglaterra y que el tiempo que vivió en Israel no lo afectaba: MB v SB [2014] EWHC 3719 (Fam.). El tribunal de primera instancia (High Court) aludió al proceso llevado a cabo en Israel pero le dio escasa consideración.

El padre pidió permiso para apelar la sentencia de primera instancia, lo cual provocó que la madre pidiera permiso para apelar ante el Tribunal Supremo de Israel dado que temía que el Tribunal de Apelaciones de Inglaterra le diera más importancia a la declaración del Tribunal de Distrito de Israel.

Fallo

Se concedió el recurso de apelación y se denegó la certificación del artículo 15.

Fundamentos

Traslado y retención - arts. 3 y 12

Certificación del artículo 15:
La Corte Suprema de Israel sostuvo que antes de tratar la cuestión de si el país de residencia habitual de la niña era Inglaterra o Israel, debía considerarse si el caso justificaba la emisión de una certificación en virtud del artículo 15.

La Corte Suprema examinó la interpretación del artículo 15 y declaró que, aunque la legislación de Israel permitía expresamente que los individuos solicitaran dicha certificación, el tribunal competente debía considerar si el propósito por el cual la solicitud fue presentada era legítimo y si ayudaba o no a la resolución del proceso principal al proveer una interpretación de la legislación de Israel solicitada por el tribunal extranjero.

En este caso, la solicitud en virtud del artículo 15 carecía de sentido dado que correspondía que el tribunal de Inglaterra determinara el país de residencia habitual de la niña. Por lo tanto, los tribunales de primera instancia habían cometido un error cuando trataron la residencia habitual, y no deberían haber emitido una certificación en virtud del artículo 15. Por consiguiente, el recurso de apelación de la madre sería concedido.

Autores del sumario: Prof. Rhona Schuz y Talia Oshri, Israel

Decisión o certificación según el artículo 15

-

Comentario INCADAT

El procedimiento inglés original puede consultarse en MB v SB [2014] EWHC 3719 (Fam.).

El juez de primera instancia denegó autorización al padre para interponer recurso, por lo que este presentó una solicitud por escrito ante el Tribunal de Apelaciones. Al final el padre desistió de su recurso ?véase SB v MB [2014] EWHC 3721 (Fam.), [3]? y se lo condenó al pago de la mitad de los costos incurridos por la madre.

Declaración del artículo 15

Preparación del análisis de jurisprudencia de INCADAT en curso.