EN | FR | ES

Case Law Search

New search

CASE

No full text available

Case Name

Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2BvR 1075/96, 15 August 1996

INCADAT reference

HC/E/DE 573

Court

Country

GERMANY

Name

Bundesverfassungsgericht

States involved

Requesting State

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Requested State

GERMANY

Decision

Date

15 August 1996

Status

Final

Grounds

Human Rights - Art. 20

Order

-

HC article(s) Considered

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

HC article(s) Relied Upon

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

Other provisions
Arts. 2, 6, 16, 11, 103 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz)
Authorities | Cases referred to
BverfGE 60, 79 (88) ; BverfGE 79, 203 (210 ff) ; BverfGE 81, 1 (7) ; BVerfGE 15.2.1996 (2 BvR233/96) NJW 1996, 1402-1403 ; BverfGE 18, 85 (92) ; BverfGE 30, 173 (188) ; BVerfGE 10.10.1995 (2 BvR 982/983-95) S. 3 des Umdrucks, mwN ; BverfGE 18, 85 (92) ; BverfGE 30, 173 (188) ; BverfGE 80, 137 (150) ; BverfGE 57, 250 (274).
Published in

-

INCADAT comment

Exceptions to Return

Protection of Human rights & Fundamental Freedoms
Protection of Human rights & Fundamental Freedoms

Inter-Relationship with International / Regional Instruments and National Law

Compatibility of the Convention with National Constitutions
Compatibility of the Hague Convention with National Constitutions

SUMMARY

Summary available in EN | FR

Facts

The case concerned a child born in the United States of America in 1989. The parents divorced in 1994. The mother obtained custody of the child and the father an extensive right of access. The mother was permitted to take the child to Germany during the summer holidays, and the divorce decree also specified that the parents were required to inform each other of any relocation within a specific period.

In December 1994, the mother took the child to Germany without informing the father within the period allowed. On 2 August 1995, the Utah District Court awarded custody to the father. On 1 December 1995, the same Court found that in view of his extensive right of access, the father had rights of custody within the meaning of Arts. 3 and 5 of the 1980 Hague Convention Child Abduction Convention.

On 10 January 1996, the Court at first instance (Amtsgericht) of Viechtach, Germany, ordered the child's return on the grounds that the US decision in December 1995, which bound the Court within the meaning of Art. 15, clearly implied that the removal was wrongful. The mother's appeal was dismissed by the Munich Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht). The mother and child appealed to the German Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht).

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.

Grounds

Human Rights - Art. 20

The Constitutional Court held that the provisions of the 1980 Convention were consistent with the German Constitution. The Constitutional Court stated that the protection of the child against abduction lies at the intersection of the fundamental rights of the child and those of its two parents. The legislator's first task is to strike a balance among those interests. In this connection, the child's interest prevails over the parents'.

The Court stated that there was no doubt that the 1980 Convention had struck this balance, the best interests of the child being secured by the exception under Art. 13(1)(b). The lower courts had rightly construed and applied that provision, in a manner consistent with the Constitution. Likewise, the rule that the burden of proof of the exception is borne by the party objecting to the return was consistent with the Constitution.

Finally, Art. 14 ("In ascertaining whether there has been a wrongful removal or retention within the meaning of Article 3, the judicial or administrative authorities of the requested State may take notice directly of the law of, and of judicial or administrative decisions, formally recognized or not in the State of the habitual residence of the child, without recourse to the specific  procedures for the proof of that law or for the recognition of foreign decisions which would otherwise be applicable") was also consistent with the Constitution. In fact, failure to apply that provision would have resulted in delaying the return proceedings, which would have implied detrimental consequences for the child's wellbeing.

The Court then reviewed the construction and application of those provisions by the lower courts in the light of the Articles of the German Constitution protecting the rights of children (Art. 2(1)-(2)), of the parents (Art. 6(1)-(4)), and the best interests of the children (Art. 6(2)). In this respect, it pointed out that the interpretation and application of the generally-applicable law are incumbent on the special courts (Fachgerichte), and the Constitutional Court was involved only in the event of a specific infringement of the Constitution.

Accordingly, it was required to ascertain that the courts had not made their determination on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of fundamental freedoms, and that those courts' application of the law did not lead to a result infringing the German Constitution.

In this respect, the lower courts had interpreted the 1980 Convention in accordance with its aims, which are consistent with the German Constitution, and not on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of fundamental freedoms. Finally, the Constitutional Court held that Arts. 16(2), 11 and 103(1) of the German Constitution had not been infringed: the return of the child was not an extradition and did not infringe the child's freedoms of movement and choice of residence.

Finally, there had been no breach of the right to be heard, so that there were no grounds for a special appeal or special form of evidence. The Constitutional Court could not review the rulings delivered in Utah. The fact that they had prevailed in the case in point was consistent with the principle of expedited proceedings applicable pursuant to the 1980 Convention.

Author of the summary: Aude Fiorini, United Kingdom

INCADAT comment

Protection of Human rights & Fundamental Freedoms

Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.

Compatibility of the Hague Convention with National Constitutions

The Convention has been found to be in accordance with national constitutions or charters of rights in other Contracting States, see:

Argentina
W. v. O., 14 June 1995, Argentine Supreme Court of Justice, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AR 362];  

Belgium
N° 03/3585/A, Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/BE 547];  

Canada - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Parsons v. Styger, (1989) 67 OR (2d) 1, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 16];

Y.D. v. J.B., [1996] R.D.F. 753 (Que.C.A.), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA/369];

Czech Republic
III. ÚS 440/2000 DAOUD / DAOUD, 7 December 2000, Ústavní soud České republiky (Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic);[INCADAT cite: HC/E/CZ 468];

Germany
2 BvR 982/95 and 2 BvR 983/95, Bundesverfassungsgericht, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 310];

2 BvR 1126/97, Bundesverfassungsgericht, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 338];

Ireland
C.K. v. C.K. [1993] ILRM 534, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 288];

W. v. Ireland and the Attorney General and M.W. [1994] ILRM 126, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 289];

South Africa
Sonderup v. Tondelli 2001 (1) SA 1171 (CC), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 309];

Switzerland
5P.1/1999, Bundesgericht (Tribunal fédéral), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 427];

5A_479/2007 /frs, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 953];

United States of America
Fabri v. Pritikin-Fabri, 221 F. Supp. 2d 859 (2001) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/US 484];

Kufner v. Kufner, 519 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2008) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/US 971];

Rodriguez v. Nat'l Ctr. for Missing & Exploited Children, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5658 (D.D.C., Mar. 31, 2005) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/US 799].

However, several challenges have been upheld in Spain, see:

Re S., Auto de 21 abril de 1997, Audiencia Provincial Barcelona, Sección 1a, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ES 244];

Carrascosa v. McGuire, 520 F.3d 249 (3rd Cir. 2008), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 970].

Faits

L'affaire concernait un enfant né en 1989 aux États-Unis d'Amérique. En 1994, les parents divorcèrent. La mère obtint la garde de l'enfant et le père un droit de visite très étendu. La mère était autorisée à emmener l'enfant en Allemagne pendant les vacances d'été et la décision de divorce précisait également que les parents devaient se notifier mutuellement dans un délai précis tout déménagement.

En décembre 1994, la mère emmena l'enfant en Allemagne sans en informer le père dans le délai imparti. Le 2 août 1995, le Tribunal de district de l'Utah accorda la garde au père. Le 1er décembre 1995, le même Tribunal constata qu'au vu des droits de visite importants dont il disposait, le père avait un droit de garde au sens des Art. 3 et 5 de la Convention de La Haye de 1980 sur l'enlèvement d'enfants.
 
Le 10 janvier 1996, le Tribunal de première instance (Amtsgericht) de Viechtach ordonna le retour de l'enfant, estimant que l'illicéité du déplacement résultait clairement de la décision américaine de décembre 1995, laquelle liait le Tribunal au sens de l'Art. 15. L'appel de la mère fut rejeté par la Cour d'appel (Oberlandesgericht) de Munich. La mère et l'enfant formèrent un recours devant la Cour fédérale constitutionnelle d'Allemagne (Bundesverfassungsgericht).

Dispositif

Recours irrecevable car manifestement infondé. Ni les Art. 3, 12, 13(1)(b) et 14 ne sont contraires à la Constitution allemande et ni leur interprétation et application par la Cour d'appel n'étaient inconstitutionnelles.

Motifs

Droits de l'homme - art. 20

-

Commentaire INCADAT

Sauvegarde des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales

Résumé INCADAT en cours de préparation.

Compatibilité de la Convention de La Haye avec les constitutions nationales

La Convention a été déclarée conforme aux constitutions internes ou chartes des droits fondamentaux de nombreux États contractants :

Argentine
W. v. O., 14 June 1995, Argentine Supreme Court of Justice, [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/AR 362] ;  

Belgique
N° 03/3585/A, Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles, [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/BE 547] ;  

Canada - Charte canadienne des droits et libertés
Parsons v. Styger, (1989) 67 OR (2d) 1, [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/CA 16];

Y.D. v. J.B., [1996] R.D.F. 753 (Que.C.A.), [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/CA/369] ;

République Tchèque
III. ÚS 440/2000 DAOUD / DAOUD, 7 December 2000, Ústavní soud České republiky (Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic), [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/CZ 468] ;

Allemagne
2 BvR 982/95 and 2 BvR 983/95, Bundesverfassungsgericht, [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/DE 310] ;

2 BvR 1126/97, Bundesverfassungsgericht, [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/DE 338] ;

Irlande
C.K. v. C.K. [1993] ILRM 534, [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/IE 288] ;

W. v. Ireland and the Attorney General and M.W. [1994] ILRM 126, [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/IE 289] ;

Afrique du Sud
Sonderup v. Tondelli 2001 (1) SA 1171 (CC), [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/ZA 309] ;

Suisse
5P.1/1999, Bundesgericht (Tribunal fédéral), [Référence INCADAT :  HC/E/CH 427] ;

5A_479/2007 /frs, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile), [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/CH 953] ;

États-Unis d'Amérique
Fabri v. Pritikin-Fabri, 221 F. Supp. 2d 859 (2001); [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/US 484] ;

Kufner v. Kufner, 519 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2008), [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/US 971] ;

Rodriguez v. Nat'l Ctr. for Missing & Exploited Children, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5658 (D.D.C., Mar. 31, 2005) [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/US 799].

Toutefois plusieurs décisions espagnoles ont adopté une position différente, voir :

Re S., Auto de 21 abril de 1997, Audiencia Provincial Barcelona, Sección 1a, [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/ES 244];

Carrascosa v. McGuire, 520 F.3d 249 (3rd Cir. 2008), [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/USf 970].