EN | FR | ES

Case Law Search

New search

CASE

Download full text DE

Case Name

Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2 BvR 420/99, 9 March 1999

INCADAT reference

HC/E/DE 602

Court

Country

GERMANY

Name

Bundesverfassungsgericht

Judge(s)
Limbach, Kirchhof, Jentsch

States involved

Requesting State

SWEDEN

Requested State

GERMANY

Decision

Date

9 March 1999

Status

Final

Grounds

Human Rights - Art. 20

Order

-

HC article(s) Considered

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

HC article(s) Relied Upon

-

Other provisions
Art. 2(1), 6(1)-(2), 16(2) of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz); Federal Constitutional Court Act (Bundesverfassungsgerichtgesetz)
Authorities | Cases referred to
Entscheidung des Zweiten Senats des Bundesverfassungsgerichts vom 29. Oktober 1998 - 2 BvR 1206/98 - (EuGRZ 1998, S. 612) ; BVerfGE 94, 315 <328> ; BVerfGE 58, 1 <34>; 59, 63 <89 ; BVerfGE 37, 217 <252>; 56, 363 <383>; 68, 176 <188>; 75, 201 <218 ; BVerfG, 3. Kammer des Zweiten Senats, Beschluß vom 15. August 1996 - 2 BvR 1075/96 -, NJW 1996, S. 3145.
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 two children born in 1993 and 1995. The family lived in Sweden and the parents had joint custody. The parents separated a first time in February 1997. The father permitted the mother to take the children to Germany. However, pursuant to the mother's admission to hospital in June, the father returned the children to Sweden. It was not clear whether the mother had agreed. However, she returned to the family residence in Sweden in July.

The parents separated again in February 1998. The mother found accommodation in the same area and reported it as her and the children's residence. The parents tried out a system of shared custody, but this upset the children. In late March 1998, the mother took the children to Germany for a stay due to last two weeks. She eventually decided to remain there permanently and applied for sole custody of the children. The father applied for return of the children to Sweden.

The return was ordered at first instance and on appeal, on the grounds that the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions applied. The Court of Appeal dismissed the mother's plea that the father's return of the children to Sweden in 1997 was itself a wrongful removal. The mother had resumed cohabitation and even reported the children as being resident in a Swedish locality after the second separation. There had been no return application. The mother entered a constitutional appeal.

Ruling

Unanimous: appeal inadmissible; the issues relating to the consistency of the 1980 Convention with the Constitution had been resolved in an earlier case, and admissibility of the appeal was not necessary for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

Grounds

Human Rights - Art. 20

Pointing out that constitutional appeals are admissible only insofar as they are of fundamental constitutional importance and necessary for the enforcement of the constitutional rights claimed by the appellant, the Constitutional Court stated that these requirements were not satisfied in the case in point.

Firstly, the issues relating to the consistency of the 1980 Convention with the Constitution had been resolved in an earlier judgment of the same Court, and secondly, admissibility of the appeal was not necessary for the enforcement of the mother's fundamental rights.

The Court pointed out that the determination and appraisal of facts, according to unchanging constitutional case law, are incumbent on the appropriate ordinary courts, and the Constitutional Court is involved only in the event of breach of the constitutional law.

It added that Art. 6(2)(2) of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz) is designed to protect the interests of the child. In the event of inconsistency between the interests of the parents as in the case in point, the child's interests should prevail. In addition, a narrow interpretation of the exceptions under the Convention was not unconstitutional.

The aims of the Convention justified the principle of return of abducted children, so that only material, concrete and current circumstances implying an exceptionally serious danger for the child's well-being were such as to prevent a return. It pointed out, however, that in the special case of crossed return applications, a review of the child's well-being in further depth was required under Art. 13(1)(b).

It specified that a parent's difficulties in case of return were not sufficient justification for application of that exception of grave risk; while the separation of the parent and child was such as to be detrimental to the child's well-being, that risk could usually be avoided by the return of that parent with the child.

The Court stated that on this basis, the decision made in the case in point by the Court of Appeal did not infringe any constitutional principle. There had been no competing return applications.

In connection with its interpretation of Arts. 13(1) and 20 of the 1980 Convention, the Court of Appeal had appraised the children's actual situation, and ruled that returning them to Sweden would not create any risk in excess of those usually connected with a change of the children's place of residence.

The mother might be required to return to the location of her former habitual residence. If only exceptionally-serious circumstances were demanded to justify denial of return of the child on the basis of the exception under Art. 13, the same demand should be made of the parent having removed the child.

Finally, there was no breach of the non-extradition principle (Art. 16(2) of the German Constitution). The return of a child pursuant to the Convention could not be regarded as an extradition, whether directly or by analogy: the children were not handed over to the public authorities of another State at its request, but simply delivered on a provisional basis, at a parent's request, under the latter's protection.

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 deux enfants nés en 1993 et 1995. La famille vivait en Suède et les parents avaient la garde conjointe. En février 1997, les parents se séparèrent une première fois. Le père autorisa la mère à emmener les enfants en Allemagne.

Toutefois, à la suite de l'hospitalisation de la mère en juin, le père ramena les enfants en Suède. Il n'était pas clair si la mère était d'accord. Toutefois, celle-ci revint s'établir au domicile familial en Suède en juillet. En février 1998, les parents se séparèrent de nouveau. La mère trouva un logement dans la même localité et s'y déclara domiciliée, ainsi que les enfants. Les parents tentèrent un système de garde alternée mais celle-ci perturbait les enfants.

Fin mars 1998, la mère emmena les enfants en Allemagne pour un séjour qui devait durer deux semaines. Elle décida finalement d'y demeurer de manière permanente et demanda la garde exclusive des enfants.

Le père demanda le retour des enfants en Suède. Le retour fut ordonné en première instance comme en appel, au motif que le non-retour était illicite et aucune des exceptions applicables. La Cour d'appel rejeta l'argument de la mère selon lequel le fait que le père avait ramené les enfants en Suède en juin 1997 était lui-même caractéristique d'un déplacement illicite.

La mère avait repris la vie commune et même déclaré les enfants résidents dans une commune en Suède après la seconde séparation. Il n'y avait pas eu de demande de retour. La mère forma un recours constitutionnel.

Dispositif

A l'unanimité: Recours irrecevable; les questions relatives à la constitutionalité de la Convention de La Haye de 1980 sur l'enlèvement d'enfants avaient été résolues par un précédent arrêt et la recevabilité du recours n'était pas nécessaire à la mise en œuvre de droits fondamentaux.

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].