INCADAT | Carlson v. Switzerland, Requête no 49492/06

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2

The father did not seek to challenge the legal basis for the non-return order but the manner in which his return petition had been dealt with, particularly errors and delays he alleged to have suffered at the hands of the district court in Baden.
The Court noted that speed was essential in return proceedings, in order to restore the status quo ante, to prevent any legal consolidation of wrongful acts and to ensure that substantive questions of custody were left to the authorities of the child's State of habitual residence.

The Court noted that the jurisdiction clause in Article 16 served to prevent the determination of custody from prejudging that of return, as well as allowing the latter issue to be dealt with more expeditiously. The trial court, in combining the return application with the mother's divorce petition, which would ultimately consider issues of custody, had breached Article 16 per se and also led to delays in the handling of the case.

The delay of 3 ½ months between the issue of the return application and the decision of the trial court did not correspond with the requirement for expedition provided for in Article 11 of the Hague Convention.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

The Court equally noted that the father had been disadvantaged by the trial judge's reversal of the burden of proof within Article 13(1)(a). It affirmed that the Article 13(1)(a) exceptions were to be interpreted restrictively, and that both consent and acquiescence had to be given unequivocally and unconditionally.

Whilst the Federal Court had noted that the reversal of the burden of proof had not been the only factor leading to the court of appeal's conclusion that the exceptions had been established, this finding had not been enough to correct the breach of inequality of arms which had occurred at trial. The information obtained through the reversal of the burden of proof had not been deprived of all relevance in the subsequent proceedings.

The Court held that whatever measures existed in Swiss internal law to respond to breaches of the Hague Convention, they were not enough in the present case to absolve the State of its international responsibilities. States were required to organise their services and train their agents in a manner which would enable them to respond to the demands of the European Convention. This was particularly necessary in a field as sensitive as international child abduction.

The Court concluded it was not convinced that the best interests of the child, in the sense of a rapid hearing to determine his return to his State of habitual residence, had been taken into account by the Swiss authorities when processing the Hague Convention application. The father's right to respect for his family life had not therefore been protected in an effective manner.

Convention Aims

Courts in all Contracting States must inevitably make reference to and evaluate the aims of the Convention if they are to understand the purpose of the instrument, and so be guided in how its concepts should be interpreted and provisions applied.

The 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, explicitly and implicitly, embodies a range of aims and objectives, positive and negative, as it seeks to achieve a delicate balance between the competing interests of the central actors; the child, the left behind parent and the abducting parent, see for example the discussion in the decision of the Canadian Supreme Court: W.(V.) v. S.(D.), (1996) 2 SCR 108, (1996) 134 DLR 4th 481 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 17].

Article 1 identifies the core aims, namely that the Convention seeks:
"a) to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and
b) to ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States."

Further clarification, most notably to the primary purpose of achieving the return of children where their removal or retention has led to the breach of actually exercised rights of custody, is given in the Preamble.

Therein it is recorded that:

"the interests of children are of paramount importance in matters relating to their custody;

and that States signatory desire:

to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention;

to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence; and

to secure protection for rights of access."

The aim of return and the manner in which it should best be achieved is equally reinforced in subsequent Articles, notably in the duties required of Central Authorities (Arts 8-10) and in the requirement for judicial authorities to act expeditiously (Art. 11).

Article 13, along with Articles 12(2) and 20, which contain the exceptions to the summary return mechanism, indicate that the Convention embodies an additional aim, namely that in certain defined circumstances regard may be paid to the specific situation, including the best interests, of the individual child or even taking parent.

The Pérez-Vera Explanatory Report draws (at para. 19) attention to an implicit aim on which the Convention rests, namely that any debate on the merits of custody rights should take place before the competent authorities in the State where the child had his habitual residence prior to its removal, see for example:

Argentina
W., E. M. c. O., M. G., Supreme Court, June 14, 1995 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AR 362]

Finland
Supreme Court of Finland: KKO:2004:76 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FI 839]

France
CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No de RG 06/002739 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FR 947]

Israel
T. v. M., 15 April 1992, transcript (Unofficial Translation), Supreme Court of Israel [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/IL 214]

Netherlands
X. (the mother) v. De directie Preventie, en namens Y. (the father) (14 April 2000, ELRO nr. AA 5524, Zaaksnr.R99/076HR) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NL 316]

Switzerland
5A.582/2007 Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung, 4 décembre 2007 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 986]

United Kingdom - Scotland
N.J.C. v. N.P.C. [2008] CSIH 34, 2008 S.C. 571 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKs 996]

United States of America
Lops v. Lops, 140 F.3d 927 (11th Cir. 1998) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 125]

The Pérez-Vera Report equally articulates the preventive dimension to the instrument's return aim (at paras. 17, 18, 25), a goal which was specifically highlighted during the ratification process of the Convention in the United States (see: Pub. Notice 957, 51 Fed. Reg. 10494, 10505 (1986)) and which has subsequently been relied upon in that Contracting State when applying the Convention, see:

Duarte v. Bardales, 526 F.3d 563 (9th Cir. 2008) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 741]

Applying the principle of equitable tolling where an abducted child had been concealed was held to be consistent with the purpose of the Convention to deter child abduction.

Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702 (11th Cir. 2004) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 578]

In contrast to other federal Courts of Appeals, the 11th Circuit was prepared to interpret a ne exeat right as including the right to determine a child's place of residence since the goal of the Hague Convention was to deter international abduction and the ne exeat right provided a parent with decision-making authority regarding the child's international relocation.

In other jurisdictions, deterrence has on occasion been raised as a relevant factor in the interpretation and application of the Convention, see for example:

Canada
J.E.A. v. C.L.M. (2002), 220 D.L.R. (4th) 577 (N.S.C.A.) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 754]

United Kingdom - England and Wales
Re A.Z. (A Minor) (Abduction: Acquiescence) [1993] 1 FLR 682 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 50]

Aims and objectives may equally rise to prominence during the life of the instrument, such as the promotion of transfrontier contact, which it has been submitted will arise by virtue of a strict application of the Convention's summary return mechanism, see:

New Zealand
S. v. S. [1999] NZFLR 625 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NZ 296]

United Kingdom - England and Wales
Re R. (Child Abduction: Acquiescence) [1995] 1 FLR 716 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 60]

There is no hierarchy between the different aims of the Convention (Pérez-Vera Explanatory Report, at para. 18). Judicial interpretation may therefore differ as between Contracting States as more or less emphasis is placed on particular objectives. Equally jurisprudence may evolve, whether internally or internationally.

In United Kingdom case law (England and Wales) a decision of that jurisdiction's then supreme jurisdiction, the House of Lords, led to a reappraisal of the Convention's aims and consequently a re-alignment in court practice as regards the exceptions:

Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 937]

Previously a desire to give effect to the primary goal of promoting return and thereby preventing an over-exploitation of the exceptions, had led to an additional test of exceptionality being added to the exceptions, see for example:

Re M. (A Child) (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2007] EWCA Civ 260 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 901]

It was this test of exceptionality which was subsequently held to be unwarranted by the House of Lords in Re M. (Children) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2007] UKHL 55, [2008] 1 AC 1288 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 937]

- Fugitive Disentitlement Doctrine:

In United States Convention case law different approaches have been taken in respect of applicants who have or are alleged to have themselves breached court orders under the "fugitive disentitlement doctrine".

In Re Prevot, 59 F.3d 556 (6th Cir. 1995) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 150], the fugitive disentitlement doctrine was applied, the applicant father in the Convention application having left the United States to escape his criminal conviction and other responsibilities to the United States courts.

Walsh v. Walsh, No. 99-1747 (1st Cir. July 25, 2000) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 326]

In the instant case the father was a fugitive. Secondly, it was arguable there was some connection between his fugitive status and the petition. But the court found that the connection not to be strong enough to support the application of the doctrine. In any event, the court also held that applying the fugitive disentitlement doctrine would impose too severe a sanction in a case involving parental rights.

In March v. Levine, 249 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2001) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USf 386], the doctrine was not applied where the applicant was in breach of civil orders.

In the Canadian case Kovacs v. Kovacs (2002), 59 O.R. (3d) 671 (Sup. Ct.) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 760], the father's fugitive status was held to be a factor in there being a grave risk of harm facing the child.

Author: Peter McEleavy

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].

Establishing Consent

Different standards have been applied when it comes to establishing the Article 13(1) a) exception based on consent.

United Kingdom - England & Wales
In an early first instance decision it was held that ordinarily the clear and compelling evidence which was necessary would need to be in writing or at least evidenced by documentary material, see:

Re W. (Abduction: Procedure) [1995] 1 FLR 878, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 37].

This strict view has not been repeated in later first instance English cases, see:

Re C. (Abduction: Consent) [1996] 1 FLR 414 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 53];

Re K. (Abduction: Consent) [1997] 2 FLR 212 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 55].

In Re K. it was held that while consent must be real, positive and unequivocal, there could be circumstances in which a court could be satisfied that consent had been given, even though not in writing. Moreover, there could also be cases where consent could be inferred from conduct.

Germany
21 UF 70/01, Oberlandesgericht Köln, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 491].

Convincing evidence is required to establish consent.

Ireland
R. v. R. [2006] IESC 7; [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 817].

The Re K. approach was specifically endorsed by the Irish Supreme Court.

The Netherlands
De Directie Preventie, optredend voor haarzelf en namens F. (vader/father) en H. (de moeder/mother) (14 juli 2000, ELRO-nummer: AA6532, Zaaknr.R99/167HR); [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NL 318].

Consent need not be for a permanent stay. The only issue is that there must be consent and that it has been proved convincingly.

South Africa
Central Authority v. H. 2008 (1) SA 49 (SCA) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 900].

Consent could be express or tacit.

Switzerland
5P.367/2005 /ast, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 841];

5P.380/2006 /blb; Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile),[INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 895];

5P.1999/2006 /blb, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung ) (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 896];

The Swiss Supreme Court has held that with regard to consent and acquiescence, the left behind parent must clearly agree, explicitly or tacitly, to a durable change in the residence of the child. To this end the burden is on the abducting parent to show factual evidence which would lead to such a belief being plausible.

United States of America
Baxter v. Baxter, 423 F.3d 363 (3rd Cir. 2005) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 808].

There must be a subjective assessment of what the applicant parent was actually contemplating. Consideration must also be given to the nature and scope of the consent.

Case Law Search

CASE

Case Name

Carlson v. Switzerland, Requête no 49492/06

INCADAT reference

Court

States involved

Decision

INCADAT comment

Aims & Scope of the Convention

Exceptions to Return

Inter-Relationship with International / Regional Instruments and National Law

SUMMARY

Facts

Ruling

Grounds