Case Law Search

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal upheld, the removal was wrongful, but the additional evidence should have been taken into account. The case was remitted to the District Court Rychnov nad Knìžnou to rule on the father's application anew. The Constitutional Court further ruled that the Convention did not violate the abducting parent's rights under the Czech Constitution.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the standard of harm required for Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the children were found to be without a habitual residence therefore the Convention was not applicable.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was still habitually resident in Sweden at the relevant date.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the father did not possess rights of custody at the time of the removal.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard required under Article 13(2) had been met to show that the child objected to a return.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the child was habitually resident in Germany at the relevant date.

Non-Convention Issues

Return ordered

Return ordered; in the light of the best interests of the child the appropriate courts to determine the issue of custody are those in Germany.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had been established.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Leave for constitutional challenge rejected; it was for the Oberlandesgerichte and the Amtsgerichte to apply and interpret the provisions of the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal breached the mother's rights of custody and was therefore wrongful.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the Convention was applicable and the retention was wrongful while Article 13(2) had not been proved to the standard required.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the children would face a grave risk of harm had not been met. The Court also ruled that the Convention did not violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal of the child breached the father's rights of custody and Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Challenge to legality dismissed; while the return proceedings were pending, the authorities in the children's State of habitual residence had granted the mother custody.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Rights of Access - Art. 21

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful having breached actually exercised rights of custody.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Return ordered

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

Rights of Access - Art. 21

Application for enforcement of access rights dismissed.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal allowed, return refused

PER FINN AND BARLOW JJ: Appeal allowed and return refused; the court found a grave risk of physical harm to the child on return.

PER HOLDEN J (DISSENTING): No clear and compelling evidence of a grave risk of exposure to future harm had been demonstrated. The Appeal should be dismissed and the child returned to Israel.