European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters
3 4 12 13(1)(b) 14 15 19
By a majority of five to two, the European Court of Human Rights held that Latvia had violated Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to take account of various relevant factors in assessing the best interests of the child. The Court also awarded the mother compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Article 15 Decision or Determination | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)
15
Appeal allowed and it was ordered that the proceedings be transferred to France in accordance with Article 15 of the Brussels II a Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003).
Rights of Custody - Art. 3
Article 15 declaration granted
3 15
Declaration granted that the removal was wrongful, being in breach of custody rights held by the court.
Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters
Appeal allowed, return ordered
1 3 5 13(2) 15
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.
Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention
Appeal dismissed, refusal of Article 15 declaration confirmed
3 5 15 19
Appeal dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the father did not enjoy any legal rights of custody.
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3
Article 15 declaration granted; the retention was wrongful for it was in breach of rights of custody vested in the English court.
Habitual Residence - Art. 3
Application dismissed
3 12 15
Application dismissed; the children were not habitually resident in Canada at the relevant date.
Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)
Return ordered
3 8 13(1)(a) 15 12(2)
Removal wrongful and return ordered; the standard required under Article 12(2) to show that the children were settled in their new environment had not been made out.
3 5 12 14 15 21
Return ordered; the removal breached custody rights held by the father.
Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Article 15 Decision or Determination
Appeal allowed, refusal of Article 15 declaration overturned
Appeal allowed and Article 15 declaration granted; the removal of the children had been in breach of actually exercised rights of custody and was therefore wrongful.
Article 15 Decision or Determination | Issues Relating to Return
Appeal dismissed, granting of Article 15 declaration confirmed
Appeal dismissed and declaration upheld; jurisdiction existed to make an Art 15 declaration at the behest of the father.
Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)
Appeal dismissed, return ordered with undertakings offered
3 15 12(2)
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the standard required under Article 12(2) had not been met.
9 13(1)(b) 13(2) 14 15 16 20 30
By a majority the Court declared the application to be inadmissible, on the basis of it being manifestly ill-founded; the Turkish authorities had not disregarded their obligations under Article 6 of the ECHR (right to fair trial) or violated the right to respect for family life guaranteed under Article 8 of the ECHR.
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Article 15 Decision or Determination | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Rights of Access - Art. 21
Appeal allowed, application dismissed
3 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 15 20 21 13(3)
Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the inferior courts had erred in rejecting the determination of the Romanian courts pursuant to Article 15; under Romanian law the father had no rights of custody for Convention purposes therefore the removal of the child was not wrongful.
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters
1 3 7 13(1)(b) 15
Appeal allowed, return ordered. The retention was considered wrongful. The grave risk exception under Article 13(1)(b), raised by the defendant on appeal, had not been established. The children's opinions did not suggest a strong opposition that would be sufficient to constitute the exception to return under Article 13(2).
Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters
3 5 12 13(2) 14 15 19
Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
Article 15 declaration made; the retention was wrongful as the children were habitually resident in Australia at the relevant date.
3 5 15
Article 15 declaration granted; the breach of custody rights vested in the English court was sufficient to make the removal of the child wrongful.
Article 15 Decision or Determination
Appeal dismissed and granting of Article 15 declaration confirmed; the 1992 residence order allowing the mother to relocate to California no longer having any effect.
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)
Return refused
3 13(1)(a) 15
Return refused; the removal was not wrongful for the child was not habitually resident in Ontario on the relevant date.
