Case Law Search

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; return ordered; the removal was wrongful as the father's right of custody had been breached, and none of the exceptions raised by the mother had been proved.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the father's history of depression and alcoholism created a risk to the child serious enough to support a finding under Article 13(1)(b).

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Return ordered.

Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed; the father had applied for return only in the event that he should be awarded custody of the children.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the grave risk of harm envisaged by Art. 13 (1)(b) was not proved.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained at age 6 months - National of United Kingdom and Ukraine - Married parents- Father national of the United Kingdom - Mother national of Ukraine – Applicant father had joint custody with respondent mother under British legislation – Child lived in the United Kingdom until 11 April 2012 -Application for return filed with the courts of Ukraine on 19 December 2012 - Return ordered on 29 August 2018 - Main issues: Articles 5 and 12 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention (a parent cannot independently decide to change the child’s place of habitual residence; the place of habitual residence is of major importance to restoring of the status quo for the child; first instance court and appeal court incorrectly interpreted exceptions for non-return of a child as a settlement in new environment, acquiescence in the retention and grave risk to return).

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

1 child wrongfully retained at age 6 – National of Ukraine – Unmarried parents – Father national of Georgia and Ukraine – Mother national of Ukraine – Child lived in Ukraine until July 2010 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Ukraine in October 2010 – Return refused before application to ECtHR on 28 December 2012 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 8,300 awarded in damages – The reasoning of the Georgian Supreme Court regarding Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Child Abduction Hague Convention was insufficient and misconceived - The child's best interests in view of the specific circumstances of the case were not properly determined

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of psychological harm had not been met.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The exception of grave risk of danger could not apply unless the US authorities denied the mother a visa enabling her to enter and remain in the United States of America until a custody ruling.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was wrongful but the conditions for application of the exception of Article 13(1)(b) were met.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Return ordered

Return ordered; the State was liable for travel costs involved in the return but the court reserved the right to recover some or all of those costs from the mother.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) |

The ECrtHR held unanimously that the Slovak Republic had breached Article 6(1) of the ECHR taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13, due to the excessive length of the proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful as it was in breach of the father's actually exercised rights of custody and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate a grave risk of harm had not been met.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention of the children was wrongful and the standard required under the various exceptions raised had not been met.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful as it was in breach of the father's rights of custody, and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2

The court ordered that the girls be returned to Sweden to enable the original Convention proceedings to be completed.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

The father's appeal was allowed and the order dismissing his application as an abuse of the process set aside. The mother's cross-appeal was dismissed as the child was found to be habitually resident in Germany immediately prior to her removal. The child was to be returned to Germany, subject to undertakings.