Case Law Search

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; return ordered. The removal was wrongful and the mother had not established that an exception was applicable.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal had duly applied the provisions of the Brussels II a Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003).

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.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, but, the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had been met that the child would face a grave risk of harm if returned.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the child's place of habitual residence prior to the wrongful retention was Italy. The standard required under Article 20 had not been met.

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

Legal challenge upheld and new order issued for the child to be returned; the removal was wrongful and the conditions necessary for the application of Article 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had not been met.

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

Return ordered

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

Human Rights - Art. 20

Legal challenge rejected; the removal was wrongful and Article 20 was inapplicable.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

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 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been established.

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

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.

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).

Return ordered

One child wrongfully removed at age 6 – National of Spain – Father national of Bolivia – Mother national of Colombia and Spain – Mother primary carer and father exercising rights of contact, including staying contact – Child lived in Spain until September 2018  – Return ordered – Main issue: COVID-19 – due to travel restrictions between the UK and Spain it was acknowledged that a safe return may take more time to organise than usual, but that it should take place as soon as reasonably practicable.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed, return denied. The girls had developed significant relations in Costa Rica (at school, with their family and social network) so return could imply serious consequences for the children. A return would, therefore, be contrary to the children's best interests, to Article 51 of the Political Constitution of Costa Rica and Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989. The Court also ruled that the exception to return in Article 20 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was applicable.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. 

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the mother's constitutional rights had not been violated by the application of the Convention, nor had the lower courts erred in their application of the Convention: the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Return refused

Retention wrongful but return refused; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had been made out. The fact that the mother was denied entry into the United States constituted a grave risk that the child would be placed in an intolerable situation if sent back alone.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal upheld in part, return ordered subject to undertakings / a mirror order being entered in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The retention was wrongful and the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out. Furthermore, the Convention was found to be consistent with the South African Constitution.