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.

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

Return ordered

Application for review dismissed and return ordered; the mother's removal of the child from England was wrongful as the child was habitually resident in England at the relevant date and the father was exercising his custody rights.

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

Return ordered with undertakings offered

Return ordered with undertakings offered; the child was habitually resident in England at the relevant date.

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

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(2) to show that the child objected to a return had not been met.

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.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

Unanimous: infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); award of damages on the basis of Article 41 of the ECHR.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

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.

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

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

Return refused

Application dismissed the removal was not deemed to have been in breach of actually exercised rights of custody.

Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child (national of Japan and the United States) removed from the United States to Japan ― Father a United States national, mother a Japanese national ― Parents married in Japan in 2012 and lived together with the mother’s son from her previous marriage ― The family moved to the United States in 2014 ― Upon becoming pregnant, the mother went back to Japan with her son in 2015 ― Mother returned to the United States with the new-born child in 2016 ― Father petitioned for divorce and obtained a provisional ne exeat order ― Mother moved to a shelter with the child within the United States ― Father had frequent access to the child, but contact broke up after an argument between the parents ― Mother removed the child to Japan in 2016 ― Obtaining assistance of the Central Authority of Japan in 2016, Father petitioned to the Osaka Family Court for return of the child in 2017 ― Return ordered ― Appeal to the Osaka High Court dismissed and return ordered in 2017 ― Main issues: Habitual Residence of the child ― Actual exercise of rights of custody ― Grave Risk for the child.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return not ordered; the District Court had not erred in its finding that the appellant had sexually abused his daughter. Therefore, it had been established that the child would face a grave risk of harm if returned. 

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Case remitted to lower court

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Undertakings |

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Wrongful retention of a child - Mexican – Married parents – The child lived in Puerto Aventuras, state of Quintana Roo, Mexico, until February 2020 – The return application was filed with the Argentine Central Authority – Appeal dismissed, return refused – Main issues: habitual residence, removal and retention, article 13 (1) (b) grave risk exception, procedural matters, undertakings – The habitual residence of the child was in Mexico – The child was wrongfully retained in Argentina by her mother, which did not return to Mexico within the agreed time authorized by the father - The grave risk exception for domestic violence has been proved to the standard required under the Guide to Good Practice, Art. 13 (1) b – The return application fell within the scope of the Hague Convention and the Inter-American Convention, but the former was applied – It was not feasible to implement effective measures to protect the mother and the child in the event of their return.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the court seised was incompetent to hear the matter and in addition the Convention was not applicable.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained in Japan ― National of Singapore and Japan ― Married parents ― Father national of Singapore – Mother national of Japan ― Child lived in Singapore until 2016 ― Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Singapore in 2016 ― Petition for return filed with the courts of Japan in 2017 ― Return ordered ― Main issues: acquiescence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – There is no grave risk in ordering the return of the child in cases involving domestic violence between the parents where a protection order is in place in the requesting State and where there is no evidence that any violence has been committed against the child ― It cannot be said that a parent has not actually exercised rights of custody at the time of removal if he did not know the whereabouts of the child at that time  ― A parent has not approved of or acquiesced in the retention if he filed a return application with the Central Authority of the requesting State about one month after coming to know of the removal, and with the courts of the requested State almost one year after the removal, respectively.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 4 – Child lived in France until August 2012 – Return ordered – Main issue: habitual residence – Habitual residence should be determined in the light of all the factual circumstances particular to the case, including the parents’ shared intention and decisions taken with a view to ensure the child’s integration

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had been proved.