Case Law Search

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Undertakings

No order made; undertakings and the post return situation considered.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

The court granted an order that the child should be restored into the care of the mother if he arrived within the jurisdiction in the immediate future.

Habitual Residence - 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, 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).

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

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.

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

Return refused

1 child wrongfully retained at age 5 – National of Croatia and Germany – Married parents– Father national of Croatia and Germany – Mother national of Croatia – Joint parental responsibility  according to the German Civil Code – Child lived in Germany until December 2015 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Croatia on 22 March 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Croatia on 30 May 2016 – Return refused – Main issues: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return, Objections of the Child to a Return, Procedural matters  – The Court refused the request for return of the child under Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

Parties urged to resort to mediation in order to solve the dispute involving visitation rights within the context of Article 21 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the boys were habitually resident in the United States at the relevant time and none of the exceptions had been made out.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Rights of Access - Art. 21

Subject to an undertaking, the child was to be sent to the United States for a two week period of contact with the father.

Rights of Access - Art. 21 | Interpretation of the Convention

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; there was no cause of action under the Convention to enforce access rights absent the wrongful removal or retention of the child.

Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

Rights of Access - Art. 21

Access ordered; the maternal grandmother possessed rights of access pursuant to the order of the Superior Court of Arizona and those rights had been breached by the father's actions.

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.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; more than one year had passed between the retention and the filing of the legal action and it was not contested that the children were settled in their new environment. 

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the retention had been wrongful and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Issues Relating to Return |

Return ordered with undertakings offered

One child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 5 and a half – National of Ukraine and the United Kingdom – Father national of the United Kingdom and South Africa – Mother national of Hungary and Ukraine – Child lived in Ukraine in the mother’s custody with regular contact with the father – Following Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022 child and Mother move to England In April 2022 – Mother plans to return to Ukraine in Summer 2022 – Father obtains Prohibited Steps Order from English Court - Application for return issued on 29 July 2022 – Main issues: habitual residence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – risk of exposure to war – risk of loss of relationship with father due to alleged closure of court system and mothers hostility to father – A child’s retained roots in Ukraine support his habitual residence remains in the Ukraine – The risk faced by the child upon return to Ukraine failed to meet the threshold of ‘grave harm’ – the region was not subject to active hostility and life continued as normal – the court system was functioning – mother promoted contact – undertakings reduced any risk below grave risk threshold. – Return ordered

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was wrongful but the child objected to a return and was of an appropriate age and maturity to have her views taken into account.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal had been wrongful, but Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was wrongful but Articles 13(1)(b) and 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention. The return was therefore refused.