European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters
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.
Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters
Appeal dismissed, return refused
1 3 4 7 9 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 16 26
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.
Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10
3 8 9 10 11 12 13(1)(b) 13(2) 16 19 29
Appeal allowed and case remitted to the District Court to consider remedies that might allow both the return of the children to their habitual residence and their protection from harm pending a custody hearing in France.
Procedural Matters
1 3 7 9 11
"Amparo" granted by the Constitutional Court which mandated the Court of Appeals to decide on the merits of the appeal.
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters
Return ordered
3 7 9 12 13(1)(b) 16
Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal to Panama was considered wrongful and the grave risk exception of Article 13(1)(b) raised by the mother was not established.
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters
3 6 8 9 10 11 13(1)(b)
Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal had rightly found the children's retention to be wrongful and the exceptions inapplicable.
