Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the trial court had not erred in its refusal to apply the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.

Undertakings

Appeal allowed and return ordered, with the imposition of far reaching undertakings being refused. The Australian implementing legislation did not empower a court to place conditions on the return of a child.

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.

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

Return ordered

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal upheld and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but a return to the United Kingdom would expose the child to a grave risk of physical, and most importantly, psychological harm.

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.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; a grave risk of harm for the purposes of Article 13(1)(b) had not been established to the standard required by the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and 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)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

2 children wrongfully retained at ages 6 and 10 – Married parents – Father national of Poland – Mother national of Poland – Joint custody excercised in Switzerland – Children lived in Switzerland – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Switzerland on 24 October 2008 – Application dismissed before application to ECtHR on 1 December 2009 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 11,800 awarded in damages – The Polish courts had not taken into account the legitimate interests of the applicant in an adequate or fair manner in the judicial proceedings; i.a. improperly relying on a Polish interim custody order to consider the retention lawful

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

Two children wrongfully removed at approximately ages 1 and 2 years old – Nationals of Hungary and Italy – Married parents – Father national of Italy – Mother national of Hungary – Shared parental authority – Children lived in Italy until June 2004 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Italy on 3 March 2005 – Return ordered before application to ECtHR on 16 January 2013 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 3,000 awarded in damages to father and EUR 3,000 awarded in damages to children – The failure to enforce the return order without any explanation or justification, which prevented the father and children from being reunited or seeing each other occassionaly for over seven years, amounted to a violation of the father's and children's right to family life

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

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

Procedural Matters

Removal wrongful and return ordered. However, the subsequent concealment of the child for eight years made enforcement of the original return order impossible.

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