Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the child was habitually resident in Germany at the relevant date.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return refused

Return refused; the District Court ruled that the retention of the children was wrongful but declined to order their return on the grounds that they were now settled in their new environment, eighteen months having elapsed between the retention and the commencement of judicial / administrative proceedings.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child wrongfully removed at age 2 - National of the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation - Married parents - Father national of United Kingdom - Mother national of Russia - Both parents had rights of custody - Child lived in Spain with both parents until April 2016 - Application for return filed with the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 18 August 2016 - Return refused - Main issue: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return - A child aged 3 has a physchological and physiological need for her mother and since the mother had decided to stay in Russia, return to Spain would expose the child to a grave risk of harm

This case forms the subject of an application to the European Court of Human Rights (Thompson v. Russia, Application no. 36048/17), lodged on 15 May 2017 and communicated on 23 October 2017. 

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).

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal allowed; the decision of the court of appeal was wrong in law and quashed. The return application was remitted to a lower court for re-hearing.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the child was not habitually resident in the Netherlands on the relevant date.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal of the child was wrongful, and neither Article 12(2) nor Article 13(1)(a) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Human Rights - Art. 20

Unanimous: appeal inadmissible; the issues relating to the consistency of the 1980 Convention with the Constitution had been resolved in an earlier case, and admissibility of the appeal was not necessary for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the retention was wrongful, being in breach of the mother's rights of custody, but the child had valid objections to a return.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Interpretation of the Convention

In its preliminary ruling the Court noted, inter alia, that where the removal of a child has taken place in accordance with a judgment which was provisionally enforceable and which was thereafter overturned, the child's habitual residence must be determined by undertaking an assessment of all the circumstances of fact. Whilst it was possible the child's habitual residence may have changed, account must be taken of the fact that the judgment authorising the removal could be provisionally enforced and that an appeal had been brought.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Legal challenge dismissed; the retention was wrongful but decision to refuse to return the child on the basis of the Art. 13 exceptions upheld.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and even if a year had elapsed for the purposes of Article 12 the child was not settled in his new environment and none of the other exceptions had been established.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Undertakings | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10 | Procedural Matters

Return refused

Return refused; more than a year had elapsed before the commencement of return proceedings and the child was found to be settled in her new environment.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; regard had to be paid to the terms of the provisional order of the Czech District Court permitting the children to live with the mother in Sweden.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

One child (Russian national) born in 2014 resided in Russia ― Father and mother Russian nationals ― Parents married in 2014 in Russia ― Parents divorced in 2016 ― Mother took the child to Japan in October 2017 and settled there following her remarriage ― A ne exeat order of the Russian court was partly set aside by confirming the child’s temporary residence in Japan in January 2019 ― Central Authority of Japan assisted the Father with a return application in July 2018 ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to the Tokyo Family Court in October 2018 ― Return ordered ― Appeal dismissed by the Tokyo High Court in February 2019 ― Main issues: rights of custody and grave risk.

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

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Spain on the relevant date.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but on the basis of the children's objections a return order was refused.