Case Law Search

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, refusal of Article 15 declaration confirmed

Appeal dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the father did not enjoy any legal rights of custody.

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.

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.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Preliminary Ruling issued, case remitted to United Kingdom (England & Wales) courts.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Human Rights - Art. 20

Legal challenge rejected; the removal was wrongful and Article 20 was inapplicable.

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

Legal challenge upheld and new order issued for the child to be returned; the removal was wrongful and the conditions necessary for the application of Article 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had not been met.

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.

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).

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 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Appeal allowed; the Luxembourg courts had no jurisdiction.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Constitutional complaint upheld; the decision of the Higher Regional Court (OLG) had violated the parental rights of the father pursuant to German Basic Law and violated the constitutional rights of the children. The case was remitted to the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Celle.

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

Appeal allowed, 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.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was wrongful but the child had become settled in her new environment. The return was therefore refused.

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.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the child was habitually resident in Ontario and his retention was in breach of the mother's rights of custody.

Rights of Access - Art. 21 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; in the absence of a court order conferring him access rights, the father did not have the standing to bring an application for access pursuant to the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations.

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.

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.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; decision ordering the children's return upheld, having considered with reasonable cause that none of the exceptions was applicable.