Case Law Search

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 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

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

Return refused

Application dismissed the removal was not deemed to have been in breach of actually exercised rights of custody.

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

Appeal by the mother (the taking parent) dismissed: the removal was wrongful and none of the grounds for exception invoked were applicable. The father's appeal was partially allowed: removal of the condition of taking protective measures.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in England at the time of the removal.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

2 children allegedly wrongfully retained at ages 3 and less than 1 - Unmarried parents - Father national of France - Mother national of the United Kingdom and Canada - Children lived in France until July 2013 - Return proceedings initiated soon after 20 November 2013 - Application dismissed - Main issue: habitual residence - Parents' joint decision for children to temporarily move to another State does not preclude the children from becoming habitually resident in that State

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters |

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of the child – Separated parents – Custody rights were jointly exercised – The child lived in Spain until 11 August 2014 – The request for return was filed before the Central Authority in Spain in September 2014 – Return ordered – Main issues: habitual residence, removal and retention, settlement of the child, art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, procedural matters – The habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful removal was in Spain – There was wrongful retention in breach of the custody rights, which were exercised jointly pursuant to the agreement signed by the mother and father – The settlement of the child was not considered because the one-year period required by the Convention had not elapsed – The evidence did not contribute to determining whether there had been sexual abuse; on the contrary, a true demonstration of the risk was necessary to justify the application of article 13(1)(b) - The Central Authority of Spain was urged to take measures to protect the child and to do a follow-up on the case to provide the father with the necessary legal support.

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.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Case remitted to lower court

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. 

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child (allegedly) wrongfully removed at age 4 – National of the USA – Unmarried parents – Father national of the USA and the Dominican Republic – Mother national of Switzerland, the Dominican Republic, Italy – Shared parental responsibility – Child lived in the USA – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Switzerland on 7th of January 2021 – Return refused – Main issue: Grave Risk (Art. 13(1)(b) – Status quo ante cannot be attained, since mother has a travel ban to the USA. Grave risk to the child if separated from the mother for the next 10 years.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal allowed and return ordered, subject to undertakings; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been met and the Court of Appeal ordered the return of the child subject to undertakings by the applicant father.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention of the girls against the wishes of the father was wrongful and the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been met.

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

Return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; even though the parents had no legal status to work or to remain on any permanent basis in the United States of America, the children were habitually resident in California immediately before the wrongful removal.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of psychological harm had not been met.