Case Law Search

Procedural Matters

"Amparo" granted by the Constitutional Court which mandated the Court of Appeals to decide on the merits of the appeal.

Interpretation of the Convention | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Guidance on the application of the Convention issued

2 children retained at ages 11 and 8 – Nationals of Canada – Married parents – Father national of Canada – Mother national of Canada – Father transferred physical custody in a notarised letter to the mother for the period April 2013 to August 2014, to allow the children to enroll in a Canadian school – Children lived in Germany until April 2013 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Germany on 11 April 2014 – Return decision of the Court of Appeal of Ontario of 13 September 2016 was appealed to the Supreme Court, but the children were returned to Germany before the Court rendered its judgment; despite the appeal being moot, the Court considered the issues raised to be important and in need of clarification – Main issues: interpretation of the Convention, habitual residence, objections of the child to a return, procedural matters – To ensure uniformity of State practice, courts should generally adopt the interpretation of the Convention that has gained the most support in other foreign domestic courts – The “hybrid approach” to determining habitual residence (which considers all relevant factual links and circumstances in their entirety, instead of focusing either on parental intention or the child’s acclimatisation) should be followed – Courts should adopt a non-technical and straightforward approach to considering the child’s objections to return – It is up to the judicial authorities to ensure that the State lives up to its obligations to act expeditiously under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention – Convention proceedings should be judge-led, not party-driven, and judges should not hesitate to use their authority to expedite proceedings

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of an intolerable situation had not been met.

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

Return ordered with undertakings offered

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

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered forthwith subject to undertakings. The child had been wrongfully removed and none of the exceptions applied.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The court found that the Convention was not applicable to the case but dismissed the appeal on the basis that the child's interests were best served by a return to the United States.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and Article 13(1)(b) was not proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention of the child was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; Article 13(1)(a) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Procedural Matters

The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and awarded damages to both mother and child.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

The Grand Chamber held by 9 votes to 8 that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Unanimous: no breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). There was no separate issue concerning the claims based on Articles 6 and 13. The authorities' lack of diligence in preventing the abduction was admittedly manifest but had been indemnified by the Spanish authorities. The authorities had not been lacking in diligence regarding the child's return, despite the absence of results in this respect.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal upheld and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but a return to Germany would expose the children to a grave risk of physical, and most importantly, psychological harm.  In addition, it was proven that the children, who possessed the necessary age and maturity, objected to being returned to Germany.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return ordered

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, but there was a grave risk that a return would expose the child to psychological harm and place him in an intolerable situation.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed; return ordered.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, being in breach of the father's rights of custody, but the older siblings had valid objections to a return and the children would face a grave risk of harm if separated.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters |

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of two children, a boy aged 4 and a girl aged 6 – Nationals of the United States, Costa Rica and El Salvador – The children resided in Lourdes de San Vito de Coto Crus, Puntarenas, Costa Rica at the moment of the removal to El Salvador – The return application was submitted before the Central Authority of the Republic of El Salvador – Appeal allowed, return ordered – Main issues: removal and retention, rights of custody, objections of the child to a return, procedural issues – The habitual residence of the children before the removal was in Costa Rica – The children were wrongfully retained by their mother in El Salvador because they did not return to Costa Rica after a month of vacation as agreed– Both parents had rights of custody – The hearing process of the children and the taking of their opinions into consideration were not carried out properly – The debate over the merits of the rights of custody unnecessarily delayed the return proceeding, in contravention of the nature and purpose of the Convention.

Issues Relating to Return | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal allowed, return refused

2 children allegedly wrongfully removed at ages 4 and 7 – Nationals of the United States of America – Parents pending divorce – Father national of USA – Mother national of USA, UK and Ireland – Parents were still married at the time of mother’s wrongful retention – Children lived in Illinois, USA (until 8 June 2022) – Application for return filed with the courts of Illinois, USA on 2 September 2022 – Return ordered 28 February 2023 – Main issues: Where there is a grave risk of harm to the children under Article 13(1)(b) the analysis of protective measures should not be limited to the measures available but should also consider whether these measures would be effective in the specific circumstances.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; the child was settled in his new environment and the Court exercised its discretion not to order his return.