Case Law Search

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal upheld, the removal was wrongful, but the additional evidence should have been taken into account. The case was remitted to the District Court Rychnov nad Knìžnou to rule on the father's application anew. The Constitutional Court further ruled that the Convention did not violate the abducting parent's rights under the Czech Constitution.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was still habitually resident in Sweden at the relevant date.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered

Return ordered; removal wrongful and none of the exceptions proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; return ordered; the removal was wrongful as the father's right of custody had been breached, and none of the exceptions raised by the mother had been proved.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the father had acquiesced in the retention in the terms of Article 13(1)(a).

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

Application dismissed

Return refused; the removal was not wrongful as the father was not actually exercising his rights of custody.

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

Return ordered with undertakings offered

Return ordered with undertakings offered; the child was habitually resident in England at the relevant date.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) had been met to show acquiescence on the part of the father.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the standard required under Article 12(2) to show that the children were settled in their new environment had not been made out.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the standard required under Articles 13(1)(a), 13(1)(b) and 13(2) had not been met.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Undertakings

Appeal allowed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Appeal allowed and return ordered with undertakings offered; the father had not acquiesced in terms of Article 13(1)(a).

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Interpretation of the Convention

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the children were habitually resident in Australia on the relevant date.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the application under Article 13(1)(b) exception failed. The mother and children were sufficiently protected against harm by measures under the Convention and the laws of the American courts.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the child's place of habitual residence prior to the wrongful retention was Italy. The standard required under Article 20 had not been met.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the actions of the father were insufficient to meet the standard required under Art. 13(1)(a) to show acquiescence.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered, undertakings offered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the children would face a grave risk of harm had not been met.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

The Court of Appeal, in a majority ruling, held that the father had acquiesced in the removal of the children. The case was then remitted to the High Court to exercise its discretion whether or not to grant a return order.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return refused

Return refused; the retention of the child was wrongful but that the father had acquiesced in terms of Article 13(1)(a). The court exercised its discretion not to order the return of the child.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the child had acquired a habitual residence in Australia at the time of the removal. The court further found that the mother had not acquiesced in the removal.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful and neither Article 13(1)(a) nor Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.