Case Law Search

Procedural Matters

Removal wrongful and return ordered. However, the subsequent concealment of the child for eight years made enforcement of the original return order impossible.

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

Return ordered with regards to the two younger children subject to undertakings; the removal was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) of the Convention to indicate that the children would face a grave risk of harm had not been met. Application dismissed with regard to the oldest child.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Application that the Estonian courts' decision to return the child to Italy had been in breach of international law and contrary to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights declared inadmissible.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Issues Relating to Return |

Return ordered with undertakings offered

One child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 5 and a half – National of Ukraine and the United Kingdom – Father national of the United Kingdom and South Africa – Mother national of Hungary and Ukraine – Child lived in Ukraine in the mother’s custody with regular contact with the father – Following Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022 child and Mother move to England In April 2022 – Mother plans to return to Ukraine in Summer 2022 – Father obtains Prohibited Steps Order from English Court - Application for return issued on 29 July 2022 – Main issues: habitual residence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – risk of exposure to war – risk of loss of relationship with father due to alleged closure of court system and mothers hostility to father – A child’s retained roots in Ukraine support his habitual residence remains in the Ukraine – The risk faced by the child upon return to Ukraine failed to meet the threshold of ‘grave harm’ – the region was not subject to active hostility and life continued as normal – the court system was functioning – mother promoted contact – undertakings reduced any risk below grave risk threshold. – Return ordered

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 13 – National of Brazil – Divorced parents– Father national of Brazil – Mother national of Brazil – Joint right to determine the residence of the child. Father has custody. – Child lived in Brazil until 31 October 2014 – Application for return filed with the Courts of Switzerland on 28 April 2016 – Return refused – Main issue: Objections of the Child to a Return – Child was mature enough for its opinion to be taken into consideration which constituted a reason to refuse the return based on Article 13(2).

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The court rejected the application for deferment of enforcement.

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 allowed; return refused. The daughters objected to a return that exposed them to a grave risk of danger, whereas no adequate measures had been taken in Belgium.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) |

Return refused

3 children habitually resident in Spain ― Father Spanish national, mother Japanese national ― Parents married in 2009 in Japan ― Upon marriage, father adopted mother’s child born out of wedlock in 2006 ― Two children were born within wedlock in 2011 and 2015 ― Parents first lived together in Japan and later relocated to Spain in May 2011 ― Mother brought three children to Japan in May 2017 and notified Father of her intent to divorce and stay in Japan ― Father filed petition for the return of the children to the Tokyo Family Court in October 2018 ― Petition dismissed ― Main issue: Settlement of the children.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The mother’s complaint appeal (Beschwerde) was rejected and the order for return was maintained with the specification that the child was to be returned to Spain but not necessarily to Madrid.

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

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

By five votes to two: 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 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; the retention was wrongful and the grounds for exception under the Convention were not applicable.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Two children wrongfully removed at ages nine and four – Nationals of Macedonia – Married parents – Father national of Macedonia – Mother national of Macedonia – Joint parental custody – Children lived in Austria until 28 July 2018 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Austria 5 September 2018 – Return ordered – Main issues: Effective exercise of custody and grave risk – Article 3(1)(b) must be read in the light with the Convention's concern that the original condition should be established; there is a presumption that the holder of custody has fulfilled his obligations; the grounds for exclusion are to be interpreted narrowly and only real dangers are to be taken into account in the case of Article 13(1)(b).

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) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and no exception raised was applicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The Federal Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the exceptions in art. 13 CLaH 80 did not apply.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

One child wrongfully retained at age 3 – National of United Kingdom and Switzerland – Married parents – Father national of United Kingdom and Turkey – Mother national of Switzerland and Turkey – Joint parental responsibility – Child lived in the United Kingdom until 7 August 2020 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 12 April 2021 – Return refused – Main issue: Acquiescence/Consent Art.13(1)(a)] –Father’s behaviour deemed acquiescence, namely signing a residence registration, bringing child’s personal effects, transferring money, signing a divorce agreement accepting Switzerland as the place of jurisdiction.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Child born in 2014 in Singapore ― Parents married in 2008 ― Nationality of the entire family is unknown ― The family travelled abroad in August 2017 ― On the evening of 30 August 2017 in Japan, father drank and exercised physical violence against the mother ― Father arrested and criminal proceedings instituted ― Parents reached a settlement on 15 September 2017 ― Parents agreed that they would live separately ― The mother would live in Japan with the child as the primary caregiver, whereas the father would pay damages and maintenance and have visitation with the child ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to Singapore in the Tokyo Family Court in December 2017 ― Application dismissed ― Appeal dismissed by the Tokyo High Court in May 2018 ― Main issues: consent and grave risk.