Case Law Search

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

The European Court of Human Rights held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR on account of the Italian courts' order for the child to be returned to Italy; and unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8 on account of the mother's absence from the hearing of the Rome Youth Court. Damages were awarded to mother and child.

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

Return refused

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return ordered

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

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered, provided that the child was permitted to enter the United States. The retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required by the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return ordered

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; retention wrongful and a grave risk had not been established to the standard required under the Convention.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal granted and return ordered.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the retention was wrongful, but the child objected to a return to the UK and the standard required under Article 13(2) had been established.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

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.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Non-Convention Issues

Recognition of the custody and access orders was upheld.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return refused

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Return ordered

One child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 1 –Married parents – Father national of Israel – Mother national of Israel – Child lived in USA until 2019 – Application for return filed with the Tel Aviv Family Court of Israel on 20 February 2020 – Return ordered – Main issue: Article 13(1)(b) – COVID-19 did not amount to a grave risk of harm to the child, in fact the medical care for the child may be better in the USA than in Israel as they had medical coverage there.