Case Law Search

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

Return ordered

Returned ordered; neither Article 13(1)(a) nor Article 13(1)(a) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the Agency was found to have rights of custody, while the child was deemed to be habitually resident in the USA. Article 13(1)(b) was not proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal allowed; the retention was wrongful as the child had been habitually resident in Australia at the relevant date. The case was remitted to the District Court to rule on whether any of the exceptions might apply.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; 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 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered subject to undertakings

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

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, but, on the strength of the child's objection to a return to Switzerland, the court exercised its discretion under Article 13(2) not to send her back.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal of the child was wrongful and none of the exceptions was applicable.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; there had been a wrongful retention and none of the exceptions had been established.

Return refused

Return refused; the father had waived his Convention rights when he dismissed the substantive proceedings brought in the State of the child's habitual residence.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; the standard required under Articles 13(1)(b) and 20 had not been met.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; in the absence of any evidence in rebuttal from the applicant father the court accepted that there was a grave risk the boys would face an intolerable situation if returned.

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

Return ordered

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Return ordered, subject to undertakings; a grave risk of harm had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, but Article 13(1)(b) 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) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the trial court had been entitled to find that the Article 13(1)(b) exception had been established.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed aged less than one year old - Unmarried parents - Joint custody - Child lived in Greece until May 2010 - Application for return filed in April 2011 - Return ordered - Main issues: Settlement of the child, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return, procedural matters - Art. 12(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention only applies where return proceedings have been commenced after a period of more than one year has elapsed since the date of the wrongful removal

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 6 - National of Canada - Divorced parents - Father national of Mexico - Mother national of Canada - Joint custody: the mother had primary care, the father periods of care - Child lived in the United States of America until March 2013 - Application for return filed with the Court of Queen’s Bench of Manitoba on 28 March 2013 - Return ordered - Main issues: Art 13(1) (b) grave risk exception to return, objection of the child to return, procedural matters - Motion for staying the enforcement of the first instance return order dismissed - A child aged 8 years (at the time of the proceedings) does not face a grave risk of being exposed to physical or psychological harm or being placed in an intolerable situation if return is ordered while the primary caregiver cannot (immediately) accompany her, pending the outcome of a visa application - Bar an extraordinary level of maturity,  a child aged 8  years has not attained the necessary age and degree of maturity at which her wishes ought to be considered under Art. 13(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention

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.