Case Law Search

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal upheld and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but a return to the United Kingdom would expose the child to a grave risk of physical, and most importantly, psychological harm.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child wrongfully removed at age 2 - National of the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation - Married parents - Father national of United Kingdom - Mother national of Russia - Both parents had rights of custody - Child lived in Spain with both parents until April 2016 - Application for return filed with the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 18 August 2016 - Return refused - Main issue: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return - A child aged 3 has a physchological and physiological need for her mother and since the mother had decided to stay in Russia, return to Spain would expose the child to a grave risk of harm

This case forms the subject of an application to the European Court of Human Rights (Thompson v. Russia, Application no. 36048/17), lodged on 15 May 2017 and communicated on 23 October 2017. 

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful for the children had neither lost their Israeli habitual residence at the relevant date nor acquired a habitual residence in Australia. There was no grave risk of harm and whilst the father had at one stage consented to the relocation the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion to make a return order.

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

Application dismissed

By a 4:3 majority the European Court of Human Rights ruled that there had not been a breach of the mother and child's right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; return ordered. The removal was wrongful and the mother had not established that an exception was applicable.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered. The removal was wrongful and it had not been proven that a return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

By a majority of five to two, the European Court of Human Rights held that Latvia had violated Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to take account of various relevant factors in assessing the best interests of the child. The Court also awarded the mother compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | 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 allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but the Supreme Court found that the level of harm required by Article 13(1)(b) had been established.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Issues Relating to Return

By a majority of 5 to 2 the Court ruled that the French authorities had not breached Article 8 of the ECHR either in ordering the return of the child to the United States, or, in the manner in which the return order was enforced. The Court held unanimously that there had been no breach of Article 6(1).

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered. The removal was wrongful as it was rendered without knowledge of the father's right to custody.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

Return refused

Application dismissed the removal was not deemed to have been in breach of actually exercised rights of custody.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Return ordered.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

By a majority the Court declared the application to be inadmissible, on the basis of it being manifestly ill-founded; the Turkish authorities had not disregarded their obligations under Article 6 of the ECHR (right to fair trial) or violated the right to respect for family life guaranteed under Article 8 of the ECHR.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Removal wrongful and return ordered, subject to undertakings; a grave risk of harm had not been established to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal by the mother (the taking parent) dismissed: the removal was wrongful and none of the grounds for exception invoked were applicable. The father's appeal was partially allowed: removal of the condition of taking protective measures.

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

Appeal dismissed; the Cour de cassation ruled that the Court of Appeal had correctly deemed that the return would not expose the children to a grave risk.