Case Law Search

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return ordered

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

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.

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.

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.

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 upheld and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but a return to Germany would expose the children to a grave risk of physical, and most importantly, psychological harm.  In addition, it was proven that the children, who possessed the necessary age and maturity, objected to being returned to Germany.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the trial court had erred in finding that the child, then 10, had attained an age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to take account of his views.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the child objected to a return and the standard required by Article 13(2) had been reached.

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

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the trial judge to enable the child's views to be ascertained.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; none of the Article 13 exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

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

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the trial judge had been correct in finding a grave risk of psychological harm to have been established to the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Convention and that adequate arrangement could not have been made to secure the protection of the children after their return to Greece pursuant to Article 11(4) of Brussels II a Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003).

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed; return denied. The mother had obtained provisional custody of the child pursuant to a Spanish decision.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered. The retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions raised was applicable.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; retention wrongful and none of the exceptions proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal was allowed and the decisions of the first instance and the Appellate Court were annulled. Although the removal was considered wrongful, the Court held that the return should be refused under the terms of Articles 13 (1)(b) and 20 of the Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

1 child allegedly retained at age 6 months – National of the US Father national of US – Mother national of Canada – Father gave open-ended consent to mother to travel with the child to Canada – Child lived in United States for first 42 days of life – Application for return filed with the courts of Canada in December 2017 – The return decision of the Nova Scotia Supreme Court was appealed to the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal where the application was dismissed – Main issues: habitual residence – the Court of Appeal applied the “hybrid approach” to determine the habitual residence of the child and found the child to be habitually resident in Nova Scotia.