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.

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

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

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.

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

Appeal dismissed and case remitted to High Court (Family Division) for judgment; only in exceptional cases would a child be afforded separate representation in Convention cases.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return order refused; removal wrongful but the children had become settled in their new environment and objected to a return, with the Court exercising its discretion not to make a return order.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Legal challenge rejected; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions was applicable.

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.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; Article 13(2) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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.

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

Return refused

Abduction of a 13-year-old girl – the child had lived in Nicaragua for ten years under the care of her maternal family – the return request was filed before Nicaraguan courts in April 2019 – return denied – key issues: habitual residence; Article 13(2) – the child’s habitual residence was found to be in Nicaragua as it was where she had developed her center of life, personal and cultural identity, and sense of belonging, stability, and security – the court determined that the child’s statements during the hearing constituted an objection to return according to Art. 13(2) of the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Two children wrongfully retained at ages 14 and 12 – Nationals of Switzerland and Slovakia –Divorced parents – Father national of Switzerland and Slovakia – Mother national of Czech Republic – The children are under joint custody of the parents. The mother has sole care. – Children lived in Spain (until June 2021) – Application for return filed with the Courts of Switzerland on 16 September 2021 – Return ordered

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

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.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of a 5-year-old boy – Peruvian and American – Married parents –The child lived in Peru until September 2014, then the family changed its place of habitual residence to the United States – The mother filed a return request before the Peruvian courts on 24 August 2016 – Return ordered – Main issues: Habitual Residence; Removal and Retention; Settlement of the Child; Objections of the Child to a Return – The habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful retention was in the United States – The mother had rights of custody over the child under the custody and visitation agreement approved by the U.S. court – The wrongful retention occurred because the father did not return with the child by the date established in the travel authorisation issued by the mother – The child was gradually detaching from the mother because of the father’s actions.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of two girls when they were 8 and 11 years old – Uruguayan & Swedish – Unmarried parents – Uruguayan father – Uruguayan mother – Joint custody – The girls lived in the Kingdom of Norway until January 2019 – Return proceedings were commenced before Uruguayan courts on 27 May 2019 – Return ordered – Main issues: removal and retention, consent, Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, objections of the child to a return, procedural matters, best interests of the child – Retention was wrongful because it violated the father’s actually-exercised right of custody when it took place – There was not sufficient evidence on record proving the father’s consent or acquiescence to the change in the girls’ habitual residence – None of the circumstances alleged by the mother implied a grave risk for the girls if they returned to Norway – The girls’ statements evidenced that their opinions were influenced by their mother – The child support payments fixed in the first instance court judgment were overturned because this issue is outside the scope of application of the HCCH 1996 Child Protection Convention.

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

Return ordered

Wrongful removal of a 7-year old girl – Chilean – unmarried parents – Chilean father – Argentine mother – custody rights belong with the father – the girl lived in Chile until late 2019 – return application submitted before the Family Court in Formosa, Argentina, in September 2020 – return ordered – main issues: removal and retention, settlement of the child, art. 13(1)(b) grave risk, objections of the child to the return, procedural matters, interpretation of the Convention, best interests of the child – retention was wrongful because the custody rights of the father, effectively exercised by him at the time, were infringed – the time required by the Convention to refuse the return on grounds of settlement of the child in her new environment did not elapse – no evidence that the child would be exposed to grave risk upon her return – there were no objections by the child showing an irreducible objection against returning to the place of habitual residence – due to effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, the parents were invited to cooperate in the implementation of the return order and to avoid unnecessary delays – there are no incompatibilities between the Convention and the Convention on the Rights of The Child; both are meant to protect the best interests of the child.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

This is the first and so far the only Supreme Court decision which modified a final and binding return order due to a change in circumstances under the Hague Convention Implementation Act. It is seen as a highly exceptional case.

4 children (2 sets of twins) wrongfully retained in Japan ― Children lived in the United States until July 2014, when the elder twins were 11 years and 7 months old and the younger twins 6 years and 5 months old ― Married parents ― Father national of the United States ― Mother national of Japan ― Order for the return of all children became final and binding in January 2016 ― The Supreme Court upheld the Osaka High Court decision modifying the return order due to change in circumstances and dismissed the petition for the return of the children ― Main issues: Grounds for refusal of a return order ― The elder twins’ objection to being returned ― A grave risk of placing the younger twins in an intolerable situation by separating them from their siblings