Case Law Search

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

Return refused

Return refused; the removal of the children was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.

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

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

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the applicant and the court both had rights of custody and were actually exercising those rights at the time of the removal.

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

Return ordered

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

Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10 | Procedural Matters

Appeal upheld in part: the tribunal administratif had jurisdiction to hear the case, but the application was rejected on the merits since the Central Authority had the power not to process the application on the basis of Article 27 of the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

The challenge was upheld insofar as the treatment of custody issues by the cour administrative d'appel was concerned but other than that the latter decision was upheld and the application to annul the decision of 7 June 1993 was dismissed.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the child had never acquired a habitual residence in Belgium.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the mother's constitutional rights had not been violated by the application of the Convention, nor had the lower courts erred in their application of the Convention: the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was in breach of rights of custody and was therefore wrongful.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was wrongful but the child had become settled in her new environment. The return was therefore refused.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the children were not habitually resident in Greece at the date of the removal.

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

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal rejected on a majority verdict; application dismissed. The majority found the children to be habitually resident in the US at the date of the retention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the child had acquired a habitual residence in Germany.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the retention was wrongful the child having become habitually resident in Germany following the father's acquiescence in the initial wrongful removal.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed; the Court of Appeals held that the mother's right of veto over the removal of the child from Scotland did not afford her a "right of custody" for the purposes of the Convention, consequently the removal was not wrongful. The case was remitted to the District Court for further orders.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return refused

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was wrongful but the conditions for application of the exception of Article 13(1)(b) were met.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful because the children had lost their habitual residence in France upon departure and had acquired a habitual residence in Alberta, Canada.