Case Law Search

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 4 – Child lived in France until August 2012 – Return ordered – Main issue: habitual residence – Habitual residence should be determined in the light of all the factual circumstances particular to the case, including the parents’ shared intention and decisions taken with a view to ensure the child’s integration

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

Return refused

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 13 – National of Brazil – Divorced parents– Father national of Brazil – Mother national of Brazil – Joint right to determine the residence of the child. Father has custody. – Child lived in Brazil until 31 October 2014 – Application for return filed with the Courts of Switzerland on 28 April 2016 – Return refused – Main issue: Objections of the Child to a Return – Child was mature enough for its opinion to be taken into consideration which constituted a reason to refuse the return based on Article 13(2).

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

One child wrongfully retained at age 3 – National of United Kingdom and Switzerland – Married parents – Father national of United Kingdom and Turkey – Mother national of Switzerland and Turkey – Joint parental responsibility – Child lived in the United Kingdom until 7 August 2020 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 12 April 2021 – Return refused – Main issue: Acquiescence/Consent Art.13(1)(a)] –Father’s behaviour deemed acquiescence, namely signing a residence registration, bringing child’s personal effects, transferring money, signing a divorce agreement accepting Switzerland as the place of jurisdiction.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

One child wrongfully retained at age 8 – National of Chile – Unmarried parents – Father national of Chile – Mother national of Chile – Agreement that the “cuidado personal” is solely attributed to the mother, but in fact it is exercised by both – Child lived in Chile until 14 August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 19 September 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: Rights of custody – Even though formally they agreed that the mother has the sole “cuidado personal” in fact both of the parents exercise it and therefore after the agreed date of return to Chile the retention was wrongful.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return ordered

The court held that the child had been wrongfully retained in Canada and ordered her return to New Zealand.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered

Return ordered.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Return ordered

Return ordered. There was no evidence that the father consented or acquiesced to the children remaining in the US. The father filed his petition for the return of the children within one year and, even if more than a year had elapsed, the children were not settled in the US for the purposes of Article 12(2).

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Return refused

Return refused; the retention was wrongful, being in breach of the mother's rights of custody, but the child had valid objections to a return.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Interpretation of the Convention

In its preliminary ruling the Court noted, inter alia, that where the removal of a child has taken place in accordance with a judgment which was provisionally enforceable and which was thereafter overturned, the child's habitual residence must be determined by undertaking an assessment of all the circumstances of fact. Whilst it was possible the child's habitual residence may have changed, account must be taken of the fact that the judgment authorising the removal could be provisionally enforced and that an appeal had been brought.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the child was habitually resident in the United States of America at the relevant date.

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

Return ordered

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) | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered, subject to a one-week delay; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed, return refused. Although the retention was wrongful, the court refused return because the request had been introduced more than a year after the retention and the boy was settled into his new family, educational and social environments.