Case Law Search

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

By a 4:3 majority: No infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the District Court; the trial court had erred in its conclusions on habitual residence, actual exercise of custody rights and consent.

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

Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal had rightly found the children's retention to be wrongful and the exceptions inapplicable.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and the exception asserted inapplicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the conditions asserted was applicable.

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

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention had been established.

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Principal appeal inadmissible. The father was concealing his real address, thereby nullifying his appeal.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Rights of Access - Art. 21

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and petition dismissed; the retention of the child was not wrongful as it did not breach any actually exercised rights of custody.

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

Confirmation of the order of 8 March 2006, in that it ordered the child's return; reversal of judgment of 23 March 2006. The removal was wrongful and the return could not be denied on the basis of Article 13 because adequate protection measures had been taken in Italy.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; there was no wrongful retention as the child was habitually resident in Hong Kong on the relevant date.

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

Appeal dismissed and return of older sibling ordered; his removal had been wrongful and the Article 13(1)(b) exception had not been established.

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

Appeal allowed in part; the retention was wrongful but the trial judge should have exercised his discretion to refuse the return of the eldest child in the light of her objections. As a consequence, the case was remitted to the Family Division of the High Court to determine the outcome for the three younger siblings.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Non-Convention Issues

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal allowed and return ordered, subject to undertakings; the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was not applicable, the child being habitually resident in England and Wales on the relevant date, but the Court exercising its power under the inherent jurisdiction found that it was in the child's best interests to return to Texas so a court there could adjudicate on his future.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Article 15 Decision or Determination

Appeal allowed and Article 15 declaration refused.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the child had retained his habitual residence in Northern Ireland during the course of his stay in Poland.

Appeal dismissed, return refused

The court considered the jurisprudence on habitual residence and upheld the finding of the first instance judge: that the child’s residence in the USA had not acquired the necessary degree of stability to become habitual.  On the established principles, there was no basis to interfere with the judge’s finding.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed; return ordered. The Appellate Court held that the Article 13(1)(b) exception was not established.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The retention was wrongful and the exceptions raised inapplicable.

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

Guidance on the application of the Convention issued

2 children retained at ages 11 and 8 – Nationals of Canada – Married parents – Father national of Canada – Mother national of Canada – Father transferred physical custody in a notarised letter to the mother for the period April 2013 to August 2014, to allow the children to enroll in a Canadian school – Children lived in Germany until April 2013 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Germany on 11 April 2014 – Return decision of the Court of Appeal of Ontario of 13 September 2016 was appealed to the Supreme Court, but the children were returned to Germany before the Court rendered its judgment; despite the appeal being moot, the Court considered the issues raised to be important and in need of clarification – Main issues: interpretation of the Convention, habitual residence, objections of the child to a return, procedural matters – To ensure uniformity of State practice, courts should generally adopt the interpretation of the Convention that has gained the most support in other foreign domestic courts – The “hybrid approach” to determining habitual residence (which considers all relevant factual links and circumstances in their entirety, instead of focusing either on parental intention or the child’s acclimatisation) should be followed – Courts should adopt a non-technical and straightforward approach to considering the child’s objections to return – It is up to the judicial authorities to ensure that the State lives up to its obligations to act expeditiously under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention – Convention proceedings should be judge-led, not party-driven, and judges should not hesitate to use their authority to expedite proceedings