Case Law Search

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

By a majority of five to two, the European Court of Human Rights held that Latvia had violated Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to take account of various relevant factors in assessing the best interests of the child. The Court also awarded the mother compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed but on application of the correct legal standard the original dismissal of the Hague application was affirmed; the children were not habitually resident in France at the time of the removal.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered. The removal was wrongful as it was rendered without knowledge of the father's right to custody.

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

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the child had become habitually resident in the United States at the time of the retention, therefore the latter action was not wrongful.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Preliminary Ruling issued, case remitted to United Kingdom (England & Wales) courts.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child's habitual residence was in Israel at the date of the removal and so the Convention did not apply.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; a grave risk of harm for the purposes of Article 13(1)(b) had not been established to the standard required by the Convention.

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

Return ordered

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

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in England at the time of the removal.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return order confirmed; the child was habitually resident in Canada at the relevant date making her removal wrongful.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful having breached rights of custody held by the father, the mother failed to establish that the child if returned would be exposed to a grave risk of harm.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Article 15 Decision or Determination

Appeal allowed, refusal of Article 15 declaration overturned

Appeal allowed and Article 15 declaration granted; the removal of the children had been in breach of actually exercised rights of custody and was therefore wrongful.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the children were habitually resident in Israel at the date of the alleged wrongful retention.

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

Appeal allowed, 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.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Return ordered

The father's appeal was dismissed and the daughter's return ordered. The mother's appeal was dismissed and the son's return refused at this time.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

2 children wrongfully retained at ages 6 and 10 – Married parents – Father national of Poland – Mother national of Poland – Joint custody excercised in Switzerland – Children lived in Switzerland – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Switzerland on 24 October 2008 – Application dismissed before application to ECtHR on 1 December 2009 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 11,800 awarded in damages – The Polish courts had not taken into account the legitimate interests of the applicant in an adequate or fair manner in the judicial proceedings; i.a. improperly relying on a Polish interim custody order to consider the retention lawful

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered. The removal and retention of the child in Uruguay was considered wrongful.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; in an unanimous ruling, the Chamber ruled that there had not been a breach of the father and children's right to family life under Article 8 of the ECHR.