Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
Appeal dismissed, return ordered
3 4 5 12 13(1)(b)
Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions raised applied.
Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)
3 4 6 7 11 12 13(1)(b) 20
The Court unanimously ruled that Romania had breached Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to thoroughly assess the best interests of the child and to give the father the opportunity to present his case. It also awarded the father compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.
Rights of Custody - Art. 3
Appeal allowed, application dismissed
1 3 4 5 15 21
Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the removal of the child did not breach any rights of custody and was not therefore wrongful.
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
Appeal allowed, return ordered
1 3 4 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b)
Appeal allowed, return ordered. The mother's allegation of grave risk was not found to be proved.
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
1 3 4 5 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b)
Two children wrongfully removed at ages nine and seven – Married parents – Shared parental custody – Children lived in Spain until 5 February 2016 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 17 February 2016 –Application dismissed – Main issue(s): Habitual residence - is understood to mean the actual centre of the child's life, which is determined by the factual circumstances; Consent - the departure of the spouse does not require any approval by the other; the only thing requiring approval is the change of the children's place of residence abroad; Grave risk - must be interpreted restrictively: meaning a serious danger, initial language and reintegration difficulties typically do not constitute a serious danger.
