Case Law Search

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.

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters |

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of the child – Separated parents – Custody rights were jointly exercised – The child lived in Spain until 11 August 2014 – The request for return was filed before the Central Authority in Spain in September 2014 – Return ordered – Main issues: habitual residence, removal and retention, settlement of the child, art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception, procedural matters – The habitual residence of the child prior to the wrongful removal was in Spain – There was wrongful retention in breach of the custody rights, which were exercised jointly pursuant to the agreement signed by the mother and father – The settlement of the child was not considered because the one-year period required by the Convention had not elapsed – The evidence did not contribute to determining whether there had been sexual abuse; on the contrary, a true demonstration of the risk was necessary to justify the application of article 13(1)(b) - The Central Authority of Spain was urged to take measures to protect the child and to do a follow-up on the case to provide the father with the necessary legal support.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Return ordered

1 child wrongfully retained at age 6 months - National of United Kingdom and Ukraine - Married parents- Father national of the United Kingdom - Mother national of Ukraine – Applicant father had joint custody with respondent mother under British legislation – Child lived in the United Kingdom until 11 April 2012 -Application for return filed with the courts of Ukraine on 19 December 2012 - Return ordered on 29 August 2018 - Main issues: Articles 5 and 12 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention (a parent cannot independently decide to change the child’s place of habitual residence; the place of habitual residence is of major importance to restoring of the status quo for the child; first instance court and appeal court incorrectly interpreted exceptions for non-return of a child as a settlement in new environment, acquiescence in the retention and grave risk to return).

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

Appeal declared inadmissible.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal refused; return allowed. It was settled that the retention was wrongful.

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

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

Unanimous: infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); award of damages on the basis of Article 41 of the ECHR.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the breach of custody rights vested in the English court was sufficient to make the removal of the child wrongful.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return ordered subject to undertakings

Appeal allowed and return ordered, subject to undertakings; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been met and the Court of Appeal ordered the return of the child subject to undertakings by the applicant father.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; the role played by the grandparents in the care of the child was sufficient to vest them with custody rights. These rights were breached when the mother removed the child.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the Court of Appeal found that there had been a wrongful removal but exercised its discretion under Article 13(1)(b) not to order the return of the child.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return ordered

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that there had been a wrongful removal.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the children had been wrongfully removed from their State of habitual residence.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of psychological harm had not been met.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal of the children breached the mother's rights of custody, the standard required under Article 13(1)(a) to show consent had not been met.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was in breach of rights of custody vested in the local authority.

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)