Interpretation of the Convention
2 7 16
Appeal dismissed; refusal to make a custody order upheld. The Court held that Article 16 prohibits a custody decision on the merits where a return order has been made but not yet enforced.
Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings
Appeal dismissed, return ordered
7 12 13(1)(b)
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of physical harm had not been met.
Procedural Matters
3 7 11 12
The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and awarded damages to both mother and child.
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
1 2 3 6 7 8 11 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 13(3) 12(2) 12(1)
Unanimous: no breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). There was no separate issue concerning the claims based on Articles 6 and 13. The authorities' lack of diligence in preventing the abduction was admittedly manifest but had been indemnified by the Spanish authorities. The authorities had not been lacking in diligence regarding the child's return, despite the absence of results in this respect.
Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10 | Procedural Matters
Appeal dismissed, return ordered with undertakings offered
1 3 7 13(1)(b)
Appeal dismissed and return ordered subject to undertakings by both parents; the retention of the child had been wrongful, and the grave risk of harm exception had not been established.
Issues Relating to Return
2 7
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.
Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)
Return ordered
3 6 7 13(2) 12(2) 26
Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)
Return refused
2 3 7 10 11 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 14 13(3) 12(2) 12(1)
Return refused; the removal was wrongful, being in breach of the father's rights of custody, but the older siblings had valid objections to a return and the children would face a grave risk of harm if separated.
Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Procedural Matters
3 7 8 19 29
Challenge upheld and decision of the Cour d'appel overruled; case remitted to the Cour d'appel of Toulouse.
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Interpretation of the Convention
3 7 12 12(2)
Wrongful retention of a girl when she was 4 years old – Guatemalan and American – separated parents – the girl was born in the United States, as proved by her birth certificate – the Central Authority of Guatemala filed the return request before court in Quetzaltenango, Guatemala – appeal dismissed, return ordered – main issues: habitual residence; removal and retention; settlement of the child; interpretation of the Convention – the habitual residence of the child before the wrongful retention was in the United States, as evidenced by her birth certificate and medical records – the wrongful retention took place when the father did not return her to the United States on the agreed date after her holiday with the grandparents, to which the mother had consented – the immediate return ought to be ordered since the child had spent less than a year in the requested State – the HCCH Convention on Child Abduction does not require the conduction of socioeconomical or psychological studies on the parents in order to make a decision on return
