Case Law Search

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

There had been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR in respect of both the father and the child.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Case remitted to lower court

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

The court allowed the appeal and refused to order the return of the child.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. 

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

1 child wrongfully retained at age 6 – National of Ukraine – Unmarried parents – Father national of Georgia and Ukraine – Mother national of Ukraine – Child lived in Ukraine until July 2010 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Ukraine in October 2010 – Return refused before application to ECtHR on 28 December 2012 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 8,300 awarded in damages – The reasoning of the Georgian Supreme Court regarding Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Child Abduction Hague Convention was insufficient and misconceived - The child's best interests in view of the specific circumstances of the case were not properly determined

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

One child wrongfully removed at age ten – National of Switzerland and Spain – Unmarried parents – Father national of Spain – Mother national of Switzerland – Joint custody according to Spanish law – Child lived in Spain until January/February 2016 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Spain on 17 February 2016 – Return refused – Main issues: substantially changed circumstances; objection of the child to a return – If the circumstances have changed substantially, it must be possible, to reassess a return decision; the child's opposition within the meaning of Article 13(2) must be expressed with a certain emphasis and with comprehensible reasons.

Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

Parties urged to resort to mediation in order to solve the dispute involving visitation rights within the context of Article 21 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12

Appeal allowed and decision of the Appeal Court annulled and case remitted so that a new ruling be rendered on the issue of return in light of the decision of the Cour de Cassation.

Return ordered

One child wrongfully removed at age 6 – National of Spain – Father national of Bolivia – Mother national of Colombia and Spain – Mother primary carer and father exercising rights of contact, including staying contact – Child lived in Spain until September 2018  – Return ordered – Main issue: COVID-19 – due to travel restrictions between the UK and Spain it was acknowledged that a safe return may take more time to organise than usual, but that it should take place as soon as reasonably practicable.

One child wrongfully removed at age 11 – Married parents – Father national of Greece – Mother national of Greece – Joint custody rights – Child lived in Greece until 2018 and then in the United Kingdom until 2020, he was habitually resident in the United Kingdom – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of England and Wales in March 2020 – Decision on inward return order deferred – Main issues: Inward return orders : the court should wait until the conclusion of the Greek proceedings under the 1980 Hague Convention before deciding on whether to make an inward return order; COVID-19 - Mother removed the child to Greece as she considered it to be a safer environment with regards to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Case remitted to lower court

Children wrongfully retained – Mother the primary carer of the children, Father exercising custody rights at time of removal – Children lived in  Colombia until December 2018 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Colombia –Return refused at first instance, appeal allowed and case remitted to lower court – Main issues: Article 13(1)(b) -  whether the return to Colombia would pose a grave risk of harm to the children; COVID-19 - the court asked for submissions about travel to Colombia in the event a return order were to be made; Father had right to appeal despite the fact that in the first instance he was not a party but represented by the Central Authority. The father was substantially, if not technically, a party and a person who might properly have been one.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused to order the return of the child. 

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

3 children wrongfully removed at ages 6, 8 and 11 – Nationals of Slovakia, one child also national of Peru and two children also nationals of the United States Of America – Married parents – Father national of Peru – Mother national of Slovakia – Agreement on alternating custody – Children lived in the United States until 25 August 2010 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Slovakia on 14 October 2010 – Proceedings terminated before application to ECtHR on 27 December 2012 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 19,500 awarded in damages – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR due to the lack of procedural protection for the applicant before the Slovakian Constitutional Court and the lack of an effective possibility to react to its decision, which suspended the enforceability of the return order and then quashed it - This was held to be exacerbated by the resulting protracted period of time in which the status of the children had not been determined

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The mother’s complaint appeal was rejected and the father’s application for the return of the child was approved. It was not possible to establish any reason to suggest that the child’s wellbeing would be endangered in the event that she were returned.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

The immediate complaint appeal was approved and the father’s application for a return was successful.

The accusations made against the father, which led to a rejection of the return application in accordance with Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention by the court of first instance, were not held to have been proven.

However, the court refrained from ordering the immediate surrender of the three children to the father, and has instead opted for a “graduated return order”. The “graduated return order”, granted the mother the opportunity to effect the return of the children herself. The Hague Child Abduction Convention does not contain any explicit rules on how exactly the courts are to order returns. Determining the operative provisions of the return order is a matter of domestic procedural law.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

2 children wrongfully 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 Superior Court of Justice (Family Court Branch) in June 2014 - Return ordered - Main issues: habitual residence, rights of custody, objections of the child to return - A parent cannot unilaterally change the habitual residence of a child during a time-limited period of consensual stay in another State agreed to by the other parent - Contemplation of an extension of such a period of consensual stay does not defeat its time-limited nature - Evidence of the child settling in his new environment is irrelevant if the application for return is brought within one year of the removal or retention - Where rights of custody have been transferred by one parent to another for the sole purpose of enrolling children in school in a given State, the parent who transferred those rights exercises them when the taking parent refuses to return the child, or would have exercised them but for the removal or retention - A child’s objection to return that is unsubstantial or merely expresses a preference for one place over another is insufficient grounds for refusing to order return under Art. 13(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child (national of Japan and the United States) removed from the United States to Japan ― Father a United States national, mother a Japanese national ― Parents married in Japan in 2012 and lived together with the mother’s son from her previous marriage ― The family moved to the United States in 2014 ― Upon becoming pregnant, the mother went back to Japan with her son in 2015 ― Mother returned to the United States with the new-born child in 2016 ― Father petitioned for divorce and obtained a provisional ne exeat order ― Mother moved to a shelter with the child within the United States ― Father had frequent access to the child, but contact broke up after an argument between the parents ― Mother removed the child to Japan in 2016 ― Obtaining assistance of the Central Authority of Japan in 2016, Father petitioned to the Osaka Family Court for return of the child in 2017 ― Return ordered ― Appeal to the Osaka High Court dismissed and return ordered in 2017 ― Main issues: Habitual Residence of the child ― Actual exercise of rights of custody ― Grave Risk for the child.

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

The City Court (first instance) determined that the child was living in Poland before the removal and that a return to Poland would not harm the child. Therefore, the removal/retention was wrongful and that the child should go back to the mother in Poland.

The Eastern High Court (second instance) upheld the decision.