Case Law Search

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

Appeal allowed and case remitted to trial court for exercise of discretion; the retention was wrongful, but the children objected to a return to Poland and were of sufficient age and maturity for their objections to be taken into account.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Removal wrongful and return ordered, subject to undertakings; a grave risk of harm had not been established to the standard required under the Convention.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; removal wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed in part and application dismissed; the children were habitually resident in Israel at the date of the alleged wrongful retention. The trial court had though erred in its interpretation of the concept of acquiescence.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the trial judge had erred in exercising his discretion after having found the Article 13(2) exception to have been made out.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child wrongfully removed at age 2 - National of the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation - Married parents - Father national of United Kingdom - Mother national of Russia - Both parents had rights of custody - Child lived in Spain with both parents until April 2016 - Application for return filed with the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg on 18 August 2016 - Return refused - Main issue: Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return - A child aged 3 has a physchological and physiological need for her mother and since the mother had decided to stay in Russia, return to Spain would expose the child to a grave risk of harm

This case forms the subject of an application to the European Court of Human Rights (Thompson v. Russia, Application no. 36048/17), lodged on 15 May 2017 and communicated on 23 October 2017. 

Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed; refusal to enforce return order upheld. The Court did not find that the refusal to enforce the return order had violated any of the applicant father's rights under either the Swiss Federal Constitution or any international instrument.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal upheld, the removal was wrongful, but the additional evidence should have been taken into account. The case was remitted to the District Court Rychnov nad Knìžnou to rule on the father's application anew. The Constitutional Court further ruled that the Convention did not violate the abducting parent's rights under the Czech Constitution.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but the applicant father was found to have acquiesced.

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

Challenge to legality dismissed; at the time the return application was made the retention of the child was not wrongful.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Undertakings

Appeal allowed, return ordered with undertakings offered

Appeal allowed and return ordered with undertakings offered; the father had not acquiesced in terms of Article 13(1)(a).

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, refusal of Article 15 declaration confirmed

Appeal dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the father did not enjoy any legal rights of custody.

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

Appeal dismissed and return order upheld: the Court of Appeal had proper grounds to order the children's return to Italy.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal had duly applied the provisions of the Brussels II a Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003).

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return upheld. The removal was wrongful and there had been no consent to the removal.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal breached the mother's rights of custody and was therefore wrongful.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the Convention was applicable and the retention was wrongful while Article 13(2) had not been proved to the standard required.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Challenge to legality dismissed; while the return proceedings were pending, the authorities in the children's State of habitual residence had granted the mother custody.

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.