Case Law Search

Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal inadmissible: there had been no manifest error.

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).

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)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 7 – National of Poland –unmarried parents– Father national of Poland – Mother national of Poland – Disputed custody rights– Child lived in Poland until August 2014 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Poland in September 2014 – Return ordered – Main issues: Article 3 – Rights of custody –  the father had limited custody rights but these extended to the right to decide the child’s habitual residence and therefore the father had rights of custody within the meaning of the Convention; Article 13(1)(b) – Grave risk of harm - there were no grounds for concluding that return would be “clearly unfavourable to the child” or that he would most likely suffer harm if returned. Therefore the exception did not apply; Article 13 – Child’s objections - the fact that the child  said he wanted to live with his mother  was not a ground for concluding that the child was opposed to returning to Poland, therefore the exception did not apply.

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Two children wrongfully retained at age 3 – Nationals of Canada and Mexico –divorced parents – Father national of Canada – Mother national of Mexico – Mother was primary carer and father had rights of access – Children lived in Mexico until 2014 – Return ordered and appeal dismissed – Main issue(s): Article 13(1)(b) – The argued risk of psychological harm to one of the children if returned to Mexico due to the lack of autism therapies was not sufficient to invoke the Article 13(1)(b) exception.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Procedural Matters |

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 3 – National of Poland - Married parents (ongoing divorce proceedings) – Mother national of Poland – Father national of Poland - Parents had joint custody. Divorce court gave mother the right to have the child during the abduction until the end of the divorce proceedings. Decision that was annulled after return was ordered. – Child lived in Poland (until 4 December 2015)  – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Switzerland on 6 June 2016 – Return ordered – Main issue: Grave Risk – The fact that the mother considers her own return to Poland to be intolerable, both financially and professionally, is not relevant to the examination of the exception to return.

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

Appeal declared inadmissible.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters |

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of two children – Venezuelan nationals – Married parents – Both parents had custody rights – The return application was filed before the Chilean Central Authority in November 2018 – Return ordered – Main issues: consent, removal and retention, procedural matters – the evidence proffered by the mother was not sufficient to prove the father’s will in the travel authorisation – The father had consented to the removal, but not a change in residence, and thus there was a wrongful retention – Safe return measures were adopted for the children to undergo return with the least harm possible.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16

Appeal dismissed; the arguments put forward by the mother were rejected.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal dismissed. The Court of Appeal had decided with good reason that the retention was wrongful and suitably noted that it had not been established that the Article 13 grounds for exception were applicable.

Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal had indicated with good reason that the order for return was not, in principle, provisionally enforceable.

Procedural Matters |

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

one child wrongfully removed at age 8 – National of Chile –unmarried parents – Father national of Chile – Mother national of Chile – Agreement that the “cuidado personal” is solely attributed to the mother, but in fact it is exercised by both – Child lived in Chile until 14 August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 19 September 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: costs – Appeal of the father regarding costs has been dismissed based on interpretation of Article 26.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 |

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child (Australian and Japanese national) resided in Australia and Japan ― Father Australian national, mother Japanese national ― Parents married in 2013 in Australia ― Parents lived together in Japan from November 2013 until June 2014, until the father returned to Australia ― Mother joined Father in Australia from September 2014 until October 2015, with a written agreement to reside there only up to two years ― Mother returned to Japan with the child in October 2015 ― Father visited them in Japan from mid-December 2015 until mid-January 2016 ― Father filed petition for the child’s return to the Osaka Family Court in March 2016 ― Petition dismissed ― Appeal dismissed and return refused by the Osaka High Court in 2017 ― Main issue: Habitual residence of the child.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

The European Court of Human Rights held by sixteen votes to one that, in the event of the enforcement of the return order, there would be a violation of the mother and child's right to family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Non-Convention Issues | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal allowed, return refused

The Court refused to order the return of the child until the mother's asylum application had been determined.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Article 15 Decision or Determination | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Rights of Access - Art. 21

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the inferior courts had erred in rejecting the determination of the Romanian courts pursuant to Article 15; under Romanian law the father had no rights of custody for Convention purposes therefore the removal of the child was not wrongful.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(1)(a) and (b) and Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Non-Convention Issues

Return ordered

Return ordered. The Court denied the mother’s requests for a stay and/or an adjournment of the return application proceedings on the basis of her applications for refugee protection.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the standard required under Art 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Hague Convention had been met.

Non-Convention Issues

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered.

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

1 child wrongfully removed at age 2 – National of Russia – Divorced parents – Mother national of Russia – Finnish court ordered joint custody and child should live with the applicant– Child lived in Finland February 2015  – Application for return filed with the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of St Petersburg, Russia, on 6 August 2015  – Return refused on appeal to St Petersburg City Court on 3 February 2016 before application to ECtHR– Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – 23 050 EUR awarded in damages – the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Hague Convention by the St Petersburg City Court failed to secure the guarantees of Article 8 and Russia failed to comply with its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention to secure to the applicant the right to respect for his family life.