Case Law Search

Procedural Matters

Legal challenge rejected.

Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Legal challenge dismissed.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Human Rights - Art. 20

Legal challenge rejected; the removal was wrongful and Article 20 was inapplicable.

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.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, quashing and annulment of the ruling dismissing the application for the children's return and referral of the case to the Paris Court of Appeal to act upon the return application in the light of the Supreme Court's ruling.

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

Appeal inadmissible; the appeals did not raise any substantial legal issues.

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.

Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed; the father had applied for return only in the event that he should be awarded custody of the children.

Non-Convention Issues | Issues Relating to Return

Case remitted to lower court

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).

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.

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.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child (allegedly) wrongfully removed at age 4 – National of the USA – Unmarried parents – Father national of the USA and the Dominican Republic – Mother national of Switzerland, the Dominican Republic, Italy – Shared parental responsibility – Child lived in the USA – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Switzerland on 7th of January 2021 – Return refused – Main issue: Grave Risk (Art. 13(1)(b) – Status quo ante cannot be attained, since mother has a travel ban to the USA. Grave risk to the child if separated from the mother for the next 10 years.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 4 – 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.

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.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and non-return order upheld; the doctrine of "equitable tolling" was not applicable to the settlement exception in Art. 12(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but the Supreme Court found that the level of harm required by Article 13(1)(b) had been established.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal dismissed; return order upheld. The Court of Appeal had duly provided grounds for its decision and was not required to conduct a more thorough investigation relating to a possible grave risk of danger.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

2 children allegedly wrongfully retained at ages 3 and less than 1 - Unmarried parents - Father national of France - Mother national of the United Kingdom and Canada - Children lived in France until July 2013 - Return proceedings initiated soon after 20 November 2013 - Application dismissed - Main issue: habitual residence - Parents' joint decision for children to temporarily move to another State does not preclude the children from becoming habitually resident in that State