Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but acquiescence had been established to the standard required under the Convention.

Procedural Matters

Challenge against the return order declared inadmissible; request for legal aid rejected.

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

Challenge against the legality of the appellate judgment dismissed and return order confirmed; the retention was wrongful and Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out to the standard required under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Issues Relating to Return

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 | 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.

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

Appeal declared inadmissible.

Procedural Matters

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

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.

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

Appeal by the mother (the taking parent) dismissed: the removal was wrongful and none of the grounds for exception invoked were applicable. The father's appeal was partially allowed: removal of the condition of taking protective measures.

Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in France and Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been established.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The retention was considered wrongful. The grave risk exception under Article 13(1)(b), raised by the defendant on appeal, had not been established. The children's opinions did not suggest a strong opposition that would be sufficient to constitute the exception to return under Article 13(2).

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return

Application dismissed

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the Article 13(1)(b) exception was no longer established.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed, return denied. The girls had developed significant relations in Costa Rica (at school, with their family and social network) so return could imply serious consequences for the children. A return would, therefore, be contrary to the children's best interests, to Article 51 of the Political Constitution of Costa Rica and Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989. The Court also ruled that the exception to return in Article 20 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was applicable.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters | Best Interests of the Child

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Wrongful retention of a 1-year-old girl – separated parents – Spanish father – Venezuelan mother – the custody rights were jointly exercised – the girl lived in Spain until July 2011 – the return request was filed before the Spanish courts on 12 July 2011 – Appeal allowed, return ordered – Main issues: removal and retention, rights of custody, grave risk, human rights, jurisdiction issues, procedural matters, best interests of the child - removal was not wrongful, but retention was, since the father did not authorise the girl’s permanent stay in Venezuela – both parents had custody rights under Spanish law – the mother did not establish the grave risk circumstances claimed – the girl’s return did not violate any Venezuelan fundamental principle on human rights protection – who is the right parent to have custody should not be discussed within return proceedings; on the contrary, this type of proceeding is concerned with whether there was a wrongful removal or retention – measures were taken to secure the safe return  of the child to Spain and the parents were encouraged to resort to mediation.

Issues Relating to Return

Wrongful retention of a boy – Uruguayuan and Costa Rican – Divorced parents – The child lived in Uruguay until 6 february 2020 – The return request was made before the Costa Rican Central Authority - Habeas corpus disallowed – Main Issues: Non-Convention Issues -  the safeguard in Art. 32 of the Constitution is not unlimited, it must be examined in consideration of the HCCH Convention on Child Abduction and the best interests of the child.

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

Case remitted to lower court

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 – Case remitted to lower court – Main issues: objections of the child to return – According to the mother, the child has expressed that he does not wish to return to Spain. An expert opinion that was ordered by the competent cantonal court has affirmed the child’s ability to independently form such an opinion. The father, however, invokes that the expert’s opinion was biased towards the mother and overlooked multiple factors that put the child’s maturity level as defined in 13 (2) into question.