Case Law Search

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Removal wrongful and return ordered, subject to undertakings; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of psychological harm had not been met.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered

The children were ordered to be returned on 1 August 1991, the date specified by the 1986 Separation Agreement.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the mother had met the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to show the child would face a grave risk of psychological harm if returned, and, under Article 13(1)(a), that the father had consented to the removal of the child.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal of the children was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

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

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the applicant and the court both had rights of custody and were actually exercising those rights at the time of the removal.

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

Return refused

Return refused; the eldest child objected to being returned and the court exercised its discretion not to return her. The other children were not returned as to separate them from their sister would place them in an intolerable situation.

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

Return refused

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was wrongful but Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10 | Procedural Matters

Appeal upheld in part: the tribunal administratif had jurisdiction to hear the case, but the application was rejected on the merits since the Central Authority had the power not to process the application on the basis of Article 27 of the Convention.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

The challenge was upheld insofar as the treatment of custody issues by the cour administrative d'appel was concerned but other than that the latter decision was upheld and the application to annul the decision of 7 June 1993 was dismissed.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the court seised was incompetent to hear the matter and in addition the Convention was not applicable.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the child had never acquired a habitual residence in Belgium.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the mother's constitutional rights had not been violated by the application of the Convention, nor had the lower courts erred in their application of the Convention: the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was in breach of rights of custody and was therefore wrongful.

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

The El Salvadorian custody order was afforded recognition and the return of the children ordered. The children would not face serious harm if sent back.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Challenge to legality dismissed; the removal was wrongful but the child had become settled in her new environment. The return was therefore refused.

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the children were not habitually resident in Greece at the date of the removal.