Case Law Search

Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed; application dismissed. At the start of the wrongful retention, the Convention was not yet in force in Austria.

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

Return refused

Removal wrongful and return refused; Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful because the children had lost their habitual residence in France upon departure and had acquired a habitual residence in Alberta, Canada.

Non-Convention Issues

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; it was in the best interests of the children to return to Sudan.

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; the child was found to be settled in her new environment in accordance with the terms of Article 12(2).

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

Return refused

Return refused; retention wrongful, but the objections of the child were upheld.

Non-Convention Issues

The Court ruled that Turkey had breached Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to take proper steps to enforce the mother's access rights to her children . The Court also made an award of compensation to the mother under Article 41 of the ECHR.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration made that the removal of the child was wrongful within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention. The father was deemed to hold and to be actually exercising rights of custody.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application inadmissible; There was an objective and reasonable justification for the difference in treatment between married and unmarried fathers with regard to the automatic acquisition of parental rights.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Germany on the relevant date.

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

Return ordered

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal was wrongful being in breach of the father's rights of custody.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered. The removal was wrongful being in breach of the mother's right of custody.

Rights of Access - Art. 21

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; there was no cause of action under the Convention to enforce access rights absent the wrongful removal or retention of the child.

One child wrongfully removed at age 3 – National of Slovakia – Unmarried parents– Father national of Slovakia – Mother national of Slovakia – Joint rights of custody – Child lived in Slovakia until September 2010 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Hong Kong on 22 August 2011 –Return refused – Main issue(s): Article 13(1)(a) acquiescence - the Father’s words and inaction were inconsistent with the fundamental objective of the Convention to secure a prompt return, and he was held to have acquiesced. Article 13(1)(b) – due to the child’s instable background and now being settled in his new environment, there was a grave risk that he would be placed in an intolerable situation if an order for return was made.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

The complaint appeal was broadly rejected and it was once again ordered that the daughter be returned; the deadline for this was extended. It was not possible to establish any reason to believe that the child’s wellbeing would be endangered in the event that she were returned.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

The complaint appeal was approved and the Applicant’s application for the children to be returned was rejected. It was ruled that there was a grave risk of physical or mental harm to both of the children, meaning that the exception set out in Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention applied.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

The complaint appeal was approved and the father’s application for a return was refused. The court ruled that the child’s wellbeing would be endangered were he to be returned.

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters