Case Law Search

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The exception of grave risk of danger could not apply unless the US authorities denied the mother a visa enabling her to enter and remain in the United States of America until a custody ruling.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed; decision ordering the children's return upheld, having considered with reasonable cause that none of the exceptions was applicable.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal dismissed; the children had lost their habitual residence in the United Kingdom - England & Wales, therefore the courts of that jurisdiction were no longer competent to adjudicate in respect of them.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the retention had been wrongful and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Preliminary ruling issued.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 6(1) of the Convention and awarded damages to the father; the challenge founded on Article 8 was rejected as manifestly ill-founded, whilst the challenge on the basis of Article 5 of Protocol No. 7 was held to be inadmissible.

Issues Relating to Return

The Court ruled unanimously that there had neither been a breach of Article 8 (right to family life) nor Art 6(1) (right to a fair trial) in the manner in which the Polish authorities had processed and sought to enforce the order providing for the return of the abducted child to her State of habitual residence.

Article 15 Decision or Determination | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, refusal of Article 15 declaration confirmed

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Procedural Matters

Removal wrongful and return ordered. However, the subsequent concealment of the child for eight years made enforcement of the original return order impossible.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and non-return order confirmed; the boy objected to a return and the standard required under Article 13(2) had been reached.

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

Appeal dismissed and child's application for leave to intervene in the Convention proceedings refused.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

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

Return ordered with regards to the two younger children subject to undertakings; the removal was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) of the Convention to indicate that the children would face a grave risk of harm had not been met. Application dismissed with regard to the oldest child.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Application that the Estonian courts' decision to return the child to Italy had been in breach of international law and contrary to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights declared inadmissible.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; retention wrongful as the children were habitually resident in Australia on the relevant date.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Issues Relating to Return |

Return ordered with undertakings offered

One child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 5 and a half – National of Ukraine and the United Kingdom – Father national of the United Kingdom and South Africa – Mother national of Hungary and Ukraine – Child lived in Ukraine in the mother’s custody with regular contact with the father – Following Russian invasion of Ukraine in late February 2022 child and Mother move to England In April 2022 – Mother plans to return to Ukraine in Summer 2022 – Father obtains Prohibited Steps Order from English Court - Application for return issued on 29 July 2022 – Main issues: habitual residence and Art. 13(1)(b) grave risk exception to return – risk of exposure to war – risk of loss of relationship with father due to alleged closure of court system and mothers hostility to father – A child’s retained roots in Ukraine support his habitual residence remains in the Ukraine – The risk faced by the child upon return to Ukraine failed to meet the threshold of ‘grave harm’ – the region was not subject to active hostility and life continued as normal – the court system was functioning – mother promoted contact – undertakings reduced any risk below grave risk threshold. – Return ordered