Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, following an alternative construction of the concept of habitual residence by the Court of Appeals, the case was remitted to the District Court for it to determine whether the United States had supplanted Israel as the locus of the children's family and social development.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal allowed; the removal was wrongful but the case was remitted to the Family Court in Christchurch to enable it to determine whether any of the exceptions were applicable.

Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed; however the application for residence was dismissed on the merits.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the child was habitually resident in the United States on the relevant date.

Human Rights - Art. 20

Application dismissed; the Convention conforms with the German Constitution and does not infringe any basic rights.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention of the children was wrongful and the standard required under the various exceptions raised had not been met.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the order of 13 March 1996 had given the father custody rights and thereafter the retention of the child in Ireland was wrongful within the terms of Article 3.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Human Rights - Art. 20

Return ordered

Return ordered; the children were habitually resident in Australia at the relevant date, and the standard required under Article 20 to show a breach of the children's constitutional rights had not been met.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; Article 13(1)(b) was not proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; there had been a wrongful removal and neither Article 13(1)(b) nor Article 20 had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Application to set aside dismissed and return ordered; there had been no change in circumstances to warrant interfering with the previous order of the Court of Appeal.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; Article 13(1)(b) had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Appeal dismissed and refusal to enforce return order upheld. The Court did not find any indication for a violation of the applicant's rights granted either by the Federal Constitution or by international instruments.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; a grave risk of harm under 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)

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; the removal was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the retention was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the children would face a grave risk of harm had not been met. The mother was also ordered to pay the costs of the hearing.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, but the standard required to show consent under Article 13(1)(a) had been proved.

Issues Relating to Return

By a majority of 6 to 1 the Court ruled that Romania had breached Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to take proper steps to enforce the various orders giving the applicant mother care of the girls, in particular the return order of 14 December 1994. The Court also made an award of compensation to the mother under Article 41 of the ECHR.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the retention was wrongful but the child objected to a return and was of an appropriate age and maturity to have her views taken into account.