Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Non-Convention Issues | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal allowed; the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that English law retained a discretionary, residual basis of jurisdiction over children based on their British nationality. The case was remitted to the trial court to decide whether to exercise this jurisdiction. Were the trial court not to exercise the jurisdiction, a preliminary ruling application would be made to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to enable the Supreme Court to decide on the habitual residence of the child.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the Family Division of the High Court to reconsider the habitual residence of the children.

Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Issues Relating to Return

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed; case remitted to the Court of first instance for it to decide on the matter of the child's habitual residence at the time of the removal.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Two children wrongfully removed at ages nine and four – Nationals of Macedonia – Married parents – Father national of Macedonia – Mother national of Macedonia – Joint parental custody – Children lived in Austria until 28 July 2018 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Austria 5 September 2018 – Return ordered – Main issues: Effective exercise of custody and grave risk – Article 3(1)(b) must be read in the light with the Convention's concern that the original condition should be established; there is a presumption that the holder of custody has fulfilled his obligations; the grounds for exclusion are to be interpreted narrowly and only real dangers are to be taken into account in the case of Article 13(1)(b).

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Case remitted to lower court

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

Appeal dismissed; the pleas raised were not grounds for quashing.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, quashing and annulment of the ruling dismissing the application for the child's return and referral of the case to the Versailles Court of Appeal to act upon the return application in the light of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed; there had been a wrongful retention since the child had her habitual residence in Italy.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, return ordered

1 child wrongfully removed at age 4 – Child lived in France until August 2012 – Return ordered – Main issue: habitual residence – Habitual residence should be determined in the light of all the factual circumstances particular to the case, including the parents’ shared intention and decisions taken with a view to ensure the child’s integration

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Return refused

Non-Convention Issues | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The removal of the child to Argentina was considered wrongful. The grave risk of harm exception envisaged in Article 11.b of the Inter-American Convention on the International Return of Children was not found to be established.

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

Return ordered

The court held that the child had been wrongfully retained in Canada and ordered her return to New Zealand.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

1 child allegedly wrongfully retained at age 13 – National of Brazil – Divorced parents– Father national of Brazil – Mother national of Brazil – Joint right to determine the residence of the child. Father has custody. – Child lived in Brazil until 31 October 2014 – Application for return filed with the Courts of Switzerland on 28 April 2016 – Return refused – Main issue: Objections of the Child to a Return – Child was mature enough for its opinion to be taken into consideration which constituted a reason to refuse the return based on Article 13(2).

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

One child wrongfully retained at age 3 – National of United Kingdom and Switzerland – Married parents – Father national of United Kingdom and Turkey – Mother national of Switzerland and Turkey – Joint parental responsibility – Child lived in the United Kingdom until 7 August 2020 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 12 April 2021 – Return refused – Main issue: Acquiescence/Consent Art.13(1)(a)] –Father’s behaviour deemed acquiescence, namely signing a residence registration, bringing child’s personal effects, transferring money, signing a divorce agreement accepting Switzerland as the place of jurisdiction.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

One child wrongfully retained at age 8 – National of Chile – Unmarried parents – Father national of Chile – Mother national of Chile – Agreement that the “cuidado personal” is solely attributed to the mother, but in fact it is exercised by both – Child lived in Chile until 14 August 2017 – Application for return filed with the courts of Switzerland on 19 September 2018 – Return ordered – Main issue: Rights of custody – Even though formally they agreed that the mother has the sole “cuidado personal” in fact both of the parents exercise it and therefore after the agreed date of return to Chile the retention was wrongful.