Case Law Search

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions applied. 

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed, order refusing return upheld. Although the child's retention was wrongful, the father had acquiesced. 

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused. The abduction was wrongful but there was a grave risk that ordering a return would expose the child to harm. It had not been established that the Hungarian authorities could ensure the protection of the child.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the children had lost their Israeli habitual residence by the relevant date.

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

Return refused

Application denied and return refused; although the retention was wrongful, Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was habitually resident in Israel on the relevant date.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Return refused

Retention wrongful but return refused; the father had consented to the relocation of the children to Israel.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Issues Relating to Return

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The Hague Convention, as complemented by the Brussels II a Regulation imposed the return of the children to Spain, considering that adequate protection measures had been taken.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Legal Doctrine

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return upheld. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions raised was applicable.

Issues Relating to Return

Application dismissed

Application dismissed because ill-founded; the Czech authorities had not breached Article 8 of the ECHR.

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

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in Argentina on the relevant date and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under Article 13.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Rights of Access - Art. 21

Application allowed and independent children's lawyer appointed.

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

Removal wrongful; however Convention proceedings adjourned pending determination of substantive custody proceedings in the State of the child's habitual residence.

Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10

Application inadmissible for lack of locus standi.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

By a 4:3 majority: No infringement of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the District Court; the trial court had erred in its conclusions on habitual residence, actual exercise of custody rights and consent.

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

Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal had rightly found the children's retention to be wrongful and the exceptions inapplicable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court.

The court noted that, this case provides a clear example of the additional complications and potential obstacles which arise when parents disagree about whether their children should be permitted to travel between states which do not have reciprocal legal arrangements in force.