Case Law Search

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Return refused

Return refused; the child was no longer habitually resident in Germany at the relevant date.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, granting of Article 15 declaration confirmed

Appeal dismissed - issue of Article 15 declaration confirmed; the House of Lords ruled that 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 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Return refused

Return refused; the retention of the child was not wrongful since at the moment of retention the child had acquired a habitual residence in Massachusetts.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed and return refused; in the absence of any evidence in rebuttal from the applicant father the court accepted that there was a grave risk the boys would face an intolerable situation if returned.

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

Return ordered

Issues Relating to Return

The Court ruled unanimously that Austria had breached Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to take proper steps to enforce the order providing for the return of the child. The Court also made an award of compensation to the father under Article 41 of the ECHR, but by a 4 : 3 majority declined to make a financial award to the child who has also issued proceedings.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Article 15 declaration refused

Article 15 declaration refused; the removal was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.

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

Article 15 declaration refused

Article 15 declaration refused; the removal was not wrongful as no rights of custody had been breached.

Non-Convention Issues

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; having considered the child's best interests, the objections of the mother and the policy to applied in non-Convention abduction cases the court ordered that the child be returned to Saudi Arabia.

Non-Convention Issues

Return ordered

Return ordered subject to undertakings.

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

Article 15 declaration granted

Article 15 declaration granted; the removal was wrongful having breached rights of custody held by the father.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Return ordered, subject to undertakings; a grave risk of harm had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Return refused

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

Procedural Matters

The Court found that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the Convention and awarded damages to both mother and child.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal was in breach of actually exercised rights of custody and was therefore wrongful, none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the trial court had been entitled to find that the Article 13(1)(b) exception had been established.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

The Grand Chamber held by 9 votes to 8 that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Unanimous: no breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). There was no separate issue concerning the claims based on Articles 6 and 13. The authorities' lack of diligence in preventing the abduction was admittedly manifest but had been indemnified by the Spanish authorities. The authorities had not been lacking in diligence regarding the child's return, despite the absence of results in this respect.

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

Appeal inadmissible; the appellant failed to assert any plea raising a substantial issue.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application for ne exeat order dismissed; the Court invoked Article 5 of the Hague Child Abduction Convention, in conjunction with Article 1518.1 of the Greek Civil Code.