Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of physical harm had not been met.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Return ordered, subject to undertakings; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the children would face a grave risk of harm had not been met.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, but, on the strength of the child's objection to a return to Switzerland, the court exercised its discretion under Article 13(2) not to send her back.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the removal of the child was wrongful and none of the exceptions was applicable.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the father had acquiesced in the retention of the children.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; there had been a wrongful retention and none of the exceptions had been established.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Procedural Matters

Return ordered

Return ordered; there had been a wrongful removal and there was insufficient evidence to indicate consent on the part of the applicant mother.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful, the children being habitually resident in England in April 1995.

Return refused

Return refused; the father had waived his Convention rights when he dismissed the substantive proceedings brought in the State of the child's habitual residence.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in Spain at the relevant date. The child was not wrongfully retained in Ohio, as the United States had become the child's habitual residence.

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, but on the strength of the child's objection to a return to Switzerland, the court exercised its discretion under Article 13(2) not to order a return.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate the child would face a grave risk of psychological harm had not been met.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court finding that no custody rights had been breached and that consequently there had not been a wrongful removal.

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

Return ordered

Return ordered; the standard required under Articles 13(1)(b) and 20 had not been met.

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.