Case Law Search

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

Return ordered

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed, return ordered. The retention was considered wrongful. The grave risk exception under Article 13(1)(b), raised by the defendant on appeal, had not been established. The children's opinions did not suggest a strong opposition that would be sufficient to constitute the exception to return under Article 13(2).

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

Application dismissed

Appeal allowed and return ordered; the Article 13(1)(b) exception was no longer established.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return ordered

Retention wrongful and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in the United States of America on the relevant date, and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and non-return order upheld; the doctrine of "equitable tolling" was not applicable to the settlement exception in Art. 12(2) of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters

By a majority ruling (5:2) the ECrtHR found there to have been a violation of Art. 8 of the ECHR and, in a unanimous ruling, that there had been a violation of Art. 6 of the ECHR.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

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

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

By five to two: no breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

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

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as there was no express agreement that the child would return to the United States of America on 29 December 2012.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the children were habitually resident in the United States of America at the relevant date.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Non-Convention Issues | Procedural Matters

Jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales upheld, residence order in favour of the mother confirmed.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Return refused; the retention was not wrongful.

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and application dismissed; the child had not been shown to habitually reside in Italy at the relevant date.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal dismissed; return order upheld. The Court of Appeal had duly provided grounds for its decision and was not required to conduct a more thorough investigation relating to a possible grave risk of danger.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Application dismissed

Application dismissed; the retention was not wrongful as the children were habitually resident in New Zealand on the relevant date.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal of the children was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

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

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful but the children were now settled in their new environment. A discretion remained to order the return of children notwithstanding a finding of settlement, but the District Court's finding that the discretion should not be exercised was not to be disturbed.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Procedural Matters | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal allowed, return denied. The girls had developed significant relations in Costa Rica (at school, with their family and social network) so return could imply serious consequences for the children. A return would, therefore, be contrary to the children's best interests, to Article 51 of the Political Constitution of Costa Rica and Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child of 20 November 1989. The Court also ruled that the exception to return in Article 20 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was applicable.

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

Appeal allowed, return refused

Appeal upheld and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but a return to the United Kingdom would expose the child to a grave risk of physical, and most importantly, psychological harm.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages

Two children wrongfully removed at approximately ages 1 and 2 years old – Nationals of Hungary and Italy – Married parents – Father national of Italy – Mother national of Hungary – Shared parental authority – Children lived in Italy until June 2004 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Italy on 3 March 2005 – Return ordered before application to ECtHR on 16 January 2013 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 3,000 awarded in damages to father and EUR 3,000 awarded in damages to children – The failure to enforce the return order without any explanation or justification, which prevented the father and children from being reunited or seeing each other occassionaly for over seven years, amounted to a violation of the father's and children's right to family life