Case Law Search

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed insofar as it was admissible. In particular, the mother had failed to prove the existence of acquiescence or a grave risk of danger.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed, return ordered. The removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions invoked was applicable.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

Return refused

Removal wrongful but return refused; the child was settled in his new environment and the Court exercised its discretion not to order his return.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed. The father had acquiesced.

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

Return ordered subject to undertakings

Removal wrongful and return ordered; the Article 13(1)(b) defence had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; acquiescence had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Issues Relating to Return

The Argentinean decisions ordering the return of the child were not contrary to Arts. 8 and 25 (and therefore not contrary to Arts. 17 and 29) of the American Convention on Human Rights (San José Pact).

Issues Relating to Return

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Procedural Matters

An order for costs could be made against an applicant in Convention proceedings, although this should only happen in exceptional cases. In the instant case an order would be made because the mother had acted unreasonably in her pursuit of a return order, which she was ultimately advised to withdraw.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters

Appeal dismissed, application dismissed

Appeal dismissed and thereby application dismissed; the child was not habitually resident in Italy on the date the removal took place.

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

Return ordered

Removal wrongful and return ordered; none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Convention, however, the return was subject to extensive and stringent conditions, including the obtaining of a mirror order in the High Court of South Africa.

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

Return ordered

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, being in breach of the father's rights of custody, but the older siblings had valid objections to a return and the children would face a grave risk of harm if separated.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

Appeal dismissed and return refused: the removal was wrongful, but Article 12(2) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Procedural Matters

Challenge upheld and decision of the Cour d'appel overruled; case remitted to the Cour d'appel of Toulouse.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Challenge to legality dismissed; the retention of the child was wrongful.

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

Return ordered

Challenge to legality dismissed; the child was habitually resident in Canada on the relevant date, therefore the retention was wrongful. None of the exceptions was established.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3

Appeal allowed, application dismissed

Appeal allowed and application dismissed; the removal was not wrongful as the children were habitually resident in Denmark on the relevant date.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Breach of Articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR, award of damages. In merely representing the father before the local courts the Romanian authorities had failed to observe their full obligations under Article 7 of the Hague Convention. The erroneous interpretation of Article 3 of the Hague Convention and thereby the guarantees of that instrument led to a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR.

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

Appeal allowed in part; the removal was wrongful but the return of the girls would be refused for the father by his actions had acquiesced in their remaining in Israel.