Case Law Search

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

Application dismissed

The Court dismissed the return application.

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

Return refused

The court found that the father acquiesced in the children remaining in Canada, and refused to order the return of the children under the the Article 13(a) exception.

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

Return ordered

2 children wrongfully retained at ages 1 and 2 – Married parents – Father national of the United States – Mother national of Canada – Both parents had rights of custody under the laws of Iowa – Children lived in the United State until 16 June 2018 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of the United States on 18 August 2018 – Return ordered – Main issues: Article 3 -  children habitually resident in the United States, father had rights of custody and had only agreed to a one month stay in Canada, retention was therefore wrongful - Article 13(1)(a) Consent & Acquiescence – Exception not established, there is no “clear and cogent evidence of unequivocal consent or acquiescence” - Article 13(1)(b) Grave Risk – Exception not established, measures of protection are available in Iowa.

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

Return ordered

The Court found that the retention of the children in South Africa was wrongful and ordered their return to New Zealand.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Interpretation of the Convention

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Appeal dismissed and return ordered.  

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)

Return refused

Return refused; the removal was wrongful, but there was a grave risk that a return would expose the child to psychological harm and place him in an intolerable situation.

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

Return ordered

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

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters

Appeal allowed and partially founded. The child's return to Germany was ordered.

Consent - Art. 13(1)(a)

Appeal declared inadmissible. The existence of a valid consent does not generally raise any important question of law which may be referred to the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof). Nor had the Court of Appeal, in the case at hand, made any key misinterpretations requiring correction by the Supreme Court.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | 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) | Procedural Matters

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 by the Convention.

Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Appeal dismissed, return refused

2 children allegedly wrongfully retained (aged 10 and 14 at the time of the decision) – Married parents – Father national of the United-States – Mother national of China Hong Kong SAR and the United-States – Children lived in the United States until July 2013 – Application for return filed in February 2015 – Application dismissed – Main issues: habitual residence, wrongful retention, and children’s objections to return – A change of habitual residence occurs when a move from one State to another has a sufficient degree of stability – The absence of a joint parental intention to reside in a given State is not decisive in precluding the possibility of the children having established habitual residence there – Retention is considered wrongful from the moment the parent knows (s)he will not return to the previous country – When taking into account children’s views, a preference may be sufficient to meet the standard of the child’s objection exception under Art. 13(2), provided it is substantial

Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Case remitted to lower court

1 child wrongfully removed at age 4 - National of Switzerland - Unmarried parents - Father national of Switzerland - Mother national of Spain - The lower courts had determined that the removal was in breach of the father’s custody rights - Child lived in Switzerland until August 2013 - Application for return filed with the courts of Spain on 7 November 2013 - Return refused at first instance, then return ordered on appeal - Main issue: settlement of the child - “Amparo” claim successful: the Constitutional Court found that the mother’s constitutional right to effective legal protection had been violated (no ruling on return / non-return) - A proper analysis of whether the child has become settled in its new environment should be conducted where a year has passed since the abduction occurred, in order for a decision to be rendered that is in the best interests of the child - It is immaterial that the delay is not attributable to the conduct of the parents; regardless of the cause, it may not affect the best interests of the child

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.

Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)

The Court unanimously ruled that Romania had breached Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to thoroughly assess the best interests of the child and to give the father the opportunity to present his case. It also awarded the father compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

The Court unanimously ruled that Hungary had breached Article 8 of the ECHR where domestic courts failed to act expeditiously in the proceedings to return the child and the national authorities had failed to take adequate and effective measures for the enforcement of the return order. It also awarded the father compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.

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

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Return ordered; the "grave risk of harm" exception had not been established.

Human Rights - Art. 20

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.

Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)

Appeal allowed, return ordered

Appeal allowed and return ordered; Article 13(1)(a) - acquiescence - had not been proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Human Rights - Art. 20

Appeal inadmissible for being manifestly unfounded. None of Arts. 3, 12, 13(1)(b) and 14 is inconsistent with the German Constitution, and neither their interpretation nor their application by the Court of Appeal was inconsistent with the Constitution.