Case Law Search

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.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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.

Issues Relating to Return

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.

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

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

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

Return ordered

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

Appeal dismissed, return ordered

Rights of Access - Art. 21 | Procedural Matters

The father's appeal was dismissed; the mother's appeal was granted. The court excluded any access on the grounds that contact between the father and the children was not in the children's best interests.

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

Return ordered

Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2)

Return ordered

The retention was wrongful and Article 13(2) was not proved to the standard required under the Convention.

Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Procedural Matters

The Court ruled unanimously that Romania had breached Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to prevent a decision on the merits of the right to custody being taken in the State of refuge and by failing to act in the Convention proceedings with the requisite degree of urgency. The Court also made an award of compensation to the father under Article 41 of the ECHR.

Rights of Access - Art. 21 | Procedural Matters

The Court ruled unanimously that Romania had breached Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to take adequate measures to ensure respect for the father's right of access over a period of 6 years. The Court also made an award of compensation to the father under Article 41 of the ECHR.

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

Appeal allowed and case remitted to the Family Court of Australia for adjudication; the trial judge had erred in rejecting the Article 13(1)(b) exception without paying sufficient regard to the expert evidence on the matter.