Texto completo no disponible
Buscador de jurisprudencia
Nueva búsquedaCASO
Nombre del caso
Court of First Instance of Serres (Μονομελές Πρωτοδικείο Σερρών), decision 157, 31 March 2014
Referencia INCADAT
HC/E/1297
Tribunal
Grecia
Primera Instancia
Estados involucrados
Fallo
31 March 2014
Definitiva
Derechos de custodia - art. 3
Solicitud desestimada
Art. 5 of the Greek Constitution; Arts. 1518.1 and 1520 of the Greek Civil Code; Art. 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
-
-
INCADAT comentario
Mecanismo de restitución del artículo 12
¿Qué se entiende por derecho de custodia a los fines del Convenio?
SUMARIO
Sumario disponible en
EN
Facts
Following some tense discussions sometime in 2013, the father became aware of the mother's intention to relocate the domicile of the child to Germany. He therefore filed for injunctive relief, requesting the court to establish the temporary residence of the child, and to issue a ne exeat order, both for the mother and the child.
Ruling
Grounds
Rights of Custody - Art. 3
The Court dismissed the application. It held that the right to determine the child's place of residence formed part of the rights of custody according to Article 5 of the Hague Child Abduction Convention. The same rule prevailed in Greek law: pursuant to Article 1518 of the Civil Code, the custody of a child includes (among other things) the right to determine his / her place of residence. The Court found no abuse of law in the mother's intention to relocate with the child. It was not proven that her main purpose was to hinder the contact rights of the father. Obviously the latter would face difficulties in the exercise of his well-established access rights, however, this was not reason enough to issue a ne exeat order, but rather to rearrange contact details, by filing a separate application to amend the existing agreement, in light of the forthcoming developments.
Author of the summary: Dr. Apostolos Anthimos, Greece
INCADAT comment
What is a Right of Custody for Convention Purposes?
Courts in an overwhelming majority of Contracting States have accepted that a right of veto over the removal of the child from the jurisdiction amounts to a right of custody for Convention purposes, see:
Australia
In the Marriage of Resina [1991] FamCA 33, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 257];
State Central Authority v. Ayob (1997) FLC 92-746, 21 Fam. LR 567 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 232];
Director-General Department of Families, Youth and Community Care and Hobbs, 24 September 1999, Family Court of Australia (Brisbane) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 294];
Austria
2 Ob 596/91, OGH, 05 February 1992, Oberster Gerichtshof [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AT 375];
Canada
Thomson v. Thomson [1994] 3 SCR 551, 6 RFL (4th) 290 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 11].
The Supreme Court did draw a distinction between a non-removal clause in an interim custody order and in a final order. It suggested that were a non-removal clause in a final custody order to be regarded as a custody right for Convention purposes, that could have serious implications for the mobility rights of the primary carer.
Thorne v. Dryden-Hall, (1997) 28 RFL (4th) 297 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 12];
Decision of 15 December 1998, [1999] R.J.Q. 248 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 334];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
C. v. C. (Minor: Abduction: Rights of Custody Abroad) [1989] 1 WLR 654, [1989] 2 All ER 465, [1989] 1 FLR 403, [1989] Fam Law 228 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 34];
Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Foreign Custody Rights) [2006] UKHL 51, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880];
France
Ministère Public c. M.B. 79 Rev. crit. 1990, 529, note Y. Lequette [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 62];
Germany
2 BvR 1126/97, Bundesverfassungsgericht, (Federal Constitutional Court), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 338];
10 UF 753/01, Oberlandesgericht Dresden, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 486];
United Kingdom - Scotland
Bordera v. Bordera 1995 SLT 1176 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 183];
A.J. v. F.J. [2005] CSIH 36, 2005 1 SC 428 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 803];
South Africa
Sonderup v. Tondelli 2001 (1) SA 1171 (CC), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 309];
Switzerland
5P.1/1999, Tribunal fédéral suisse, (Swiss Supreme Court), 29 March 1999, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 427].
United States of America
In the United States, the Federal Courts of Appeals were divided on the appropriate interpretation to give between 2000 and 2010.
A majority followed the 2nd Circuit in adopting a narrow interpretation, see:
Croll v. Croll, 229 F.3d 133 (2d Cir., 2000; cert. den. Oct. 9, 2001) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 313];
Gonzalez v. Gutierrez, 311 F.3d 942 (9th Cir 2002) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 493];
Fawcett v. McRoberts, 326 F.3d 491, 500 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied 157 L. Ed. 2d 732, 124 S. Ct. 805 (2003) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 494];
Abbott v. Abbott, 542 F.3d 1081 (5th Cir. 2008), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 989].
The 11th Circuit however endorsed the standard international interpretation.
Furnes v. Reeves, 362 F.3d 702 (11th Cir. 2004) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 578].
The matter was settled, at least where an applicant parent has a right to decide the child's country of residence, or the court in the State of habitual residence is seeking to protect its own jurisdiction pending further decrees, by the US Supreme Court endorsing the standard international interpretation.
Abbott v. Abbott, 130 S. Ct. 1983 (2010), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 1029].
The standard international interpretation has equally been accepted by the European Court of Human Rights, see:
Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland, No. 41615/07, 8 January 2009 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1001].
Confirmed by the Grand Chamber: Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland, No 41615/07, 6 July 2010 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1323].
Right to Object to a Removal
Where an individual does not have a right of veto over the removal of a child from the jurisdiction, but merely a right to object and to apply to a court to prevent such a removal, it has been held in several jurisdictions that this is not enough to amount to a custody right for Convention purposes:
Canada
W.(V.) v. S.(D.), 134 DLR 4th 481 (1996), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA17];
Ireland
W.P.P. v. S.R.W. [2001] ILRM 371, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 271];
United Kingdom - England & Wales
Re V.-B. (Abduction: Custody Rights) [1999] 2 FLR 192, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 261];
S. v. H. (Abduction: Access Rights) [1998] Fam 49 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 36];
United Kingdom - Scotland
Pirrie v. Sawacki 1997 SLT 1160, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 188].
This interpretation has also been upheld by the Court of Justice of the European Union:
Case C-400/10 PPU J. McB. v. L.E., [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1104].
The European Court held that to find otherwise would be incompatible with the requirements of legal certainty and with the need to protect the rights and freedoms of others, notably those of the sole custodian.
For academic commentary see:
P. Beaumont & P. McEleavy The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, Oxford, OUP, 1999, p. 75 et seq.;
M. Bailey The Right of a Non-Custodial Parent to an Order for Return of a Child Under the Hague Convention; Canadian Journal of Family Law, 1996, p. 287;
C. Whitman 'Croll v Croll: The Second Circuit Limits 'Custody Rights' Under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction' 2001 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law 605.