HC/E/CZ 468
República Checa
Ústavní soud Èeské republiky (Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic) (República Checa)
última instancia
Israel
República Checa
7 December 2000
Otra
Objeciones del niño a la restitución - art. 13(2) | Derechos humanos - art. 20
-
-
-
The Constitutional Court noted that neither the court at first instance, nor the court of appeal had taken into consideration the evidence presented by the mother. Moreover, there was now new evidence, namely the expert report presented by the Social Authority. The Court ruled that more evidence should have been presented to address whether or not a return could place the child at a grave risk of harm and whether or not the child was mature enough to voice her views and wishes.
The mother argued that a return order would conflict with Article 32 of the Czech Charter on principal rights and freedoms (part of the Czech Constitution) which provides that parents have the right to care for their children and children have the right to be cared for by their parents. As result of the return order she would be forced, against her will, to leave her home country together with the child and to live abroad. However, the Court did not find these allegations proved, ruling that the main target of Article 32 was to protect best interests of children not of parents.
Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.
The Convention has been found to be in accordance with national constitutions or charters of rights in other Contracting States, see:
Argentina
W. v. O., 14 June 1995, Argentine Supreme Court of Justice, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/AR 362];
Belgium
N° 03/3585/A, Tribunal de première instance de Bruxelles, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/BE 547];
Canada - Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Parsons v. Styger, (1989) 67 OR (2d) 1, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA 16];
Y.D. v. J.B., [1996] R.D.F. 753 (Que.C.A.), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CA/369];
Czech Republic
III. ÚS 440/2000 DAOUD / DAOUD, 7 December 2000, Ústavní soud České republiky (Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic);[INCADAT cite: HC/E/CZ 468];
Germany
2 BvR 982/95 and 2 BvR 983/95, Bundesverfassungsgericht, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 310];
2 BvR 1126/97, Bundesverfassungsgericht, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 338];
Ireland
C.K. v. C.K. [1993] ILRM 534, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 288];
W. v. Ireland and the Attorney General and M.W. [1994] ILRM 126, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 289];
South Africa
Sonderup v. Tondelli 2001 (1) SA 1171 (CC), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ZA 309];
Switzerland
5P.1/1999, Bundesgericht (Tribunal fédéral), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 427];
5A_479/2007 /frs, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 953];
United States of America
Fabri v. Pritikin-Fabri, 221 F. Supp. 2d 859 (2001) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/US 484];
Kufner v. Kufner, 519 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2008) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/US 971];
Rodriguez v. Nat'l Ctr. for Missing & Exploited Children, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5658 (D.D.C., Mar. 31, 2005) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/US 799].
However, several challenges have been upheld in Spain, see:
Re S., Auto de 21 abril de 1997, Audiencia Provincial Barcelona, Sección 1a, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ES 244];
Carrascosa v. McGuire, 520 F.3d 249 (3rd Cir. 2008), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 970].