Recherche de décisions

The issue of how to respond when a taking parent who is a primary carer threatens not to accompany a child back to the State of habitual residence if a return order is made, is a controversial one.

There are examples from many Contracting States where courts have taken a very strict approach so that, other than in exceptional situations, the Article 13(1)(b) exception has not been upheld where the non-return argument has been raised, see:

Austria
4Ob1523/96, Oberster Gerichtshof [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AT 561]

Canada
M.G. v. R.F., 2002 R.J.Q. 2132 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 762]

N.P. v. A.B.P., 1999 R.D.F. 38 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CA 764]

In this case, a non-return order was made since the facts were exceptional. There had been a genuine threat to the mother, which had put her quite obviously and rightfully in fear for her safety if she returned to Israel. The mother was taken to Israel on false pretences, sold to the Russian Mafia and re-sold to the father who forced her into prostitution. She was locked in, beaten by the father, raped and threatened. The mother was genuinely in a state of fear and could not be expected to return to Israel. It would be wholly inappropriate to send the child back without his mother to a father who had been buying and selling women and running a prostitution business.

United Kingdom - England and Wales
C. v. C. (Minor: Abduction: Rights of Custody Abroad) [1989] 1 WLR 654 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 34]

Re C. (Abduction: Grave Risk of Psychological Harm) [1999] 1 FLR 1145 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 269]

However, in a more recent English Court of Appeal judgment, the C. v. C. approach has been refined:

Re S. (A Child) (Abduction: Grave Risk of Harm) [2002] 3 FCR 43, [2002] EWCA Civ 908 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 469]

In this case, it was ruled that a mother's refusal to return was capable of amounting to a defence because the refusal was not an act of unreasonableness, but came about as a result of an illness she was suffering from. It may be noted, however, that a return order was nevertheless still made. In this context reference may also be made to the decisions of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Re E. (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) [2011] UKSC 27, [2012] 1 A.C. 144 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 1068] and Re S. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2012] UKSC 10, [2012] 2 A.C. 257 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKe 1147], in which it was accepted that the anxieties of a respondent mother about return, which were not based upon objective risk to her but nevertheless were of such intensity as to be likely, in the event of a return, to destabilise her parenting of the child to the point at which the child's situation would become intolerable, could in principle meet the threshold of the Article 13(1)(b) exception.

Germany
Oberlandesgericht Dresden, 10 UF 753/01, 21 January 2002 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/DE 486]

Oberlandesgericht Köln, 21 UF 70/01, 12 April 2001 [INCADAT: HC/E/DE 491]

Previously a much more liberal interpretation had been adopted:
Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart, 17 UF 260/98, 25 November 1998 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/DE 323]

Switzerland
5P_71/2003/min, II. Zivilabteilung, arrêt du TF du 27 mars 2003 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 788]

5P_65/2002/bnm, II. Zivilabteilung, arrêt du TF du 11 avril 2002 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 789]

5P_367/2005/ast, II. Zivilabteilung, arrêt du TF du 15 novembre 2005 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 841]

5A_285/2007/frs, IIe Cour de droit civil, arrêt du TF du 16 août 2007 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 955]

5A_479/2012, IIe Cour de droit civil, arrêt du TF du 13 juillet 2012 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/CH 1179]

New Zealand
K.S. v. L.S. [2003] 3 NZLR 837 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/NZ 770]

United Kingdom - Scotland
McCarthy v. McCarthy [1994] SLT 743 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UKs 26]

United States of America
Panazatou v. Pantazatos, No. FA 96071351S (Conn. Super. Ct., 1997) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/USs 97]

In other Contracting States, the approach taken with regard to non-return arguments has varied:

Australia
In Australia, early Convention case law exhibited a very strict approach adopted with regard to non-return arguments, see:

Director-General Department of Families, Youth and Community Care and Hobbs, 24 September 1999, Family Court of Australia (Brisbane) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 294]

Director General of the Department of Family and Community Services v. Davis (1990) FLC 92-182 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 293]
 
In State Central Authority v. Ardito, 20 October 1997 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/AU 283], the Family Court of Australia at Melbourne did find the grave risk of harm exception to be established where the mother would not return, but in this case the mother had been denied entry into the United States of America, the child's State of habitual residence.

Following the judgment of the High Court of Australia (the highest court in the Australian judicial system) in the joint appeals DP v. Commonwealth Central Authority; J.L.M. v. Director-General, NSW Department of Community Services [2001] HCA 39, (2001) 180 ALR 402 [INCADAT Reference HC/E/AU 346, 347], greater attention has been focused on the post-return situation facing abducted children.

In the context of a primary-carer taking parent refusing to return to the child's State of habitual residence see: Director General, Department of Families v. RSP. [2003] FamCA 623 [INCADAT Reference HC/E/AU 544]. 

France
In French case law, a permissive approach to Article 13(1)(b) has been replaced with a much more restrictive interpretation. For examples of the initial approach, see:

Cass. Civ 1ère 12. 7. 1994, S. c. S.. See Rev. Crit. 84 (1995), p. 96 note H. Muir Watt; JCP 1996 IV 64 note Bosse-Platière, Defrénois 1995, art. 36024, note J. Massip [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FR 103]

Cass. Civ 1ère, 22 juin 1999, No de RG 98-17902 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FR 498]

And for examples of the stricter interpretation, see:

Cass Civ 1ère, 25 janvier 2005, No de RG 02-17411 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/FR 708]

CA Agen, 1 décembre 2011, No de RG 11/01437 [INCADAT Reference HC/E/FR 1172]

Israel
In Israeli case law there are contrasting examples of the judicial response to non-return arguments:
 
Civil Appeal 4391/96 Ro v. Ro [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/IL 832]

in contrast with:

Family Appeal 621/04 D.Y v. D.R [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/IL 833]

Poland
Decision of the Supreme Court, 7 October 1998, I CKN 745/98 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/PL 700]

The Supreme Court noted that it would not be in the child's best interests if she were deprived of her mother's care, were the latter to choose to remain in Poland. However, it equally affirmed that if the child were to stay in Poland it would not be in her interests to be deprived of the care of her father. For these reasons, the Court concluded that it could not be assumed that ordering the return of the child would place her in an intolerable situation.

Decision of the Supreme Court, 1 December 1999, I CKN 992/99 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/PL 701]

The Supreme Court specified that the frequently used argument of the child's potential separation from the taking parent, did not, in principle, justify the application of the exception. It held that where there were no objective obstacles to the return of a taking parent, then it could be assumed that the taking parent considered his own interest to be more important than those of the child.

The Court added that a taking parent's fear of being held criminally liable was not an objective obstacle to return, as the taking parent should have been aware of the consequences of his actions. The situation with regard to infants was however more complicated. The Court held that the special bond between mother and baby only made their separation possible in exceptional cases, and this was so even if there were no objective obstacles to the mother's return to the State of habitual residence. The Court held that where the mother of an infant refused to return, whatever the reason, then the return order should be refused on the basis of Article 13(1)(b). On the facts, return was ordered.

Uruguay
Solicitud conforme al Convenio de La Haya sobre los Aspectos Civiles de la Sustracción Internacional de Menores - Casación, IUE 9999-68/2010 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/UY 1185]

European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR)
There are decisions of the ECrtHR which have endorsed a strict approach with regard to the compatibility of Hague Convention exceptions and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Some of these cases have considered arguments relevant to the issue of grave risk of harm, including where an abductor has indicated an unwillingness to accompany the returning child, see:

Ilker Ensar Uyanık c. Turquie (Application No 60328/09) [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1169]

In this case, the ECrtHR upheld a challenge by the left-behind father that the refusal of the Turkish courts to return his child led to a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. The ECrtHR stated that whilst very young age was a criterion to be taken into account to determine the child's interest in an abduction case, it could not be considered by itself a sufficient ground, in relation to the requirements of the Hague Convention, to justify dismissal of a return application.

Recourse has been had to expert evidence to assist in ascertaining the potential consequences of the child being separated from the taking parent

Maumousseau and Washington v. France (Application No 39388/05) of 6 December 2007 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 942]

Lipowsky and McCormack v. Germany (Application No 26755/10) of 18 January 2011 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1201]

MR and LR v. Estonia (Application No 13420/12) of 15 May 2012 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1177]

However, it must equally be noted that since the Grand Chamber ruling in Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland, there are examples of a less strict approach being followed. The latter ruling had emphasised the best interests of the individual abducted child in the context of an application for return and the ascertainment of whether the domestic courts had conducted an in-depth examination of the entire family situation as well as a balanced and reasonable assessment of the respective interests of each person, see:

Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland (Application No 41615/07), Grand Chamber, of 6 July 2010 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1323]

X. v. Latvia (Application No 27853/09) of 13 December 2011 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1146]; and Grand Chamber ruling X. v. Latvia (Application No 27853/09), Grand Chamber [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1234]

B. v. Belgium (Application No 4320/11) of 10 July 2012 [INCADAT Reference: HC/E/ 1171]

In this case, a majority found that the return of a child to the United States of America would lead to a breach of Article 8 of the ECHR. The decision-making process of the Belgian Appellate Court as regards Article 13(1)(b) was held not to have met the procedural requirements inherent in Article 8 of the ECHR. The two dissenting judges noted, however, that the danger referred to in Article 13 should not consist only of the separation of the child from the taking parent.

(Author: Peter McEleavy, April 2013)

Article 13(2) does not include a minimum age from which the objections of a child must be ascertained, rather it employs the formula that the child must have ‘attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.'  Nevertheless it was the intention of the drafters that the exception would be primarily directed towards teenagers who were not prepared to go back to their home State.

Undoubtedly influenced by domestic family law practice, different patterns emerged in Contracting States as to the manner in which this exception has been applied.  Moreover those patterns may have evolved in jurisdictions during the life span of the application of the Convention, particularly as greater recognition has been paid to children as legal actors in their own right.  Indeed in the European Union, at least as regards intra-EU abductions, there is now an obligation that a child is given an opportunity to be heard, unless this appears inappropriate having regard to his age or maturity: Council Regulation 2201/2003, Art. 11(2).

The issue of age and maturity is also closely inter-related with the threshold applied to the exception, that is to say the criteria used to determine the circumstances in which it may be appropriate to take a child's objections into account, see for example: Re T. (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2000] 2 FLR 192 [INCADAT cite HC/E/UKe 270]; Zaffino v. Zaffino [2006] 1 FLR 410 [INCADAT cite HC/E/UKe 813]; W. v. W. 2004 S.C. 63 IH (1 Div) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 805]; White v. Northumberland [2006] NZFLR 1105, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 902].

Australia

H.Z. v. State Central Authority [2006] Fam CA 466, INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 876] 

8 year old expressed objections which went beyond the mere expression of a preference or of ordinary wishes, however, in the light of her age and degree of maturity it would not be appropriate to take account of her views.

Director-General, Department of Families, Youth and Community Care v. Thorpe (1997) FLC 92-785 INCADAT cite: HC/E/AU 212]

Objections of 9 year old upheld

Germany

4 UF 223/98, Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 820]

No fixed age limit.  The 8 year old concerned lacked sufficient maturity.

93 F 178/98 HK, Familengericht Flensburg (Family Court), 18 September 1998, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/DE 325]

Objections of 6 year old gathered, but not upheld. 

Ireland

In the Matter of M. N. (A Child) [2008] IEHC 382, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/IE 992] 

Detailed assessment of the age at which the views of a child should be heard in the light of Article 11(2) of the Brussels II a Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003).  Order made that the views of a 6 year old be ascertained.

New Zealand

U. v. D. [2002] NZFLR 529, INCADAT cite: HC/E/NZ 472] 

Objections of 7 year old considered, but not upheld.

Switzerland

5P.1/2005 /bnm, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 795] 

No minimum age.  Children aged 9 1/2 and 10 ½ heard, but their objections were not upheld.

5P.3/2007 /bnm, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/CH 894] 

A child would have the requisite maturity if he was able to understand the nature of the return proceedings. It was not possible to give general guidance as to the minimum age from which a child would be able to deal with such an abstract issue. The Court noted however that research in the field of child psychology suggested a child would only be capable of such reasoning from the age of 11 or 12.  The court of appeal had therefore been entitled not to gather the views of children, then aged 9 and 7.

United Kingdom - England & Wales

Re W (Minors) [2010] EWCA 520 Civ, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 1324] 

Objections of siblings aged 8 and almost 6 upheld.

The Court accepted that the objections of a child of 6 falling within the exception would have been outside the contemplation of the drafters.  However, Wilson L.J. held that: "...over the last thirty years the need to take decisions about much younger children not necessarily in accordance with their wishes but at any rate in the light of their wishes has taken hold... ."

United Kingdom - Scotland

N.J.C. v. N.P.C. [2008] CSIH 34, 2008 S.C. 571, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 996] 

Views of 9 ½ year old not gathered; objections of her 15 and 11 year old siblings not upheld.

W. v. W. 2004 S.C. 63 IH (1 Div) [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKs 805]

9 year old not of sufficient maturity to have her views considered - decision of trial judge reversed.

United States

Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F.3d 153 (2d Cir. 2001) INCADAT cite: HC/E/USf 585]

No minimum age at which objections of a child can be ascertained.  Objections of 8 year old, within the context of an Art. 13(1)b) assessment, upheld.

Escobar v. Flores 183 Cal. App. 4th 737 (2010), [INCADAT cite: HC/E/USs 1026]

No minimum age at which objections of a child can be ascertained.  Objections of 8 year old upheld.

The application of the 1980 Hague Convention within the Member States of the European Union (Denmark excepted) has been amended following the entry into force of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, see:

Affaire C-195/08 PPU Rinau v. Rinau, [2008] ECR I 5271 [2008] 2 FLR 1495 [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/ 987];

Affaire C 403/09 PPU Detiček v. Sgueglia, [Référence INCADAT : HC/E/ 1327].

The Hague Convention remains the primary tool to combat child abductions within the European Union but its operation has been fine tuned.

An autonomous EU definition of ‘rights of custody' has been adopted: Article 2(9) of the Brussels II a Regulation, which is essentially the same as that found in Article 5 a) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention. There is equally an EU formula for determining the wrongfulness of a removal or retention: Article 2(11) of the Regulation. The latter embodies the key elements of Article 3 of the Convention, but adds an explanation as to the joint exercise of custody rights, an explanation which accords with international case law.

See: Case C-400/10 PPU J Mc.B. v. L.E, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1104].

Of greater significance is Article 11 of the Brussels II a Regulation.

Article 11(2) of the Brussels II a Regulation requires that when applying Articles 12 and 13 of the 1980 Hague Convention that the child is given the opportunity to be heard during the proceedings, unless this appears inappropriate having regard to his age or degree of maturity.

This obligation has led to a realignment in judicial practice in England, see:

Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006] UKHL 51, [2007] 1 A.C. 619 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 880] where Baroness Hale noted that the reform would lead to children being heard more frequently in Hague cases than had hitherto happened.

Re M. (A Child) (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2007] EWCA Civ 260, [2007] 2 FLR 72,  [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 901]

The Court of Appeal endorsed the suggestion by Baroness Hale that the requirement under the Brussels II a Regulation to ascertain the views of children of sufficient age of maturity was not restricted to intra-European Community cases of child abduction, but was a principle of universal application.

Article 11(3) of the Brussels II a Regulation requires Convention proceedings to be dealt with within 6 weeks.

Klentzeris v. Klentzeris [2007] EWCA Civ 533, [2007] 2 FLR 996, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 931]

Thorpe LJ held that this extended to appeal hearings and as such recommended that applications for permission to appeal should be made directly to the trial judge and that the normal 21 day period for lodging a notice of appeal should be restricted.

Article 11(4) of the Brussels II a Regulation provides that the return of a child cannot be refused under Article 13(1) b) of the Hague Convention if it is established that adequate arrangements have been made to secure the protection of the child after his return.

Cases in which reliance has been placed on Article 11(4) of the Brussels II a Regulation to make a return order include:

France
CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No 06/002739 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 947];

CA Paris 15 février 2007 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 979].

The relevant protection was found not to exist, leading to a non-return order being made, in:

CA Aix-en-Provence, 30 novembre 2006, N° RG 06/03661 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/FR 717].

The most notable element of Article 11 is the new mechanism which is now applied where a non-return order is made on the basis of Article 13.  This allows the authorities in the State of the child's habitual residence to rule on whether the child should be sent back notwithstanding the non-return order.  If a subsequent return order is made under Article 11(7) of the Regulation, and is certified by the issuing judge, then it will be automatically enforceable in the State of refuge and all other EU-Member States.

Article 11(7) Brussels II a Regulation - Return Order Granted:

Re A. (Custody Decision after Maltese Non-return Order: Brussels II Revised) [2006] EWHC 3397 (Fam.), [2007] 1 FLR 1923 [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 883]

Article 11(7) Brussels II a Regulation - Return Order Refused:

Re A. H.A. v. M.B. (Brussels II Revised: Article 11(7) Application) [2007] EWHC 2016 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 289, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/UKe 930].

The CJEU has ruled that a subsequent return order does not have to be a final order for custody:

Case C-211/10 PPU Povse v. Alpago, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1328].

In this case it was further held that the enforcement of a return order cannot be refused as a result of a change of circumstances.  Such a change must be raised before the competent court in the Member State of origin.

Furthermore abducting parents may not seek to subvert the deterrent effect of Council Regulation 2201/2003 in seeking to obtain provisional measures to prevent the enforcement of a custody order aimed at securing the return of an abducted child:

Case C 403/09 PPU Detiček v. Sgueglia, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1327].

For academic commentary on the new EU regime see:

P. McEleavy ‘The New Child Abduction Regime in the European Community: Symbiotic Relationship or Forced Partnership?' [2005] Journal of Private International Law 5 - 34.

Una cuestión controvertida es cómo responder cuando el padre que ejerce el cuidado principal del menor lo sustrae y amenaza con no acompañarlo de regreso al Estado de residencia habitual en caso de expedirse una orden de restitución.

Los tribunales de muchos Estados contratantes han adoptado un enfoque muy estricto, por lo que, salvo en situaciones muy excepcionales, se han rehusado a estimar la excepción del artículo 13(1)(b) cuando se presenta este argumento relativo a la negativa del sustractor a regresar. Véanse:

Austria
4Ob1523/96, Oberster Gerichtshof (tribunal supremo de Austria), 27/02/1996 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/AT 561]

Canadá
M.G. c. R.F., [2002] R.J.Q. 2132 (Que. C.A.) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/CA 762]

N.P. v. A.B.P., [1999] R.D.F. 38 (Que. C.A.) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/CA 764]

En este caso se dictó una resolución de no restitución porque los hechos eran excepcionales. Había habido una amenaza genuina a la madre, que justificadamente le generó temor por su seguridad si regresaba a Israel. Fue engañada y llevada a Israel, vendida a la mafia rusa y revendida al padre, quien la forzó a prostituirse. Fue encerrada, golpeada por el padre, violada y amenazada. Estaba realmente atemorizada, por lo que no podía esperarse que regresara a Israel. Habría sido totalmente inapropiado enviar al niño de regreso sin su madre a un padre que había estado comprando y vendiendo mujeres y llevando adelante un negocio de prostitución.

Reino Unido - Inglaterra y Gales
C. v. C. (Minor: Abduction: Rights of Custody Abroad) [1989] 1 WLR 654 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 34]

Re C. (Abduction: Grave Risk of Psychological Harm) [1999] 1 FLR 1145 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 269]

No obstante, una sentencia más reciente del Tribunal de Apelaciones inglés ha refinado el enfoque del caso C. v. C.: Re S. (A Child) (Abduction: Grave Risk of Harm) [2002] EWCA Civ 908, [2002] 3 FCR 43 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 469].

En este caso, se resolvió que la negativa de una madre a restituir al menor era apta para configurar una defensa, puesto que no constituía un acto carente de razonabilidad, sino que surgía como consecuencia de una enfermedad que ella padecía. Cabe destacar, sin embargo, que aun así se expidió una orden de restitución. En este marco se puede hacer referencia a las sentencias del Tribunal Supremo del Reino Unido en Re E. (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) [2011] UKSC 27, [2012] 1 A.C. 144 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 1068] y Re S. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2012] UKSC 10, [2012] 2 A.C. 257 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 1147]. En estas decisiones se aceptó que el temor que una madre podía tener con respecto a la restitución ―aunque no estuviere fundado en riesgos objetivos, pero sí fuere de una intensidad tal como para considerar que el retorno podría afectar sus habilidades de cuidado al punto de que la situación del niño podría volverse intolerable―, en principio, podría ser suficiente para declarar configurada la excepción del artículo 13(1)(b).

Alemania
10 UF 753/01, Oberlandesgericht Dresden (tribunal regional superior) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/DE 486]

21 UF 70/01, Oberlandesgericht Köln (tribunal regional superior) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/DE 491]

Anteriormente, se había adoptado una interpretación mucho más liberal: 17 UF 260/98, Oberlandesgericht Stuttgart [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/DE 323]

Suiza
5P.71/2003 /min, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/CH 788]

5P.65/2002/bnm, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile) [Referenia INCADAT: HC/E/CH 789]

5P.367/2005 /ast, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/CH 841]

5A_285/2007 /frs, Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung (Tribunal Fédéral, 2ème Chambre Civile) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/CH 955]

5A_479/2012, IIe Cour de droit civil [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/CH 1179]

Nueva Zelanda
K.S. v. LS. [2003] 3 NZLR 837 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/NZ 770]

Reino Unido - Escocia
McCarthy v. McCarthy [1994] SLT 743 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UKs 26]

Estados Unidos de América
Panazatou v. Pantazatos, No. FA 96071351S (Conn. Super. Ct. September 24, 1997) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/USs 97]

En otros Estados contratantes, el enfoque adoptado con respecto a los argumentos tendentes a la no restitución ha sido diferente:

Australia
En Australia, en un principio, la jurisprudencia relativa al Convenio adoptó un enfoque muy estricto con respecto a los argumentos tendentes a la no restitución. Véase:

Director-General Department of Families, Youth and Community Care and Hobbs, 24 de septiembre de 1999, Tribunal de Familia de Australia (Brisbane) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/AU 294]

Director General of the Department of Family and Community Services v. Davis (1990) FLC 92-182 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/AU 293]

En la sentencia State Central Authority v. Ardito, de 20 de octubre de 1997 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/AU 283], el Tribunal de Familia de Melbourne estimó que la excepción de grave riesgo se encontraba configurada por la negativa de la madre a la restitución, pero, en este caso, a la madre se le había negado la entrada a los Estados Unidos de América, Estado de residencia habitual del menor.

Luego de la sentencia dictada por el High Court de Australia (la máxima autoridad judicial en el país), en el marco de las apelaciones conjuntas D.P. v. Commonwealth Central Authority; J.L.M. v. Director-General, New South Wales Department of Community Services (2001) 206 CLR 401; (2001) FLC 93-081) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/AU 346, 347], se prestó más atención a la situación que debe enfrentar el menor luego de la restitución.

En el marco de los casos en que el progenitor sustractor era la persona que ejercía el cuidado principal del menor, que luego se niega a regresar al Estado de residencia habitual del menor, véase: Director General, Department of Families v. RSP. [2003] FamCA 623 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/AU 544].

Francia
En Francia, un enfoque permisivo del artículo 13(1)(b) ha sido reemplazado por una interpretación mucho más restrictiva. Véanse:

Cass. Civ. 1ère 12.7.1994, S. c. S., Rev. Crit. 84 (1995), p. 96 note H. Muir Watt; JCP 1996 IV 64 note Bosse-Platière, Defrénois 1995, art. 36024, note J. Massip [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/FR 103]

Cass. Civ. 1ère 22 juin 1999, No de pourvoi 98-17902 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/FR 498]

Los casos siguientes constituyen ejemplos de la interpretación más estricta:

Cass Civ 1ère, 25 janvier 2005, No de pourvoi 02-17411 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/FR 708]

CA Agen, 1 décembre 2011, No de pourvoi 11/01437 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/FR 1172]

Israel
En la jurisprudencia israelí se han adoptado respuestas divergentes a los argumentos tendentes a la no restitución:

Civil Appeal 4391/96 Ro. v. Ro [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/IL 832]

A diferencia de:

Family Appeal 621/04 D.Y. v. D.R. [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/IL 833]

Polonia
Decisión de la Corte Suprema, 7 de octubre de 1998, I CKN 745/98 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/PL 700]

La Corte Suprema señaló que privar a la niña del cuidado de su madre, si esta última decidía permanecer en Polonia, era contrario al interés superior de la menor. No obstante, también afirmó que si permanecía en Polonia, estar privada del cuidado de su padre también era contrario a sus intereses. Por estas razones, el Tribunal llegó a la conclusión de que no se podía declarar que la restitución fuera a colocarla en una situación intolerable.

Decisión de la Corte Suprema, 1 de diciembre de 1999, I CKN 992/99 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/PL 701]

La Corte Suprema precisó que el típico argumento sobre la posible separación del niño del padre privado del menor no es suficiente, en principio, para que se configure la excepción. Declaró que en los casos en los que no existen obstáculos objetivos para que el padre sustractor regrese, se puede presumir que el padre sustractor adjudica una mayor importancia a su propio interés que al interés del niño.

La Corte añadió que el miedo del padre sustractor a incurrir en responsabilidad penal no constituye un obstáculo objetivo a la restitución, ya que se considera que debería haber sido consciente de sus acciones. Sin embargo, la situación se complica cuando los niños son muy pequeños. La Corte declaró que el lazo especial que existe entre la madre y su bebe hace que la separación sea posible solo en casos excepcionales, aun cuando no existan circunstancias objetivas que obstaculicen el regreso de la madre al Estado de residencia habitual. La Corte declaró que en los casos en que la madre de un niño pequeño se niega a la restitución, por la razón que fuere, se deberá desestimar la demanda de retorno sobre la base del artículo 13(1)(b). En base a los hechos del caso, se resolvió en favor de la restitución.

Uruguay
Solicitud conforme al Convenio de La Haya sobre los Aspectos Civiles de la Sustracción Internacional de Menores - Casación, IUE 9999-68/2010 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/UY 1185]

Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos (TEDH)
Existen sentencias del TEDH en las que se adoptó un enfoque estricto con respecto a la compatibilidad de las excepciones del Convenio de La Haya con el Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos (CEDH). En algunos de estos casos se plantearon argumentos respecto de la cuestión del grave riesgo, incluso en asuntos en los que el padre sustractor ha expresado una negativa a acompañar al niño en el retorno. Véase:

Ilker Ensar Uyanık c. Turquie (Application No 60328/09) [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/ 1169]

En este caso, el TEDH acogió la apelación del padre solicitante en donde este planteaba que la negativa de los tribunales turcos a resolver la restitución del menor implicaba una vulneración del artículo 8 del CEDH. El TEDH afirmó que si bien se debe tener en cuenta la corta edad del menor para determinar qué es lo más conveniente para él en un asunto de sustracción, no se puede considerar este criterio por sí solo como justificación suficiente, en el sentido del Convenio de La Haya, para desestimar la demanda de restitución.

Se ha recurrido a pruebas periciales para determinar las consecuencias que pueden resultar de la separación del menor del padre sustractor.

Maumousseau and Washington v. France (Application No 39388/05), 6 de diciembre de 2007 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/ 942]

Lipowsky and McCormack v. Germany (Application No 26755/10), 18 de enero de 2011 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/ 1201]

MR and LR v. Estonia (Application No 13420/12), 15 de mayo de 2012 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/ 1177]

Sin embargo, también cabe señalar que desde la sentencia de la Gran Sala del caso Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland ha habido ejemplos en los que se ha adoptado un enfoque menos estricto. En esta sentencia se había puesto énfasis en el interés superior del niño en el marco de una demanda de restitución, y en determinar si los tribunales nacionales habían llevado a cabo un examen pormenorizado de la situación familiar y una evaluación equilibrada y razonable de los intereses de cada una de las partes. Véanse:

Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland (Application No 41615/07), Gran Sala, 6 de julio de 2010 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/ 1323]

X. c. Letonia (demanda n.° 27853/09), 13 de diciembre de 2011 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/ 1146]; y sentencia de la Gran Sala X. c. Letonia (demanda n.° 27853/09), Gran Sala [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/ 1234]

B. v. Belgium (Application No 4320/11), 10 de julio de 2012 [Referencia INCADAT: HC/E/ 1171]

En este caso, la mayoría sostuvo que el retorno del menor a los Estados Unidos de América constituiría una violación al artículo 8 del CEDH. Se declaró que el proceso decisorio del Tribunal de Apelaciones de Bélgica con respecto al artículo 13(1)(b) no había observado los requisitos procesales inherentes al artículo 8 del CEDH. Los dos jueces que votaron en disidencia resaltaron, no obstante, que el riesgo al que hace referencia el artículo 13 no debe estar relacionado únicamente con la separación del menor del padre sustractor.

(Autor: Peter McEleavy, abril de 2013)

Traducción en curso. - Por favor remítase a la versión inglesa.

La aplicación del Convenio de la Haya de 1980 entre los Estados Miembro de la Unión Europea (excepto Dinamarca) ha sido reformada como consecuencia de la entrada en vigor del Reglamento del Consejo (CE) N° 2201/2003 de 27 de noviembre de 2003 relativo a la competencia  y el reconocimiento y la ejecución de sentencias en materia de matrimonio y responsabilidad parental,  que revocara el Reglamento (CE) N° 1347/2000, ver:

Case C-195/08 PPU Rinau v. Rinau, [2008] 2 FLR 1495 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/ 987];

Case C 403/09 PPU Detiček v. Sgueglia, [INCADAT cite: HC/E/ 1327].

El Convenio de la Haya continúa siendo la herramienta primaria para combatir las sustracciones de menores dentro de la Unión Europea pero su funcionamiento ha sido finamente ajustado.

El Artículo 11(2) del Reglamento Bruselas II bis exige que cuando se apliquen los Artículos 12 y 13 del Convenio de la Haya de 1980 se le otorgue al menor la oportunidad de ser oído durante el proceso, excepto que esto parezca inadecuado teniendo en cuenta su edad o grado de madurez.

Esta obligación ha llevado a un realineamiento de la práctica judicial en Inglaterra, ver:

Re D. (A Child) (Abduction: Rights of Custody) [2006] UKHL 51, [2007] 1 A.C. 619 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 880] donde la Baronesa Hale observó que la reforma llevaría a que se oyera a los menores con mayor frecuencia en los casos en virtud del Convenio de La Haya de la que había ocurrido hasta ese entonces.

Re M. (A Child) (Abduction: Child's Objections to Return) [2007] EWCA Civ 260, [2007] 2 FLR 72,  [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 901]

El Tribunal de Apelaciones reafirmó la sugerencia de la Baronesa Hale de que el requerimiento establecido por el Reglamento de Bruselas II de averiguar la opinión de los niños de edad y madurez suficiente no estaba restringido a los casos de sustracción de niños de la Comunidad Europea, sino que era un principio de aplicación universal.  

El Artículo 11(3) del Reglamento de Bruselas II a requiere que los procedimientos se lleven a cabo dentro de las 6 semanas.

Klentzeris v. Klentzeris [2007] EWCA Civ 533, [2007] 2 FLR 996, [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 931].

Thorpe LJ sostuvo que esto se extendía a las audiencias de apelación y en tal sentido recomendó que las solicitudes de apelación fueran realizadas directamente ante el juez de primera instancia y que se restringiera el período habitual de 21 días para correr el traslado de la apelación.  

El Artículo 11(4) del Reglamento Bruselas II bis dispone que no se puede denegar la restitución de un menor en virtud del Artículo 13(1) b) del Convenio de la Haya si se establece que se han realizado arreglos adecuados a fin de asegurar la protección del menor después de su restitución.

Entre los casos en los que se ha invocado el Artículo 11(4) del Reglamento Bruselas II bis para expedir una orden de restitución se encuentran los siguientes:

Francia

CA Bordeaux, 19 janvier 2007, No 06/002739 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/FR 947]

CA Paris 15 février 2007 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/FR 979]

Se entendió que no existía protección relevante, lo que condujo a que se decidiera una orden de no restitución, en:

CA Aix-en-Provence, 30 novembre 2006, N° RG 06/03661 [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/FR 717].

El elemento más notorio del Artículo 11 es el nuevo mecanismo que se aplica actualmente cuando se expide una orden de no restitución sobre la base del Artículo 13. Esto permite a las autoridades del Estado de residencia habitual del menor resolver si el menor debería ser enviado de regreso a pesar de la orden de no restitución. Si se expide una orden de restitución posterior en virtud del Artículo 11(7) del Reglamento, y el juez que la expide la certifica, entonces será automáticamente ejecutable en el Estado de refugio y todos los demás Estados Miembro de la CE.

Artículo 11(7) del Reglamento Bruselas II bis - Orden de Restitución Otorgada:

Re A. (Custody Decision after Maltese Non-return Order: Brussels II Revised) [2006] EWHC 3397 (Fam.), [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 883]

Artículo 11(7) del Reglamento Bruselas II bis - Orden de Restitución Denegada:

Re A. H.A. v. M.B. (Brussels II Revised: Article 11(7) Application) [2007] EWHC 2016 (Fam), [2008] 1 FLR 289, [Cita INCADAT: HC/E/UKe 930]

Para comentarios académicos respecto del nuevo régimen de la UE, ver:

P. McEleavy ‘The New Child Abduction Regime in the European Community: Symbiotic Relationship or Forced Partnership?' [2005] Journal of Private International Law 5 - 34.