EN | FR | ES

Recherche de décisions

Nouvelle recherche

AFFAIRE

Télécharger le texte complet EN

Nom de l'affaire

S. v. H. (Abduction: Access Rights) [1998] Fam 49

Référence INCADAT

HC/E/UKe 36

Juridiction

Pays

Royaume-Uni - Angleterre et Pays de Galles

Nom

High Court (Angleterre)

Degré

Première instance

États concernés

État requérant

Italie

État requis

Royaume-Uni - Angleterre et Pays de Galles

Décision

Date

20 February 1997

Statut

Définitif

Motifs

Objectifs de la Convention - Préambule, art. 1 et 2 | Droit de garde - art. 3 | Interprétation de la Convention

Décision

Demande rejetée

Article(s) de la Convention visé(s)

3 Préambule 5 21

Article(s) de la Convention visé(s) par le dispositif

3

Autres dispositions

-

Jurisprudence | Affaires invoquées

-

Publiée dans
http://www.hcch.net/incadat/fullcase/0036.htm

INCADAT commentaire

Objectifs et domaine d’application de la Convention

Interprétation de la Convention
Interprétation
Concepts autonomes
Déplacement et non-retour
Nature du déplacement et du non-retour

RÉSUMÉ

Résumé disponible en EN | FR | ES

Facts

The child, a boy, was aged 7 at the date of the alleged wrongful retention. He had lived in Italy all his life. The parents were not married and did not cohabit. In June 1996 the mother took the child to England, she informed the Italian Court that she intended to return in September. She did not.

In August 1990 the Trieste Court had awarded custody to the mother and access to the father. In July 1995 the Court passed a temporary order prohibiting the mother from removing the child from Italy. In April 1996 this order was revoked, otherwise the status quo was maintained. In October 1996 the father commenced return proceedings.

In January 1997 the Italian Court granted a declaration recognising the father's right to "visit and have" his son in terms of the April 1996 order.

Ruling

Application dismissed; there had neither been a wrongful removal nor a wrongful retention.

Grounds

Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2

The Convention deliberately intended to draw a distinction between rights of custody and access. The court questioned whether Contracting States intended the remedy of a summary return to apply to a single parent who has brought up a child alone, who has twice been granted sole custody by the courts in her own country, and who was not prohibited from moving the child at the time when she did so.

Rights of Custody - Art. 3

Sources of Custody Rights The applicant has the burden of proving his or her rights under the law of the child's State of habitual residence. Existing English case law does not enable one to conclude that the mere possibility of a parent who has only rights of access succeeding in an application to prevent the other parent taking the child abroad amounts to rights of custody under the Convention.

Interpretation of the Convention

Reference was made to several different aids to interpretation: the Pérez-Vera Report, Preamble, and the conclusions of the first and second Special Commissions to review the operation of the Convention in 1989 and 1993.

INCADAT comment

Interpretation

Preparation of INCADAT case law analysis in progress.

Autonomous Concepts

Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.

Nature of Removal and Retention

Preparation of INCADAT commentary in progress.