Source: https://www.incadat.com/en/search?search%5Barticles%5D%5B%5D=Article%2011
Timestamp: 2018-12-16 20:23:16
Document Index: 203309158

Matched Legal Cases: ['Arts 1', 'Art. 3', 'Arts 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'Arts 6', 'Arts 1', 'Arts 6', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 13', 'Application No 2361', 'Art. 8', 'Art. 13', 'Application No 63777', 'Art. 8', 'Application No 5493', 'Art. 8', 'Arts 1', 'Art. 13']

European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (16)
Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 (11)
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 (6)
Removal & Retention - Arts 3 and 12 (5)
Rights of Custody - Art. 3 (14)
Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) (4)
Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) (28)
Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) (15)
Issues relating to Return (6)
Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10 (2)
Procedural Matters (31)
Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003) (5)
CHINA (HONG KONG, SAR) (2)
Case remitted to lower court (1)
ECrtHR - Violation of Article 8 ECHR, award of damages (4)
Return ordered (9)
Appeal dismissed, return ordered (9)
Superior Appellate Court (19)
First Instance (19)
European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR) (18)
Brussels II bis (8)
1994 | HC/E/UKe 119 | UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES | First Instance |
Re N. (Child Abduction: Jurisdiction) [1995] Fam 96
Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10
The court granted an order that the child should be restored into the care of the mother if he arrived within the jurisdiction in the immediate future.
1993 | HC/E/AU 254 | AUSTRALIA | Appellate Court |
Police Commissioner of South Australia v. Temple (No 2) (1993) FLC 92-424
Appeal allowed and return ordered, with the imposition of far reaching undertakings being refused. The Australian implementing legislation did not empower a court to place conditions on the return of a child.
1999 | HC/E/CA 752 | CANADA | Appellate Court |
Finizio v. Scoppio-Finizio (1999), 46 O.R. (3d) 226 (C.A.)
Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Undertakings | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters
3 11 12 13(1)(b)
2013 | HC/E/LU 1307 | LUXEMBOURG | First Instance |
Tribunal d'arrondissement de Diekirch, 16 juillet 2013, Référé No 183/2013
3 11 12 13(2) 17
2015 | HC/E/GE 1349 | European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR)
G.S. v. Georgia (Application No 2361/13)
2 11 13(1)(b)
1 child wrongfully retained at age 6 – National of Ukraine – Unmarried parents – Father national of Georgia and Ukraine – Mother national of Ukraine – Child lived in Ukraine until July 2010 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Ukraine in October 2010 – Return refused before application to ECtHR on 28 December 2012 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 8,300 awarded in damages – The reasoning of the Georgian Supreme Court regarding Art. 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Child Abduction Hague Convention was insufficient and misconceived - The child's best interests in view of the specific circumstances of the case were not properly determined
2015 | HC/E/PL 1350 | European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR)
R.S. v. Poland (Application No 63777/09)
2 children wrongfully retained at ages 6 and 10 – Married parents – Father national of Poland – Mother national of Poland – Joint custody excercised in Switzerland – Children lived in Switzerland – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Switzerland on 24 October 2008 – Application dismissed before application to ECtHR on 1 December 2009 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 11,800 awarded in damages – The Polish courts had not taken into account the legitimate interests of the applicant in an adequate or fair manner in the judicial proceedings; i.a. improperly relying on a Polish interim custody order to consider the retention lawful
2014 | HC/E/HU 1379 | European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR)
Cavani v. Hungary (Application No 5493/13)
Two children wrongfully removed at approximately ages 1 and 2 years old – Nationals of Hungary and Italy – Married parents – Father national of Italy – Mother national of Hungary – Shared parental authority – Children lived in Italy until June 2004 – Application for return filed with the Central Authority of Italy on 3 March 2005 – Return ordered before application to ECtHR on 16 January 2013 – Violation of Art. 8 ECHR – EUR 3,000 awarded in damages to father and EUR 3,000 awarded in damages to children – The failure to enforce the return order without any explanation or justification, which prevented the father and children from being reunited or seeing each other occassionaly for over seven years, amounted to a violation of the father's and children's right to family life
1992 | HC/E/IL 214 | ISRAEL | Superior Appellate Court |
T. v. M., 15 April 1992, transcript (Unofficial Translation), Supreme Court of Israel
Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters | Interpretation of the Convention
1 2 5 11 12 13(1)(b)
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the standard required under Article 13(1)(b) to indicate that the child would face a grave risk of psychological harm had not been met.
1998 | HC/E/CH 432 | SWITZERLAND | Appellate Court |
Autorité de surveillance des tutelles (child protection agency), decision of 10 March 1998, 115/98
3 5 11 12 13(1)(b) 16 17 19 26
Appeal dismissed and return refused; the removal was wrongful, but Article 13(1)(b) had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
1999 | HC/E/CH 445 | SWITZERLAND | First Instance |
Tribunal civil de l'arrondissement de la Sarine (Civil Court of the Sarine District), decision of 20 December 1999, TR 1999/419
1 2 3 5 11 12 13(1)(b) 19 26
Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
2004 | HC/E/ES 899 | SPAIN | Appellate Court |
Auto Juzgado de Familia Nº 6 de Zaragoza (España), Expediente Nº 1233/95-B
3 11 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 13(3)
Removal wrongful and return ordered. However, the subsequent concealment of the child for eight years made enforcement of the original return order impossible.
2013 | HC/E/FR 1271 | European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR) |
Raw et autres c. France (Requête No 10131/11)
1 2 3 4 7 10 11 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 20 13(3)
By five to two, the ECrtHR held that France had breached Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) owing to its authorities' forbearance of the father's refusal to cooperate in execution of the return judgment. The Court also granted just satisfaction to the mother, her younger son and her daughter under Article 41 of the ECHR.