Source: http://www.bringseanhome.org/forums/index.php/topic,3358.msg73314.html
Timestamp: 2019-07-23 05:58:29
Document Index: 775584730

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 41615', 'art21', 'art21', 'art 21', 'art.21', 'Application no. 14737']

Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland
Author Topic: Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland (Read 30032 times)
« on: August 12, 2010, 09:16:25 AM »
http://www.internationalfamilylawfirm.com/2010/07/momentous-and-disturbing-ruling-in.html
Re: Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2010, 09:18:09 AM »
http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/DavidHodsonIFL090810
There is much controversy across the child abduction world, between Europe and non-European countries, following a decision of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland (Application no. 41615/07) handed down on 6 July 2010. A Swiss couple moved to Israel and the child was born in 2003. The mother was anxious that the father had become involved in an extremist sect. In June 2005 the mother abducted the child to Switzerland. In May 2006 an Israeli court declared the child's habitual residence was in Israel. The litigation moved to Switzerland and over the next couple of years there were orders for return, then findings of harm if the child was returned and many appeals. Eventually the matter reached the ECHR which after preliminary investigations and reports in 2009 has just made its decision. And it appears very surprising
In summary, it ruled that the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the integrity of family life, especially Article 8, overcomes the Hague Abduction Convention. It decided the ECHR was appropriate to consider if a domestic court in applying and interpreting the Hague Convention has secured Article 8 rights. Accordingly it would look at the best interests of the child at the present time rather than at the abduction or the return order of the Swiss courts. Timing was crucial. Several years had elapsed since the abduction, in good part through litigation, and the child was now well settled in Switzerland. A return was not ordered. So the expectations of almost automatic return in the Hague Convention came secondary to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Understandably this decision has created much consternation, especially outside Europe which is not a party to the Human Rights Convention. Jeremy Morley, one of the world's leading international family lawyers, practising from New York, has rightly drawn attention to the decision and the concern from outside Europe that a different course of action will now proceed in Europe in contrast to the conventional Hague approach. Internet chatroom cynicism to the decision is predictably that it shows that abduction pays. My colleague, Carolynn Usher, one of the world's leading and most experienced child abduction lawyers, has however contrasted the approach of the UK and some other countries in mostly adhering to the requirements in the Brussels Regulation (BIIr) for a six-week resolution including appeals, which in practice is extended to all Hague cases. The true failure in this case was that of the Swiss legal system to deal expeditiously.
The controversy over the decision will continue. What cannot be controverted is that some countries, including within the EU, take an unacceptably long time to deal with child abduction litigation including appeals. As a consequence, the life of the child has genuinely moved on. The answer is not to criticise the European Court of Human Rights. The real answer is to have a system which enforces and penalises those countries who are so slow to return abducted children as to work against the best interests of children.
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2010, 12:33:34 PM »
I miss a few days here and it seems like that court ruling turned the world [more] upside down.
Since we all know delays are excessive just about everywhere when dealing with Hague cases and this ruling states the best interests of the child must be taken into account at the current time (clearly not determined by a psychiatrist who is familiar with parental alienation, but I don't think they should examine these kids anyway-it's extraneous to the case), all an abductor has to do is appeal and appeal until the 'best interests' of the child are no longer to return. It literally is a case of where two wrongs by the abducting parent equal the abducting parent viewed as 'right' since they will get to retain the child with the courts blessing.
I suppose I shouldn't be shocked as Sylvester got over 9 court rulings in his favor in Austria and the EU and none of them ever resulted in his daughter being returned to him.
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2010, 09:59:06 PM »
It may even be true that this child is better off being allowed to stay in Switzerland after being there for four years (there's really not enough details on either parent to say) but, having witnessed this abductor's success, others will try to follow in her footsteps by abducting children and delaying the proceedings as long as possible so they can argue adaption (something not allowed by the Hague Convention except in limited circumstances.) How many children and families will suffer infinitely more harm as the result of pursuing the dubiously beneficial best interests of a single child in this case? A fruit born of the poisoned tree of child abduction and fertilized with the destruction of untold numbers of other families and children. They've thrown out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. Besides, whatever happened to allowing the court of habitual residence decide what's in the child's best interest? If staying in Switzerland really were in the best interests of the child the court in Israel should have been able to make that determination just as readily as the ECHR did. A truly disappointing decision that will probably damage a whole generation of European children at risk of being internationally abducted by providing a path and play-book for would be abductors to abuse them.
I don't disagree with Hodson in that, the lack of expediency on the part of the Swiss courts was instrumental in the construction of this problem, but that in no way shape or form mitigates the fallacy of this decision. Drawn out litigation is an unfortunate reality that is not likely to change any time soon. How many other courts will now decide that principles of a child's best interest, a concept tantamount to child custody, should trump the Hague Convention (rendering it a nullity)? How many new appeals will this result in during every Hague case, and how much longer will each of those appeals last as, not only does each appellate court now have to decide on the merits of the case itself, but they must also re-visit the subjective best-interests of the child principle in light of the amount of time that has passed since the lower court rendered their decision. A result that will, undoubtedly, only make Hague cases last longer. While I've become desensitized to all the harm done to children ostensibly in their "best interests," I can't believe a court as high up and influential as the ECHR could get something so simple so horribly wrong.
« Reply #4 on: August 17, 2010, 07:58:00 PM »
There are other issues at play than simple legalistics. This case has more than a measure of political maneuvering and motivation behind it.
There is a groundswell of empirical opinion that goes something like this:
1. adding EU law onto EU member states provides an additional measure of protection for intra-EU abductions, in essence it reaffirms the basis that jurisdiction A provides equal or better child custody and protection as jurisdiction B (provided both are within the EU);
2. the HC is failing - particularly, it is failing to protect children when abducted and after post-return; therefore it is better to err on the side of caution and ensure the child's best interests standard is used to avoid colliding with other international and EU directives, notably the UN CRC and EU human rights directives; and
3. there are several high profile cases involving the EU which have led to severe criticism of abducted-to countries when they have applied the HC (both wrongly and correctly).
Human rights within the EU is something which is taken very seriously and there are several other cases bouncing around involving the HC and human rights legislation - it is almost a standard practice for the High Court in London to hear objections to an HC return being couched in terms of the UK Human Rights Act, particularly with respect to family life.
I don't agree with the ECHR decision but I do understand the difficulty in reconciling the HC roulette wheel and the child's best interests.
A counterpoint to the ECHR decision is to be found in those US observers who call for sanctions against non-compliant countries; a further counterpoint is the failure of US federal courts to enforce visitation (art21 applications) for visitation within the US (no federal court has ever agreed to hear such an application and gaining access to children in the US is fraught with difficulty) - the ECHR is taking a different tack i.e. no return unless you are up to the job.
« Reply #5 on: August 17, 2010, 10:25:43 PM »
Best interests determinations will always be subjective and influenced, or directly determined, by the gender, national, religious, cultural, ethnic, ideological et al biases of the interpreter. This is, comically in fact, an instance where Mexican courts, apparently, have something to teach Europe's high court. In 2009 a thesis published by a Mexican federal high court stated that the drafters of the Hague Convention had the best interests of children firmly in mind when drafting the Convention, and that it is precisely in the proper adherence and application of the Convention that such interests are secured (the Mexican Supreme Court affirmed the underlying decision and, of course, the mother and child promptly disappeared and the order remains unenforced.)
The very CRC that is claimed to be colliding with the Hague Convention exhorts State parties to combat the illicit transfer of children in two separate articles and delineates a series of rights that are routinely violated in even the most benign child abductions (both parents, nationality, language, name, etc.) This decision, by refusing to acknowledge proper jurisdiction, has created two conflicting and geographically limited forums for determining custody and placed a massive roadblock between the child's parents ever coming to anything remotely resembling consensus or cooperation.
One of the keystones and foundations of modern international law, in particular in regards to the protection of children, has been the increasing emphasis on international cooperation. This decision collectively gives the middle-finger to other countries, both inside and outside of Europe. Decisions like this threaten to turn back 50 years of refinement in international family law to return to the very failures of the Hague Convention of 1961 ("concerning the powers of authorities and the law applicable in respect of the protection of minors") that a half century of legal scholarship has worked to address.
The access provisions of the Hague Convention are widely considered a nullity. I'm not sure why you're singling out the US for violations of Article 21 of the Abduction Convention when no country in Europe, or anywhere else, with the possible exception of the UK (i'm not sure), has uniform or effective procedures for enforcing it -- especially when the US was not a party to this case. Israel has consistently shown themselves to be "up to the job."
« Reply #6 on: August 18, 2010, 11:31:39 AM »
I singled out art21 and US non-compliance because most of the readers here will be American - I do believe one of the first issues to be confronted in improving our lot is realizing US non-compliance and correcting it - that is in everyone's interests.
That said, you are right that art 21 is widely considered a nullity but not universally - I believe the problem is rooted in the collision of the HC with domestic legal systems (which is sure going to make the Japanese situation of very real interest, and incidentally makes US non-compliance viz art.21 eminently topical).
I do NOT agree with the ECHR decision - on that we are of the same mind. This decision is implicitly criticizing the HC's performance - if the HC cannot be relied upon to be prompt it cannot be effective and the human rights legislation will prevail, leaving the HC superfluous.
The key is to make the HC effective and this will mean significant changes to the treaty and to how member states implement it.
« Reply #7 on: August 28, 2010, 04:04:30 AM »
This ruling clearly puts the clock back and rewards 'bad behaviour'. It is unfortunate that it might now be referred to by abducting parents in juristictions like Brazil where disappearing with a child, appealing endlessly, dragging matters out for ever and then presenting the court with a fait acompli is already the modus operandi .
However (and this might seem a bit random, but I've just got up), could Article 8 of the ECHR not be used by European parents to force judicial reviews of their respective governments' (central authorities, ombudsmen etc) lack of vigour and resolve in pursuing their cases with other juristictions?
« Reply #8 on: May 02, 2011, 02:11:54 PM »
It seems that on the basis of this ECHR decision an appeal was heard in the UK appeals court. Not many details but it would seem that both reunite and the UK appeals court are distancing themselves from the ECHR's decision.
reunite intervenes in an appeal case in the Court of Appeal.
reunite recently intervened in an appeal case in the Court of Appeal which raised a significant issue of public importance.
The Court of Appeal was being asked to consider the impact of recent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and whether these decisions had the effect of “lowering the bar” in cases involving grave risk of harm to the abducted child if a return is ordered (defence under Article 13 (b)).
reunite was given leave to intervene in the appeal and our legal representatives, Liz Dronfield of Bindman Solicitors, with counsel Richard Harrison of 1 King´s Bench Walk, successfully argued on reunite´s behalf that lowering the threshold would undermine the policy and objectives of the Hague Convention, which include the deterrence of child abduction and the prompt return of an abducted child to the country of his or her habitual residence, and would also be contrary to the interests of children generally.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the appeal was dismissed.
We extend our thanks to Bindman Solicitors and 1 King´s Bench Walk for representing reunite on a pro bono basis.
« Reply #9 on: January 21, 2012, 12:16:56 AM »
European Court of Human Rights continues to undermine Hague Convention on International Child Abduction...
http://www.internationalfamilylawfirm.com/2012/01/hague-abduction-convention-under-threat.html
Hague Abduction Convention under Threat from the European Court of Human Rights
The European Court of Human Rights (the “ECHR”) continues to attack the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the “Hague Convention”), including a decision issued in December 2011.
In June 2010 in Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland the ECHR ruled that the European Convention on Human Rights requires that courts may not return an abducted child to its habitual residence, even when the child’s return is mandated by the Hague Convention, unless it is first established that it is in the best interests of both the child and the child’s family to do so.
The ECHR thereby overruled thirty years of international case law, discounted the fundamental purposes of the Hague Convention of deterring international child abduction and of not rewarding international child abduction, and ensured that any Hague case that follows its precepts will be lengthy and expensive as well as often unfair to the left-behind parent who must now defend what could be almost a custody case on the taking parent’s home turf.
Notwithstanding extensive criticism of its decision the ECHR has followed the Neulinger case in more recent cases.
In Šneersone and Kampanella v. Italy (ECHR Application no. 14737/09) the ECHR applied Neulinger to override an Italian return order that had been issued after an admitted international child abduction from Italy to Latvia.
In April 2006 the child’s unmarried mother unilaterally took the parties’ son from their habitual residence in Rome, Italy to her native Latvia where she retained him. She claimed that she did so because the father was not paying child support and she could not afford to remain in Italy.
The ECHR criticized the Italian courts’ failure to consider: (a) the risk that the child’s separation from his mother might leave him with neurotic problems or an illness, (b) the father’s failure to visit his son in Latvia since 2006 or (c) whether the father’s home was suitable for a young child.
The ECHR, citing Neulinger, stated that it “must ascertain whether the domestic courts conducted an in-depth examination of the entire family situation and of a whole series of factors, in particular of a factual, emotional, psychological, material and medical nature, and made a balanced and reasonable assessment of the respective interests of each person, with constant concern for determining what the best solution would be for the abducted child in the context of an application for his return to his country of origin.”
The Court’s decision is astonishing for its failure to criticize the mother’s conduct in abducting the child in the first place and for its failure to address the fact that the Article 13(b) exception should not be invoked when the abducting parent is the one who creates the risk by refusing to return with the child. The ECHR decision endorses international parental child kidnapping and constitutes an extremely dangerous precedent.
Equally disturbing is the case of X v. Latvia (ECHR Application 27853/09) decided on December 13, 2011.
Here the child was taken from her habitual residence in Australia to Latvia by the Latvian mother. The father in Australia commenced a Hague proceeding promptly and the Latvian court, after a hearing, promptly issued a return order. On appeal the mother asserted that the child would suffer psychologically if she were returned to Australia without her mother and supported this assertion with a psychologist’s report and she claimed that she did not have the financial resources to return there. The appeal failed in January 2009.
Almost three years later the ECHR ruled that the Latvian return order violated Article 8 of the European Convention because the Court disregarded the psychologist’s report and did not sufficiently consider “what would happen as regards the child’s material well-being if returned to Australia.”
For a full discussion of these issues see my just-published article in the IAML Law Journal, TheHague Abduction Convention: A Critique of the Neulinger Case.