Source: https://www.incadat.com/en/search?search%5Barticles%5D%5B%5D=Article%2014
Timestamp: 2020-07-06 22:35:57
Document Index: 451491612

Matched Legal Cases: ['Arts 1', 'Art. 3', 'Arts 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 20', 'Art. 16', 'Application No 27853', 'Arts 3', 'Art. 3', 'Arts 3', 'Art. 13', 'Application No 14600', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 3', 'Arts 3', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'UKSC ', 'Art. 3', 'Arts 3', 'Art. 16', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 3', 'Art. 12', 'Art. 3']

INCADAT | Case Law Search
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (4)
Aims of the Convention - Preamble, Arts 1 and 2 (1)
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 (11)
Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 (6)
Rights of Custody - Art. 3 (19)
Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) (2)
Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) (2)
Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) (16)
Undertakings (5)
Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) (7)
Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2) (2)
Human Rights - Art. 20 (3)
Issues Relating to Return (3)
Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 (2)
Procedural Matters (10)
Non-Convention Issues (1)
Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003) (2)
From 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986
To 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986
UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES (3)
UNITED STATES - FEDERAL JURISDICTION (2)
Preamble (14)
Article 1 (146)
Article 2 (46)
Article 3 (776)
Article 4 (80)
Article 5 (157)
Article 6 (9)
Article 7 (46)
Article 8 (26)
Article 10 (9)
Article 11 (73)
Article 12 (304)
Article 12(1) (31)
Article 12(2) (98)
Article 13(1)(a) (318)
Article 13(1)(b) (682)
Article 13(2) (301)
Article 13(3) (54)
Article 14 (36)
Article 15 (64)
Article 16 (73)
Article 17 (22)
Article 18 (12)
Article 19 (48)
Article 20 (86)
Article 21 (40)
Article 26 (58)
Article 27 (4)
Article 29 (10)
Article 30 (5)
Article 35 (3)
Return ordered (7)
Return ordered subject to undertakings (2)
Return refused (5)
Appeal allowed, return ordered (3)
Appeal allowed, return ordered with undertakings offered (1)
Appeal allowed, return refused (3)
Appeal dismissed, return ordered (4)
Appeal dismissed, return ordered with undertakings offered (1)
Appeal dismissed, return refused (1)
Article 15 declaration granted (1)
NETHERLANDS - KINGDOM IN EUROPE (1)
UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES (1)
UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES (2)
Superior Appellate Court (10)
First Instance (15)
European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR) (4)
Non-Hague Convention (1)
Brussels II bis (2)
Inter-American Convention (0)
Results per page: 10 20 50 100 Sort by: Relevance Year
2011 | HC/E/LV 1146 | European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR) |
X. v. Latvia (Application No 27853/09)
Full text download EN
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Procedural Matters
3 4 12 13(1)(b) 14 15 19
By a majority of five to two, the European Court of Human Rights held that Latvia had violated Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to take account of various relevant factors in assessing the best interests of the child. The Court also awarded the mother compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.
1998 | HC/E/AT 383 | AUSTRIA | Superior Appellate Court |
7Ob72/98h, Oberster Gerichtshof
Full text download DE
Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3
1 3 5 12 14 17
Challenge to legality dismissed; while the return proceedings were pending, the authorities in the children's State of habitual residence had granted the mother custody.
2001 | HC/E/USf 385 | UNITED STATES - FEDERAL JURISDICTION | First Instance |
Armiliato v. Zaric-Armiliato, 169 F. Supp. 2d 230 (SDNY 2001)
Return ordered; the removal was wrongful as the child was habitually resident in Italy at the time of her removal.
2001 | HC/E/USf 386 | UNITED STATES - FEDERAL JURISDICTION | Appellate Court |
1 3 11 12 13(1)(b) 14
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the trial court had not erred in its refusal to apply the fugitive disentitlement doctrine.
1994 | HC/E/UKs 183 | UNITED KINGDOM - SCOTLAND | First Instance |
Bordera v. Bordera 1995 SLT 1176
3 5 12 14 15 21
Return ordered; the removal breached custody rights held by the father.
2007 | HC/E/CA 728 | CANADA | First Instance |
2008 | HC/E/CH 985 | SWITZERLAND | Superior Appellate Court |
5A.713/2007 Bundesgericht, II. Zivilabteilung, 28/2/2008
3 14 16 19
2012 | HC/E/GR 1246 | GREECE | Appellate Court |
Court of Appeal of Thessaloniki, decision 2207, 3 December 2012
Summary available in EN | ES
Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
1 3 5 11 12 13(1)(b) 14 16 17 29
Appeal upheld and return refused; the retention was wrongful, but a return to the United Kingdom would expose the child to a grave risk of physical, and most importantly, psychological harm.
2005 | HC/E/TR 742 | European Court of Human Rights (ECrtHR) |
Eskinazi and Chelouche v. Turkey (Application No 14600/05)
9 13(1)(b) 13(2) 14 15 16 20 30
By a majority the Court declared the application to be inadmissible, on the basis of it being manifestly ill-founded; the Turkish authorities had not disregarded their obligations under Article 6 of the ECHR (right to fair trial) or violated the right to respect for family life guaranteed under Article 8 of the ECHR.
2013 | HC/E/AR 1305 | ARGENTINA | Superior Appellate Court |
E.S. s/ Reintegro de hijo
Full text download ES
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Procedural Matters
3 12 13(1)(b) 14 16 20
Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been established.
2000 | HC/E/IS 363 | ICELAND | Superior Appellate Court |
M. v. K., 20/06/2000; Iceland Supreme Court
Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters
3 5 12 13(2) 14 15 19
Appeal allowed and return ordered; the removal was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
2002 | HC/E/FR 849 | FRANCE | Appellate Court |
CA Paris, 7 février 2002, No de RG 2001/21768
Full text download FR
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
3 12 13(1)(b) 14 20
2009 | HC/E/CH 1076 | SWITZERLAND | Superior Appellate Court |
5A_650/2009, IIe cour civile, arrêt du TF du 11 novembre 2009
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters
Appeal dismissed; there had been a wrongful retention since the child had her habitual residence in Italy.
1995 | HC/E/CA 763 | CANADA | First Instance |
Morris v. Poole, [1995] 6 W.W.R. 166 (N.W.T.S.C.)
Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b)
1 2 5 11 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 14 15 16 13(3) 29 30
Return ordered; the retention was wrongful and none of the exceptions had been proved to the standard required under the Convention.
2013 | HC/E/PK 1233 | UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES | Superior Appellate Court |
A v A and another (Children: Habitual Residence) (Reunite International Child Abduction Centre intervening) [2013] UKSC 60 [2013] 3 WLR 761
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Jurisdiction Issues - Art. 16 | Non-Convention Issues | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)
3 8 10 14 16
Appeal allowed; the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed that English law retained a discretionary, residual basis of jurisdiction over children based on their British nationality. The case was remitted to the trial court to decide whether to exercise this jurisdiction. Were the trial court not to exercise the jurisdiction, a preliminary ruling application would be made to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to enable the Supreme Court to decide on the habitual residence of the child.
2011 | HC/E/UKs 1153 | UNITED KINGDOM - SCOTLAND | First Instance |
A, Petitioner [2011] CSOH 215
Consent - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)
3 4 11 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 14 16 17 18 19
Removal wrongful but return refused; Article 13(2) had been proved to the standard required under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.
1990 | HC/E/UKe 163 | UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES | Appellate Court |
Re S. (A Minor) (Abduction) [1991] 2 FLR 1
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Undertakings | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)
Appeal allowed, return ordered with undertakings offered
3 4 5 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 14 15 16 18 12(2)
Appeal dismissed and return ordered with undertakings offered; the removal was wrongful as the child was habitually resident in the United States at the relevant date.
1998 | HC/E/UKn 390 | UNITED KINGDOM - NORTHERN IRELAND | First Instance |
2001 | HC/E/DE 392 | GERMANY | First Instance |
1 F 3709/00, Familiengericht Zweibrücken (Family Court), 25 January 2001
Return ordered; the retention was wrongful as the child retained his habitual residence in Israel on the relevant date.
1991 | HC/E/UKe 35 | UNITED KINGDOM - ENGLAND AND WALES | First Instance |
C. v. C. (Minors) (Child Abduction) [1992] 1 FLR 163
Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters
Article 15 declaration granted
Article 15 declaration granted; the removal of the boys was wrongful insofar as it breached an implied right under New York law that access rights not be frustrated by the unilateral relocation of a child.