Tokens: That
being
said
,
the
detailed
examination
of
the
child
’s
situation
clearly
does
not
replace
custody
proceedings
in
the
State
from
which
the
child
was
abducted
,
since
the
court
in
the
host
country
is
not
supposed
to
proceed
to
an
ex
officio
,
free
-
standing
evaluation
of
the
overall
merits
of
the
case
,
based
on
the
assessment
of
the
situation
of
the
child
and
his
or
her
family
and
the
present
and
future
social
and
cultural
environment
.
Only
those
issues
directly
related
to
the
child
’s
abduction
raised
by
the
return
application
may
be
addressed
by
the
court
in
the
host
country
,
and
then
only
in
so
far
as
they
relate
to
the
urgent
and
provisional
decision
on
the
child
’s
immediate
future
.
This
was
and
remains
the
Neulinger
and
Shuruk
test
.
No
less
,
no
more
.
The
detailed
examination
by
the
court
in
the
host
country
does
not
imply
any
change
of
jurisdiction
over
parental
responsibility
,
which
remains
in
the
State
of
the
child
’s
habitual
residence
.
Hence
,
Neulinger
and
Shuruk
did
not
level
the
basic
difference
,
enshrined
in
Article
19
of
the
Hague
Convention
,
between
Hague
return
proceedings
and
custody
proceedings
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O