Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Human Rights - Art. 20 | Issues Relating to Return
Appeal dismissed, return ordered
3 6 8 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 20
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the child's place of habitual residence prior to the wrongful retention was Italy. The standard required under Article 20 had not been met.
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3
1 3 5 6 12
Appeal dismissed and return ordered; the child was habitually resident in England at the time of the removal.
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) | Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters
3 4 6 7 11 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 20 13(3)
The European Court of Human Rights held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article 8 of the ECHR on account of the Italian courts' order for the child to be returned to Italy; and unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 8 on account of the mother's absence from the hearing of the Rome Youth Court. Damages were awarded to mother and child.
Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Rights of Custody - Art. 3 | Procedural Matters |
Return ordered
1 3 5 6 8 10 12 17
Rights of Custody - Art. 3
Return refused
1 2 3 4 5 6 10 14 19 12(2) 12(1) 26
Return refused; the retention was not wrongful as the father had consented to the relocation of the child.
Role of the Central Authorities - Arts 6 - 10
6 7
Application inadmissible for lack of locus standi.
Habitual Residence - Art. 3 | Removal and Retention - Arts 3 and 12 | Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Procedural Matters
3 6 8 9 10 11 13(1)(b)
Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal had rightly found the children's retention to be wrongful and the exceptions inapplicable.
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)
1 2 3 6 7 8 11 12 13(1)(a) 13(1)(b) 13(2) 13(3) 12(2) 12(1)
Unanimous: no breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). There was no separate issue concerning the claims based on Articles 6 and 13. The authorities' lack of diligence in preventing the abduction was admittedly manifest but had been indemnified by the Spanish authorities. The authorities had not been lacking in diligence regarding the child's return, despite the absence of results in this respect.
Issues Relating to Return | Procedural Matters | Brussels IIa Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003)
3 4 6 7 11 12 13(1)(b) 20
The Court unanimously ruled that Romania had breached Article 8 of the ECHR in failing to thoroughly assess the best interests of the child and to give the father the opportunity to present his case. It also awarded the father compensation under Article 41 of the ECHR.
Acquiescence - Art. 13(1)(a) | Grave Risk - Art. 13(1)(b) | Objections of the Child to a Return - Art. 13(2) | Settlement of the Child - Art. 12(2)
3 6 7 13(2) 12(2) 26
