Spotlight
Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Spotlight
Latest articles
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles
Authors

ABDUCTION: Carlson v Switzerland

Sep 29, 2018, 16:12 PM
Slug : carlson-v-switzerland
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Nov 10, 2008, 11:35 AM
Article ID : 84889

(European Court of Human Rights; 10 November 2008)

The Swiss mother and the American father lived with the child in the US, but the mother and child travelled to Switzerland with the father's consent. The mother decided to remain in Switzerland, petitioning the Swiss court for divorce and requesting a residence order in respect of the child. The father applied for the child's summary return under the Hague Convention. The Swiss court joined the two sets of proceedings, and eventually, after more than 3 months, rejected the father's application, on the basis that the father had been unable to submit evidence in support of his allegation that he had agreed to the mother's visit to Switzerland only on condition that at the end of the visit she return the child to the USA. The father alleged that his right under European Convention on Human Rights, Art 8, to respect for his family life, had been breached.

The child's best interests, understood as a decision on his immediate return to his habitual place of residence, had not been taken into account by the Swiss courts when evaluating the request for his return, and the father's right to respect for his family life had not been protected in an effective manner by the domestic courts. It was clear that under Hague Convention, Art 16, proceedings on the merits of residence rights were to be suspended until a decision had been reached about the child's return, therefore the decision to join the domestic and Hague proceedings had been contrary to the terms of the Hague Convention. The Swiss court had not acted expeditiously, contrary to Art 11 of the Hague Convention. Finally, the court had reversed the burden of proof, contrary to Art 13 of the Hague Convention, in that the father had been required to 'establish' that he had not consented to child's removal or non-return.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from