Judgement of the Supreme Court on the return of a child to Europe, determining the child’s place of residence after relocation to the territory of Ukraine (case № 607/16806/19)

In case №607/16806/19, the mother of two minor children filed a claim to establish the children’s place of residence with her in the city of Ternopil. The claimant argued that after her divorce, she had provided the children with proper conditions for harmonious development, upbringing, and education. The children had been living with her for an extended period, adapted to the local environment, attended school and extracurricular activities, and their return to Belgium could disrupt their psychological stability and well-being. The father, a Belgian citizen, referred to decisions of Belgian courts that had temporarily granted him exclusive parental custody and designated the children’s place of residence in Belgium.

The court of first instance upheld the mother’s claim, stating that living with her aligns with the children’s best interests. The court considered that the children had been living with their mother for a long time; were provided with all necessary conditions for their physical, psychological, and social development; and were in a stable emotional environment. The appellate court affirmed this decision, noting that the children were fully integrated into their Ukrainian surroundings, and their return to Belgium could harm their psychological well-being and disrupt their bond with their mother.

The father’s representative appealed these decisions in cassation, arguing that international law, particularly the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 1980, had been violated. The appellant claimed that the Ukrainian courts failed to consider the Belgian court decisions that temporarily designated the father’s residence in Belgium as the children’s permanent residence.

The Supreme Court established that the decisions of the lower courts were made in compliance with substantive and procedural law. It affirmed the jurisdiction of Ukrainian courts, as the children had been residing in Ukraine for over a year and had a stable connection to their environment. The Supreme Court noted that the Belgian court decisions were temporary in nature and did not deem the mother’s actions unlawful under the Hague Convention. The courts had correctly determined that living with the mother best served the children’s interests, ensuring proper development and emotional stability.

The father’s cassation appeal was dismissed, and the decisions of the first-instance and appellate courts were upheld. The Supreme Court’s ruling is final and not subject to appeal.