Ukraine
Judicial Decision
2022
This judgement concerns a father’s claim to return his minor children to their habitual residence in Ukraine after their relocation abroad to the Republic of Armenia by their mother.
The trial and appellate courts denied the claim on different legal grounds. The trial court failed to account for the international element in the dispute, applying only domestic law. The appellate court argued that the effective remedy for the claimant was to approach the Central Authority of the state of habitual residence or another Contracting State under Articles 8–11 of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention), rather than the court.
The Supreme Court overturned the previous judgements and remanded the case to the trial court for a new hearing, making the following legal conclusions:
1. The claimant has the right to:
2. The Hague Convention allows courts of Contracting States to hear child abduction cases without prior recourse to Central Authorities.
3. Filing a request with a Central Authority does not preclude the claimant from initiating court proceedings.
The Supreme Court highlighted unresolved key issues of jurisdiction:
According to Articles 5 and 7 of the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement, and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, if a child’s habitual residence changes, jurisdiction lies with the state of the new habitual residence.