CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 29 septembre 2025

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s1D67DC83 { width:44.74pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC1A87EE6 { width:109.9%; border-collapse:collapse } .sB0CB7F3F { width:7.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s41C60A5F { width:27.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3EEAC05E { width:24.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s64FC9C0D { width:40.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sB4371AF0 { width:7.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6D1DA23A { width:27.98%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s88D079E6 { width:24.6%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s68A00773 { width:40.36%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } Published on 20 October 2025   FIRST SECTION Application no. 22716/25 A and Others against Slovakia lodged on 20 July 2025 communicated on 29 September 2025 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The first applicant is the mother of the second applicant (born 2018) and the third applicant (born 2021). The application concerns the forced return of the second and third applicant to the United States of America pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention). In March 2024, the applicants arrived in Slovakia from the United States together with the father, with the alleged intention of settling permanently. In July 2024, the first applicant filed for divorce following an allegedly violent incident involving the father. In August 2024, the latter lodged an application for the return of the second and third applicants to the United States. On 9 September 2024, the first-instance court ordered the return of the second and third applicants, finding that the country of their habitual residence was the United States. Moreover, while acknowledging the father’s alcohol abuse and visions, instances of physical and verbal aggression, as well as the fact that in the United States the first applicant had contacted an institution for victims of domestic violence, the first-instance court concluded that these factors did not meet the threshold of grave risk or intolerable situation as required under the Hague Convention. On 20 February 2025, the   second-instance court upheld the decision. In contrast to the lower court, it found the objections raised by the first applicant against the return of the second and third applicants unsubstantiated. On 23 April 2025, the   Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional complaint as manifestly ill-founded finding the second-instance court’s decision to be clear, logical and duly reasoned (I. US 278/2025). On 14 May 2025, the   domestic authorities’ attempt to enforce the decision ordering the return was unsuccessful. Meanwhile, a court in the United States granted the father sole physical and legal custody of the second and third applicants, and   referred the matter to the competent prosecuting authorities for further action, if deemed necessary. Invoking Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicants complain that the domestic courts ordered their return in a mechanical manner and failed to genuinely consider the first applicant’s arguments concerning the applicability of exceptions under the Hague Convention. Moreover, the   domestic courts failed to provide sufficient reasoning and did not satisfy themselves that adequate safeguards against the alleged violence were in place in the country of return.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Has the domestic decision-making process complied with the procedural requirements inherent in Article 8 of the Convention? In particular: (a) Have the domestic courts genuinely considered the factors capable of constituting an exception under Article 13 of the Hague Convention to the return of the second and third applicant to the United States, particularly in light of the first applicant’s allegations about the father’s consent to the family’s permanent relocation to Slovakia and his violent behaviour ( see   X   v. Latvia [GC], no. 27853/09, §§106-107, ECHR 2013, contrast   Michnea v. Romania , no. 10395/19, §§ 48-50, 7 July 2020; and G.K. v. Cyprus , no.   16205/21, § 45, 21 February 2023)? (b) Was the best interest of the second and third applicants a primary consideration during the domestic proceedings, and are the domestic decisions sufficiently reasoned in light of the exceptions set out in the Hague Convention (see X v. Latvia , cited above , §§95-96 and §106)? Furthermore, have the domestic courts satisfied themselves that adequate safeguards against the alleged domestic violence were convincingly provided in the United States (see ibid., §108)?         APPENDIX Application no. 22716/25     No. Applicant’s Name Year of birth Nationality 1. A 1985 Slovak 2. B 2021 Slovak, American 3. C 2018 Slovak, American