CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 16 janvier 2026

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 2 February 2026   SECOND SECTION Application no. 42914/21 Mustafa POLAT against Türkiye lodged on 9 August 2021 communicated on 16 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns proceedings for the return of the applicant’s daughter from Türkiye to the place of her habitual residence in Germany pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”). The applicant is a Turkish national who resided in Germany with his (former) wife, X. On 15 May 2014 the couple had a daughter. On 6 April 2017 the applicant and his daughter travelled to Türkiye, with the consent of X. During his stay, he allegedly learned that X had an affair. Accordingly, he filed for divorce and did not return to Germany with his daughter. On 7 March 2018 X initiated judicial proceedings seeking her daughter’s return to Germany under the Hague Convention. On 9 January 2019 the family court rejected the request on account of a medical report stating that the child had been living in Türkiye for more than a year and that she had settled in her new environment. According to the report, she had forgotten her life in Germany and her return would cause a psychological trauma. On 20 May 2019 the regional court of appeal quashed the decision and decided that the child should return to Germany on the grounds that a “grave risk” stipulated under Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention that the return would expose her to physical or psychological danger or otherwise place her in an intolerable situation had not been demonstrated. On 7 October 2019 the Court of Cassation endorsed that decision. On 30 April 2021 the Constitutional Court declared the applicant’s complaints under Article 8 manifestly ill-founded assessing that the factors in the present case were not capable of constituting an exception to the child’s immediate return in application of the Hague Convention. Relying on Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the domestic courts ordered his daughter’s return without genuinely considering his arguments concerning the applicability of exceptions provided by the Hague Convention, which concern the passage of time (Article 12) and the existence of a “grave risk” (Article 13 (b)). The applicant in particular argues that the domestic courts failed to consider that the child had been in Türkiye for more than one year when the domestic proceedings had commenced and that her return would expose her a psychological trauma risk, as stated in the medical report. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, in the light of the domestic proceedings for the return of his daughter to Germany? In particular, have the domestic courts correctly evaluated the best interests of the child in the light of the exceptions provided for by the Hague Convention, most notably the passage of time (Article 12) and the existence of a “grave risk” (Article   13   (b)), when ordering her return to Germany (see X v. Latvia   [GC], no.   27853/09, §§   92 ‑ 108, ECHR   2013; Neulinger and   Shuruk v.   Switzerland   [GC], no.   41615/07, §§   131-40, ECHR 2010; and M.P. and   others v. Greece , no. 2068/24, §§ 90 ‑ 103, 9 September 2025)?