| Abstract [eng] |
In this work is analyzed The 1980 Hague Convention‘s on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction implementation in Lithuanian courts, supplemented by international case law in this area. The first part of the work is to discuss the most important theoretical questions, look at the legal regulation in international, the European Union and national level, the actual procedure questions. The second part of the work is to consider the theoretical and practical analysis of two child abduction cases heard in Lithuanian courts, in particular the priority of children's rights and interests of the principle point of view. In the Rinau case, the decision to return the child to Germany in accordance with legal regulation, international law and legal doctrine, but it is questionable in the light of child's interests. The process protracted, and the girl managed to adapt to the new environment, took a fancy to her mother and brother who lived together. The court failed to consider all the relevant circumstances of the Convention and narrowly interpreted paragraph 1 b of the Article 13 of the Convention. Because of the long-lasted procedure it may have been violated the father‘s rights under the Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The judgement in the Manic case fulfiled actual interests of the child and prevented him from possible psychological trauma determined by return to live in the United Kingdom, but paragraph 1 b of the Article 13 of the Convention may be applied more widely interpreted by the court, nor accepted the case in practice. This decision could lead to legal problems if the child's father succeed to gain child custody in the competent courts of the United Kingdom. The third part of the work is an actual international case law in this area. Especially, the ECHR decisions in cases where, for a protracted return of children under the Convention procedure was violated Article 8 of European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as other cases, which have refused to return children acording to paragraph 1 b of the Article 13, paragraph 2 of the Article 13 and paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the Convention. An examination of the case law, concluded that the decision to return a child under the Convention are not always met his real interests, so some law implementation and interpretation might be replaced by a broader application of the exceptions and take more care of each case analysis of the direction. |
