Judgment M.P. and Others v. Greece - Domestic courts must examine the appropriateness of hearing the child before ruling on his or her return to a parent in child abduction cases

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 204 (2025)   09.09.2025   Domestic courts must examine of their own motion the appropriateness of   hearing the child before ruling on his or her return to a parent in child   abduction cases   The case of M.P. and Others v. Greece (application no. 2068/24) concerned a mother and her two   children, who complained of the return of the two children to their father in the United States by order   of the Greek courts in international child abduction proceedings.   In today’s Chamber judgment1 in this case the European Court of Human Rights held, by 5 votes to 2,   that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the   European Convention on Human Rights.   The Court found that the Greek courts had assessed the situation without considering whether it   would be appropriate to ascertain the children’s views, which were, after all, a key consideration. As   a result, it found that the Greek courts had not been able to make an informed assessment as to   whether there had existed a “grave risk” to the children within the meaning of Article 13 (b) of the   Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and that   the decision-making process under domestic law had not met the procedural requirements inherent   in Article 8 of the Convention. The forcible return of the two children to the United States could not,   therefore, be regarded as necessary in a democratic society.   This is the first case concerning child abduction proceedings in which the Court has held that the   national courts are required to examine of their own motion whether it would be appropriate to hear   the child, either directly or otherwise, in order, if necessary, to rule out that possibility in a reasoned   decision.   Principal facts   The application was lodged by three Greek and United States nationals, a mother (M.P., who was born   in 1981) and her two children (I.R.A., born in 2016, and E.A.A., born in 2018).   In 2015 M.P. went to the US, where she began working in a day nursery in Houston (Texas) in 2016.   The same year, she married G.A., a Greek and United States national whom she had met in 2014. The   couple first lived in Houston, where I.R.A was born, then moved to Florida, where E.A.A. was born.   From 2018 to 2020, they experienced episodes of conflict.   In 2020 M.P. and her two children travelled to Rhodes (Greece) with the father’s consent, given in a   statement made before a notary, scheduling their return to the United States for 4 February 2021.   While M.P. and the children were in Rhodes, the airline informed them that, on account of the COVID-   19 pandemic, the itinerary of their flight had changed and the return destination was now Miami. M.P.   informed her spouse that the new itinerary was inconvenient and that she intended to return to   Florida with the children in May 2021.   1. Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any   party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers   whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the   referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution.   Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.   She then enrolled the children in a school on the island and registered them with the Greek social   security system. In March 2021 she began working as a psychologist in Rhodes; she did not return to   the United States.   Subsequently, G.A. applied to the Greek courts to have the children returned to the United States.   In May 2022 the Rhodes Court of First Instance found that there was a grave risk that the two children   would be exposed to psychological harm and placed in an intolerable situation if returned to the   United States, on the grounds, in particular, that they were enrolled in school and had integrated into   their new environment in Rhodes. It further noted that G.A. had a demanding job and lacked social   support or the support of family and friends for the children’s day-to-day care.   G.A. lodged an appeal. In December 2022 the Dodecanese Court of Appeal overturned the judgment   delivered at first instance and ordered the children’s return to their father in the United States. The   Court of Appeal held that the two children’s integration in Rhodes was not sufficient for their return   to their habitual place of residence to constitute an ordeal or an intolerable situation. In December   2023 the Court of Cassation upheld that judgment.   Meanwhile, G.A. had filed for divorce in the United States courts, which had been granted in   September 2022.   The children returned to the United States to live with their father in December 2024. M.P. lives in   Rhodes.   Complaints   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the Convention, the applicants   submitted that their allegation of a grave risk to the children if returned to the United States had not   been examined in an effective manner by the Greek courts. They further complained that the two   children had not been heard by the Greek courts in the domestic proceedings.   Complaints procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights by M.P., on her own behalf and   on behalf of her two children, on 19 January 2024.   G.A., the father of the two children, was granted leave by the President of the Section to intervene as   a third party in the proceedings before the Court.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peeter Roosma (Estonia), President,   Ioannis Ktistakis (Greece),   Lətif Hüseynov (Azerbaijan),   Diana Kovatcheva (Bulgaria),   Mateja Đurović (Serbia),   Canòlic Mingorance Cairat (Andorra),   Vasilka Sancin (Slovenia),   and also Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar.   2 Decision of the Court   Article 8   The return of the two children by order of the Greek courts constituted an interference with the   applicants’ right to respect for their family life. Such interference was based on the Hague Convention   of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”),   which had been incorporated into Greek law by Law no. 2102/1992, and was intended to protect the   rights and freedoms of the two children.   As to whether the interference was necessary in a democratic society, the Court took the view that   the main question was whether the decision-making process had pursued the best interests of the   two children and, in particular, whether it had ruled out any “grave risk” to them, within the meaning   of Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention.   The Court noted, firstly, that the domestic courts had taken into account all the evidence produced by   the applicants, including sworn statements and psychological expert reports produced by M.P.   regarding to the children, and that they had also heard witnesses. It noted, in this connection, that   the applicants had not complained that the domestic courts had failed to take evidence submitted by   them into account.   As to the complaint that the two children had not been heard, the Court observed, in the light of its   case-law on the requirements under Article 8 of the Convention in child abduction matters, that it had   not, to date, clearly established a positive obligation on the domestic courts to examine of their own   motion whether it would be appropriate to hear the children in proceedings in which their rights were   in issue.   However, in the light of the relevant international instruments, in particular the recent   Recommendation CM/Rec(2025)4 of the Committee of Ministers to member States, there was a   consensus among the States Parties as to the obligation to provide the child with a genuine and   effective opportunity to express his or her views, either directly or otherwise, and to support him or   her in doing so through a range of child-friendly mechanisms and procedures.   Having regard to these considerations, the Court now considered that the time had come to assert   that the national authorities were required to examine of their own motion whether it would be   appropriate to hear the child, either directly or otherwise, in order, if necessary, to rule out that   possibility in a reasoned decision.   In the present case, it noted, first, that the applicants submitted that it was essential to hear the   children, in order to determine whether any of the exceptions provided for in Article 13 (b) of the   Hague Convention were applicable.   It further noted that the children’s return to the United States from Rhodes – where their mother and   their maternal and paternal grandparents lived – had been liable to entail substantial changes in their   lives.   Consequently, it took the view that, having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, namely,   the domestic courts’ conflicting decisions as to the return of the two children and the radical change   in their living conditions entailed by such a return to the United States, the domestic courts ought to   have endeavoured, in keeping with their obligation to act in the children’s best interests, to examine   whether it would be appropriate to hear the children, and to do so irrespective of any express request   to that effect by the applicants.   In the present case, however, the domestic courts had assessed the situation without considering of   their own motion whether it would be appropriate to ascertain – either directly or otherwise – the   children’s views, which were, after all, a key consideration, in order, if necessary, to rule out that   possibility in a reasoned decision.   3 Consequently, the Court concluded that the domestic courts had not used all the means at their   disposal to rule out any “grave risk”, within the meaning of Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention.   The decision-making process under domestic law had therefore not met the procedural requirements   inherent in Article 8 of the Convention and the forcible return of the two children to the United States   could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society. There had therefore been a violation of   Article 8 of the Convention.   Just satisfaction (Article 41)   The Court held that Greece was to pay the applicants 7,500 euros (EUR), jointly, in respect of non-   pecuniary damage and to pay M.P. EUR 4,200 in respect of costs and expenses.   Separate opinion   Judges Roosma and Hüseynov expressed a joint dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   The judgment is available only in French.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions,   judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the   Court’s press releases, please subscribe here: www.echr.coe.int/RSS/en or follow us on X (Twitter)   @ECHR_CEDH and Bluesky @echr.coe.int.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08   We are happy to receive journalists’ enquiries via either email or telephone.   Inci Ertekin (tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Jane Swift (tel: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe member   States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   4