At last – The “grave risk exception” guide under the HCCH Child Abduction Convention has been published

/in /by

The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) has announced that the Guide to Good Practice under the Child Abduction Convention: Part VI – Article 13(1)(b) is now available in both English and French.

Article 13(1)(b) of the HCCH Child Abduction Convention sets out: “Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that – b)   there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”

We expect to post a more detailed comment soon. In the meantime, see our previous post here.

The HCCH news item is available here.

Conflict of Laws .net now on Twitter

/in /by

Readers of our blog may be pleased to learn (if they have not already noticed) that since the beginning of the year, all our posts are automatically published to our brand-new Twitter account.

Whether you want to share and discuss our content or simply to receive all our latest posts directly in your Twitter feed, feel free to follow @PrIL_Blog!

New Contracting Parties to the HCCH Service and HCCH Evidence Conventions and a signatory State to the HCCH Judgments Convention

/in /by

Yesterday (4 March 2020) Viet Nam acceded to the HCCH Evidence Convention and the Philippines acceded to the HCCH Service Convention.  Ukraine signed the HCCH Judgments Convention.

The HCCH Evidence Convention will enter into force for Viet Nam on 3 May 2020. Pursuant to article 39 of the Evidence Convention, the accession will have effect only as regards the relations between Viet Nam and such Contracting States as will have declared their acceptance of the accession. Accordingly, this is a semi-open Convention similar to the HCCH Child Abduction Convention.

In the absence of any objection pursuant to its article 28, the HCCH Service Convention will enter into force for the Philippines on 1 October 2020. No objection has ever been made under the Service Convention (so far).

Ukraine has signed the HCCH Judgments Convention in accordance with its article 24. In order to consent to be bound by the treaty, Ukraine needs to deposit an instrument of ratification. In the meantime, a signatory State has the obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force (article 18 of the UN Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

The HCCH Judgments Convention is not yet in force. In accordance with article 28: “This Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of the period during which a notification may be made in accordance with Article 29(2) with respect to the second State that has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession referred to in Article 24.”

There are currently two signatory States: Uruguay and Ukraine. The act of signing a treaty does not count towards the timeline specified in article 28 of the HCCH Judgments Convention as it is not an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

The HCCH news item is available here.

Singapore and Fiji ratify the Singapore Convention on Mediation

/in /by

Singapore and Fiji have each deposited instruments of ratification at the UN Headquarters on 25 February 2020. The UN Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (“Singapore Convention on Mediation”) facilitates the cross-border enforcement of international commercial settlement agreements reached through mediation (see previous post here). To date, fifty-two States have signed the Convention. It will enter into force six months after the deposit of three instruments of ratification. The list of signatory States may be found here.

Nottingham Arbitration Talk on Wednesday 18 March 2020

/in /by

News item by Dr Orsolya Toth, Assistant Professor in Commercial Law, University of Nottingham

The University of Nottingham Commercial Law Centre will hold its inaugural Nottingham Arbitration Talk on Wednesday 18 March at 2 pm.  The Centre is delighted to welcome distinguished speakers to the event drawn from both academia and practice.  The Keynote address will be given by Professor Sir Roy Goode, Emeritus Professor of Law at the University of Oxford.  The speaker panel will host Angeline Welsh (Essex Court Chambers), Timothy Foden (Lalive) and Dr Martins Paparinskis (University College London).  

The theme of the event will be ‘Procedure and Substance in Commercial and Investment Treaty Arbitration’.  It will address current and timeless issues, such as the influence of procedure on the parties’ substantive rights, the recent phenomenon of ‘due process paranoia’ in arbitration and the current state of the system of investment treaty arbitration.  For detailed programme and registration please visit https://unclcpresents.eventbrite.co.uk

New Contracting Parties to the HCCH Service and HCCH Evidence Conventions and a signatory State to the HCCH Judgments Convention

/in /by

Yesterday (4 March 2020) Viet Nam acceded to the HCCH Evidence Convention and the Philippines acceded to the HCCH Service Convention.  Ukraine signed the HCCH Judgments Convention.

The HCCH Evidence Convention will enter into force for Viet Nam on 3 May 2020. Pursuant to article 39 of the Evidence Convention, the accession will have effect only as regards the relations between Viet Nam and such Contracting States as will have declared their acceptance of the accession. Accordingly, this is a semi-open Convention similar to the HCCH Child Abduction Convention.

In the absence of any objection pursuant to its article 28, the HCCH Service Convention will enter into force for the Philippines on 1 October 2020. No objection has ever been made under the Service Convention (so far).

Ukraine has signed the HCCH Judgments Convention in accordance with its article 24. In order to consent to be bound by the treaty, Ukraine needs to deposit an instrument of ratification. In the meantime, a signatory State has the obligation not to defeat the object and purpose of a treaty prior to its entry into force (article 18 of the UN Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties).

The HCCH Judgments Convention is not yet in force. In accordance with article 28: “This Convention shall enter into force on the first day of the month following the expiration of the period during which a notification may be made in accordance with Article 29(2) with respect to the second State that has deposited its instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession referred to in Article 24.”

There are currently two signatory States: Uruguay and Ukraine. The act of signing a treaty does not count towards the timeline specified in article 28 of the HCCH Judgments Convention as it is not an instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.

The HCCH news item is available here.

Australia’s first contested ICSID enforcement

/in /by

In February, the Federal Court of Australia delivered its judgment on the first contested enforcement of International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) awards in Australia. In Eiser Infrastructure Ltd v Kingdom of Spain [2020] FCA 157, the Court enforced two ICSID awards—award of 4 May 2017 in Case No. ARB/13/36, and award of 15 June 2018 as rectified by the award dated 29 January 2019 in Case No. ARB/13/31—against the Kingdom of Spain. The two cases were brought by different applicants but were heard and decided together.

The judgment concerns the interaction of two instruments at the intersection of public and private international law. Firstly, it concerns the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth), which gives effect to a restrictive theory of state immunity. Secondly, the judgment concerns the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, opened for signature 18 March 1965, 575 UNTS 159 (entered into force 14 October 1966) (Investment Convention), which is given the force of law in Australia by s 32 of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth).

Stewart J framed the issue for consideration as follows (at [2]):

[I]s a foreign state immune from the recognition and enforcement of an arbitral award made under the Investment Convention notwithstanding that the Investment Convention inherently envisages arbitration awards being made against foreign states and it provides that such awards “shall” be recognised and enforced by Australian courts?

The judgment also contains useful consideration of the distinctions between recognition, enforcement and execution in the context of a common law system.

Background

The underlying dispute was triggered by a change in Spain’s position on subsidies and regulation concerning renewable energy, and the applicant companies’ investments in renewable energy projects in Spain before that change. The changes caused substantial harm to the value of the investments of the applicants, which are incorporated in England & Wales, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

Before ICSID tribunals the applicants argued that Spain failed to accord fair and equitable treatment to their investments in breach of Art 10(1) of The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), opened for signature 17 December 1994, 2080 UNTS 95 (entered into force 16 April 1998). They were successful. Spain was ordered to pay hundreds of millions of Euros across two awards.

Spain then made applications for the annulment of the awards, which included stays of enforcement. For a time, each award was stayed. (In Australia, this resulted in a temporary stay of enforcement proceedings: see Infrastructure Services Luxembourg S.A.R.L v Kingdom of Spain [2019] FCA 1220). The stays were then discontinued, allowing enforcement action to proceed in Australia. At the time of writing, Spain had not complied with the awards in whole or in part.

Enforcement of the ICSID awards in Australia

The Commonwealth of Australia is a generally arbitration-friendly jurisdiction. Part IV of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) deals with the Investment Convention. Section 33(1) provides the basic proposition ‘that [a]n award is binding on a party to the investment dispute to which the award relates’, while s 35 provides that awards may be enforced through the Federal Court of Australia.

How, then, could Spain challenge enforcement of the ICSID awards? It asserted immunity under s 9 of the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth), which provides foreign States with general immunity from the jurisdiction of Australian courts. An exception to the general position is provided in s 10(1) for proceedings in respect of which a foreign State has submitted.

The applicant companies argued that the Investment Convention excludes any claim for foreign state immunity in proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of an award. The Court was thus asked to consider whether, ‘by being a Contracting Party to the ECT and a Contracting State to the Investment Convention, Spain submitted to the arbitrations under the Investment Convention which produced the awards they seek to enforce’: [179]. The Court held that Spain had submitted. There was no inconsistency between the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth) and the enforcement of the Investment Convention via the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth).

The Court thus recognised each of the awards. Spain was ordered to pay the applicant companies hundreds of millions of Euros, plus interest, and costs—the scope of which are still to be determined.

Comments on recognition, enforcement and execution

According to Stewart J, ‘[t]he distinction between recognition and enforcement, on the one hand, and execution on the other, is central to [the] reasons’: [6]. The judgment contains dicta that will be useful for teaching private international law in Australia. There is a helpful passage at [89] ff:

Recognition is a distinct and necessarily prior step to enforcement, but recognition and enforcement are closely linked: Briggs A, The Conflict of Laws (3rd ed, Oxford University Press, Clarendon Series, 2013) 140-141; Clarke v Fennoscandia Ltd [2007] UKHL 56; 2008 SC (HL) 122 at [18]-[23].  An award may be recognised without being “enforced” by a court: TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd v Judges of the Federal Court of Australia [2013] HCA 5; 251 CLR 533 at [23].  Examples would be where an award is recognised as giving rise to res judicata, issue estoppel, cause of action estoppel or set-off, or as a claim in an insolvent estate.  See Associated Electric and Gas Insurance Services Ltd v European Reinsurance Co of Zurich [2003] UKPC 11; [2003] 1 WLR 1041 at [15] as an example of recognition by estoppel.

An arbitral award is enforced through the means of the entering of a judgment on the award, either in the form of a money judgment for the amount of an award or for damages for failing to honour an award.  That form of enforcement by a court is an exercise of judicial power: TCL at [32].  There is some debate in the authorities as to whether an award can be enforced by means of a court making a declaration.  See Tridon Australia Pty Ltd v ACD Tridon Inc [2004] NSWCA 146 and AED Oil Ltd v Puffin FPSO Ltd [2010] VSCA 37; 27 VR 22 at [18]-[20].  It is not necessary to enter upon that debate for present purposes because Art 54(3) of the Investment Convention requires the enforcement of only the pecuniary obligations of an award.  That would seem to exclude declaratory awards, injunctions and orders for specific performance.

An award cannot, however, be executed, in the sense of executed against the property of an award debtor, without first being converted into a judgment of a court: Uganda Telecom Ltd v Hi-Tech Telecom Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 206; 277 ALR 441 at [12]-[13].  Nevertheless, it is not a strain of language to refer to an award being enforced by way of execution.

Thus, depending on the context, reference to the enforcement of an arbitral award can be used to mean the entering of a judgment on the award to the exclusion of execution or it can mean execution, or it can encompass both.

Recognition and enforcement by judgment on the award is equivalent to what is referred to in civilian jurisdictions as exequatur (see Firebird at [47]-[48] and Briggs A, The Conflict of Laws (3rd ed, Oxford University Press, Clarendon Series, 2013), 139).

Comment

Eiser Infrastructure Ltd v Kingdom of Spain provides plenty to think about for those interested in private international law, public international law, and international arbitration. It confirms the intuition that ICSID awards should be easily enforced in Australia.

However, it begs the question, why Australia? Stewart J speculated that the CJEU’s decision in Slovak Republic v Achmea BV [2018] 4 WLR 87, [60] may have made Australia a more attractive forum for enforcement proceedings in these cases. However, should Spain have any assets in Australia, it may be difficult for the successful companies to get access to them. The High Court of Australia takes a foreign-State-friendly approach to immunity of execution over foreign States’ property. It will be interesting to see what happens next in this dispute.

CJEU rules on the opposability of a choice-of-court clause contained in a large-risk insurance contract in relation to the insured: Case C-803/18, BALTA

/in /by

The case concerns the question whether the Lithuanian courts have jurisdiction under the Brussels I bis Regulation to deal with a case involving an insurance payment claimed by a company established in Lithuania and covered by a civil liability insurance contract concluded between the policyholder and the insurer, both of whom are established in Latvia.

The insurance contract in question contained a clause providing that any dispute relating to this contract should be brought before the Latvian courts. Following the wording of the preliminary question, the claimant is a ‘person insured under that contract who has not expressly subscribed to that clause’.

Similarly to the preliminary question referred in Case C-112/03, Société financière and industrielle du Peloux, the referring court seeks to establish whether the choice-of-court clause contained in the insurance contract may be invoked against the insured who has not expressly subscribed to that clause and who is established in a Member State other than that of the policyholder and the insurer.

The particularity of the present case stems from the fact the insurance contract covered a ‘large risk’ referred to in Articles 15(5) and 16(5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Following the wording of these Articles, concerning the large-risk insurances, the rules on jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance may be departed from by an agreement with no further conditions. It was the impact of Articles 15(5) and 16 of the Brussels I bis Regulation on the opposability of the choice-of-court clause against the insured that inspired the referring court to request for a preliminary ruling.

In its Judgment delivered today without Advocate General’s Opinion, the Court ruled that the choice-of-court clause contained in a large-risk insurance cannot be invoked against an insured who has not subscribed to that clause and who is established in a Member State other than that of the policyholder and the insurer.

At the outset the Court observed that when contrasted with Article 15(3) and (4) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the wording of Article 15(5) of the Regulation may suggest that a choice-of-court clause contained in a large-risk insurance contract could be invoked not only against the parties to the contract but also against an insured. In fact, Article 15(3) and (4) of the Regulation refers to the policyholder and to the insurer as the parties to the choice-of-court clause. No such reference is to be found in Article 15(5) (paragraph 33 of the Judgment).

However, after having presented a series of arguments with respect to the history of this provision, the scheme of the rules on jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance and their objectives (paragraphs 34 to 36 of the Judgment), the Court held, on the one hand, that the prorogation of jurisdiction is strictly circumscribed by the aim of protecting the economically weaker party and it cannot be inferred from the nature of large-risk insurance that an insured (not being a party to this contract) is not a ‘weaker party’ (paragraphs 37 to 41 of the Judgment). On the other hand, the application of the special rules of jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance is not to be extended to persons for whom that protection is not justified. No special protection is justified where the parties concerned are professionals in the insurance sector (paragraphs 44 and 45 of the Judgment).

The Court rejected a case-by-case assessment of the question whether an insured covered by a large-risk insurance may be regarded as a ‘weaker party’/professional in the insurance sector (paragraph 43 of the Judgment). This interpretation is of course in line with the pre-existing case-law, in particular the judgments in Cases C-340/16, MMA IARD, paragraph 34 and C-106/17, Hofsoe, paragraph 45. It seems that a similar approach was also followed in paragraph 109 of the judgment in Case Aspen Underwriting v Credit Europe [2018] EWCA 2590 Civ, where the Court of Appeal held in relation to large-risk insurance that while the case-law of the CJEU excludes an individual factual assessment of the strength of the economic position, it is still possible to decide on the application of the protective rules on jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance by having regard to the class of business conducted by the party in question.

It is, as Court clarifies, common ground that the insured acting as a claimant in the procedure before the national courts is not considered as a professional in the insurance sector (paragraph 45 of the Judgment). It follows that the choice-of-court clause cannot be invoked against the insured who has not subscribed to that clause and who is established in a Member State other than that of the policyholder and the insurer.

The Judgment can be found here (no English version yet). For those wishing to study the case more extensively, the request for a preliminary ruling is available here.

On a side note…

It might be interesting to note a few points that may be inspirational for the discussion on EU private international law in contexts other than those of the present request for a preliminary ruling and in relation to the issues not covered by this request:

  • Article 15(5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation allows to deviate from the protective rules on jurisdiction by a choice-of-court clause in relation to insurance contracts covering one or more of the risks set out in Article 16 of this Regulation, including those referred to in Article 16(5) as ‘large risks’. As the Court observes in its Judgment, even the large-risk insurances alone encompass the contracts covering risks of varied nature. Some risks are deemed large due to the subject of insurance cover (i.e. marine and aviation risks), while other have to meet the specific criteria that relate to the policyholder in order to be considered as large. It may be interesting to see in the future developments whether, in different contexts relating to the contracts that are considered as large-risk insurances solely due to the subject of insurance cover (the reference to various conditions in paragraph 43 of the Judgment seems to hint the fact that this was not the case here), the nature of risk is equally irrelevant and, if so, whether the nature of risk may be for instance used by national courts as an indication that the insured parties are professionals in the insurance sector.
  • The insured acting as the claimant in the proceedings before the Lithuanian courts is a company which shares are held exclusively by the policyholder (paragraph 15 of the Judgment). In the national proceedings that led to the request for a preliminary ruling, the first instance court considered that, due to the fact that the insured is a company owned by the policyholder, this insured must have consented, even if only indirectly, to the choice-of-court clause (paragraph 18 of the Judgment). In its Judgment, the Court held in particular that the choice-of-court clause cannot be invoked against an insured who has not subscribed to that clause, without further distinction between express and implicit consent (‘la personne assurée par ce contrat […] qui n’a pas consenti à cette clause’). It is to be noted that the wording of the preliminary question refers solely to an insured who has not expressly subscribed to that clause. The referring court seemingly did not consider it necessary to inquire the Court on this particular aspect of the case. If anything, it is yet to be seen whether any definitive conclusion in relation to the aforementioned aspect (that the Court was not directly asked to address) may be inferred from the Judgment.
  • The large-risk insurance contract in question did not only contain a clause conferring jurisdiction to the Latvian courts but apparently also a choice-of-law clause in favour of the laws in force in this Member State (paragraph 16 of the Judgment). It can be argued that in the context of choice-of-law clauses made in relation to insurance contracts in general (and not solely large-risk insurances), the Rome I Regulation approaches the protection of the ‘weaker parties’ in a different manner than the Brussels I bis Regulation. Having in mind the concept of consistency between these Regulations, it is likewise yet to be seen whether the solution adopted in relation to the Brussels I bis Regulation may be transposed to the realm of conflict of laws.

Opinion of Advocate General Bobek in the case C-41/19, FX: Jurisdiction to rule on an application opposing enforcement of a maintenance decision

/in /by

In today’s Opinion, Advocate General Bobek analyses whether the courts of a Member State in which a maintenance decision delivered by the courts of another Member State is enforced have jurisdiction to rule on an application opposing the enforcement.

More specifically, the reference for a preliminary ruling originates in a dispute between a maintenance debtor residing in Germany and a maintenance creditor residing in Poland. The latter lodged with the referring court an application requesting the recognition of a Polish maintenance decision and a declaration of its enforceability in Germany in accordance with Maintenance Regulation. The referring court delivered an order for enforcement in respect of the Polish maintenance decision. On the basis of that order, the defendant sought the enforcement of this decision against the debtor in Germany. The maintenance debtor opposed the enforcement based on Paragraph 767 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (the ZPO) and argued that the claim underlying the maintenance decision has been settled by payment.

Before deciding on the merits, it was for the referring court to decide whether it has jurisdiction to rule on the application opposing the enforcement. As the Opinion explains, at point 29:

In a nutshell, it seems that the referring court understands that there are two mutually exclusive possibilities. If [the Maintenance Regulation] were applicable, that would mean that the referring court lacks jurisdiction under Article 3 of that regulation. It is only if [the Maintenance Regulation] cannot be applied that it would be possible to base jurisdiction on Article 24(5) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation], according to which the courts of the Member State of enforcement have jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with such enforcement.

Against this background, the Opinion confirms, at points 32 et 33, that while the Brussels I bis Regulation contains, in Article 24(5), an explicit rule granting exclusive jurisdiction in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments to the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced, the Maintenance Regulation does not contain any explicit rule on jurisdiction regarding the enforcement of decisions in matters relating to maintenance.

Disagreeing with the referring court’s understanding of the issue of jurisdiction, at point 42, the Opinion states, however, that the rules on jurisdiction provided for in the Chapter II of the Maintenance Regulation establish jurisdiction with regard to the main procedure on the merits, but not with regard to the enforcement of such decisions.

Moreover, at points 43 et seq., the Opinion explains that a rule according to which enforcement belongs to the courts of the Member State where enforcement is sought is inherent in the system of the Maintenance Regulation and is an expression of what could be considered a general principle of international law:

43. […] even though Chapter IV of [the Maintenance Regulation] does not contain any explicit jurisdictional rule with regard to enforcement, that rule can be considered inherent in the system of that regulation.

44. In general terms, international jurisdiction for enforcement belongs to the courts of the Member State where enforcement is sought. As the Polish Government points out, that rule is an expression of what could be considered a general principle of international law connected with State sovereignty: it is only the authorities of the State of enforcement that are empowered to rule on the execution of decisions, as enforcement measures can only be carried out by the authorities of the Member State(s) where the assets or persons against which enforcement is sought are situated. That rule is valid, a fortiori, where a decision has already been recognised as enforceable in the Member State where enforcement is sought.

45. Therefore, it is not necessary to have recourse to Article 24(5) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] as a supplementary provision in order to be able to establish that the courts of the Member State of enforcement also have jurisdiction with regard to the enforcement of maintenance decisions within the scope of [the Maintenance Regulation]. Indeed, that article can be considered as an expression of the general principle just mentioned. 

Next, at points 50 et seq., the Opinion addresses the question whether an application seeking to oppose enforcement based on the discharge of the debt is to be considered as appertaining, for the purposes of jurisdiction, to enforcement proceedings. The extensive analysis is followed by a summary, at point 85:

85. For those reasons, it is my view that jurisdiction to adjudicate on an action opposing enforcement based on the discharge of debt falls to the courts of the Member State where the enforcement is sought. For the sake of completeness, I wish to stress two points in lieu of a conclusion. First, the discussion in the present Opinion and the conclusion reached concerned only the ground of opposition based on the discharge of the debt. Second, beyond that specific ground, no position is taken on the overall compatibility of Paragraph 767 of the ZPO with EU law.

The Advocate General concluded, at point 86:

86. [The Maintenance Regulation] and, in particular, Article 41(1) thereof, should be interpreted as meaning that the courts of the Member State where the enforcement of a maintenance decision given in another Member State is sought have jurisdiction to adjudicate on an application opposing enforcement, in so far as it is intrinsically connected with enforcement proceedings, it does not seek the modification or review of the maintenance decision, and it is based on grounds that could not have been raised before the court that issued the maintenance decision. Those conditions appear to be fulfilled by the application of opposition to enforcement based on the discharge of the debt at issue in the present case, which is nonetheless ultimately for the referring court to verify.

The Opinion can be found here.

Monasky v. Taglieri, a Guest Post by Melissa Kucinski

/in /by

On February 25, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which concluded that Italy was the habitual residence of an infant that was brought from Italy to Ohio by her mother in 2015, shortly after the child was born. This opinion resolved a circuit split over the definition of habitual residence. The 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention is the private international law instrument that seeks to secure the prompt return of a child removed from or retained out of its habitual residence. It is not a child custody or jurisdictional determination, and not a means of enforcing existing custody orders. Instead it is designed to restore some type of status quo so that the child’s parents can pursue a custody order from the court in the appropriate jurisdiction. It discourages forum shopping and gives the child some consistency during the parents’ custody litigation. The threshold question that a court must resolve in determining whether to return a child is that child’s habitual residence, with the treaty being premised on the fact that a child cannot be returned to a location that is not her habitual residence. The U.S. circuits have had a long-standing split on the definition of this undefined treaty term, used in numerous Hague family law conventions.

In the Monasky v. Taglieri case, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously concluded that a child’s habitual residence is a flexible fact-based determination that should focus on “[t]he place where a child is at home, at the time of removal or retention…”. This standard gives a trial judge significant deference, with a caution to be informed by “common sense” in reviewing the unique circumstances of the case in front of her. The Supreme Court gave little guidance on how best to weigh the different facts that will be presented to the trial judge but left that to the discretion of the judge, with the view that “[n]o single fact … is dispositive across all cases.” The Court further rejected Ms. Monasky’s argument that habitual residence requires the parents to have an actual agreement, which she, and amici curiae argued is necessary for any child born into a situation of domestic violence. In rejecting that argument, Justice Ginsburg wrote both that the 1980 Convention has mechanisms to help children who would be subjected to a grave risk of harm if returned to situations where domestic violence is an issue, and that the domestic violence itself should be more fully examined in the custody case after the child is returned. She further expressed concern that this argument would leave children, many who are vulnerable, without the ability to use the 1980 Convention because a parent could easily manipulate the facts to argue that the parents lacked an agreement.

The Court also held that the question of a child’s habitual residence is a mixed question of law and fact, but only “barely so,” and with the legal standard now clear, with the trial judge reviewing a totality of the circumstances when determining a child’s habitual residence, the court is left with a completely factual analysis in determining “[w]as the child at home in a particular country at issue?” Therefore, on appeal, the appropriate standard of review is clear-error.