issued by the Registrar of the Court  
ECHR 058 (2023)  
21.02.2023  
Decision to return an abducted child to his father in the USA did not  
contravene the mother’s rights under the European Convention  
In today’s Chamber judgment1 in the case of G.K. v. Cyprus (application no. 16205/21) the European  
Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:  
no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on  
Human Rights.  
The case concerned the proceedings and a subsequent order by the Cypriot courts to return the  
applicant’s son to the United States of America under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on  
the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.  
The Court found, in particular, that the domestic courts had not automatically ordered the return of  
the child. They had considered all the arguments of the parties and rendered detailed decisions  
which, in their view, safeguarded the best interests of the child and ruled out any serious risk to him.  
As a whole, the decision-making process had not run contrary to the procedural requirements  
inherent in Article 8 of the Convention, and the applicant had not suffered a disproportionate  
interference with her right to respect for her family life. The Court underlined that the aim of the  
Hague Convention was to prevent the abducting parent from being allowed to benefit from his or  
her own wrongdoing.  
Principal facts  
The applicant, G.K., is a Cypriot national who was born in 1986 and lives in Limassol (Cyprus).  
After moving to New York in 2011 to study, G.K. married a US citizen in April 2016 and they had a  
son together, born on 15 October 2016. A year later, in October 2017, G.K. lodged a domestic  
violence complaint against the father. Subsequently, she sought an order of protection and moved  
to a safe house with their child. That same month, she and her son left the USA for Cyprus with the  
assistance of the Cypriot authorities, who granted the one-year-old Cypriot nationality and a  
passport. The father hired private detectives to find them. In September 2018, he, seeking the child’s  
return, asked the US authorities to apply to the Cypriot authorities responsible for implementing the  
Hague Convention.  
On 7 February 2019, the Cypriot authorities lodged an application, accompanied by an affidavit, with  
the Family Court of Paphos requesting the child’s return to the USA. G.K. lodged an objection,  
arguing that the child would be in danger from his father who had been violent and aggressive, and  
who had a “heavy” criminal record in Ohio, where he had grown up. She also indicated that the child  
had fully settled into life in Cyprus, spoke Greek, attended preschool and took part in other activities  
like riding and art classes.  
On 24 September 2019 the father lodged a supplementary affidavit. He affirmed that he had not  
been violent towards G.K. and that he had taken care of her and the child as the sole provider for  
the family, and that he could take care of the child in the USA given that he had a stable job and  
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.  
apartment, that the child had health cover and a paediatrician there and that the National Center for  
Missing and Exploited Children had confirmed they could assist in the child’s successful transition.  
On 11 November 2019, when the case was set for a hearing, G.K. requested an adjournment,  
informing the court that she wished to lodge a supplementary affidavit and further evidence in  
support of her original application, including a report from a child psychologist that separating the  
child from his mother would be psychologically damaging for him. The court dismissed G.K.’s request  
on 10 January 2020, considering that no new circumstances had been brought forward.  
After the parties had submitted their written arguments to the court, the case was set for  
clarifications on 17 March 2020. However, it was postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and the  
court delivered its judgment on 21 January 2021.  
Overall, it considered that the father had been a credible witness whose testimony had been  
consistent, persuasive and supported by relevant evidence. Most of the evidence provided by him  
remained unchallenged. However, it found that G.K.’s version of events had been general, vague,  
confusing and contradictory. She had failed to provide the level of proof necessary for the child not  
to be returned to the USA. These findings were affirmed on appeal by the Family Court of Second  
instance.  
The child was handed over to the Cypriot authorities on 29 May 2021 and was returned to the USA.  
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court  
Relying on Article 8 (right to private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights,  
the applicant complained that her rights had been breached by the unreasonable length of the  
Hague Convention proceedings and by the domestic courts’ decision to order the child’s return to  
the USA without adequately assessing the situation and risks involved.  
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 26 March 2021.  
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:  
Pere Pastor Vilanova (Andorra), President,  
Yonko Grozev (Bulgaria),  
Darian Pavli (Albania),  
Peeter Roosma (Estonia),  
Ioannis Ktistakis (Greece),  
Andreas Zünd (Switzerland) and,  
Tasia Psara-Miltiadou (Cyprus), ad hoc Judge,  
and also Milan Blaško, Section Registrar.  
Decision of the Court  
After assessing whether G.K’s objections to the child’s immediate return had been genuinely  
considered by the domestic courts, whether the decisions had been reasoned and sufficiently  
detailed in the light of the exceptions set out in the Hague Convention and whether the courts had  
satisfied themselves that adequate safeguards were available in the country of return, the Court  
considered that the domestic courts’ findings had been well-reasoned and justified.  
The Family Court of Paphos had noticed certain contradictions in G.K’s allegations compared to her  
claims before the US court. She had also concealed the fact that the temporary order of protection  
in the USA had been dismissed owing to her failure to appear in court. Her allegations that the father  
was violent had remained unsubstantiated. Even though she had been given the opportunity to  
cross-examine the father before the domestic courts in Cyprus, the allegation of his being violent  
2
had not been raised and her questions had been limited to whether he had been convicted of any  
offences in the past, to which he had replied that 25 years earlier he had been convicted of minor  
violations, which did not affect his criminal record, his employment status or his fitness to exercise  
his parental rights. Moreover, the court noted that no submission had been made to him of his  
having committed specific offences which could make his criminal record “heavy”, as alleged by G.K.  
As regards her argument that the return would be too hard for her son and would be psychologically  
damaging, the Court noted that Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention stipulated that harm arising  
solely from separation from the parent who was responsible for the wrongful removal or retention  
was not a valid reason for non-return of the child.  
The Court noted that, in reaching their decision, the domestic courts had taken into account the  
child’s adaptability due to his young age, the father’s assurances as to being able to care for his son,  
the assistance of the Centre for Missing and Exploited Children and the US authorities, as well as the  
fact that G.K.’s claim that she was unable to return to the USA remained entirely unsubstantiated.  
In response to G.K.’s criticism that the domestic courts had failed to request the child’s view on the  
matter, the Court found that the Family Court of Paphos had given reasons for its decision not to  
interview the child on account of his young age – three years old at the time – and G.K.’s wish for  
him not to take part in the proceedings.  
Regarding her complaint about the length of time it had taken for the domestic courts to come to a  
decision, the Court noted that the lapse of time had, to a large extent, been caused by the delay of  
the authorities in instigating the Hague Convention proceedings and the first-instance court’s  
handling of the case. It also recognised that G.K. had contributed to the delay to some extent  
because of her filing a supplementary affidavit at a very late stage when the case had already been  
set for a hearing. That application had ultimately been dismissed because the court felt that it had  
arrived late, was unjustified, and would simply drag the proceedings out further. The Court  
emphasised that proceedings relating to the return of an abducted child required urgent handling as  
the passage of time could have irremediable consequences on the relationship between the child  
and the parent from whom he/she had been distanced. In this case, G.K., unlike the father, had  
benefitted from the delay. In that respect, the Court underlined that the aim of the Hague  
Convention was to prevent the abducting parent from succeeding in obtaining legal recognition  
simply by a situation that he or she had unilaterally created, and the abducting parent should not be  
allowed to benefit from his or her own wrongdoing.  
The Court held that the domestic courts had not automatically ordered the return of the child. G.K.  
had had the opportunity to cross-examine the father, and the domestic courts had considered all the  
arguments of the parties and rendered detailed decisions which, in their view, had safeguarded the  
best interests of the child and ruled out any serious risk to him. As a whole, the decision-making  
process before the domestic authorities had not run contrary to the procedural requirements  
inherent in Article 8 of the Convention, and the applicant had not suffered a disproportionate  
interference with her right to respect for her family life.  
The judgment is available only in English.  
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 Twitter  
@ECHR_CEDH.  
Press contacts  
echrpress@echr.coe.int | tel.: +33 3 90 21 42 08  
We would encourage journalists to send their enquiries via email.  
3
Jane Swift (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 29 04)  
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel.: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)  
Denis Lambert (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)  
Inci Ertekin (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 55 30)  
Neil Connolly (tel.: + 33 3 90 21 48 05)  
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