Continuity of Parental Responsibility in Child Abduction Cases: Lesson Learned from the Case of Z. v. Croatia

Abstract

The new ECtHR decision in the case of Z. v. Croatia suggests that the rule of parental responsibility acquired ex lege is not always easy to implement in child abduction cases. The case primarily raised the question of determining whether the removal or retention of the child is wrongful in situations when the unmarried left-behind father does not have the ex lege right to parental responsibility under the law of the country of habitual residence, but he has acquired it under the law of the country in which he and the child had their previous habitual residence. In addition, the case of Z. v. Croatia raises the issue of renvoi, the habitual residence of children whose lifestyle involves frequent moving with their parents, as well as the issue of the need for thorough justification of the court decision. The identified difficulties showed the need to clearly elaborate and determine the interrelationship between Article 3 of the Child Abduction Convention and Article 16(3) of the Child Protection Convention, as well as the necessity to evaluate domestic legislative solutions and the practice of the national authorities that have led to the determination of violation in the present case.