ECtHR: No Article 8 Violation in Return of Abducted Children

The author of this post is Iina Tornberg, who is a project researcher at the University of Eastern Finland and a visiting researcher at the University of Helsinki.

The judgment rendered by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on 16 December 2025 addressed the protection of family life in a case involving the return of children under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction of 25 October 1980 (the Hague Child Abduction Convention). The background to the proceedings before the ECtHR was as follows. The father – the non-resident parent – had brought the children from Russia to Finland and later sought asylum for all three of them, basing his claim on his opposition to Russia’s current regime and the war in Ukraine. After the removal of the children, their mother instituted proceedings in Finland for their return under the Hague Child Abduction Convention, to which both Finland and Russia are Contracting Parties. After the first‑instance proceedings before the Helsinki Court of Appeal, the Finnish Supreme Court held in its decision, that there were no grounds for refusing the return of the children.

For a more detailed account of the Finnish Supreme Court’s decision, see Erik Sinander’s blog post of November 23, 2023.

The ECtHR judgment in a nutshell

In Z and Others v. Finland (judgment rendered on 16 December 2025), the ECtHR examined an application lodged against Finland under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). The applicants – a father and his two sons (born in 2011 and 2013) – complained that the Finnish Supreme Court’s return order issued under the Hague Child Abduction Convention violated their right to respect for their family life under Article 8 ECHR.

The ECtHR unanimously found no violation of Article 8 ECHR. The interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life by the Finnish Supreme Court’s decision ordering the return of the children to Russia was considered as “necessary in a democratic society”.

According to the ECtHR, the Finnish courts had complied with the procedural requirements inherent in Article 8 ECHR. They had genuinely taken into account the factors capable of constituting an exception to the children’s immediate return in application of the Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Furthermore, the Finnish Supreme Court had given relevant and sufficient reasons – instead of automatic and stereotyped ones – to justify the interference for the purposes of Article 8(2) ECHR. The interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their family life was firstly based on Section 34 of the Finnish Act on Child Custody and Right of Access (361/1983), a provision incorporating Article 13(1) of the Hague Child Abduction Convention. Second, it was necessary for the protection of the rights of the applicant children as well as those of their mother.

In addition, the ECtHR noted that the best interests of the children must be a primary consideration. Taking account of the wide margin of appreciation afforded to Finland as a Contracting State, the ECtHR found no reason to contradict the findings of the Finnish Supreme Court or substitute its view for that of the domestic court.

Asylum status of the children – a noteworthy side issue

Two judges gave a concurring opinion regarding the fact that the children had been granted asylum in Finland. The concurring opinion noted that the case was the first in which the ECtHR had the opportunity to consider the return of children under the Hague Child Abduction Convention to a country from which they have been granted asylum. Although the Finnish Supreme Court had noted that the children were not granted asylum on their own, but derived from their father, the concurring opinion expressed concerns whether that could remove the need to reassess the risk that the granted asylum status could have for the children upon return.

The concurring opinion further expressed concerns that since the ECtHR endorsed the Finnish Supreme Court’s reasoning, the judgment could be interpreted as approving a return order where domestic courts treat asylum as not constituting a new and relevant fact for the risk assessment. Under such an approach, even if children had been granted asylum separately, their return might still be considered possible if the domestic court held that asylum was not a “new” fact capable of affecting the established risk assessment. The concurring opinion concluded that the reasoning of the majority risks endorsing a “superficial approach to asylum” considerations and weakening the European supervision for which ECtHR case-law provides.

Comment

When examining the ECtHR judgment in Z and Others v. Finland, the overall impression is that the Court could not, in fact, have realistically reached a different conclusion. The Finnish courts – first the Helsinki Court of Appeal and then the Supreme Court, which nevertheless arrived at the opposite outcome – had analyzed all the factors relevant to the return decision with exceptional thoroughness and breadth. (The Finnish Supreme Court had even conducted an oral hearing and heard the oldest child separately.) This is especially true given the primacy of returning the child and the very strict interpretation of the grounds for refusal – the case nevertheless concerned only a return order and not a decision on custody.

It is understandable that, in such a situation, the somewhat unusual Joint Concurring Opinion nevertheless seeks, with some caution, to keep the door open to the possibility that in certain cases the domestic courts might still dare to reach a different conclusion regarding the return.