Finland, ECHR, Z and others v. Finland, Application no 42758/23, 16 December 2025

Facts:

The applicants, a Russian national and his two children, lived in Russia. In September 2022, the first applicant (the father) removed the children (second and third applicant) to Finland without the mother's consent and applied for asylum, claiming political persecution. In January 2023, the mother demanded the children’s return under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in Helsinki Court of Appeal.

The father opposed the return, relying on Article 13 § 1 (b) of the Hague Convention, alleging a grave risk of psychological harm due to the children's previous enrolment in a Russian military school. He further argued that the children objected to the return under Article 13 § 2.  

Following the dismissal of the mother´s application by the Helsinki Court of Appeal, she filled an appeal to the Supreme Court.

On 27 September 2023, the Supreme Court determined that there was no sufficient evidence of a grave risk, noting the mother's willingness to change the children's school. The return of the children to Russia was ordered on the best interest of the child. The Supreme Court further held that while the older child (12) possessed the maturity for his objections to be considered, the younger child (10) did not.

Although the Finnish Immigration Service granted asylum to the applicants on 12 December 2023, premised on the father’s fear of political persecution, the Supreme Court dismissed a second extraordinary application made by the father against the Supreme Court’s earlier decision. The Supreme Court ruled that the children's asylum status was merely derivative of the father's status and did not constitute a "new fact" regarding a risk of harm to the children themselves, thus maintaining that the granting of asylum did not exempt the State from its international obligations under the Hague Convention.

Decision & reasoning:

Article 8 (Right to respect for family life)

The Court noted that the return order constituted an interference with family life but was lawful and pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights of the children and the mother. The ECHR accepted the domestic finding that the asylum status of the applicants did not prove that returning to Russia would expose the children to an "intolerable situation" within the meaning of the Hague Convention  (para. 53)

Regarding the children’s objections, the Court noted that the Finnish authorities correctly assessed the children's maturity. Although the older child objected to the return, the Supreme Court provided specific reasons why returning to Russia remained in the child’s best interest. (para. 54)

Moreover, the Court noted its previous case law where it had concluded that the aim of the Hague Convention is to prevent an abducting parent from benefiting from their own wrongdoing and that that Convention associates the best interests of the child with the restoration of the situation as it was before the abduction (status quo ante). Therefore, the fact that return would make contact between the applicants more difficult did not override the necessity of restoring the children's original residence. (para. 55)

In light of that case law, the State’s wide margin of appreciation in this case, and the lack of more specific submissions by the applicants on the insufficiency of the Supreme Court’s reasoning, the Court did not find strong reasons to contradict the domestic findings and concluded that there had been no violation of Article 8. (paras. 55 – 57)

Article 3

The applicants alleged that a return to Russia would subject the children to a risk of ill-treatment under Article 3. The Court considered that these complaints are linked to the examination of Article 8, where it had found that there were no grounds for believing that there was a real risk of exposure to ill-treatment given that the children’s asylum status in Finland was linked to the father’s status. (paras. 59-63)

Outcome:

No violation of the Article 8 of the Convention.

Subsequent proceedings:

The Court reiterates that, in accordance with Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, the present judgment will not become final until (a) the parties declare that they will not request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber; or (b) three months after the date of the judgment, if referral of the case to the Grand Chamber has not been requested; or (c) the Panel of the Grand Chamber rejects any request to refer under Article 43 of the Convention.