Legal summary
December 2025
Z and Others v. Finland - 42758/23
Judgment 16.12.2025 [Section II]
Article 8
Article 8-1
Respect for family life
Domestic courts’ order for return of two children from Finland to Russia under the Hague Convention following removal by their father: no violation
Facts – The applicants are a father and his two children (born in 2011 and 2013 respectively). They all used to live in Russia. In 2022 the first applicant took his children to Finland without their mother’s consent. After arriving in Finland, he applied for asylum on his own behalf and on behalf of the children.
The children’s mother instituted proceedings for their return under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“the Hague Convention”). In September 2023 the Supreme Court ordered the return of both children to Russia.
In October 2023 the first applicant’s application for the extraordinary quashing of that decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on the ground that the threshold for quashing a final decision had not been met.
In December 2023 the Immigration Service granted asylum to the first applicant because there were grounds to believe that he would be persecuted for his political opinions in Russia. The children were granted asylum automatically as they were the minor children of a father who had been granted asylum.
In January 2024 the Supreme Court dismissed the first applicant’s second extraordinary application seeking the quashing of the decision taken in September 2023.
Law – Article 8:
The Supreme Court’s decision ordering the return of the children to Russia had constituted an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for family life. That interference had been lawful and had pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others, namely the rights of the children as well as the rights of their mother. As to whether it had been “necessary in a democratic society”, the Court found that the decisive issue was whether a fair balance had been struck between the interests of the two children and their parents within the margin of appreciation afforded to States in such matters, taking into account, however, that the best interests of the children had to be a primary consideration. In the present case, the domestic courts had complied with the procedural requirements in inherent in Article 8 when genuinely taking into account the factors capable of constituting an exception to the children’s immediate return in application of the Hague Convention and that the Supreme Court had given relevant and sufficient reasons justifying the interference for the purposes of Article 8 § 2.
Firstly, the Supreme Court had found that there was no grave risk that the children’s return to Russia would expose them to psychological harm or otherwise place them in an intolerable situation. The subsequent granting of asylum to all three applicants in Finland did not call that risk assessment into question because the children’s asylum status had been derived from that granted to their father rather than being based on a risk of harm to the children themselves were they to return to Russia. The granting of asylum to the children did not in itself exempt the State from its obligations under the Hague Convention.
Secondly, the Supreme Court had concluded that the older child, unlike the younger one, had reached an age and degree of maturity at which it was appropriate to take account of his views. Notwithstanding his objections to being returned, after examining a series of factors, it had held that his return to Russia would be in his best interests.
Lastly, while the Supreme Court had recognised that returning the children would make it more difficult for them and the first applicant to maintain contact, it held that it was in the children’s best interests to return to Russia. In the circumstances, their interests prevailed over those of their father.
Accordingly, and having regard to the State’s wide margin of appreciation, the Court found no reason to contradict those findings or substitute its view for that of the Supreme Court.
Conclusion: no violation (unanimously).
Rule 39: The Court considered that the indications made to the Government under Rule 39 should remain until in force until the present judgment became final or the Court took a further decision in this connection.
(See X v. Latvia [GC], 27853/09, 26 November 2011, Legal Summary)
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
To access legal summaries in English or French click here.
For non-official translations into other languages click here.