On 20 July 2026, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation considered a case concerning the return of a child to France under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Supreme Court overturned the decisions of three lower courts, which had ordered the child's return, and issued a new judgment refusing the return.
The child had lived with his mother in France since 2022. In 2025, his father removed him from France and subsequently brought him to Russia. The Central District Court of Novosibirsk found the removal wrongful and ordered the child's return to France. The appellate and cassation courts upheld that decision. The Supreme Court reached a different conclusion.
When applying Article 13(1)(b) of the Hague Convention, the Supreme Court considered the child's circumstances at the time of the proceedings, including his adaptation to life in Russia and acquisition of Russian citizenship. The Court also noted that the lower courts had failed to take into account France's membership in NATO and the European Union, as well as its inclusion on the Russian Government's list of states engaging in what it describes as unfriendly actions towards Russia.
Considering these factors together with the other circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court concluded that returning the child to France could adversely affect his psychological well-being and would not be in his best interests.
The Supreme Court also emphasised that a return order must be capable of practical implementation. The lower court had ordered the child's return to France without specifying the procedure or timeframe for the return, who would accompany the child, or how the associated expenses would be allocated, although these matters are expressly addressed in Article 244.16 of the Russian Civil Procedure Code.
Why This Decision Matters
The ruling is particularly significant because, when assessing the exception under Article 13(1)(b), the Supreme Court considered not only the individual circumstances of the child and his parents but also the current relations between Russia and the child's country of habitual residence.
This does not mean that a country's inclusion on Russia's list of “unfriendly states” automatically prevents a child's return under the Hague Convention. However, following Ruling No. 67-KG26-5-K8, that factor, together with the child's citizenship, adaptation to a new environment, psychological condition and other circumstances, may form part of the overall assessment undertaken by Russian courts when deciding whether to order a return.
For cross-border family disputes, the ruling has important implications for litigation risk assessment. Preparing a Hague Convention case now requires consideration not only of the alleged wrongful removal and the Convention's established exceptions to return, but also of how Russian courts may assess circumstances arising after the child's removal.
The case may nevertheless have further developments. A supervisory review complaint against Ruling No. 67-KG26-5-K8 was filed on 4 September 2026, and in October 2026, the Russian newspaper Kommersant reported on its consideration by the Supreme Court.
Russian Case Law under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention
Russian judicial practice in international child abduction cases is far from uniform. Courts may take significantly different approaches to returning children to their country of habitual residence, making it essential to consider relevant case law when developing a legal strategy.
In 2026, I conducted a study of Russian judicial practice under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, published by the law firm Nekrasov, Rudomanov & Partners. The study examined 184 court proceedings between 2022 and 2026 across eight Russian courts.
The findings showed that, among first-instance cases with an identifiable outcome, only 26% resulted in the return application being granted in full or in part. Significant regional differences also emerged: the figure was approximately 9% in Moscow, compared with 54% in St Petersburg.
These findings highlight the importance of considering not only international treaties and Russian legislation, but also current Russian judicial practice when handling cross-border disputes involving children.
Full study: The Hague Convention in Russian Courts: What the 2022–2026 Case Law Reveals — published on the website of Nekrasov, Rudomanov & Partners.