State for a period of at least one year after the person, institution or other body having rights of custody has or should have had knowledge of the whereabouts of the child, no request for return lodged within that period is still pending, and the child is settled in his or her new environment.2. The removal or the retention of a child is to be considered wrongful where:(a) it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person, an institution or any other body, either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention; and(b) at the time of removal or retention those rights were actually exercised, either jointly or alone, or would have been so exercised but for the removal or retention.The rights of custody mentioned in subparagraph a above, may arise in particular by operation of law or by reason of a judicial or administrative decision, or by reason of an agreement having legal effect under the law of that State.3. So long as the authorities first mentioned in paragraph 1 keep their jurisdiction, the authorities of the Contracting State to which the child has been removed or in which he or she has been retained can take only such urgent measures under Article 11 as are necessary for the protection of the person or property of the child.Article 81. By way of exception, the authority of a Contracting State having jurisdiction under Article 5 or Article 6, if it considers that the authority of another Contracting State would be better placed in the particular case to assess the best interests of the child, may either:- request that other authority, directly or with the assistance of the Central Authority of its State, to assume jurisdiction to take such measures of protection as it considers to be necessary, or- suspend consideration of the case and invite the parties to introduce such a request before the authority of that other State.2. The Contracting States whose authorities may be addressed as provided in the preceding paragraph are:(a) a State of which the child is a national;(b) a State in which property of the child is located;(c) a State whose authorities are seised of an application for divorce or legal separation of the child's parents, or for annulment of their marriage;(d) a State with which the child has a substantial connection.3. The authorities concerned may proceed to an exchange of views.4. The authority addressed as provided in paragraph 1 may assume jurisdiction, in place of the authority having jurisdiction under Article 5 or Article 6, if it considers that this is in the child's best interests.Article 91. If the authorities of a Contracting State referred to in Article 8(2), consider that they are better placed in the particular case to assess the child's best interests, they may either:- request the competent authority of the Contracting State of the habitual residence of the child, directly or with the assistance of the Central Authority of that State, that they be authorised to exercise jurisdiction to take the measures of protection which they consider to be necessary, or- invite the parties to introduce such a request before the authority of the Contracting State of the habitual residence of the child.2. The authorities concerned may proceed to an exchange of views.3. The authority initiating the request may exercise jurisdiction in place of the authority of the Contracting State of the habitual residence of the child only if the latter authority has accepted the request.Article 101. Without prejudice to Articles 5 to 9, the authorities of a Contracting State exercising jurisdiction to decide upon an application for divorce or legal separation of the parents of a child habitually resident in another Contracting State, or for annulment of their marriage, may, if the law of their State so provides, take measures directed to the protection of the person or property of such child if:(a) at the time of commencement of the proceedings, one of his or her parents habitually resides in that State and one of them has parental responsibility in relation to the child, and(b) the jurisdiction of these authorities to take such measures has been accepted by the parents, as well as by any other person who has parental responsibility in relation to the child, and is in the best interests of the child.2. The jurisdiction provided for by paragraph 1 to take measures for the protection of the child ceases as soon as the decision allowing or refusing the application for divorce, legal separation or annulment of the marriage has become final, or the proceedings have come to an end for another reason.Article 111. In all cases of urgency, the authorities of any Contracting State, in whose territory the child or property belonging to the child is present, have jurisdiction to take any necessary measures of protection.2. The measures taken under the preceding paragraph with regard to a child habitually resident in a Contracting State shall lapse as soon as the authorities which have jurisdiction under Articles 5 to 10 have taken the measures required by the situation.3. The measures taken under paragraph 1 with regard to a child who is habitually resident in a non-Contracting State