Maire v. Portugal, Requ?te no 48206/99, (2006) 43 E.H.R.R. 13
Breach of Article 8 of the ECHR and award of damages. The Portuguese authorities had failed to take sufficient or adequate measures to ensure respect for the father’s right to have his son returned.
LM v MM Nevo, RFamA 2338/09
Appeal dismissed and return order upheld; the retention was wrongful the child being habitually resident in France at the relevant date, and none of the exceptions had been established to the standard required under the Hague Convention.
Bundesverfassungsgericht, 2 BvR 6/99, 3 May 1999
Unanimous: no infringement of the German Basic Law (Grundgesetz).
Supreme Court of Finland 1996:151, S96/2489
Return ordered; the removal was wrongful and the standard of harm required under Article 13(1)(b) had not been made out.
Couderc v. Czech Republic, Requ?te n?54429/00
F.C. c. P.A., Droit de la famille – 08728, Cour sup?rieure de Chicoutimi, 28 mars 2008, N?150-04-004667-072
Application dismissed and return refused; the removal was not wrongful and the child was in any event settled in his new environment.
6Ob134/13v, Oberster Gerichtshof
http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/Dokumente/Justiz/JJT_20130828_OGH0002_0060OB00134_13V0000_000/JJT_20130828_OGH0002_0060OB00134_13V0000_000.html
Sieger & Department of Communities and Justice [2020] FamCAFC 172
Grave Risk – Art. 13(1)(b) The 1980 Convention states that a court may refuse to order the return of the child if it would ‘expose the child to physical or psychological harm’. The difference between a grave risk of exposure to harm and a grave risk of suffering harm may be important, because the former […]
Farsi v. Da Rocha, 2020 ONCA 92
The parents met in 2017 in Canada. The mother is a French citizen and the father a Portuguese citizen and permanent resident of Canada. They had a child in 2018, born in Toronto, where they lived together as a family until October 2018, when the child was six months old. At that time, her mother […]
Abou-Haidar v Sanin Vazquez USCA Case #19-7110
